Quote:
Originally Posted by Folster
A Hitler and Mussolini analogy. Really? What has Sheriff Joe specifically done?
|
First, the analogy wasn't really to compare Arpaio to those two, saying that what he has done is comparable. It was to show that bad people can do good things that lead good people to look the other direction on the bad things
As far as criticisms of Arpaio...
Controversy and criticism
Some feel that Sheriff Arpaio's actions are based less on a desire to serve the public and to lower crime, but more on demagoguery and grandstanding that hurt the public welfare. Amnesty International issued a report critical of the treatment of inmates in Maricopa County facilities. Criticism has resulted due to lawsuits filed against the sheriff’s office by family members of inmates who died in jail custody and in high-speed pursuits involving deputies. The lawsuits have cost Maricopa County more than $30 million in settlement claims. By mid-year 2007, more than $50 million in claims had been filed against the sheriffs office and Maricopa County.
Furthermore, in a 1998 Arpaio commissioned study, Arizona State University Criminal Justice professor Marie L. Griffin found that Arpaio's policies did nothing to reduce recidivism in the Maricopa County facilities compared to his predecessor: "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989-1990 and those released in 1994-1995."
Charles Agster
Charles Agster, a mentally handicapped man who was killed in the County Jail shortly after being arrested on misdemeanor loitering charges. The subsequent lawsuit resulted in a $9 million dollar verdict against the office.
The Scott Norberg case
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office. Norberg was arrested for assaulting a police officer Mesa, Arizona, after neighbors in a residential area had reported a delirious man walking in their neighborhood. Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. Norberg did, however, have methamphetamine in his urine, proving that he had used the drug at some point fairly recently before his death. During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to the Maricopa County medical examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.
Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Joe Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD) following a highly contentious legal battle. Despite vowing to never settle, the case quickly closed after it was disclosed the Sheriff's office had destroyed key evidence in the case.
The Brian Crenshaw case
Brian Crenshaw was a blind inmate allegedly beaten into a coma by guards working under Arpaio. Crenshaw suffered injuries that included a perforated intestine and a broken neck. He later died at a local hospital. When asked about the incident, Arpaio insisted, "The man fell off a bunk." Crenshaw's family filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office, which resulted in an award of $2 million dollars. As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed.
The Richard Post case
Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured. Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms. Post settled his claims against the Sheriff's office for $800,000.
Jeremy Flanders
In 1996, Jeremy Flanders was attacked by inmates at Tent City who used rebar tent stakes, which were not cemented into the ground. Although these stakes had been used as weapons in a previous riot at the facility, the Sheriff's office chose not to secure them properly. During the trial, the defendant "presented evidence that, among other things, the Sheriff and his deputies had actual knowledge that prisoners used rebar tent stakes and tent poles as weapons and did nothing to prevent it." Furthermore, "the Sheriff admitted knowing about, and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence." After the attack: "another inmate entered the tent and found Flanders unconscious, gasping for air, and spewing blood out of his mouth, nose and ears. Flanders had been bloodied and beaten so badly that the other inmate initially did not recognize Flanders." Flanders suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the attack. On appeal, Flanders was awarded $635,532, of which Arpaio was personally responsible for thirty-five percent.
The Fountain Hills prank calls case
During April 2004, Arpaio became involved in more controversy when he accused the West Bridgewater, Massachusetts Police Department of being unprofessional over their handling of surveillance tapes from an AT&T store that showed a suspect making prank calls to several restaurants. The calls instructed restaurant managers to strip-search female customers, including minors. Several managers were arrested as a result. Arpaio believed that the suspect in the tapes from West Bridgewater might be connected to a similar case in Fountain Hills, Arizona. In response to Arpaio's comments, West Bridgewater Police Lt. Raymund S. Rogers was quoted as saying "I think he's mad that our detectives just happen to be better than his detectives".
Webcam broadcasts of pretrial detainees
Starting in July 2000, the Maricopa County Sheriff's website hosted images broadcast from cameras installed in the Madison Street Jail, which housed only pretrial detainees. After the Sheriff's website was unable to handle the traffic, alternative hosting arrangements were made with the commercial Crime.com website. 24 former detainees brought suit against the Sheriff's office, arguing their fourteenth amendment rights had been violated. The appellate court ruled in favor of the former detainees, stating in their judgement of Demery v. Arpaio: "We fail to see how turning pretrial detainees into the unwilling objects of the latest reality show serves any... legitimate goals... Inmates are not like animals in a zoo to be filmed and photographed at will..."
James Saville
James Saville was arrested in 1999 for allegedly attempting to murder Joe Arpaio. A jury decided that officers from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had entrapped Saville and found him not guilty.
Patrick Colleary
Patrick Colleary was a Catholic Priest accused of molesting an altar boy in Scottsdale, Arizona in 1978. Facing two counts of felony sexual conduct with a minor, he fled to his native Ireland and fought extradition. An Irish High Court judge, Philip O'Sullivan, refused to extradite Colleary back to Arizona, writing in his decision that Arpaio "gloated over the inhumane treatment he dishes out to his inmates" and "appeared to take a chillingly sadistic pleasure in his role as incarcerator. It was the duty of any Irish court to see that no citizen was handed over to such a regime." An Icelandic court in 1997 had come to the same conclusion on a different case.
Raid on Phoenix residence
In 2004, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office SWAT team led a raid on an Ahwatukee home in a gated subdivision, looking for illegal weapons. No illegal weapons were found, but during the raid, the house burned down, killing a dog, and an armored vehicle rolled into a neighbor's parked car.
Illegal immigrants
In 2005, Arizona passed a law making it a felony, punishable by up to 2 years in jail, to smuggle someone across the border. Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas has issued a legal opinion that those being smuggled can be considered co-conspirators to the smuggling and can be charged under the same law. Under this opinion, Arpaio has instructed his deputies and members of his civilian posse to round up and arrest suspected illegal aliens. Arpaio said to Fox News, "My message is clear: If you come here and I catch you, you're going straight to jail. [...] I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I'll give them a free ride to my jail." To date, Arpaio has arrested at least 263 people under this program. The New York Times had an editorial denouncing his techniques.
The county attorney's legal opinion is being challenged in court. Many critics, including two of the co-authors of the Arizona anti-smuggling law, claim that Thomas and Arpaio are misusing the statute, which was meant only for human smugglers and not for illegal immigrants who are being smuggled.
Prostitution sting
Sheriff Arpaio has been criticized for allowing his deputies and posse members to engage in sex acts during an undercover prostitution "sting". In November, 2003, Sheriff's deputies arrested over 70 people for prostitution and solicitation. The officers arrested alleged prostitutes and their customers in more than thirty homes and ten massage parlors in the Phoenix area. Records indicated that several of the officers disrobed, fondled the breasts and genitals of the alleged prostitutes, and allowed their penises to be touched during the operation. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office stated that the Sheriff's office had gone too far in allowing this behavior, and sixty of the cases were thrown out. Several of the male customers in the case were prosecuted, however.
Media raids
In October 2007, Arpaio's deputies arrested Village Voice Media executives and Phoenix New Times editors Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin on charges of revealing grand jury secrets. In July of 2004, the New Times had published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings, which the county attorney's office is investigating as a possible crime under Arizona state law. A special prosecutor served Village Voice Media with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as "all Internet web site traffic information" to a number of articles that mentioned Arpaio. The prosecutor further ordered Village Voice Media to produce the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004, as well as what websites those readers had been to prior to visiting. As an act of "civil disobedience," Lacey and Larkin published the contents of the subpoena on or around October 18, which resulted in their arrests the same day. On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case after declining to pursue charges against the two. The Attorney General's office has since been ordered to appear before Judge Ana Baca due to missing documentation - including the original grand jury subpoenas - in the case file for the investigation of the New Times publication.
On November 28, 2007, Judge Baca ruled that the subpoenas in this case were not validly issued. The special prosecutor filed the grand jury subpoenas without the consent of the grand jury. Baca's justification was a statute that had been clarified by case law and by subsequent legislation to bar such subpoena authority, unless certain reporting requirements are met. The prosecutor had not met those reporting requirements.[38] In April, 2008, the New Times editors filed suit against Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, alleging negligence, conspiracy and racketeering, and State and U.S. constitutional violations of free speech rights, false imprisonment, retaliation by law enforcement and abuse of process.
One-term promise
In 1992, Arpaio signed a notarized document, stating he would only serve one term as sheriff. He is now in his fourth term.
Source
Zero credibility.
Linear Mode
