Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to C Deavel and Tom Phillips some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Arizona stirs another critical debate

A courageous and enlightened sheriff touches off another debate, alongside the one about our political discourse. What kind of policing do we want to have? Arizona offers a stark contrast in side-by-side counties.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik speaking at an event

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik speaking at an event

There is an interesting side-story to the national fury unleashed by the tragic and senseless shootings in Tucson that have stirred a national and timely debate about the volume and volatility of the political discourse in this country. On the day of the shootings, the sheriff of the county in which the horror took place suggested that "vitriolic rhetoric" on radio and television was hurting America. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this nation is getting to be outrageous," stated Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. In subsequent interviews, Sheriff Dupnik labeled several, well-known conservative radio commentators as "irresponsible."

Virtually unnoticed in the firestorm that erupted in the wake of Sheriff Dupnik's remarks is the fact that in the county just to the north of his jurisdiction resides another law enforcement official, Joseph Arpaio, who revels in the self-anointed reputation of being "America’s toughest sheriff." As sheriff of Maricopa County, Arpaio is an outspoken supporter of Arizona’s recent anti-immigration legislation, which Sheriff Dupnik calls "a national embarrassment."

Arpaio brags on his web page about instituting chain gangs for women and juveniles — along with the males committed to his facilities — and delights in pointing out that the average cost of meals in his jail is 15 cents. The jail serves only two meals a day and does not provide salt or pepper which, according to the sheriff, saves the county $20,000 a year. In what is perhaps the most stupendous of Sheriff Arpaio’s antics, his inmates are required to wear pink underwear in a facility that also issues pink sheets and towels to all inmates. This practice was initiated by the sheriff after his ostensible discovery that the color pink has a calming effect on inmate behavior.

Quite apart from the national debate over overheated political rhetoric, Sheriffs Dupnik and Arpaio depict two sharply contrasting realities of law enforcement in America. Both see their tasks as maintenance of public order and the enforcement of the law; one treasures the importance of going about the tasks of policing professionally and of adhering to Constitutional values and standards in the process. The other takes pride in using the power of policing to suppress and intimidate those who fall under its purview.

In Pima County, the job of law enforcement is seen as that of apprehending violators of the law and letting the rest of the criminal justice process take its course, in the belief that this is the best way to insure justice. In the case of Maricopa County, its sheriff has taken it upon himself not just to apprehend but also to degrade and humiliate prisoners in the belief that his task is to punish — as severely and inhumanely as possible — anyone who falls in his clutches.

These two realities of law enforcement represent policing, in one form or another, all across America today. For those who believe in the fundamental American values of justice and equity — including professional law enforcement officers — Sheriff Arpaio is a national outrage and a blight on law enforcement. But there are law enforcement circles in which he is considered a shining example of how the job ought to be done.

This debate — about which form and style of policing and law enforcement a community will encourage and tolerate — is the one that ought to be front and center in every community across the nation, including our own.

Hubert G. Locke is Dean Emeritus of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington and former Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Until recently, he was a regular columnist for The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Fri, Jan 21, 7:28 a.m. Inappropriate

Funny this is listed under "immigration" as a topic. From the Story:

"This debate — about which form and style of policing and law enforcement a community will encourage and tolerate — is the one that ought to be front and center in every community across the nation, including our own."

Our Community doesn't enforce immigration laws. Our community declares itself a Sanctuary for illegal aliens. Our community provides scarce social safety net dollars on people who are not leagally entitled to be here. Our Community provides Medicare and Medicaid benefits and services to illegal aliens. Our Community will not allow the Federal Agency tasked with enforcing immigration law to cross reference databases of inmates in jails and prisons across the State to find those criminal illegal aliens who need to be deported and get them off the taxpayers backs. Our community, Dr. Locke, is a joke when it comes to enforcing the law and specifically immigration law. The only "irresponsible" people I see around here are the electeds who refuse to cooperate to enforce the immigration laws.

Cameron

Posted Fri, Jan 21, 7:55 a.m. Inappropriate

Dupnik and Obama both jumped the gun and prejudged incidents and were later proven totally wrong. (Dupnik's tirades against conservative talk and Obama's calling out Cambridge, Mass. police as acting stupidly and then having the embarassing beer summit). Dupnik stepped in it big-time and revealed himself to be an ineffective political hack.

animalal

Posted Fri, Jan 21, 9:05 a.m. Inappropriate

Has it been established that the shooter listened to "talk radio" (Rush Limbaugh, I assume)? or that he was an admirer of Sarah Palin? I have not read of such a finding.

Since WWII four of our presidents have been attacked with intent to kill, one successfully. In none of those cases do I recall a discussion of media influences on the would-be killer. Maybe I am forgetting something but the Puerto Rican nationalists, Squeaky From and Lee Harvey Oswald all had ideological histories but no one seemed to check out their reading or TV watching habits. Maybe it was because it was generally agreed that that was not a useful line of inquiry.

kieth

Posted Fri, Jan 21, 11:44 a.m. Inappropriate

Is it me or just another yak head that is grasping at a mentally ill persons actions to further their personal agenda? And this is a Critical Debate? Almost every sentence has unsubstantiated slant. Crosscut can and should do better.

dman

Posted Fri, Jan 21, 11:51 a.m. Inappropriate

An equally valid take on the Sheriff, partisanship and heated rhetoric: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/IBDEditorials.aspx See: "When Incivility is OK" 1/20/11

afreeman

Posted Fri, Jan 21, 2:20 p.m. Inappropriate

Good point "afreeman"

dman

Posted Fri, Jan 21, 3:10 p.m. Inappropriate

Sheriff Arpaio's approach to law enforcement is on the border between dubious and criminal. He is a grandstander with an agenda. Enter Sheriff Dupnik with different politics but also an agenda. He was using a law enforcement office under color of authority to make political speaches. As my kids would say the posted article is a fail.

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »