Dear Editor:
Re: “Arizona’s Sheriff Joe knows how to deal with criminals”, by Conservative MP Art Hanger in the Sept. 10 Cochrane Eagle.
Calgary MP and Commons Justice Committee Chairman Art Hanger’s choice of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio as a hero is unfortunate. Also unfortunate is his praise for the Maricopa County jail system that the sheriff administers.
Critics of the Maricopa County jail system consider it to be inhumane and cite harsh conditions, including inadequate food and shelter, inadequate medical care, overcrowding, unsafe conditions, and instances of excessive use of force.
Mr. Hanger visited the sheriff’s “Tent City Jail.” Describing it as “a corral of tents set up under the blazing Arizona Sun,” he figures that the sheriff “hits the right note in handling the county’s trouble-makers.”
Surplus army tents are an economical way to warehouse 20 or 25 inmates at a time. Under the blazing Arizona sun, however, temperatures inside these tents have reportedly reached 150 F at the level of the top bunks. That is over 65 C.
This is as warm as the inside of a closed automobile on a hot day. Dogs can die if left in this type of environment for a few hours. Is it really okay for human beings to be imprisoned in these conditions?
Mr. Hanger seems impressed with the jail system’s health care which he describes as “pay-as-you-go with a user fee to see the doctor, thus eliminating unnecessary visits.”
The health care system was described in darker terms in May of this year in an article by Mary K. Reinhart in the East Valley Tribune. She wrote:
“More than 60 Maricopa County jail inmates have died since 2004, many from illnesses that would be treatable in normal medical settings. . . . Since 2004, the dead include two newborns and a 17-year-old boy who writhed in pain for six hours before he was seen by medical staff. . . . Juries have ruled in case after case that the county was at fault. The county has settled other cases to avoid trial and still more cases are in litigation. Taxpayers have paid out more than $30 million in settlements, verdicts and attorneys’ fees since 1993” — the year Joe Arpaio became sheriff.
I’ll bet that Sheriff Joe didn’t mention this to Mr. Hanger, or that a respected physician terminated his services to the Correctional Health Service earlier this year because the health care being delivered did not meet constitutional minimums.
Is this what is to be expected from “pay-as-you-go with a user fee” health care?
Mr. Hanger has written that, to the potential troublemaker, Sheriff Arpaio’s marketing agenda is a “simple but effective one,” and that the sheriff “knows how to deal with criminals.”
Is this really accurate?
In an apparent attempt to determine if his approach to incarceration was reducing recidivism rates (the extent to which released inmates commit other offences), Sheriff Arpaio commissioned researchers at Arizona State University to conduct a study. The researchers did so and concluded that the sheriff’s methods had no significant effect on recidivism.
I doubt that the sheriff mentioned this study to Mr. Hanger.
The results of the sheriff’s study are supported by information contained on the Public Safety Canada website. A research summary on that website states that “. . . harsher criminal justice sanctions had no deterrent effect on recidivism. On the contrary, punishment produced a slight (three per cent) increase in recidivism.”
Mr. Hanger has written regarding the jail that, “Accommodations are basic but plentiful,” and “no question that the basic needs are met . . .”
The jail system provides inmates two meals per day. According to the sheriff’s website, meals cost the jail 15 cents each. Is a 15-cent meal really “plentiful”?
Here is some of what the American Civil Liberties Union had to say in August of this year about accommodations in Sheriff Joe’s jails:
“Pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail are regularly given moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food. Detainees with serious medical, mental health and dental needs receive inadequate care, and they are routinely denied beds or bunks at intake, forcing them to sleep on the floor. Additionally, severe overcrowding in three of the jail’s facilities has created extremely dangerous environments by significantly increasing the potential for violence among inmates.”
I’ll bet Sheriff Joe didn’t tell Mr. Hanger about this either.
Mr. Hanger has also indicated that,
“. . . taxpayers of Maricopa County are proud of Sheriff Joe’s accomplishments.” On this point Mr. Hanger is correct. The sheriff is very popular.
However, the sheriff is not without his critics. Those critics include Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Committee, the Arizona Ecumenical Council, a newspaper called the Phoenix New Times, and the mayor of Phoenix, Arizona.
Not all of the sheriff’s critics are focused on the county jail system. Much attention is being paid to the sheriff’s “immigration sweeps.” These sweeps are an attempt to apprehend illegal aliens. They prompted the mayor of Phoenix to write the U.S. Attorney General earlier this year to request that the FBI investigate Sheriff Joe Arpaio based on his “pattern and practice of conduct that includes discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches and arrests.”
It may be that Sheriff Joe’s use of questionable tactics extends beyond the operation of the jail.
Mr. Hanger refers, perhaps sarcastically, to the critics of the Maricopa jail system as “liberal thinkers” and “do-gooders.” They may be both those things but that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong.
Come to think of it, the most notable liberal thinker and do-gooder in history was Jesus Christ. And didn’t he have some issues with a harsh penal system? People still remember that he was imprisoned and then tortured to death. Go figure!
There’s a whole lot of room for improvement in our prison system. For example, I would like to see prisoners required to work to help pay for the cost of feeding and housing them. Everyone else has to work to live, why shouldn’t they?
What we have to remember when making changes to the jail systems though, is that most inmates will eventually be released back into society. If they have been properly rehabilitated they will become assets to our society. If they have not, they will continue to pose problems and cost society more money and grief.
Mr. Hanger, at the end of his article on the Maricopa Jail system, asked for input from readers relative to changes that should be made to Canadian prisons. In one way this is great. We, as taxpayers, pay for the prison system; we should therefore have a say in how it is run.
Looked at in another way, an elected official asking for tips from the general public on how to improve a prison system is sort of like a farmer asking his bank manager how to heal his sick pig. The farmer should be asking a veterinarian.
Mr. Hanger should, perhaps, be asking criminologists, psychologists and other experts in the field of human behaviour how we can design a penal system that does a better job of putting inmates back on the straight and narrow, with the least effort and the least cost to us, as taxpayers.
We have to incarcerate certain types of offenders. Some of them should be locked away for life. Once we incarcerate them, however, we as responsible men and women, have a moral responsibility to set an example and provide humane prison conditions.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in my opinion, does not do this.
TG Storey
RSS SUBSCRIBE