What Would Lizzie Have Done?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:36 pm

I just heard about this on the news today, Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson has been charging the prisoners rent since 2002! Now it is up to the Superior Court to decide whether its legal or not.

Heres a link to the story:

http://www.tauntongazette.com/site/news ... 4232&rfi=6

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:23 pm

It said this was at the Ash Street jail!
I thought that was gone?
That's kind of a funny Taunton story.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:38 pm

The Ash Street jail is in New Bedford which is also in Bristol County. Lizzie was confined there during the trial.

Where do I go to vote for this sheriff? I'm in total agreement with the concept.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:35 am

There is an Ash Street jail in New Bedford and there is an Ash Street jail in Taunton?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:53 am

I believe the article refers to a State case against the Bristol County Sheriff which just happens to be being tried in Taunton.

This URL shows the two Bristol County jails, the one in No. Dartmouth and the Ash St. jail in New Bedford. Both are under the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff. It lists no others.

http://www.mass.gov/doc/county_info.html

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:24 pm

Ok, I understand- thanks!

If family's had to pay for the prisoner's fees maybe they would be more careful in bringing up their children?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:12 pm

The sheriff is elected by the voters of all of Bristol County. Tom Hodgson, a Republican, has been quite controversial. A while back he instituted "chain gang" type work crews, which stirred things up. The rent is another issue that has been in the news a lot.

The Ash Street Jail is alive and well, two or three blocks west of the New Bedford Superior Court building. It looks pretty much the same as it did when Lizzie stayed in the women's quarters there in 1893.

By the way, folks, did you know that Sheriff Hodgson's official "spokesman" and PR guy is former Pro-Jo reporter Bernie Sullivan?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:01 pm

So he is still alive and kicking? That's good news!

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:35 am

I find it interesting that a county sheriff has someone to handle "PR."

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:50 am

I thought the same, too, Doug when I read the sheriff has a PR guy. But if he is so controversial, I guess he had to have one to keep things to a dull roar and to free him up to be able to do his job.

I like to think of myself as a fair and compassionate person. I think it's appropriate for prisoners to be charged rent. Why not? Why should we taxpayers pay for their room and board? I wish this idea would catch on.

What does the opposite side say? It's cruel? Inhuman?

The jail Lizzie stayed at ... during the trial, right? I never thought about where she stayed in New Bedford. Does anyone have any photos of it?
A reason to make another trip to FR!!!! Thanks!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:09 pm

augusta @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:50 am wrote:The jail Lizzie stayed at ... during the trial, right? I never thought about where she stayed in New Bedford. Does anyone have any photos of it?

Below are two a photos of the jail. It is still there and I believe the oldest jail in Massachusetts. You may want to check the first edition of The Hatchet. I (modestly, he said) wrote an article on her stay. "Prisoner 3517".

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 3:25 pm

Thank you for the great pictures, Har!
And yea that was a cool article!
The book page where you found Lizzie's number was really neat!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:18 pm

Last week when I was taking my daughter to the Buttonwood Park Zoo at the top of Union Street in New Bedford, I paid particular attention to both Knowlton's house at 350 Union St. and the jail about a block west.

I don't know what street the picture postcard view of Harry's was taken from. . .maybe the Court Street side. From Union Street you mostly see massive brick walls topped with razor wire.

Next time I pass by, if I have my camera, I'll get some shots. (Last time I said that about 19 green Street, Fairhaven, Tracy had to came all the way from Utah and beat me to it, so don't hold your breaths.)

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:25 pm

OK FairhavenGuy...does this mean I need to make another trip to Massachusetts ? OK...OK...quit twisting my arm ! Ouch...LOL.

Tracy...

sarashane · Post by **sarashane** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:16 am

Hello, I'm new to this forum and loving it. Charging prisoners rent? Fantastic idea! Why should criminals get a free ride, while all us law abiders are working for what we have?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:27 am

Hi Sara!
I like it when older topics get revived- thanks!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:30 am

Hi, Sarashane, welcome to the forum!

weber · Post by **weber** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:17 am

I live in Phoenix, AZ where the county sheriff is "Sheriff Joe" Arpio (sp?). You may have read about him in the national news. He is the one who made all of the prisoners wear pink underwear, regularly has chain gangs cleaning highway rubbish, feeds them the same meal everyday (which is bologna sandwiches for lunch), houses them in a tent city (which in the summer at 112 is fairly hot), charges them rent and for their food, has pink handcuffs now (too many regular ones were disappearing) and has purchased an army tank and mounted a 90 mm gun on top in case he needs to shoot down terrorists. There is more but this is what comes to mind right away. He is in his 70s and keeps getting re-elected even though he has cost the taxpayers millions in lawsuits(prisoners have a way of dying in his care).

Some of it I certainly go along with but the tank and gun was over the top! I haven't seen anything evidence that all of this prevents second-offenders- at least not in AZ!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:26 am

Yep I've read about Sheriff Joe. My Criminal Justice professors all wish his ideas would catch on to the rest of the country

. We have talked about him in class a great deal. The general consensus is that we need more guys like Sheriff Joe in that we are far to easy on the inmates today. Anything that could be considered actual punishment, is deemed "cruel and unusual". Why not use chain gangs? Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson has the right idea also.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:27 pm

It is very interesting to me to see people advocating for tougher treatment of people in county jails. A place where the majority of people are NOT convicted of a crime but awaiting trial. As far as I am concerned it is OK to charge a nominal rent for people serving time on convicted sentences in a county jail situation. However-- the inmates of the jail I work in are forced to pay for medications and other necessities. If they do not have money they can receive as needed medication at the county's expense--but if monies do get deposited in their account any medications, postage, etc is deducted at that time. I think this is unfair on non-convicted inmates and makes a mockery out of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept of our judicial system.

Many of you may think I am too liberal. But I see human beings being treated terribly. Poor food, inadequate air temps, ill fitting clothing, not even the simple things like a napkin or salt and pepper at mealtimes. No privacy and being demeaned and talked down to all the time...

It truly makes me wonder why anyone would think you can treat a person like this and then expect them not to be pissed off, bitter and likely to re-offend.

Tougher treatment of criminals only makes the people treating them poorly feel better. I do not think it has a positive affect on recidivism rates.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:56 pm

Audrey @ Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:27 pm wrote:
Many of you may think I am too liberal. But I see human beings being treated terribly. Poor food, inadequate air temps, ill fitting clothing, not even the simple things like a napkin or salt and pepper at mealtimes. No privacy and being demeaned and talked down to all the time...

It truly makes me wonder why anyone would think you can treat a person like this and then expect them not to be pissed off, bitter and likely to re-offend.

Tougher treatment of criminals only makes the people treating them poorly feel better. I do not think it has a positive affect on recidivism rates.

Are you talking about those who have not been covicted? Because I do not see where making a person convicted of a crime as comfortable as he wants to be will help recidivism rates either. Where would the punishment be in that? I do not think that being in jail should be an enjoyable experience. That's why it's prison. No salt? No pepper? No napkin? Bad food? If they have been convicted of a crime and are there to do the time, big deal. Prison is supposed to be hard. I do not think the idea that they are pissed off is the reason for the recidivism rate. I think it's the idea that they were in prison to start with, and therefore are labeled as a criminal from that time on. This record follows them making it hard for them to get a job to support themselves or their families once they are released. They are descrimated against for having a record. Or, if they spend any great amount of time in incarceration, they become institutionalized can no longer deal with being outside the prison walls. But the idea that prison was hard so they got pissed off doesn't make sense, well to me anyway. Why should it be easy? They are there to be punished, thats the whole idea behind it, not just to take a vacation from the outside world. I have heard opinions on how inmates should be treated that make it sound as if they are spending a few years at a country club. I find this appalling.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:04 am

Weber, are the prisoners Sheriff Joe puts on a chain gang, not yet convicted, but awaiting trial?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:16 am

I thought I made it clear that I was speaking of non convicted inmates in a county jail and not in a prison serving a sentence.

I would be happy to consider changing my opinion if just once-- someone could show me a viable statistic proving that a tough on crime attitude actually lowers the crime rate! Just one!

As a criminal justice student you should be very well aware of the difference between jail and prison, but I will explain it.

A jail is where a person awaits trial and/or conviction. A prison is where they go once they have been found guilty or pleaded guilty and are sentenced to go to serve their time. Some inmates in county jails are serving relatively short sentences for time periods of perhaps 30-90 days. In Iowa, a person can only be in a county jail for 364 days. Any more and they have to be sentenced to prison.

When I was studying for my criminology degree at Harvard we met with and interviewed men and women who had been in prison and county jails. Every single one of them told us that they would have preferred to be in prison versus a county jail. In prison they have jobs and can be outside. Most would have been happy to serve on a chain gang when in "county" as they could have gone outside. It is worth noting that jail where a person is presumed innocent (in most cases).

I believe there are better ways to make America a safer place to live-- and being tougher on crime is not one of them.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:36 am

Yes, I am aware of the difference. I did not need it explained to me. I just was not sure to which you were refering,so I asked. The rest was just me expressing my own opinion. I thought I was permitted to do so.And I do realize after rereading my above post that I put the word "jail" in once where I should have put "prison".But I was expressing my opinion basically to your statement that:

"Tougher treatment of criminals only makes the people treating them poorly feel better. I do not think it has a positive affect on recidivism rates."

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:42 am

And you are right... I was a bit vehement in my opinions--- This is a "passionate" issue, no?

Do forgive my deplorable manners.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:50 am

I have not talked to one person yet who didn't think so.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:38 am

Didn't think what? I'm confused?

I asked about jail vs. prison from weber as it referred to the habits of her sheriff. Somehow my post question got in the middle of you'all. Sorry.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:52 am

Allen @ Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:50 am wrote:I have not talked to one person yet who didn't think so.

I understand the rest but to what does this one sentence refer, please?

weber · Post by **weber** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:31 am

The following is a short example of the dictatorship which Sherrif Joe runs here. I do believe that the "jail" is housing both not convicted folks and those convicted serving time in the county jail rather than state prison. I also think that the chain gang folks are of the convicted ilk.

The Arizona Republic
Jan. 13, 2004 12:00 AM

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, citing war and terrorism concerns, said Monday that he is ordering all undocumented immigrants currently in jail to register for the draft.

"My point is if you come here illegally and you are going to receive benefits from this great country, the United States of America, you should follow the law and register for the Selective Service. And if you get called up, you should fight for this country,"Arpaio said.

There are about 500 undocumented immigrants housed in the county's jail system who have not complied with a 1980 federal law that requires all young men between 18 and 26 to register for the draft, regardless of their immigration status, Arpaio said. An additional 2,300 inmates, out of 8,700 total inmates, will also be ordered to register because they failed to do so earlier, Arpaio said. Arpaio will begin registering the inmates Wednesday at Tent City.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:01 am

I worked for a year as a registered nurse in a state medium security prison in Maryland. I had to leave because I just couldn't bear the way the inmates were treated. The guards seem to want to hit these people when they're down, which is deplorable. So many times, in many different ways they loved to demean and degrade the men. Even if the men are in prison they should be treated with some measure of respect, as every human being should be. I was so disgusted with the majority of the guards. In fact, I myself got more respect from the inmates than I did from the guards. I saw some of the inmates ignored for weeks and weeks when they were in pain and desperately needed care. I saw them suffering terribly from toothaches for months because no one would schedule them for care. I saw men die because their conditions were not taken seriously until it was too late. I was ashamed to be asociated with such cruel people. A lot of this is swept under the rug and no one knows what goes on there. When I hear about how good inmates have it I want to scream because it is not true. Even animals are treated better than some of the things I saw.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:20 pm

Audrey @ Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:42 am wrote:This is a "passionate" issue, no?

I have not talked to one person yet who did not think so.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:27 pm

Here is the rest of that article that weber posted:

"I can't say that I've ever heard anything like this, but we do appreciate any effort toward compliance," said Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service System in Washington, D.C.

Arizona's compliance rate is about 83 percent, compared with 90 percent nationally, Amon said.

The country's draft ended 30 years ago and was replaced by an all-volunteer military. Although some members of Congress have proposed reinstating the draft, the Department of Defense recently concluded the draft was not needed to fight the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq, Amon said. Technically, Arpaio cannot force inmates to register because federal law exempts prison inmates from registering for the draft until after they are released, Amon said.

Nevertheless, Amon said, "I think your sheriff may be doing these individuals a favor because registering for the Selective Service is tied to a number of benefits including (citizenship). If they are illegals and they want to (legalize) their status, the first thing they would be asked is whether they registered for the Selective Service."

Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox agreed, saying, "This could be a pathway to permanent residence."

http://www.notinourname.net/detentions/ ... 3jan04.htm

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:35 pm

Weber I do not understand how this makes him a "dictator". All men in the United States between those ages are by law required to register for Selective Service. When my son turns 18 he will be required to do so also. I believe that if anyone comes to this country with the intention of living and working here, they should have to follow the laws just like anyone else. Regardless of whether or not you feel he is a "dictator", if you read the rest of the article, if they want to become a U.S citizen they would be required to do so anyway.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:26 pm

I don't see anything wrong with it either.

In my day registration was a given and it was a 6 year obligation. You had two choices - 2 years active duty + 2 years active reserve + 2 years inactive duty.

OR

3 years active duty + 3 years inactive duty.

The active reserve duty consisted of a 2 week hitch each summer attached to an active unit. In the first "option" you were drafted, in the second you volunteered.

So lets just say I have little sympathy for someone who just has to register. Besides if they did have to go, a little military would do them a world of good.

Miller · Post by **Miller** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:47 pm

The nation didn't suffer with a draft. But there's little to no patriotism taught to young people anymore.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:32 pm

this thread reminds me of being 17 years old at a drive-in movie with my girlfriends (38 years ago) and young men in the car next to us saying "do you
want to marry me so I can avoid the draft?" Maybe
that was why there were so many marraiges back then, and now... we can't get my neice married off at age 30 and she is beautiful! Men aren't desperate anymore, darn.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:29 pm

Nancie.