The Sheriff Joe Arpaio Memorial Prison Reform Thread

[Warren]

I didn't watch the video because I'm old and cranky and hate videos on the internet, but I'm reminded of how The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo begins with the main guy character going to prison and taking his laptop with him so he can write a book while he's in there. I was boggled at how different Scandinavian prisons must be from American ones.

Have an NYT article on it I read a little while back.

So when you see NYT in print, you read "en wye tee" in your mind? Huh. I always hear the full "New York Times".

[Eric the .5b]

I didn't watch the video because I'm old and cranky and hate videos on the internet, but I'm reminded of how The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo begins with the main guy character going to prison and taking his laptop with him so he can write a book while he's in there. I was boggled at how different Scandinavian prisons must be from American ones.

Have an NYT article on it I read a little while back.

So when you see NYT in print, you read "en wye tee" in your mind? Huh. I always hear the full "New York Times".

It's how I was taught to handle abbreviations and a/an.

[Hugh Akston]

Long interesting article about Prison Abolitionist Ruth Wilson Gilmore. Really interesting is how she challenges the persistent myths that mass incarceration is driven by private prisons, non-violent drug offenders, and black people, and how those myths distract from the more fundamental question of whether prisons fulfill their putative function of deterring crime and rehabilitating people who commit them.

Gilmore told them that in the unusual event that someone in Spain thinks he is going to solve a problem by killing another person, the response is that the person loses seven years of his life to think about what he has done, and to figure out how to live when released. “What this policy tells me,” she said, “is that where life is precious, life is precious.” Which is to say, she went on, in Spain people have decided that life has enough value that they are not going to behave in a punitive and violent and life-annihilating way toward people who hurt people. “And what this demonstrates is that for people trying to solve their everyday problems, behaving in a violent and life-annihilating way is not a solution.”

[Hugh Akston]

St Louis County held a pregnant woman in jail for 39 days for refusing to submit her children to a court-ordered paternity test:

Thurman was being held in contempt of the St. Louis County Family Court, after not submitting her two young children to a court-ordered paternity test requested by her ex-boyfriend, Erwin Rush. She had told a court official that Rush was not the father of her children, and that his request for a test was an attempt to stalk and harass her.

Since Thurman’s case was civil, not criminal, she was not provided with counsel. She did not see a doctor until two weeks after her arrival, according to court documents Thurman filed after her release. During her time in jail, Thurman alleges, jail officials did not provide the limited accommodations typically given to pregnant women, such as an extra mattress and blanket. She says her repeated requests to speak with a caseworker to figure out why she was being held on a civil charge went unfulfilled. And according to her complaint, even when her ex-boyfriend’s attorney repeatedly asked the division clerk of the court to set a hearing before the court commissioner, he refused to do so, incorrectly claiming that hearings must be initiated by jail officials.

I think we can all agree that this scumbag got off easy. Showing contempt for a court that acts contemptibly cannot be tolerated, lest our Great Republic slide into a state of brutal chaos where armed thugs proceed without fear of consequence to kidnap defenseless pregnant women.

[Warren]

St Louis County held a pregnant woman in jail for 39 days for refusing to submit her children to a court-ordered paternity test:

Thurman was being held in contempt of the St. Louis County Family Court, after not submitting her two young children to a court-ordered paternity test requested by her ex-boyfriend, Erwin Rush. She had told a court official that Rush was not the father of her children, and that his request for a test was an attempt to stalk and harass her.

Since Thurman’s case was civil, not criminal, she was not provided with counsel. She did not see a doctor until two weeks after her arrival, according to court documents Thurman filed after her release. During her time in jail, Thurman alleges, jail officials did not provide the limited accommodations typically given to pregnant women, such as an extra mattress and blanket. She says her repeated requests to speak with a caseworker to figure out why she was being held on a civil charge went unfulfilled. And according to her complaint, even when her ex-boyfriend’s attorney repeatedly asked the division clerk of the court to set a hearing before the court commissioner, he refused to do so, incorrectly claiming that hearings must be initiated by jail officials.

I think we can all agree that this scumbag got off easy. Showing contempt for a court that acts contemptibly cannot be tolerated, lest our Great Republic slide into a state of brutal chaos where armed thugs proceed without fear of consequence to kidnap defenseless pregnant women.

So, fathers only have such parental rights as mothers thrust upon them?

[Jennifer]

St Louis County held a pregnant woman in jail for 39 days for refusing to submit her children to a court-ordered paternity test:

Thurman was being held in contempt of the St. Louis County Family Court, after not submitting her two young children to a court-ordered paternity test requested by her ex-boyfriend, Erwin Rush. She had told a court official that Rush was not the father of her children, and that his request for a test was an attempt to stalk and harass her.

Since Thurman’s case was civil, not criminal, she was not provided with counsel. She did not see a doctor until two weeks after her arrival, according to court documents Thurman filed after her release. During her time in jail, Thurman alleges, jail officials did not provide the limited accommodations typically given to pregnant women, such as an extra mattress and blanket. She says her repeated requests to speak with a caseworker to figure out why she was being held on a civil charge went unfulfilled. And according to her complaint, even when her ex-boyfriend’s attorney repeatedly asked the division clerk of the court to set a hearing before the court commissioner, he refused to do so, incorrectly claiming that hearings must be initiated by jail officials.

I think we can all agree that this scumbag got off easy. Showing contempt for a court that acts contemptibly cannot be tolerated, lest our Great Republic slide into a state of brutal chaos where armed thugs proceed without fear of consequence to kidnap defenseless pregnant women.

So, fathers only have such parental rights as mothers thrust upon them?

Did you read the article? The stalkery ex-boyfriend who demanded the paternity test was NOT the father. I hope you're not suggesting pregnant women (or mothers in general) only have such rights as any of their ex-boyfriends are willing to bestow?

[D.A. Ridgely]

St Louis County held a pregnant woman in jail for 39 days for refusing to submit her children to a court-ordered paternity test:

Thurman was being held in contempt of the St. Louis County Family Court, after not submitting her two young children to a court-ordered paternity test requested by her ex-boyfriend, Erwin Rush. She had told a court official that Rush was not the father of her children, and that his request for a test was an attempt to stalk and harass her.

Since Thurman’s case was civil, not criminal, she was not provided with counsel. She did not see a doctor until two weeks after her arrival, according to court documents Thurman filed after her release. During her time in jail, Thurman alleges, jail officials did not provide the limited accommodations typically given to pregnant women, such as an extra mattress and blanket. She says her repeated requests to speak with a caseworker to figure out why she was being held on a civil charge went unfulfilled. And according to her complaint, even when her ex-boyfriend’s attorney repeatedly asked the division clerk of the court to set a hearing before the court commissioner, he refused to do so, incorrectly claiming that hearings must be initiated by jail officials.

I think we can all agree that this scumbag got off easy. Showing contempt for a court that acts contemptibly cannot be tolerated, lest our Great Republic slide into a state of brutal chaos where armed thugs proceed without fear of consequence to kidnap defenseless pregnant women.

So, fathers only have such parental rights as mothers thrust upon them?

Did you read the article? The stalkery ex-boyfriend who demanded the paternity test was NOT the father. I hope you're not suggesting pregnant women (or mothers in general) only have such rights as any of their ex-boyfriends are willing to bestow?

Of course not. We're suggesting they only have such rights as the court is willing to bestow.

I didn't rtfa, but if she was being held in civil contempt, all she had to do was submit her children, who as far as we know may or may not have been his, to be tested. Not trying to make excuses for the treatment she got in the jail, but the only real power courts have in many cases is to force compliance by civil contempt or punish criminal contempt.

[Hugh Akston]

St Louis County held a pregnant woman in jail for 39 days for refusing to submit her children to a court-ordered paternity test:

Thurman was being held in contempt of the St. Louis County Family Court, after not submitting her two young children to a court-ordered paternity test requested by her ex-boyfriend, Erwin Rush. She had told a court official that Rush was not the father of her children, and that his request for a test was an attempt to stalk and harass her.

Since Thurman’s case was civil, not criminal, she was not provided with counsel. She did not see a doctor until two weeks after her arrival, according to court documents Thurman filed after her release. During her time in jail, Thurman alleges, jail officials did not provide the limited accommodations typically given to pregnant women, such as an extra mattress and blanket. She says her repeated requests to speak with a caseworker to figure out why she was being held on a civil charge went unfulfilled. And according to her complaint, even when her ex-boyfriend’s attorney repeatedly asked the division clerk of the court to set a hearing before the court commissioner, he refused to do so, incorrectly claiming that hearings must be initiated by jail officials.

I think we can all agree that this scumbag got off easy. Showing contempt for a court that acts contemptibly cannot be tolerated, lest our Great Republic slide into a state of brutal chaos where armed thugs proceed without fear of consequence to kidnap defenseless pregnant women.

So, fathers only have such parental rights as mothers thrust upon them?

Did you read the article? The stalkery ex-boyfriend who demanded the paternity test was NOT the father. I hope you're not suggesting pregnant women (or mothers in general) only have such rights as any of their ex-boyfriends are willing to bestow?

Of course not. We're suggesting they only have such rights as the court is willing to bestow.

I didn't rtfa, but if she was being held in civil contempt, all she had to do was submit her children, who as far as we know may or may not have been his, to be tested. Not trying to make excuses for the treatment she got in the jail, but the only real power courts have in many cases is to force compliance by civil contempt or punish criminal contempt.

Not trying to make excuses for the treatment she received in jail, just trying to make excuses for the system that railroaded her there in the first place.

[D.A. Ridgely]

Not trying to make excuses for the treatment she received in jail, just trying to make excuses for the system that railroaded her there in the first place.

If you say so. Courts require some means of enforcing their orders. As I said, I didn't rtfa and still haven't, but if a court says do X or you go to jail and you don't do X, you go to jail. Civil contempt is supposed to be coercive; that is, its purpose is to compel compliance with lawful orders, so as soon as you comply, you walk. If you tell the judge while court is in session to go fuck himself, you get thrown in jail (or face a fine or both) for criminal contempt because, again, courts have to have some means of maintaining control.

I think a judicial and penal system as well as national defense and a handful of other functions are legitimately governmental and, in turn, legitimately require government. That said, the devil is, as always, in the details. Do courts, just like every other government functionary, occasionally abuse their power? Absolutely. Big time. You want to talk reform, we can talk reform. But courts will always require enforcement power of some sort or else they can't perform their legitimate function of deciding civil disputes that for whatever reason can't or won't be enforced any other way and by presiding over the criminal justice system.

I don't much care whether the court made a good ruling on the merits as to whether there was legal justification to have the woman's children tested for paternity, some disinterested party or institution has to make the call; otherwise, it's blood in the streets, figuratively if not literally. It appears the court did make a ruling and that the woman refused to obey its order. Everything after that is about the treatment she got in jail. Or am I missing something?

[Hugh Akston]

Not trying to make excuses for the treatment she received in jail, just trying to make excuses for the system that railroaded her there in the first place.

If you say so. Courts require some means of enforcing their orders. As I said, I didn't rtfa and still haven't, but if a court says do X or you go to jail and you don't do X, you go to jail. Civil contempt is supposed to be coercive; that is, its purpose is to compel compliance with lawful orders, so as soon as you comply, you walk. If you tell the judge while court is in session to go fuck himself, you get thrown in jail (or face a fine or both) for criminal contempt because, again, courts have to have some means of maintaining control.

I think a judicial and penal system as well as national defense and a handful of other functions are legitimately governmental and, in turn, legitimately require government. That said, the devil is, as always, in the details. Do courts, just like every other government functionary, occasionally abuse their power? Absolutely. Big time. You want to talk reform, we can talk reform. But courts will always require enforcement power of some sort or else they can't perform their legitimate function of deciding civil disputes that for whatever reason can't or won't be enforced any other way and by presiding over the criminal justice system.

I don't much care whether the court made a good ruling on the merits as to whether there was legal justification to have the woman's children tested for paternity, some disinterested party or institution has to make the call; otherwise, it's blood in the streets, figuratively if not literally. It appears the court did make a ruling and that the woman refused to obey its order. Everything after that is about the treatment she got in jail. Or am I missing something?

Nope, you got it exactly right. Nothing matters except the court's decision because they have the guns to enforce it.

[Warren]

Not trying to make excuses for the treatment she received in jail, just trying to make excuses for the system that railroaded her there in the first place.

If you say so. Courts require some means of enforcing their orders. As I said, I didn't rtfa and still haven't, but if a court says do X or you go to jail and you don't do X, you go to jail. Civil contempt is supposed to be coercive; that is, its purpose is to compel compliance with lawful orders, so as soon as you comply, you walk. If you tell the judge while court is in session to go fuck himself, you get thrown in jail (or face a fine or both) for criminal contempt because, again, courts have to have some means of maintaining control.

I think a judicial and penal system as well as national defense and a handful of other functions are legitimately governmental and, in turn, legitimately require government. That said, the devil is, as always, in the details. Do courts, just like every other government functionary, occasionally abuse their power? Absolutely. Big time. You want to talk reform, we can talk reform. But courts will always require enforcement power of some sort or else they can't perform their legitimate function of deciding civil disputes that for whatever reason can't or won't be enforced any other way and by presiding over the criminal justice system.

I don't much care whether the court made a good ruling on the merits as to whether there was legal justification to have the woman's children tested for paternity, some disinterested party or institution has to make the call; otherwise, it's blood in the streets, figuratively if not literally. It appears the court did make a ruling and that the woman refused to obey its order. Everything after that is about the treatment she got in jail. Or am I missing something?

Nope, you got it exactly right. Nothing matters except the court's decision because they have the guns to enforce it.

That's not the point and you know it. Come on Hugh. If you're going to play this game, play by the rules.

[lunchstealer]

Not trying to make excuses for the treatment she received in jail, just trying to make excuses for the system that railroaded her there in the first place.

If you say so. Courts require some means of enforcing their orders. As I said, I didn't rtfa and still haven't, but if a court says do X or you go to jail and you don't do X, you go to jail. Civil contempt is supposed to be coercive; that is, its purpose is to compel compliance with lawful orders, so as soon as you comply, you walk. If you tell the judge while court is in session to go fuck himself, you get thrown in jail (or face a fine or both) for criminal contempt because, again, courts have to have some means of maintaining control.

I think a judicial and penal system as well as national defense and a handful of other functions are legitimately governmental and, in turn, legitimately require government. That said, the devil is, as always, in the details. Do courts, just like every other government functionary, occasionally abuse their power? Absolutely. Big time. You want to talk reform, we can talk reform. But courts will always require enforcement power of some sort or else they can't perform their legitimate function of deciding civil disputes that for whatever reason can't or won't be enforced any other way and by presiding over the criminal justice system.

I don't much care whether the court made a good ruling on the merits as to whether there was legal justification to have the woman's children tested for paternity, some disinterested party or institution has to make the call; otherwise, it's blood in the streets, figuratively if not literally. It appears the court did make a ruling and that the woman refused to obey its order. Everything after that is about the treatment she got in jail. Or am I missing something?

Nope, you got it exactly right. Nothing matters except the court's decision because they have the guns to enforce it.

That's not the point and you know it. Come on Hugh. If you're going to play this game, play by the rules.

Or Ellie will put you in jail for contempt of mod.

[Pham Nuwen]

I thought we already had cleared this up years ago. We dont hate the player. We hate the game.

[Hugh Akston]

It's Kristof, so nothing new or remarkable here, but it's a tidy summary of reasons to stop beginning your sentences with "But if we have to have a death penalty..."

One quibble though:

The result of this division is that the court is unlikely to constrain executions significantly. Yet there is some recognition that the system is faulty, and capital punishment is becoming more rare. In 1998, there were 295 death sentences in this country; in 2018, just 42. In California, which has the largest death row, Gov. Gavin Newsom has bravely declared a moratorium on executions.

Narrators voice: It wasn't that brave

[Hugh Akston]

Welp

[Aresen]

Welp

If he gets elected, I move we nuke Maricopa County.

[Warren]

I dunno. It's a chance to nab him for campaign finance violations or some such. And he's already used his Get Out of Jail Free card.

[Kolohe]

He got beat pretty badly last time, and a decisive portion of that was probably Trump being top of the ticket. (Trump did outrun him, narrowly winning Maricopa county)

[Hugh Akston]

Like all good humanitarians, he supports the firing squad as a reliable and humane method of execution for heinous crimes like abusing drugs.

[D.A. Ridgely]

Now that he's mastered the "air" rifle, maybe we'll be treated to an air guitar solo in the near future.

[Aresen]

Now that he's mastered the "air" rifle, maybe we'll be treated to an air guitar solo in the near future.

Maybe we can get him one:

[D.A. Ridgely]

They still sell those things in every sporting goods store in Texas which is why I put the quote marks around "air." I'm not really a gun guy, but I've toyed from time to time with buying one just to "go squirrel hunting," if you know what I mean.

[JD]

That ad got me looking up old Red Ryder ads, and I found one that said "Prices higher in Rockies, West, Canada." That's a reminder of how, not very long ago, the world was a bigger place and it was slower and more expensive to ship things around. Can you imagine Amazon saying something like that today?

[Warren]

They still sell those things in every sporting goods store in Texas which is why I put the quote marks around "air." I'm not really a gun guy, but I've toyed from time to time with buying one just to "go squirrel hunting," if you know what I mean.

Heh heh yeah "squirrel hunting' heh.... wait. I have no idea what you mean.

[Warren]

That ad got me looking up old Red Ryder ads, and I found one that said "Prices higher in Rockies, West, Canada." That's a reminder of how, not very long ago, the world was a bigger place and it was slower and more expensive to ship things around. Can you imagine Amazon saying something like that today?

What? As opposed to "Prices higher for certain IPs and purchase histories"?