Quote:
Originally Posted by mvisconte
3) Hm... yes, I think it does. The context there is that these people were sent to prison for horrible acts that they committed. They have lost (hopefully for the time being) their right to mix in the humane humans. As many inhabitants of jails have to real plans or interest in doing anything but "time", this is a further reminder that they are separated for a reason. I truly don't see how it harms them. If it caused them physical harm, I would be against it. If I considered it torture, I would be against it. I am not against it.
Good point. Although my understanding is that these individuals have done enough to warrent being treated this way. I could be wrong, but I am afraid that I still would not see the harm in pink undies.
...
Getting rapists off Scot-free is shameful. Getting child molesters off with a slap on the wrist is an offense to human dignity. I think that the prisoners would get over having to wear pink undies. Taking the liberty of persons awaiting trial that have not posted bond is unfortunate... nothing more. There are plenty of crooked lawyers who will argue to a judge that just because their "client" is a previous felon, has been in a violent confrontation, or has already fled prosecution on several occasions, that he really IS good enough to be released on reduced bail or his own recognizance.
|
Sentences of one year or less are served in the county jail. Sentences of more than one year are served in a state Department of Corrections facility. For less severe cases, a defendant may be sentenced to a term of probation. The court may impose conditions of probation that could include jail time, community service and counseling. Defendants may also be ordered to pay restitution to their victims.
source
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.go...Procedures.asp
So we are not talking of convicted rapists or murderers. In this case it is only persons awaiting trial or petty criminals with short sentences. The types of people we're talking about are pickpockets, shoplifters, loud drunks, people who get into bar fights, not hardened criminals.
As for getting persons even guilty ones off scott free as you say, it is a tragedy. It is also necessary to preserve the rights of people like you or me. If I were ever to be accused of a crime (and by a funny coincidence I was last week but luckily for me the police dismissed it as silly to accuse someone of assault for killing the character of someone you don't like in an online game) I'd be quite glad to know that someone would have to prove me guilty and I'd have the chance to defend myself and a professional to help me with that. I'm willing to risk a few of the guilty going free to reduce the chance of wrongful imprisonment, I'm just selfish that way.
And to that end, being jailed before trial is unfortunate and being given pink undies would not bother me I own plenty of pink undies, they're not the point, they illustrate the point. Increasing human misery for its own sake is not the goal of a civilized society no matter who the human is. Aldous Huxlex said
Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvisconte
Although I don't consider the ACLU as a credible source, I understand your concerns. You might as well quote from Chairman Mao or Geobbels -- as far as I'm concerned (with their current record), it's propaganda. Perhaps we could just lock up the ACLU lawyers (I am sorry, I couldn't resist a punch line). Yes, a citizen does have a right to prepare a defense, and to have legal counsel should s/he not be able to afford one. Time honored tradition. Good thing. However, in the current practice of the legal system, too many lawyers getting too many guilty people off the hook, and also bankrupting good people, leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. We're arguing separate points here.
...
Food poisoning is icky. Starvation is criminal. Lack of medical care for serious issues should be looked into, and fixed from some outside humanitarian organization if they can keep it in their pants enough to treat those who are seriously suffering, and not argue that denying the Playboy Channel is cruel and unusual. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those kinds of organizations.
|
Your personal opinion of the ACLU non-withstanding. They are an organization dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of every person inside the United States. it is unfair to godwin them just because you disagree. They defend scumbags like Fred Phelps but when he can spout his insane hateful bullshit I know that I'm free to bitch about the current copyright laws, once again you take the good you take bad... In this case they made a court filing so perhaps we can agree that when these things are being alleged in court we should give pause and wonder what on earth is going on with this jail? There is a history of judgments against the jail and sheriff. Then perhaps from there see what the judge has to say about it.
I assume you're going to disagree with me so here's my parting thought. Justice is the realm of the courts but mistreating someone just lowers you to their level. I prefer to keep the moral high ground.