• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio forced a woman to give birth while shackled

RyrineaHaruno

RyrineaHaruno

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,827
Reaction score
409
Location
Humble Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsYcbH_RrWc&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- 1803535 arpaiodaaluz 200k[/ame]


She uses the term shackled, in the story. I am not sure about this guy, and if this is true, or not, but if it is then he needs to get the freak out of office. I'll try to find the english version of the story.


I tried to find a better source, but no one is not even not even New YOrk times,


here is the English version
 
Last edited:
She was in custody. People in custody can be shackled, and you don't need your hands to give birth.

Sheriff Arpaio has done a lot of good work, but every once in a while he does something like this more or less as a publicity stunt. Since I don't speak a lick of Spanish, I can't tell if this is one of those cases-- or if there was a valid reason for the suspect to be shackled. In either case, this isn't some gross abuse of power for which he should be removed from office.
 
Last edited:
There is no evidence she was racially profiled. I would assume its standard procedure to have any criminal handcuffed(illegal immigration is crime) who is at a hospital receiving medical treatmentthis is probably so that the criminal does not use this as an opportunity to escape.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
You don't really now how painful, pregnancy is.
Click to expand...

Nor do I care. She was in custody. The timing was a bitch, but these things happen when you get yourself arrested-- if there's evidence that she was falsely arrested, that Sheriff Arpaio or any of his subordinates deliberately broke the law in their treatment of this woman, then I'll care.

The man's a dick. I don't think anybody seriously claims that he isn't. But he does his job.
 
It seems a handful of states are more enlightened. Even Texas!

" Pregnant prisoners will not have to be shackled or handcuffed during medical visits or while they are in labour under a new bill signed into law in New York state.

The use of restraints on pregnant prisoners, even after they go into labour, is widely accepted throughout the United States.

New York will join just five other states - Texas, Illinois, California, Vermont and New Mexico - that ban the practice.

The regulations also prohibit the use of restraints on pregnant prisoners during doctors' visits. ... "

NY ends pregnant prisoner handcuffing
 
My buddy and shift-mate took a suspect to the hospital once, in full shackles: leg irons, belly-chain and handcuffs.

Doc insisted that the handcuffs be removed while he took his BP and pulse. My buddy complied.

The perp KO'ed the doctor, knocked down the Sgt and tried to escape. My buddy grabbed him and wrestled him to the floor. The perp got my bud's gun out of his holster somehow and tried to shoot him with it.

My bro remembered his training, disarmed the perp of the gun, and tossed it to take it "out of play". He and the Sgt then proceeded to, ahem, "Subdue the hell out of the perp".

So thanks and all, but I don't know that I'll criticise Joe Arpaio too harshly without more info.

G.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
You don't really now how painful, pregnancy is.
Click to expand...

Puh-leese. You can lay off with the "you can't understand because you're a man" thing. I've attended a number of childbirths. I've seen some women scream their heads off, I've seen others act like it was nothing.

A woman I know who has had acute gastritis compared it to childbirth. I've had acute gastritis. It hurts a lot. If I was in custody it wouldn't get me un-shackled.
 
If they don't want to be shackled, then don't sneak into this country while pregnant.
 
Arpaio says that if he catches an illegal, he won't "send them to the feds to be deported, he'll just toss them in jail.

That's the real reason why he sucks. He's willing to waste taxpayer dollars housing these illegals just to "teach them a lesson".
 
Toothpicvic said:
Arpaio says that if he catches an illegal, he won't "send them to the feds to be deported, he'll just toss them in jail.

That's the real reason why he sucks. He's willing to waste taxpayer dollars housing these illegals just to "teach them a lesson".
Click to expand...
Doesn't it take more taxpayer dollars to deport them, and in some instances, keep them deported?
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
The Feds are looking in to the unconstitutional round ups of these people. He has been reported repeatedly forced people to sign papers for their deportation WHILE THAT is the people story who failed complaints.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08...duties face limits after complaints - CNN.com

It says almost 3,000 lawsuits have been filed against Arpaio, from employees to people he has arrested.

The Bs meter for what comes out of Arpaio mouth.
Click to expand...

How can it be unconstitutional? These illegals aren't citizens and don't have Constitutional rights.
 
There was some very public controversy about this in Texas last year, when it came to light that most if not all pregnant prisoners are forced to give birth shackled, in some cases not even let up to use the toilet during labor and forced to lie in their own waste.
Many experts have since weighed in on the matter, and all agree that it is not a physically nor a psychologically healthy way to give birth.
Some jails have since discontinued the practice; activist groups are fighting to have it abolished by law.
Unless the woman is a violent criminal who presents some legitimate risk to health care workers or other patients, any flight risk can be mitigated by allowing her to labor unshackled in a secure, guarded room.
Shackles on non-violent offenders in labor and delivery are dehumanizing and necessary.... and misogynistic, also, in my view.

edit:

after a brief Google search, i see that a lot of states are having issues with it. There are dozens of lawsuits pending, from all over the country:

Shackled in labor: ‘Dehumanizing,’ ‘outrageous’ :: The SouthtownStar :: News Kurth Lampe Press Room

Federal Appeals Court Condemns Shackling Of Pregnant Prisoners In Labor | American Civil Liberties Union

"The shackles caused Nelson cramps and intense pain, as she could not adjust her position during contractions. She was unshackled during delivery, but was immediately re-shackled after the birth of her son. After childbirth, the use of shackles caused her to soil the sheets of her bed because she could not be unshackled quickly enough to get to a bathroom.

"Restraining a pregnant woman can pose undue health risks to the woman and her pregnancy," said Diana Kasdan, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Today's decision reaffirms that pregnant women in prison do not lose their right to safe and humane treatment."

Nelson filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against ADOC and several ADOC officials, and a federal district court judge ruled that a jury should decide whether her treatment violated the constitution. A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, dismissed Nelson's case by ruling that her shackling was not unconstitutional. The ACLU represented Nelson in a subsequent hearing before the full Eighth Circuit Court which found that legal precedent clearly establishes the constitutional protections against shackling pregnant women in labor, paving the way for Nelson's lawsuit to go to trial.

"Shackling pregnant women is not only dangerous it is inhumane," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "The importance of this decision cannot be overstated."

The National Perinatal Association, American College of Nurse Midwives, American Medical Women's Association, the Rebecca Project for Human Rights and dozens of other public health and advocacy organizations that are dedicated to protecting the health and rights of women and their children also opposed the prison's shackling of Nelson."
 
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
How can it be unconstitutional? These illegals aren't citizens and don't have Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

They were not all Illegals, they had papers. Most of these, completes were from his employes, and the people of that area. They do have, what is known as HUMAN RIGHTS by the Geneva convention, and the UNTIED NATIONS. Basic Humans rights, were violated in this cases, and many other cases this man has been in.


There was some very public controversy about this in Texas last year, when it came to light that most if not all pregnant prisoners are forced to give birth shackled, in some cases not even let up to use the toilet during labor and forced to lie in their own waste.
Click to expand...
.

I am very aware of this, and many states have outlawed this type of inhuman action. But it will take some time here in Texas to do so.
 
Last edited:
How can it be unconstitutional? These illegals aren't citizens and don't have Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

As the above poster mentioned, one doesn't have to be a citizen to be afforded human rights.
 
How can it be unconstitutional? These illegals aren't citizens and don't have Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

As the above poster mentioned, one doesn't have to be a citizen to be afforded human rights.
This is akin to torture; it is unhealthy for both the mother and the baby.
There is no reason for it. It's a holdover from a time when it was considered appropriate to torture and humiliate prisoners, regardless of whether they were in for murder, or for writing a hot check.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
They do have, what is known as HUMAN RIGHTS by the Geneva convention, and the UNTIED NATIONS. Basic Humans rights, were violated in this cases, and many other cases this man has been in.
Click to expand...

RH, these were your words in post 12:
The Feds are looking in to the unconstitutional round ups of these people.
Click to expand...

You don't say anything about human rights violations. Human rights aren't the same as the Constitutional rights that an American citizen has; therefore human rights of non-American citizens don't apply to the US Constitution.

The Geneva Convention only applies to captured prisoners of war. I didn't know we were at war with Mexico. When did the war start?

Some were American citizens? Really? What were they doing sneaking back into the US when they could have crossed over legally at the legal checkpoints?
 
bicycleman said:
RH, these were your words in post 12:

You don't say anything about human rights violations. Human rights aren't the same as the Constitutional rights that an American citizen has; therefore human rights of non-American citizens don't apply to the US Constitution.

The Geneva Convention only applies to captured prisoners of war. I didn't know we were at war with Mexico. When did the war start?

Some were American citizens? Really? What were they doing sneaking back into the US when they could have crossed over legally at the legal checkpoints?
Click to expand...

Still that what the news arterial states, as it is unconstitutional to violets those human right people have here.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Still that what the news arterial states, as it is unconstitutional to violets those human right people have here.
Click to expand...

Could you cite the part of the Constitution that pertains to the human rights of non-citizens?
 
Human rights apply to all humans by virtue of their humanity, even to those who display little evidence of it's possession..
 
bicycleman said:
Could you cite the part of the Constitution that pertains to the human rights of non-citizens?
Click to expand...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Constitutional Topic: The Preamble - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
:2wave:
 
The key phrase is: We the People of the United States

Notice it does not say, We the illegal aliens who sneaked across the border People of the United States."
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
...of the united states

How are citizens of mexico somehow become "people of the united states"? Geographic location alone?
Click to expand...

When they are over here in the united states they have the same basic HUMAN rights like any one else, thinks to the UN AND basic human laws,..... Oh and we're forgetting that are forefather that came here were ILLEGALS, since the states belonged to the Indians"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom