Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Privacy The Internet News

Judges Junk Jailcam 447

Posted by michael from the panopticon-foiled-for-now dept.
theodp writes "With one dissenting opinion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an AZ sheriff's use of Webcams to broadcast prisoners being booked and held in cells constituted a profoundly undesirable level of humiliation, rejecting the sheriff's argument that the Webcasts deterred crime and showed the public how jails work." The Village Voice has a good article from a few years ago detailing how the jailcams work.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judges Junk Jailcam More

Judges Junk Jailcam

Comments Filter:

  • thankfully (Score:5, Funny)

    by proj_2501 ( 78149 ) <mkb@ele.uri.edu> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:43PM (#9934409) Journal
    jailBAITcam is still operational...

  • Hey! I liked that camera! (Score:5, Funny)

    by slughead ( 592713 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:45PM (#9934425) Homepage Journal
    My friend got arrested for [something :P] and I had a field day watching him sit in his cell downtown.

    I asked him later "hey what did that bum want who talked to you?" he was so pissed.

  • WTF?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:45PM (#9934426) Homepage
    How is this going to effect my "lifetime" subscription to www.hornywomenbehindbars.com?!

    • Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:52PM (#9934504)
      "How is this going to effect my "lifetime" subscription to www.hornywomenbehindbars.com?!"

      Well, it means we're going to have to kill you. You realy should have read the license agreement before selecting the "lifetime" subscription option.

  • I would feel safer if... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrokenStructure ( 793578 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:47PM (#9934444)
    I ever ended up in jail and I knew there was a jail cam. It's like putting a mirror next to an item that's commonly stolen in a store. If a person feels like they're being watched, they're a lot less likely to try anything 'funny'.

    • Re:I would feel safer if... (Score:4, Funny)

      by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:49PM (#9934461)
      If a person feels like they're being watched, they're a lot less likely to try anything 'funny'.

      Yeah. If they try anything funny, we'll just put them in jail. Oh wait.
    • That would work but I think scariest moment in Jail is the showers. I don't think it would fly putting a webcam in the showers.

    • Re:I would feel safer if... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RubberChainsaw ( 669667 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:04PM (#9934618)
      How would having live a camera in your toilet make you feel safer? You're still going to get molested in the showers, only this time it'll be on live xxx internet feeds.

      I think that our current prison situation is unacceptable. The amount of rape, violence and criminal behavior that takes place within prisons makes them unsuitable for rehabilitation. Prisons are a breeding ground for diseases like HIV and Hep C. Prison officials aren't doing enough to stop the rape and spread of disease. They're too busy making their millions off of the prisons to care.

      I think the public does need to be more exposed to the problems with our prisons. But these jail cams in arizona aren't the way to go about doing that. These cameras aren't being used for education or information. They're being used as exploitation of the prisoners. Putting cameras in the women's toilets is not going to help teenagers stay away from crime.

      The sheriff responsible for these cameras is reknowned for his "humiliation" tactics in dealing with criminals. I strongly disagree with his approach in this matter.

      • When Rumsfeld was expressing his *shock* and *indignation* about the prisoner absue photos he kept saying "this is does not represent American values" and such crap. Of course everybody knows that's a lie. We Americans love that shit. We are glued to any television show that purports to humilitate somebody and of course all of our movies involve heavy doses of violence.

        I am afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg. Look for far worse to come down the pike.

    • Re:I would feel safer if... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:08PM (#9934652)
      As one of the respondents so graphically notes the issue is not the recording of jailhouse events, but the public broadcast of same.

      Do you really want yourself, unjustly accused in the first place (and what social value is served by public humiliation of the unjustly accused?), publicly becoming Bubba's bitch? Recorded for all time?

      The only possible real value of this to the public is actually to place the law officers on their best behavior.

      To gain maximum value from this we would need to live in a society that does not equate accusation with guilt, but, unfortunately, we do not.

      KFG

      • Re:I would feel safer if... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Epistax ( 544591 ) <epistax@gmaiAAAl.com minus threevowels> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:10PM (#9935111) Journal
        Do you really want yourself, unjustly accused in the first place (and what social value is served by public humiliation of the unjustly accused?), publicly becoming Bubba's bitch? Recorded for all time?

        If it happened, uh duh yes I want a record of it so he'll be hopping off to prison for the rest of his life. I don't care even if a jury sees it. Vanity is not more important than justice.

  • The problem is with *who* the cams are on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuation&gmail,com> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:48PM (#9934449)
    Since we have this notion of someone being "innocent until proven guilty," I can see why having a webcam on while someone is being *booked* can be a problem. If (theoretically) everyone in the world can see John Doe getting booked for a crime which he may or may not have committed, how can he ever get a fair jury?

    • Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Saige ( 53303 ) <evil...angela@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:56PM (#9934547) Journal
      Joe Arpaio has made a career of mistreating people that are being held for crimes they are not yet even found guilty of. He's been in trouble before for various activities of his before, including feeding those under his charge food that has been known to be bad - such as moldy bologna sandwiches.

      That's right, all you have to do to enter Arpaio's 'House of Cruelty and Being Treated as an Animal' is be arrested for a crime. The police could be wrong, which is not uncommon, but you've already been treated as if you were guilty by that bastard.

      Not only have I wished Arpaio would lose the office, but I've wished that he would be arrested and found guilty of thousands of counts of cruelty.

    • Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by real gumby ( 11516 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:34PM (#9935273)
      Since we have this notion of someone being "innocent until proven guilty," I can see why having a webcam on while someone is being *booked* can be a problem.

      Actually, that's an especially good time for it. Arrests must be public. Yes, it's horribly embarrassing to be arrested, and I will feel ashamed if I am ever arrested, but secret arrests are tyrannical.

      Your signature reads "The cure for 1984 is 1776." Well, why does the fourth amendment to the US constitution [findlaw.com] prohibit unreasonable seizures? It's because the british used arbitrary and secret arrests to lock up troublemakers (arguably they did so as well against the IRA). How can you have habeas corpus [lectlaw.com] (or look here [akamaitech.net] -- warning pdf) if you don't know who was arrested? (sorry, another pdf) [cnss.org]

      Once you've been convicted (or even once you're booked) it seems unreasonable though I agree with the poster who said he'd like it for his own protection!

  • Maybe not before proven guilty... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blogtim ( 804206 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:48PM (#9934453) Homepage
    I can see the point that this is no different than celebrities or politicians being booked and the media showing up. How about if it were done after one is proven guilty - sort of as an extra punishment.
  • When the courts would begin steping on Araipo. It's clear that most of his activities don't meet the "cruel and unusual punishment" constitutional test- even if they do work to deter crime.
    • "It's clear that most of his activities don't meet the "cruel and unusual punishment" constitutional test- even if they do work to deter crime."

      News flash - they DO NOT deter crime. His much publicised tactics had less to do with crime than the booming economy did. The chain gangs, pink underwear and hired thugs for jail staff didn't do diddley squat when the dot com bubble burst and jobs started getting scarce.

      • Ah- but what about his recidivism rate? Or is that also faked?

        And before you say it- if I was a criminal I'd want to get the hell out of that county also, so his recidivism rate might just be the "scare them out of the county" rate.
  • guess the sheriff forgets that small rule in our american society, alot of people goto jail for doing something then get it thrown out or dismissed in court, therfor making them not guilty, and not criminals. (though this is abused sometimes, there really are some innocent people that do goto jail for a night or so)

  • It's not only the cams (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:48PM (#9934458) Homepage
    It's the chain gangs and the pink underwear and the striped black 'n white uniforms and the 120F tent cities he runs.

    I don't think Joe Arpaio (the sheriff's name here for those of you who don't live in Maricopa county, Phoenix or points south) has really done much to lower crime with his "tough ways". Sometimes I think he's more of a joke than anything else.

    But he's quite powerful in the political sense. And taking down the cams ain't gonna make much difference. The guy needs to go. Well, hopefully this coming election.

    • I don't think Joe Arpaio (the sheriff's name here for those of you who don't live in Maricopa county, Phoenix or points south) has really done much to lower crime with his "tough ways". Sometimes I think he's more of a joke than anything else

      Sometimes jail is actually just about punishment too you know...

      I like his policies, though I would probably agree with him more if he were running a prison rather than just a holding cell (where people not yet found guilty are held as well).

      • Re:It's not only the cams (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:15PM (#9935142)
        No. I cannot disagree more. Jail is never about punishment. It is nobody's job to punish anyone, and it is certainly not the job of the the state to dole out punishments. Jail should purely be about rehabilitation, and if it isn't about rehabilitation then we have a problem. People like this twisted fuck are sick and need rehabilitation themselves.

        • Re:It's not only the cams (Score:5, Insightful)

          by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:56PM (#9935404) Homepage
          Jail should purely be about rehabilitation

          Purely?

          "Sorry, you've shown insufficient remourse for illegally downloading Michael Jackson's album; so you're going to have to stay in prison for another 5 years. You're clearly not rehabilitated." :-)

          Historically, that's what it really meant; some people never got out of the joint for relatively minor crimes. Is that just?

          Hint: no.

    • More on Joe Arpaio (Score:5, Informative)

      by fv ( 95460 ) * <fyodor@insecure.org> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:48PM (#9934972) Homepage
      Here is an interview [americanci...county.com] with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, where he brags about his treatment of prisoners. I have no comments, as I feel the raw text speaks for itself:

      Q: In addition to the Web cam, what are some other things that are unique about your jail?

      A: When I took office, I decided to put tents up, so we have almost 1,500 [inmates housed] in tents in the desert. I've gone down from three meals a day to two meals a day -- I call it brunch. And we have the cheapest meals, probably, in the country: 20 cents a meal.

      I'm cracking down on animal cruelty, and when I make an arrest [for that], I have to seize [the animal involved]. I decided to put the dogs in cell blocks [in an unused jail]. I took some heat because that's the only jail we have that's air-conditioned. Also, it costs $1.15 a day to feed the dogs and only 40 cents a day to feed the inmates, but that's the way it goes around here.

      I took away [inmates'] coffee; took away their smoking; took away their movies. The only TV they get is the Weather Channel, and they have to hear me do bedtime stories. I introduce the story, and [then play an] audio book. They can go to the library and get a regular copy, but this helps them learn how to read.

      I put them in pink underwear. I decided to do that six years ago. I put them in striped uniforms several years ago, and I have male and female chain gangs. We do things different here since I became the sheriff. I just got reelected to a third term, and now everybody thinks I'm running for governor. All the polls show me leading for governor, but I haven't decided whether I'm running next year.

      Q: It's been reported that you've had at least 800 lawsuits filed against you.

      A: It doesn't mean nothing. It's how many you lose. Everybody sues me for the cockroaches, the food.

      Q: Have you had to change some of your policies as a result?

      A: I haven't changed anything.

      • Re:More on Joe Arpaio (Score:3, Interesting)

        by killjoe ( 766577 )
        Since it has been shows that he has not reduced the crime rate he just seems like a sadist who got a ton of human beings to play with. He humiliates them and gets off on his absolute power over these people.

        Probably all for the better though. If he did not have prisoners to torment god knows what kind of a sadistic psycho he would have turned out to be.

        It sure sounds like he is having fun though and the people of mericopa seem to be having fun vicariously too.

      • why do Americans fall for such crap? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DABANSHEE ( 154661 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @07:56AM (#9938596)
        It seems the US is about the worst place for knee-jerk publicity seeking tough on crime laws & law 'n order auctions every election campaign.

        In regards knee jerkism, look at the way many state & local authorities banned GHB within days of sensationalist reports of body builders abusing this vetinary anasthetic (to aid testosterone production from deep sleep) & gays getting off on thershold dose recreational use. The end result was the new illegal status attracted publicity way out of proportion to the recreational reality of the drug itself & pharmacuetical supplies were replaced by underground chemist supplies, which of course leads to dangerous quantity/quality irregularities, which is the very thing that makes GHB dangerous.

        So the chief effect of politicians taking a opportunity to knee-jerk over the American public's anger over people daring to get off on things they shouldn't get off on, are law 'n order bills which have made the drug much more attractive to use & inherently much many more dangerous to use too. The end result being a logrithmic increase in overdoses from virtually none before hand (relative to the US population)

        Now in regards the law 'n oder auctions every elections, the end result has been the US having both incarceration & policing rates that are logrithmically higher than anywhere else in the world (there's that big L word again).

        This has led to a significant proportion of a significant American minority being totally disenfranchised & huge costs to the American tax-payers that get sucked in by all this law 'n order fear mongering. To the point that many US states now spend more on jails than education (which definitly doesn't bode well for the future), the maning, building & servicing of jails has become the biggest growth industry in the US & if US incarceration levels continue to grow at the same rate they have over the last 15 years, then by 2037 every American will be either employed by the 'jail industry' or incarcerated themselves.

        This has been devastating to America's underclass - just look at those snitch snowballs in Tulia, Texas & Union, Alabama caused by knee-jerk & law 'n order election year 'auction' bills for mandatory minimums & forfeiture legislation. In both cases we had cops arresting people based on the uncorroberated testimony of a paid snitch & then threatened with mandatory minimums if they didn't snitch on any of their mates that were poor but had property (via such things as inheritances, redundency payouts, divorce settlements or people that had done well in the past but are now down on their luck). Meaning they were good forfeiture material as they were worth persecuting but didn't have the incomes to stand up for themselves in the justice system.

        This leads to a snowballing effect as people are threatened with the mandatory minimum to plead out on lesser chargse (meaning they still get convicted & all their property forfeited) on the condition they snitch on any aquaintence, relative or mate that the cops want them to snitch on. Meaning a huge snowballing tragedy of justice in which the evidence is rarely tested in court & when it is tested, it's tested in some hick court where the judge & jury automatically take the cops side, with the legal aid lawyer is hung-over & nodding off in court all day (leading to situations where jurors refuse to admit their mistake & are still convinced that certain defendents are guilty, even though they won appeals due to ironclad alibies, simply because their adament that 'cops are good & don't lie').

        Or look at the many Americans that feel the need to keeped a loaded firearm within axcess of the bed to protect the family from home intruders. Nevermind the fact that if one isn't a drug dealer or a Asian business man/woman with a reputation of keeping large quantities of cash at home, the chances of one's family falling victim to a home invasion if one's a member of the suburban middle class, is probabl

  • Conviction without a trial (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Carnildo ( 712617 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:49PM (#9934469) Homepage Journal
    The jail cams in question were for the holding cells of suspects, not of convicted criminals. Thus, the ruling that cameras were not allowed -- it amounts to conviction without a trial.

  • Shame and Disgust in the Law (Score:3, Informative)

    by enforcer999 ( 733591 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:50PM (#9934484) Journal
    I read an interesting article today that discussed shame and the law [chronicle.com] that is right along these lines.

  • Sheriff Joe Loses AGAIN! :) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <`abacaxi' `at' `hotmail.com'> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:50PM (#9934487)
    "The San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on Friday a lower court decision and ruled against the online venture of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The sheriff had argued that Webcasts deterred crime and showed the public how jails work."

    Arpaio never met a reporter he didn't like, nor a PR stunt he wouldn't pull. Local opinion is that he's not a sheriff, he just plays one on TV.

    His jailhouse tactics have cost the county millions in legal fees and settlements, and he is accused at the moment of having set up a squad of detectives to harass political opposition (in AZ, a county sheriff is an elected official).

    • Re:Sheriff Joe Loses AGAIN! :) (Score:5, Informative)

      by tootlemonde ( 579170 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:08PM (#9934655)

      His jailhouse tactics have cost the county millions in legal fees and settlements...

      An article in Harper's [findarticles.com] from April, 2001, says: "So far, the total bill for jury awards and settlements is approximately $15 million."

      The article notes:

      Arpaio has reduced neither the crime rate nor the rate of recidivism in Phoenix. He has had no discernible effect whatsoever. He serves only to con the public into thinking that something is being done about crime. Phoenix is bucking the national trend: as crime falls nationwide, it increases here. Especially violent crime. In 1992, 136 people were murdered in the city; in 1999, 214. There were more murders, rapes, and car theft in 1999 than in the previous year. Arpaio's defenders can argue that the population is increasing, so the statistics are misleading. But this is disingenuous. Most homicides--which have increased by nearly two thirds since 1992 while the population has grown only by a quarter--are not committed by opportunistic yuppies coming here to work dot-corn jobs. The reality is indisputable: in Phoenix, your chance of getting killed is better since Arpaio took office.

      However, Arpaio has a high approval rating, is regularly re-elected and his endorsement is sought by nearly all politicians.

    • None of those statements (even if incontrovertibly true) speak to the issue of whether having webcams in jails is a good/bad thing. I could just as easily say that the 9th Circuit has made numerous rulings that were later overturned by the Supreme Court, and leave the inference to the reader that this ruling is also crap because of the 9th's past record.

  • Having been there before... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zaranne ( 733967 ) <zaranne17@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:50PM (#9934490) Homepage Journal
    from the been-there-done-that department

    Humilation is one thing. Great, show it to grade school kids and they might think twice in the future. But I for one, do not want my "adventures in the drunk tank" broadcast for all to see. Barfing on the cop at the scene of my accident was enough.

  • can work both ways (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:51PM (#9934497)
    Remember that openness, while embarrassing for some, could also help protect those arrested from abuse.

  • A tough one, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nlawalker ( 804108 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:52PM (#9934505)
    It seems to me that individuals in jail still have rights, no matter how detestable they are, and I'm pretty sure that having a camera trained on you 24x7 against your will violates those rights.

  • If I was in prison I would WANT jailcam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Forge ( 2456 ) <kevinforge&gmail,com> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:52PM (#9934510) Homepage Journal
    If I was in prison I would WANT jailcam all over the prison and in my cell.

    Ordinary security cameras protect you from your fellow prisoners by alerting guards to misconduct. broadcasting this on the web and archiving images on the same site protects you from misconduct by guards. Trust me... No guard wants his mother to see him beating a prisoner to a bloody pulp and then sodomizing him.

    of course to work right you need lots of cameras protected from abuse and positioned so you can see who tampers with them. My only loss as a prisoner in such a facility is that I have to be more cautious in my masturbation.
    Prison is about taking away some freedoms of a person convicted of a crime. I prefer to louse my privacy than my religious or sexual preference. Never mind life and limb.
    • If I was in prison I would WANT jailcam all over the prison and in my cell.

      Good point. Prisons tend to have cameras all over the place anyway. Better that they be monitored from the outside. I'd like to see prison cams archived by the ACLU, archive.org, and the International Red Cross.

  • Irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FlimFlamboyant ( 804293 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:56PM (#9934548) Homepage
    So let's see here. It's ok for national television to display home video footage of police beating the snot out of these people on the street, but as soon as the perp is dragged in to prison, now we must spare them the "humiliation" of broadcasting their incarceration on the Internet?

  • Innocent until proven guilty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:57PM (#9934556) Homepage Journal
    I find it disturbing the number of ways that law enforcement is finding to punish people for merely being arrested.

    We're supposed to be punishing people for being convicted not for being arrested.

  • but COPS is okay? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by deus_X_machina ( 413485 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @04:59PM (#9934569)
    I'm all for freedom of privacy and not humiliating people... but c'mon, what about COPS? They feature criminals kicking, screaming, and drunkenly making themselves look like idiots on national television! Even if they give their consent to have it played on TV, it seems like most of them are too out of it to know what's going on...

    • COPS is in pretty bad taste, but most of it probably requires no permission because it takes place in public. You can film anything you want in a public place.

    • I'm all for freedom of privacy and not humiliating people... but c'mon, what about COPS?

      Believe it or not, everyone you have ever seen on COPS has signed a waiver giving the show the right to show their faces on TV. The producers give people $500 to entice them to do so, but ultimately it's their choice. So every drunken crack whore you've seen on that show has signed away their rights, which means COPS says nothing about the case in discussion here.

  • A good start, a long way to go. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deacon ( 40533 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:01PM (#9934592) Journal
    Good, someone that realizes that people in custody are human beings.

    Next, a realization that prison rape is not "funny", is a violation of basic human rights, and that /. comments about "bubba the love bunny" deserve a -1, flamebait mod, not a +1 funny.

    In a civilized society, prisoners are sentenced to time in jail.

    They should not be subject to torture at the hands of other inmates, and it is the duty of the State to prevent such abuses.

    • Also, it should be pointed out that not everyone in prison is a violent criminal. Many, for example, are otherwise "ordinary" folks who are there for using drugs. Our courts are wildly and completely random when it comes to sentencing recreational drug users (and I'm not even talking about dealers, that's more of a grey area), and what may be three months probation and an order to attend rehab for one person in one court in one city may be a five-year sentence in another.

  • Doesn't this also protect the incarcerated person from potential police abuse? (How about webcams that aren't broadcasted but still record everything to a "citizen's committee"?)

  • Great (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:04PM (#9934621) Journal
    So it's okay to fry a man to death but it's not okay to broadcast pictures of people being locked up because it's 'humiliating.' If both of these issues went before the 9th circuit then I'm sure there'd be a bit more consistency.

    • Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 )
      How is it inconsistent? The camera thing is happening to people who have not been convicted. Executions happen to people who have been convicted.

  • Oh joy. Sheriff Joe again. (Score:5, Informative)

    by 72beetle ( 177347 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:09PM (#9934661) Homepage
    Just in case you're interested on what the aforementioned sheriff is up to THESE days, take a look at the latest New Times [phoenixnewtimes.com].

    -72
  • I would think all the reality show entities would jump on this to make it their next show.
    They could title it "NYPD Jail Cell 24/7" and it could run right after Cops on Fox!

  • How many white people would you see? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by underpar ( 792569 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:12PM (#9934689) Homepage
    I bet if they left something like that on they'd have to lay off the minorites. In Tulsa, latinos are labeled the same as whites when they get booked. A camera may be more truthful.
  • ... was the video stream available in one of open video formats or only as WMA/RM proprietary junk? I guess it's an important (for /. people) question to ask! ;-)

    Also, where are the LINKS to archived streams? ;-)

    Paul B.
  • Arpaio's intentions with his treatment of MC jail inmates has nothing to do with trying to reduce crime. It helps him put up an image of "America's toughest Sheriff", which helps him in his reelection campaigns. I've been wondering how long until he puts up a set of stocks in downtown Phoenix.

  • unobstructed view of the women's toilet !! (Score:5, Informative)

    by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:16PM (#9934724) Journal
    From TFA:
    But some of the images are more invasive: strip searches, female prisoners in various stages of undress, and, up until late April, a constant, unobstructed view of the women's toilet and the women using it.

    Seriously?!? No wonder he lost the case. Way to hand your detainees tons of county cash, bozo. This type of guy in elected office is why we need strong anti-abuse laws on the books, and stricter supervision of prison operations. More interestingly, why isn't this bigger nationwide news? It would seem to have all of the makings of a major story, and yet I've only heard of it on /.

    Of course, though the article states the toilet-cam as fact, the last line in the article has some hapless spokesdrone denying that charge... anyone know if they're just lying to cover up? From the attitude of the sheriff ( and much of law enforcement ), I'm guessing there really was a clear view of the women's toilet...

  • Arpaio is an idiot (Score:3, Informative)

    by hotspotbloc ( 767418 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:29PM (#9934821) Homepage Journal
    He's the apex of bad law enforcement. He once bragged about how he spends more [per meal] money feeding his guard dogs than those in custody. His tactics have cost Maricopa County millions in lost lawsuits due to his inhumane treatment.

    Check out "Top Ten Reasons NOT to vote for Joe" [arpaio.com].

  • Link? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wo1verin3 ( 473094 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:36PM (#9934870) Homepage
    Okay as dumb as this sounds, I can't find the jail cam this article talks about, it references 'crime.com' but that doesn't seem to exist either. I did find this Tennessee jailcam [tnacso.net] however.

  • Oop. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rsklnkv ( 532866 ) <rsklnkv.houseofthedead@org> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @05:58PM (#9935030) Homepage Journal
    Musta hit the 'any key' earlier when I posted as AC. Sorry. I'm gonna repost and face the wrath of moderation, considering how strongly I feel about this :
    My new reality TV show.
    'CellBoss 2004'. Not only will we be able to vote over the internet to give rapists and child abusers more time, but we can vote naughty/ugly/unpopular cons straight into segregation! Imagine the possibilities regarding aliances!

    Joking aside, as someone who has spent significant time locked up, I find the idea of a webcam monitoring convicts quite disgusting. The simple fact of the matter is (IMHO) that this will do nothing but undermine what little integrity these guys have. Whether or not it might make things 'safer' is silly to me, considering the faulty foundation the Prison Industrial Complex is based on. This alongside of the fact that people in these holding cells are NOT necessarily guilty. The more we trivialize things like prison -- this indirectly relates to the COPS television show (ever seen a white collar criminal arrested?) -- the more people will ignore that America has the highest recorded rate of incarceration in the world and that 80% of those in prison are in for non-violent crimes.

  • Too Scary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blooba ( 792259 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:14PM (#9935132)
    A friend of mine was recently arrested. After booking, he was thrown into a large holding cell that has 30 bunk beds. At the time, the cell contained almost 70 suspects. Soon after he entered the cell, a riot broke out inside it, and he was forced to fight for his life. He witnessed suspects bashing each other's skulls against the wall and against the floor. A few of his fellow inmates could not handle the terrifying stress, and began sobbing. These delicate souls were then sexually abused by other suspects.

    During that same weekend in incarceration, my friend witnessed the brutal beating of a suspect by three armed guards. The suspect had not assaulted anyone, but was being verbally abusive to the guards. The suspect lost consciousness, a lot of blood from a nasty head wound, and had to be carted to the infirmary.

    Where did all this happen? Good ole NYC.

    All of this happened in front of multiple surveillance cameras. I would surely like to review those tapes myself, but the general public is not allowed access to them.

    What do you all suggest we do? Perhaps a public oversight committee that reviews the prison/jail surveillance tapes? This committe might be comprised of responsible citizens, selected via a process similar to jury duty selection.

  • Deterrence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blooba ( 792259 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:40PM (#9935306)
    The concept of deterrence is just pure B.S. Deterrence simply does not work. It never has, and it never will. Why? Because most felons commit their crimes without first stopping to consider the consequences. The ability to consider the consequences requires an informed, sane and sober mind, and few felons possess all three qualities at the time during which they commit their crimes.

    Idiots like Sherriff Arpaio know that deterrence does not work. They do it because they want to mete out further punishment, beyond the convict's actual sentence. They feel, quite incorrectly, that they have the right and/or duty to make prisons and jails living hells for the inmates.

    We need to do something to stop this. Most people are indifferent because they have no family members or loved ones behind bars. But take it from me: it can happen to you; it can happen to anyone. When you least expect it, someone you know will screw up and get thrown in prison. You won't feel so indifferent then.

  • humiliated until proven guilty (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:43PM (#9935322) Homepage Journal
    In Puritan New England, public stocks filled on the judgement of the local cult leader prevented crime through intimidation, at the cost of Justice. But that's OK with AZ Sheriff Arpaio, and CA Judge Bea:

    "Judge Carlos Bea wrote that using jailhouse Webcams to post images over the Internet did not violate the constitutional rights of detainees."

    These "detainees" are merely arrested, not found guilty of any crime. The public defamation, now global across the Internet, is an obvious destruction of the rights of the accused. That's consistent with the new class of subhuman "detainees" everywhere, no longer protected by laws administered by fascist judges like Bea, and executed by fascist cops like Arpaio.

  • Men getting raped.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by taxevader ( 612422 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:59PM (#9935423)
    ...is seen as funny by society at large. Why is this? Its because a) they are criminals b) they are men If there was any place where women knowingly got raped there would be an outcry, investigation etc etc. But as it is, it is an accepted, and even condoned by society. After all, these are criminals, they should pay their debt. Rape is rape, no matter who it happens to.

  • The Amnesty International view of things (Score:5, Informative)

    by HuguesT ( 84078 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @08:08PM (#9935814)
    Hello,

    Amnesty International takes a somewhat dim view [amnesty.org] of this Sheriff's methods, and note that there was at least one suspicious death in custody among other things.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Close