The Instigator
FishAndChips21
Con (against)
The Contender
BMyers
Pro (for)

The Pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
FishAndChips21 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 103682
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

FishAndChips21

Con

Just to be clear: I am against this pardoning

Rules
1.) No swearing, personal attacks, etc. this is common sense
2.) No mentioning of Hillary Clinton, Obama, etc. (unless it DIRECTLY relates to your argument) stay on topic
3.) For your "facts" use reliable links to back them up, if you do not have a source, your claim is immediately assumed to be false by me and the readers. I will call you out.
4.) No calling opponents' links "Fake News" WITHOUT showing HOW they're fake (i.e. show opposing evidence). I am tired of this brainless calling of whatever you disagree with "Fake News". It's sickening
5.) Follow the structure of the debate, manipulating the structure of the debate to your advantage will result in an immediate disqualification.
6.) No trolling, tlking lke dis, etc. Take this debate seriously

Breaking ANY of these rules will result in an immediate disqualifaction of me or my opponent (unless it is a minor/innocent mistake, obviously).

Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance ONLY. If you wish to put defintions, you may.
Round 2 - Each side presents his/her claims. Since my opponent replies after me, I warn him/her to NOT post anything responding to my claims.
Round 3 - Rebuttals
Round 4 - Closing arguments/statements; no NEW arguments

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting the debate

BMyers

Pro

I accept your challenge - and thank you very much for posting this challenge and the clear structure for this debate.

***Off the Record - Not involved in ANY way as pertaining to this debate. ***This is a personal opinion I would like to share as I feel, after I explain, is relevant to my motivation for acceptance. I also agree with you, and as a person I am very opposed to it as well (including the timing of it)

Please review my recent debates for a clearer understanding in what I have been seeking on this site.

This, to me, seems like an INCREDIBLE challenge and an exercise in seeking a personal equilibrium on this specific topic. I accept on the grounds that I want to overcome the toughest obstacles in debate. This challenge is being driven by passion - not for this situation, but passion for pushing myself in being the most versatile debater I can mold myself into. Egotistically (which may be my downfall) I only trust myself to provide the best argument in defense of President Trump issuing an executive pardon on Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Let us have a great debate - I am eagerly looking forward to this and you already have my high respect.

I agree to comply with your format and will opt to not provide definitions for this debate as the topic is self explanatory with the verb having no controversial interpretation of meaning.
Debate Round No. 1
FishAndChips21

Con




Point 1 - Unethical behavior of Sheriff Arpaio

Prior to the allegations against Sheriff Arpaio for racially profiling Latinos as illegal immigrants, the Sheriff was known for several other “unorthodox” styles of running prison. Such as requiring inmates to wear pink underwear or forcing inmates to stay in tents during the blistering Arizona summers [1]. Or the fact that there were two meatless meals a day that were served with the Food Channel purposely on, or even the fact that Arpaio referred to the prison once as a “concentration camp”. [2]

This stuff isn’t technically illegal, but it gives you a clear insight to how disgusting of a person Arpaio is and the irony of Trump’s statements that Arpaio is a “patriotic man” who “does his job protecting Arizona”. I just don’t know how you can defend a man like that, let alone PRESIDENTIALLY PARDON.



Here are more instances

Prisoners in his jails died often; often without no explanation

An inmate who was paraplegic and asked for a catheter almost had his neck broken by one of his jailers

He botched hundreds of sex crimes cases of underage girls, oh and ... one of his “sheriff’s posse” was indicted for child pornography

He marched only Latinx prisoners into a segregated area with electric fencing

A black woman horrifically lost her baby in his jail

A prisoner baked to death in his cell at a temperature of 109 degrees

He sent a deputy to Hawaii to “look for Barack Obama’s birth certificate”

He was ordered to pay the Phoenix New Times co-founders $3.75 million dollars for false arrests

His people killed a puppy in a botched SWAT raid. [3]

This is only scratching the surface, however. Let’s get into what got Sheriff Arpaio actually in trouble. In the early 2000’s, Sheriff Arpaio began to try to tackle the problem of illegal immigration. While you might argue that this focus became a success, due to the hundreds of actual illegal immigrants arrested, violent crimes went unfunded since the Sheriff blew his entire budget on illegal immigration. Sex crimes and other violent crimes were not able to be investigated until much later [4]. Further, due to the recession and dispute with local authorities for the budget on illegal immigrations, taxpayers in maricopa county ended up having to pay $44 Million dollars due to the abundance of infighting, lawsuits, etc. [5]

However, “In 2011, the Justice Department concluded the sheriff’s office engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos”. Essentially, Mr. Arpaio here detained individuals simply for suspecting that they were illegal immigrants without these said individuals breaking ANY state law. [6]
Imagine being pulled over and being questioned whether or not you’re an illegal immigrant simply because you are Latino. Do you know how humiliating that is? How disrespectful that is? How downright racist that is? If that isn’t racial profiling, I don’t know what is. Further, even though U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow told Arpaio to stop racially profiling Latinos, Arpaio brazenly ignored this order and continued this practice. Consequently, he was convited of criminal contempt [7]

However, luckily for him, our idiot in chief pardoned him.


Point 2 - Very Similar views to Trump
Now why did Trump pardon Sheriff Arpaio?

Maybe because Sheriff Arpaio also questioned Obama’s birth record? [8]

Maybe because Sheriff Arpaio was the face of illegal immigration crackdown as we have already seen?

Further, in the Iowa Cacus in 2016, Arpaio officially endorsed Donald Trump in his run for president, stating “I have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal immigration. I know Donald Trump will stand with me and countless Americans to secure our border." Arpaio was even given a speaking slot in the Republican convention and could have potentially become the head of the department of Homeland Security. He even sent “thank you notes” to Donald Trump for questioning Obama’s birth record [9]

The similarity between these two is simply conspicuous.









Point 3 - Timing

I don’t know, maybe I’m insane, but doesn’t it seem just a bit suspicious that this pardoning took place is the mist of the hurricane heading right for the state of texas? While the entirety of Congress and the government as a whole is trying to find ways to help Texas, Trump pardons the Sheriff. While this isn’t a fact, it SEEMS that Trump is hiding behind the hurricane.
I’m not the only one who sees it like this, Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer accused Trump of “using the cover of the storm” to pardon Sheriff Arpaio [10].
If this is true - which, in my opinion, seems it is - then this is undeniably weak, sad, and just plain cowardly. Further, he didn’t even consult with the Justice Department; this isn’t illegal, but it also raises eyebrows. [11]


Conclusion



As the reader can see, the Sheriff has had a long history of unethical behvaior, criminal accusations, etc. and shows very similar views to Trump, even going as far as to endorse him or write him "Thank-you" notes. Consequently, Trump decides to immediately pardon (not even consulting the Justice Department, where the pardon goes under tedious evaluation for months) him for apparent personal reasons. Even going as far as lying to the public through his very teeth by calling the Sheriff a "patriotic man" while the entirety of the government is focusing on the hurricane heading right to Texas. The Sheriff should NOT be able to get away from racially profiling Lations simply because Donald Trump "likes him", it is a disgusting abuse of power that should not be tolerated. The discrimantory behavior that the Sheriff manifests is nearly unconsutional and should be ABOLISHED from this nation where the founding principles are based on EQUALITY. Stoping latinos at traffic lights and accusing them of being illegal immigrants on the sole reason that they are Lations... I just have no words for that, it is has no place in this nation. I can not believe that people can call themselves religious, and yet hide their eyes from the blatant rascism that exists both in Trump and the Sheriff, even though practically all religions preach equality. I can not believe that people call themselves PATRIOTIC and yet hide their eyes from the destruction of our founding principles. I can not believe that people call themselves AMERICANS and yet hide their eyes in utter ignorance, calling anything they disagree with fake news.

I just simply can't comprehend what is happening to this nation.

Links



[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com...






[2] - https://www.nytimes.com...






[3] - http://www.theroot.com...






[4] - https://www.washingtonpost.com...






[5] - http://nocache.azcentral.com...






[6] - https://www.nytimes.com...






[7] - https://www.washingtonpost.com...






[8] - http://www.cnn.com...






[9] - http://www.cnn.com...






[10] - https://www.nytimes.com...






[11] - http://www.cnn.com...










BMyers

Pro

"The conviction of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt is being serially misrepresented" [1]

After days of research, personal thought and deliberation this is the ultimate/ugly truth of this situation that I am forced to accept. Why? Because after looking into the details and specifics regarding this case there is only "cold, ugly truth" at the end of the tunnel.
Is/Was Sheriff Arpaio a bigot, racist, extreme conservative, and just about every other vile social label representing a former way of life we want out of this culture? Yes.
The cold ugly truth " Your personal flaws do not matter, nor do they go into consideration when the US Due Process is applied to each citizen. Sheriff Arpaio may be a "bad person" by many people"s opinion " but being a "bad person" does not forfeit your rights protected under American Law.

With this preamble complete I would like to explain and provide defense in the pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

1 " Actual crime committed.
Taking away the 24-hour news narrative and looking at the details of this case through strict/cold legal interpretation we learn the true crime that was documented against Sheriff Arpaio was that ultimately "he was ordered not to enforce federal law. In the underlying civil case, federal Judge G. Murray Snow did find that Arpaio had unconstitutionally used race in making traffic stops in an effort to find illegal immigrants. In fact, it was the central finding in the civil case. Snow"s remedial orders, however, went far beyond simply forbidding the use of race in initial traffic stops. He ordered Arpaio to get out of the immigration enforcement business altogether. Even with a legal stop, Arpaio was to either charge people with a state crime or let them go. No detaining them or turning them over to federal officials for immigration violations. [1]"
For clarity " the Judge"s orders as a result of the civil case *which is NOT the crime Sheriff Arpaio is pardoned from, key point to remember* was for Sheriff Arpaio to "stand down unless a state crime was committed" thus ignoring US Federal law when handling immigration issues on stops [2].
Here we are " the key conflict Sheriff Arpaio was faced with. Personal opinions and feeling aside, his next 170 stops and turn-ins to ICE are the "crime" committed to be in "contempt of court orders."
"Arpaio repeatedly said publicly he was still going to enforce federal immigration laws. He turned in more than 170 people to federal immigration officials without charging them with state crimes. He told a subordinate that if Immigration and Customs Enforcement wouldn"t take illegal immigrants that the sheriff"s office encountered, to take them to the Border Patrol. [1]"
And this is it " the ugly truth. The crime of "contempt of court orders" is this " He turned in people, upholding federal law over state law, when ordered not to turn in any more people.
The crime: Misdemeanor, Criminal Contempt of Court
How did he commit this crime? By not charging any of the people he [legally/illegally] stopped of any state crimes and upheld the acting federal law [2] by turning in "suspicious persons" [2] to "appropriate authorities" [2]. Classic case of the "Supremacy Clause" (Art 6 Clause 2 " US Const.) in effect. Sheriff Arpaio was under oath stuck between a rock and hard place.
"[Judge] Snow"s order was a gross overreach. Federal law grants local law enforcement the authority to check on the immigration status of individuals that come to their attention with federal officials. And state law " the provision of Senate Bill 1070 that has so far been upheld " mandates that local law enforcement follow-up on suspicion of illegal presence when practical to do so. [4]"
2 " Never Given a Trial
This is easy and to the point " he was charged with a crime without having a trial by jury. Simple " this was a violation of his civil liberties (do I need to provide sources for this argument? 6th amendment?) There are no exceptions and no crime is too large/small " each citizen accused of a crime has the RIGHT to trial by jury. Sheriff Joe Arpaio did not receive one. He was not convicted by a jury [of his peers] but rather that of a single judge. "The Constitution says that there should be a jury in all criminal trials. The courts have invented an exception for cases with a penalty of six months or less in the hoosegow. The maximum penalty for Arpaio happens to be six months. So, Arpaio was cheated out of a jury trial, which might very well have yielded a different outcome. [4]"
"The U.S. Constitution couldn"t be plainer on the subject. The Sixth Amendment states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ""
In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court found (Baldwin v. New York) that "all" didn"t really mean "all." The court found a magical line hidden in the text. "All" actually meant criminal cases in which the potential penalty was more than six months incarceration. Six months or less in the hoosegow, no right to a jury trial.
Actually, only three of eight justices participating concluded that there was a magical six-month exception to the right to a jury trial. But because of the way the concurring and dissenting opinions split, the plurality six-month magical line became the controlling opinion, and remains so through to today.
And guess what? The maximum penalty Arpaio is facing is six months. He falls short of Baldwin"s magical line. [5]"
"From the start, this case has been a battle between the executive and judicial branches over proper immigration enforcement. The judge refused to grant the sheriff a jury to prove his innocence, even though the law clearly entitled him to one, assuring his conviction from the start.
Sheriff Joe was forced to try a criminal contempt of court case with his hands tied behind his back. This was like trying a crime to the victim, since the court claimed to be the victim. [5]"
Again"cold hard truth " for all the RIGHT reasons that may not feel right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was denied basic civil protections. Even if his conviction is for all the "correct reasons" there are proper ways in which we operate to enforce our laws " it is what separates us from others, and what makes Democracy, Justice, and Liberty so precious. The legal procedure failed here, and Sheriff Arpaio ultimately is a victim to this point " point blank simple: By being an American citizen charged with a crime, he was denied a trial by jury. We cannot allow this " it isn"t American Democratic Justice.
Each citizen is allowed to defend their innocence " Sheriff Arpaio was not able to exercise that Right and was convicted of a crime against our founding policies.
For argument"s sake " here is a Sheriff Arpaio going on the record requesting a Jury Trial (https://www.usnews.com...)

3 " Legality of the Pardon
For this point, I explored the actual "legality" President Trump has in executing such an order for Sheriff Arpaio. What I found was, "Yes " Sheriff Arpaio receiving a presidential pardon was completely legal." [3] (Follow source 3 for a full explanation and processes of pardoning. This is the US Dept of Justice site for this exact thing " including information pertaining to Sheriff Arpaio"in fact (https://www.justice.gov...)
What I am meaning by argument point number 3 is that " in the cold/hard facts of Law, pardoning Sheriff Arpaio is LEGAL. Since such action is permissible, and has been enforced " it is binding. It is the truth of our reality. To save myself from arguing in circles and including quite a few hypotheticals"I ultimately have to accept the Truth.

4 " Comparison to other presidential pardons and the implications against society"s security by those actions.
To save time"I"ll just provide a brief list and link to follow. Let"s look at the nature of "perspective" in who has been given a presidential pardon. Keep in mind Sheriff Arpaio was charged with Misdemeanor Criminal Contempt of Court.
http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com...
Roger Clinton Jr " Pres. Clinton
Aslam P. Adams " Pres. George H.W. Bush
Marc Rich " Pres. Clinton
Richard Nixon " Pres. Ford
Mark Felt/ Ed Miller " Pres. Reagan
Jimmy Hoffa " Pres. Nixon
"can anybody argue in the same scope for/against Sheriff Arpaio and these men??? Is the pardoning of a 50 year law enforcement experienced veteran a greater act against security than who have been pardoned in the past?

5 " Root Cause to the Problem was in 2010, then 2012 with Justice Scalia foretelling these problems to come.
In 2010 DHS released a detailed report regarding the cost of smuggling along the southwestern border of the USA. In this report the details show that along the Arizona border the cost are significantly greater than any other in the SW border. This report postulates that, "an increase in the cost of smuggling dictates an effective enforcement of immigration policy, making it more expensive for the smuggling industry to achieve their goal. [6]" (I"ll leave the entire report for your reading pleasure) In 2012 US vs Ariz dictated an outcome that Justice Scalia goes on the record in stating the "assault on logic" [7] that is imposed when "ignoring intelligence agencies statistics on immigration and law enforcement policies. [7]"

Conclusion - Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a person that does not have any more service to our society. He Is, by all accounts, a vile and detestable human being"nevertheless, that does not disqualify him from his civil liberties and rights by being a citizen in this land. Considering all the FACTS and acknowledging the "devil is in the details" " regardless of my opinion, the presidential pardon for Sheriff Arpaio was correct and by all accounts an act of "Pure Justice" in our American Judicial/Legal System.

Sources
[1] http://www.azcentral.com...
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov... *note, due to an executive order on Jan. 25, 2017 you have to click in archives to find the standing order for border security (during the time Sheriff Arpaio was in contempt of court)
[3] https://www.justice.gov...
*fun source - here is one of the actual qualifiers which puts Sheriff Arpaio into the approved category for pardons " Arpaio v Obama , et al. (Appeal from US Dist. Court)
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov...
[4] http://www.azcentral.com...
[5] http://www.azcentral.com...
[6] https://www.dhs.gov...
[7] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FishAndChips21 10 months ago
FishAndChips21
He didn't get a jury because his maximum sentence was 6 months... You don't get a jury under that situation

See this is the problem with modern society. They take something they know absolutely nothing about, draw false conclusions, and get ANGRY off of those false conclusions.
Posted by ILikePie5 10 months ago
ILikePie5
America's Sheriff deserved a Pardon. He didn't even get a jury, and was straight up convicted by an Obama appointee.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.