I guess my statement was a bit political, eh?
But, pink underwear?
And millions have been paid out in claims arising out of the operation of jails under his oversight. A bit troubling.
I think you have to go more in depth than just that some claims were paid out. Even if he lost some lawsuits at trial would not be unusual for such a large law enforcement agency, especially a sheriff who is running huge jail and penal institutions. It would be better to look at the nature of the claims, why they were paid (or why he lost) and look for patterns of poor management and supervision.
Law enforcement is a lawsuit magnet. My standard response got to be, when threatened with "I'm going to sue you!", was to tell them to get in line behind everybody else.
Of course, some those lawsuits are justified. Cops come from the same population everybody else hires from and occasionally we scoop up a complete imbecile. You try and catch them before they go nuclear in the middle of your organization, but that's not always possible.
But the majority of them are nothing but pure and unadulterated crap. The inmate generated stuff is the absolute worst. Months, if not years in the making, often handwritten in bizarrely worded legalese, they're laughable in their fiction. I have my favorite line memorized: "For an entire fortnight plaintiff was 'tucked in" by Detective Leonidas who came to his cell at the county jail every night and beat the plaintiff with a baseball bat and chain until he lost consciousness from the pain, abuse and terrorizing." That one was easily solved, I just faxed the city attorney a copy of my boarding passes to show I had been in the Virgin Islands for most of said "fortnight".
Between the two extremes is the meat.
Most governments have no litigators on staff. And, to be brutally honest, the attorneys that are on staff are not the shiniest pennies in the drawer. In fact, I think most of them would be mopping up grease at some burger joint with their law school diplomas if they had not been able to find a government job. Seriously, I've seen so many of them humiliated in civil service hearings that I shudder to think of them in a real court room.
When a lawsuit comes in the government's attorneys have three choices: Get it dismissed because of some legal defect, hire outside litigators at potentially budget busting rates, or settle the sucker. Yes, some of them need to be settled because the government has a potentially huge liability if they lose it at trial. But so many of them are just BS and the attorneys settle just because they can make it go away cheaply. It is very aggravating for the employee whose alleged actions were the highlight of the lawsuit. You can claim it was settled just to make it go away, but people will always wonder about you.
And let's not forget those bottom feeders that specialize in federal civil rights lawsuits against government agencies. All they have to do is win one case and it's like winning the lotto for legal fees. They love to poison the pool of potential jurors by standing up in front of the cameras and telling tales of woe about what happened to their poor client at the hands of the evil government employees. When the reality is that if the case had any potential it will never make it to a courtroom because the city will roll over and pay because they are deathly afraid of it going to a jury. It's the cases that are muddy and unclear that go to trial, and all too often it's showmanship and BS that wins the case rather than facts.
So, in the case of Joe Arpaio, I would look for patterns of losses. If there is a pattern of similar conduct that he loses in court or the county pays off on, then there might very well be a problem. I think he's smart enough to try and dot all of the 'i''s and cross all the 't''s before he sets out to do most of this stuff. But there is no telling what a jury will do sometimes.
If I were Arpaio the thing I would really worry about are the current allegations that he has been systematically harassing his critics. If that one is true, Joe could be on the wrong end of some huge payouts. Or, the county taxpayers will be to be more accurate about it. That all has to be proven yet.
As for Arpaio's more spectacular spotlight grabbing stunts: Yes, he obviously craves attention and lacks some degree of sophistication. He's just a product of his former career as a DEA agent. That agency is the poster child for standing in the spotlight of fame without actually accomplishing much of anything. (They don't call it "
Don't
Expect
Anything" for no reason.)
Snake oil showmanship aside, there is actually some pretty decent logic behind much of what Arpaio has been famous for doing. The
pink underwear and
pink flip flops all started because the clothing was being stolen from the jail. I bet they're happy to leave the pink drawers behind when they check out of Arpaio's Crossbar Hilton.
He requires all male inmates over the age of 18 to be registered for selective service. It doesn't mean much, but why should they be allowed to break the law while incarcerated?
Making them live in tents to ease facility overcrowding. I'll let Arpaio answer that one in his own words: "It's 120 degrees in Iran and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."
Politically it's a good move. Joe knows that most of us taxpayers feel that jails should not provide anything other than basic needs to inmates. Many institutions do provide more because it keeps the inmates more docile, but even then there has been such a political backlash about some things that a lot of that has been cut back. My tax dollars could be better spent on something other than TV sets for inmates, or constantly buying them new clothing because they keep stealing the stuff. And while living in a hot climate without AC sucks, I've done it and survived and I don't know why they can't.
Arpaio may turn out to be a liability - and then again, maybe not. But he is at the epicenter of liability lawsuits, and is the natural target of a large number of bored, creative and litigious potential plaintiffs. Not to mention the greedy shysters who make a living out of suing the government and just hoping to win one. Factor in that the county's attorneys that represent him and the agency are probably no more competent that any of the other government attorneys on staff across the nation. And then toss in the fact that he loves being the center of media attention, and it's little wonder that he's been on the losing side a few times.
