Arpaio has gone mad with power (Phoenix, Maricopa: unemployed, deductible, lawsuit)

[Ritchie_az]

"Throw a convict in there and give the air conditioned, concrete bunk to someone who could very well be innocent and cannot afford proper representation."

I agree that convicts should be in tent city. However, for one to get to tent city to begin with means that the person has been accused of at least a somewhat serious crime, compelling evidence was brought before a judge, and the accused's attorney (whether state-appointed or not) could not successfully argue against it. Just a guess, but I'd say 99% or more of those in tent city get convicted of their accused crime (or strike a plea bargain).

[Ritchie_az]

You said the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office was "prejudicial and discriminatory" against hispanics. If that's not calling them racists, then what are you saying?

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

"Throw a convict in there and give the air conditioned, concrete bunk to someone who could very well be innocent and cannot afford proper representation."

I agree that convicts should be in tent city. However, for one to get to tent city to begin with means that the person has been accused of at least a somewhat serious crime, compelling evidence was brought before a judge, and the accused's attorney (whether state-appointed or not) could not successfully argue against it. Just a guess, but I'd say 99% or more of those in tent city get convicted of their accused crime (or strike a plea bargain).

No this is very untrue and a trivial attitude. Those in tent city aren't 99% guilty I think the actual statistical figure and conviction requiring jail time etc is less than 70%. Many times someone ACCUSED of a crime is poor, doesn't have a job, steady place of residence, and other legal uncertainties that make an O.R. unlikely. The fact remains that these people are innocent and should have a level of "incarceration" or detention that is at a slightly higher standard than tent city. If they are convicted then it doesn't matter but before then...it is un-American.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

You said the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office was "prejudicial and discriminatory" against hispanics. If that's not calling them racists, then what are you saying?

Well first of all, racism is an institutional situation that are enforceable by law. Basically blacks or Asians would have to tell hispanics to sit in the back of the bus, set up ridiculous voting rules (Jim Crow Laws), or use terms like w_etb@ack, etc. against hispanics or immigrants.

Joe is implementing prejudicial and discriminatory practices because he is basing actions on a characteristic or prejudged belief based on perceived nationality, ethnicity, country of origin, or status. He cannot be racist by definition since hispanics are mainly white but ethnically hispanic which is another reason I didn't use racist...besides his tactics aren't an institutional practice which is why he has lost millions in settlements and lawsuits.

[Ritchie_az]

"and conviction requiring jail time etc is less than 70%."

First, how do you know this? Second, if your statistic is true, it does not account for those who agreed to a plea bargain or who were found guilty put the punishment was not further jail time. The fact is, the vast majority (if not all) in tent city are indeed guilty of at least a somewhat serious crime.

"Many times someone ACCUSED of a crime is poor, doesn't have a job, steady place of residence, and other legal uncertainties that make an O.R. unlikely."

Even the poorest of the poor has the right to an attorney. Remember, compelling evidence was presented to a judge, and the accused's attorney had a chance to argue against it.

"If they are convicted then it doesn't matter but before then...it is un-American."

Didn't you just take offense on the last page to someone insinuating that you are not patriotic? Why are you insinuating that someone is unAmerican?

"Joe is implementing prejudicial and discriminatory practices because he is basing actions on a characteristic or prejudged belief based on perceived nationality, ethnicity, country of origin, or status."

Huh? The definition of racism is: "prejudice against an ethnic group." A Synonym is discrimination. You ARE calling the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office racist, no matter how you mince your words.

[fcorrales80]

First, how do you know this? Second, if your statistic is true, it does not account for those who agreed to a plea bargain or who were found guilty put the punishment was not further jail time. The fact is, the vast majority (if not all) in tent city are indeed guilty of at least a somewhat serious crime.

I will find the ASU study that was commission by Joe, it also has recidivism rates that surprised Joe and he accused ASU of conspiracy, LOL! Also, the sheriff's department, Maricopa Court System, and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office have information on their databases and online.

Even the poorest of the poor has the right to an attorney. Remember, compelling evidence was presented to a judge, and the accused's attorney had a chance to argue against it.

Yes, but having the "right to an attorney" is as everyone knows not the same as having adequate, fair, or good representation. A public defender won't do/can't do/doesn't try as hard as a good attorney. Compelling evidence is circumstantial; it can be unemployment, no address on file, no ties to community, unknown residency status, no proper identification, etc.

Didn't you just take offense on the last page to someone insinuating that you are not patriotic? Why are you insinuating that someone is unAmerican?

Yes I did take offense but I don't understand the second half of your question. Un-American doesn't mean not patriotic but that is goes against an ideal of an American ideology, way of life, culture, or practice. You can still be a patriot but have an ideal that is historically, culturally, or in practice not in-line with American values and ways.

Huh? The definition of racism is: "prejudice against an ethnic group." A Synonym is discrimination. You ARE calling the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office racist, no matter how you mince your words.

No, you should educate yourself on the difference. Race isn't ethnicity just like sex is not orientation or gender. Here are some definitions to help you out:

racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; racial discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Obviously I don't think Joe is racist because he doesn't foster the idea that whites are superior to blacks, asians, natives, etc.

Discrimination: . an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: ethnic and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

Prejudice: 1.an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

So, you CAN have racial discrimination and prejudice, but I am NOT talking about that. I am talking about discrimination and prejudice based on a presumption of national origin, immigration status, ethnicity (which is NOT race). Just think of it like this; discrimination and prejudice by the English against the Irish and Scottish; discrimination and prejudice against the Basque by the Spanish; discrimination and prejudice by the Germans against the Polish and Austrian, etc.

Another form of discrimination and prejudice is that between the rich and poor or young and old or straight and gay or male and female or tall and short or handicapped and able bodied,etc.

[Ritchie_az]

"I will find the ASU study that was commission by Joe, it also has recidivism rates that surprised Joe and he accused ASU of conspiracy, LOL!"

Please do, I'd like to see it.

"Yes, but having the "right to an attorney" is as everyone knows not the same as having adequate, fair, or good representation."

Are you saying an appointed attorney is not "adequate" and "fair" and will not provide "good representation"? I'm sure all the state appointed attorney's out there would not appreciate your sentiments whatsoever.

"Yes I did take offense but I don't understand the second half of your question."

I think you have a double standard.

"No, you should educate yourself on the difference. Race isn't ethnicity just like sex is not orientation or gender."

I'm very familiar with racism, thank you very much.
But you are using circular reasoning. "I said 'discrimination against hispanics' and 'prejudice against hispanics' and not 'racism against hispanics' so I didn't mean racism." But the fact that both of those are synonyms (two words that can be interchanged in a context) for racism and are a part of the definition (according to Webster) of racism, apparently means nothing. "I didn't say the exact word so that is not what I meant" seems to be your logic.

"I am talking about discrimination and prejudice based on a presumption of national origin, immigration status, ethnicity"

Exactly! Racism! And I think it is no small deal to call the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office racists.

"Obviously I don't think Joe is racist because he doesn't foster the idea that whites are superior to blacks, asians, natives, etc."

But, according to your statements, he apparently does, because he discriminates and prejudges those with brown skin that speak spanish. That's what you are accusing him of. You are accusing him of racism.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Please do, I'd like to see it.

Found the downloadable version with my ASU access, looking for the internet option...

Are you saying an appointed attorney is not "adequate" and "fair" and will not provide "good representation"? I'm sure all the state appointed attorney's out there would not appreciate your sentiments whatsoever.

I'm sure they would to an extent. Many public defenders are overwhelmed with caseloads, cannot investigate mitigating circumstances like a hired attorney, is usually given someone's case the same day a judge is seen along with a stack of others. Is it fair, adequate, or good compared to what you get with a private attorney...of course not and doesn't matter if the PD offices agrees or not it is the truth.

I think you have a double standard.

Actually I don't; I explained the different between a patriot and an un-American ideal, sentiment, statement, or view.

I'm very familiar with racism, thank you very much.
But you are using circular reasoning. "I said 'discrimination against hispanics' and 'prejudice against hispanics' and not 'racism against hispanics' so I didn't mean racism." But the fact that both of those are synonyms (two words that can be interchanged in a context) for racism and are a part of the definition (according to Webster) of racism, apparently means nothing. "I didn't say the exact word so that is not what I meant" seems to be your logic.

Actually prejudice, discrimination and racism are not interchangeable according to any dictionary or thesaurus. I looked in the Marriam Webster dictionary and thesaurus and it says no such thing. Besides, you can't be a racist against Hispanics because it isn't a race it is an ethnicity. Read what I wrote before. There is NO cicular reasoning, it is what it is. You can discriminate and be prejudicial without being a racist or it being considered racism.

Exactly! Racism! And I think it is no small deal to call the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office racists.

LOL NO, country of origin, status, etc are not a RACE LOL! Obviously you are not very informed about racism as you made the presumption in your previous post. Not calling the MCSO racist as explained in my post prior to this; you should read my statement again and take it in context.

But, according to your statements, he apparently does, because he discriminates and prejudges those with brown skin that speak spanish. That's what you are accusing him of. You are accusing him of racism.

LOL, ok, once again Hispanic and Spanish do not make you a different race but ethnicity. They are VERY different. I know most people like to lump it all together but as stated before it is mostly similar to English discriminating and having prejudicial sentiments about Irish and Scottish which are the same race and of similar culture and shared regional inhabitance; caucasian, European, from Eurasian ancient migration...Discriminating against someone for their language, national origin, presumed ethnicity or status IS NOT RACISM. Again Sheriff goes isn't claiming the white race is superior to the Black, Asian, or Native american races (that is racism).

[Home_Kid]

wow, last 10 posts or so sounds like griping about our law system. dont like it? then rally the vote to change it. when SB1113 came up in the legislature i became very active contacting representaives across this state. many replied to me with personal messages while i received automated responses from others. i rally'd with SB1113 supporters and we got it passed.

dont like something then contact your representatives, get them to formulate changes, rally your troops, support the bill, get 'er done. otherwise the whining falls on deaf ears. you also have to pick your battles wisely.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Home_Kid

wow, last 10 posts or so sounds like griping about our law system. dont like it? then rally the vote to change it. when SB1113 came up in the legislature i became very active contacting representaives across this state. many replied to me with personal messages while i received automated responses from others. i rally'd with SB1113 supporters and we got it passed.

Actually has nothing to do with SB 1113, I supported this as well... Not everything is black and white or as cut and dry as you'd like to make it homekid. Also, it isn't really about "the law" as it is with policies and procedures. I do like your attitude about rallying for change and the sort as I believe that to be very American and inline with American democracy! However, we only differ in our application of the law, how laws are enforced, the efficiency of our current sheriff, and etc etc.

dont like something then contact your representatives, get them to formulate changes, rally your troops, support the bill, get 'er done. otherwise the whining falls on deaf ears. you also have to pick your battles wisely.

Get'er done...LOL! Love it...however this is the case for many issues. It is the case for supporting laws against illegal immigrant transgressions, for rallying support AGAINST Sheriff Joe, etc. Change is certainly coming and it will be in the form of a new face and fresh start for our County's lawmen/women! We will just have to put up with Joe for a little while longer or in the long-shot that he is forced out of office.