9th Circuit Questions Constitutionality of Sheriff Joe's Pink Underwear Policy

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals questions the constitutionality of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's policy of forcing male inmates to wear pink underwear.

It's a sad story. The opinion is here. The inmate, Eric Vogel, a paranoid, delusional, psychotic detainee, never convicted of any crime, is dead. Here's what happened. [More...]

Eric Vogel was 36. He had been suffering from mental illness since he was in the second grade. His parents pulled him out of school and kept him at home. He rarely left the home -- on a few occasions he attended funerals for relatives. His house had blankets over the windows so no one could see in.

One day, he left the house for no apparent reason. Police were looking for a burglar in the neighborhood and saw him. He seemed like a possible suspect to them. Their stop of him escalated into them trying to physically control him. He yelled "Kill me" and then said he had to speak to the President. The officers said they could oblige him, and took him to the jail -- Sheriff Joe's Maricopa County jail. He was booked for assault on a police officer.

He was interviewed at the jail, placed on a psychiatric hold and put in an isolation cell with a big window where he was observable by all.

The next morning, he was assessed by a psychological counselor who determined he was "disoriented, paranoid, and psychotic." The counselor obtained an order transferring him to the jail's inpatient psychiatric unit.

That afternoon, jailers told him he had to "dress out" into prison garb which included pink underwear. He refused.

The “dress-out” prison officer summoned assistance — four other officers, each to hold an arm or a leg while Vogel’s clothes were changed. He was placed on the ground, stripped of all his clothes, and forced into the jail ensemble including the pink underwear. As the process went on, he shouted that he was being raped. The officers were aware that he was being transferred to the Psychiatric Unit. At the end of the “dress-out” Vogel was wheeled there in “a restraint chair.”

Vogel received treatment for a week and was then bailed out by his mother. On December 6, 2001, he was in his mother’s car when she had a minor traffic accident. He was told that there was a warrant for his arrest for spitting on an officer during the dress-out, so he might be returned to jail. Hearing that the police were coming, he ran four or five miles from the car. He died the next day. The cause, according to the Maricopa County Medical Examiner, was acute cardiac arrhythmia.

The family sued. Their expert (who the judge improperly kept from testifying) was of the opinion his death resulted from "cardiac arrhythmia intensified by an increase in schizophrenia and that that increase in schizophrenia was “likely” due to Vogel’s recollection of his treatment at the jail and his fear of returning to it. The appeals court ruled it was error to bar the testimony as hearsay:

Indisputably, Wagner could have testified at trial about the impact the jail incident had on Vogel, how his mood was following the incident, how disturbed he seemed, and even what he thought happened to him during the incident, all without putting inadmissible hearsay before the jury. None of this testimony would have been put forth in order to establish the truth of what he had said. Wagner proposed to testify about how extremely delusional Vogel was following the incident, and more importantly, the emotional impact the incident had on him, including how humiliated he now felt by the pink underwear. She was not asserting the truth of anything that Vogel said had happened to him in jail....Exclusion of this evidence was erroneous and fatally prejudicial.

Even the defense, in its reply brief, said "“No one disputes the general proposition that persons with severe schizophrenia have an increased incidence of the kind of arrhythmia that killed Vogel. Everyone agrees that Vogel’s underlying mental illness was the factor that induced the cardiac arrhythmia.” They said it couldn't be proven the pink underwear caused the increased schizophrenia. (The trial court wouldn't let the Vogel's family or its experts mention the underwear was pink. )

The court sent the case back to the trial court on a remand. Even though neither party had raised the issue of whether the pink underwear is always a violation of due process when applied to persons not convicted of a crime, it invited the trial court to do so.

It appears to us that this question is still open for exploration at trial on remand. Alternatively, the plaintiff may prevail on the narrower proposition that to apply this procedure
automatically to a man known by his jailors to be in need of psychiatric treatment was itself a violation of due process. Because of the evidentiary rulings of the trial court neither
issue was presented to the jury.

So what's wrong with the pink underwear in the court's view?

When a color of such symbolic significance is selected for jail underwear, it is difficult to believe that the choice of color was random. The County offers no penalogical reason, indeed no explanation whatsoever for its jail’s odd choice. Given the cultural context, it is a fair inference that the color is chosen to symbolize a loss of masculine identity and power, to stigmatize the male prisoners as feminine.

...Unexplained and undefended, the dress-out in pink appears to be punishment without legal justification.

As applied to a mentally ill arrestee like Vogel, the court says:

That Vogel was delusional does not mean that he was incapable of seeing. If you pricked him, he bled. Just as his eyes saw the pink, so his mind made the association of the color.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a disgrace. It's time for him to go.

Here's the Justice Department's finding that his office engages in unconstitutional policing, including racial profiling.

Specifically, we find that MCSO, through the actions of its deputies, supervisory staff, and command staff, engages in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and arrests Latinos; and unlawfully retaliates against individuals who complain about or criticize MCSO's policies or practices.

He's facing a separate civil racial-profiling lawsuit in Arizona, in which this week he moved to exclude citizen complaints and letters from evidence at trial on grounds they were "racially or ethnically discriminatory or insensitive" and hearsay.

< Tonight . . . On The Breitbart Follies | More Hacking Indictments Coming? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    With you here: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 07:49:41 AM EST
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a disgrace. It's time for him to go

    arpaio (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by finnegan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:26:05 AM EST
    I'm thinking that Sheriff Arpaio gets a sexual thrill from seeing young men in pink underwear.

    Really? Snopes? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    That article is confirming that
    an Arizona sheriff dismissed prisoners' "bellyaching" about the heat by pointing out that soldiers in Iraq cope with similar situations

    quotations mine.  It is validating that he made the claim.  It is not validating the claim itself. So

    1. I'm not sure what hoax you are trying to limn, and
    2. what does this have to do with Eric Vogel, and
    3. Really? Snopes?

    This is a diversion and a non-sequitur so I won't be tracking this comment thread anymore.

    it has nothing to do (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    with the issue and Jim's comment and link to something about Iraq has been deleted. Jim, please move to another thread, you are blog-clogging and off topic and chattering.

    More on Sharif Joe (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    The Atlantic online

    Prisoner beatings, torture, deaths. Latino harassment and lack of protection of the law

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    for all the people saying pink underwear isn't a problem - you're right.  The pink underwear itself isn't a problem.  Just like the dead skin cells under your cast that itch aren't really a health problem.  However, they are symptoms of a larger problem, in this case, a man who likes to humiliate prisoners, in the other case, a broken arm.

    Should we be focusing more on the real disease?  Probably.  But this post does focus on the larger disease that is Sherrif Joe's version of "justice".

    I wonder.... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    if the people cool with the pink would be ok with the sheriff forcing them to wear big ol' clown shoes and a red nose.

    Don't get bogged down in the pink people, its about the sheriff treating the prisoners in his care like his doll collection, his personal playthings.  It is disgusting.

    It's about the sheriff (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    Being a small-minded, vengeful, self-righteous, sadistic bully, just because he can be.  I agree- the pink underwear is really a minor distraction compared to the rest of his disgusting tactics.  The way they treated an obviously mentally ill person is particularly nasty, but it's all of a piece with Arpaio's overall treatment of prisoners.

    The sheriff is a bully - in a trade (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 01:32:08 PM EST
     that attracts more than its share of bullies and sociopaths.

    Forcing a mentally impaired person (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 08:50:54 AM EST
    to dress in a way that causes a problem is one thing.

    Forcing a ordinary prisoner to dress in a way he doesn't like is completely different.

    Utter crap (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sj on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    Simply because one is detained, doesn't not entitle "authorities" to engage in whatever demeaning behavior they wish.  There are standards and guidelines for a reason.  Moreover, the fact that one is detained is no indicator that the detainee has, in fact, committed a crime.  Other than the "crime" of annoying the police.  Maybe s/he has, maybe s/he hasn't.  

    The mere fact that a person has been arrested doesn't give authorities free reign to impose whatever humiliating thing he can think of.  In fact, the mere fact that a person has been convicted doesn't give authorities free reign to impose whatever humiliating thing he can think of.  In spite of how they have so carefully tried to desensitize society to that fact so that people (like you?  I don't know) can overlook it and pontificate otherwise.


    I see your point (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    but I can also see that the state has the right to dress prisoners in a way that allows rapid and accurate identification.

    And, as I noted, mental illness is a different issue.


    You're saying... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    the scarlet underwear serves a purpose aside from humiliation?  What on earth could that purpose be?  

    Let's divide the argument (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    1. When the prisoner was id'd as having mental illness a great deal of attention should have been paid to all of his reactions. Pink clothing being one of them.

    2. Otherwise:

    but I can also see that the state has the right to dress prisoners in a way that allows rapid and accurate identification.

    Seeing as how all of the prisoners are dressed the same I don't see how "self worth," intimidation, etc., comes into play.


    Maybe if the screws... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    had to wear pink too that point would carry water...it's obviously an attempt to further humiliate the prisoners for, I don't know, Joe and his posse's entertainment? There is a reason they chose pink Jim...don't play dumb.  Prison is dehumanizing enough under the best of condituions, forget about this crap.

    Dostoevsky said "you can judge a society by how well it treats prisoners"...we are better than this, or at least I'd hope we are.


    kdog, the guards aren't in jail (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    either after being convicted or waiting trial.

    So I fail to see your point beyond you automatically line up in support of prisoners.

    I support fair and equal treatment.

    I see nothing unfair about being made to wear pink....as long as all prisoners are treated the same.


    Any Limit ? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    "...the state has the right to dress prisoners in a way that allows rapid and accurate identification."

    So anything goes, and FYI that isn't a right, duh.  

    And why is it only one jailhouse seems to need pink underwear to accomplish the task every jailhouse in the country does without them.

    Sheriff Joe is a bad man, the underwear thing is dumb and so it trying to hang a death on him over it.  But it cuts to his whole philosophy, anything goes.  What amazes me is after the millions he's cost the electorate, they still vote for him, as if humiliating prisoners is more important than their tax dollars getting flushed down the drain.  

    Not a single republican cares that this guys is costing his community tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.


    Oh please, the obvious limits apply (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 05:57:06 PM EST
    So why should I have to state the obvious??

    You may disagree with his "philosophy." I may disagree with some of it.

    But making prisoners wear pink is bad??


    What's that saying?

    If you can't wear the color, don't do the crime??


    There are no "obvious limits" ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:05:51 PM EST
    ... by your "logic".  According to you, as long as everyone is dressed the same way, it's all good.

    Funny stuff.


    My point is... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    there is no point in forcing them to wear pink!!!  Regardless of how you feel about the Sheriff or our prison systems and policies in general, I would hope all sound minds could agree on that simple point.

    And why not have them wear pink? (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 05:53:09 PM EST
    I keep coming back to the same point. There is nothing unfair in having them all dress the same.

    Tell me (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by sj on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    how pink underwear promotes rapid and accurate identification.

    Easy - all the people with X-ray vision ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    ... who fail to notice the pink jumpsuit covering the prisoner, will be able to use the pink underwear to identify the person as a prisoner.  Should the prisoner escape and take the jumpsuit off, the pink underwear would attract a lot of attention, whereas a man walking around in plain, old "tighty-whities" would go unnoticed.



    Bingo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    Exactly ;-)

    If I remember correctly, (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    the prisoners are dressed in pink jumpsuits.

    So pink underwear is just part of it.


    So tell me (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    how pink underwear promotes rapid and accurate identification.

    Show me where it is documented (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sj on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:45:56 AM EST
    that the prisoners are dressed in pink jumpsuits.  I see a few commenters making that assertion which isn't based on any documented reports that I found.

    Underwear is "part of" the jumpsuit ?!?! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    the prisoners are dressed in pink jumpsuits.

    So pink underwear is just part of it.

    Funny, ... I always thought they were separate.


    Actually (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    If prisoners escape, the first thing they will try to do is dump their prison garb - especially if it's day-glo orange (funny how that doesn't seem to be "demeaning") because they would easily be identified as escapees. If they do that, they can still be identified with pink underwear.

    Sorry - abuse is one thing, especially where a mentally ill person is concerned, but I just can't work up outrage over making people wear pink underwear.  Ooh!  Their feelings are hurt and they are embarrassed!

    As for those not convicted of a crime yet - I would argue it's more embarrassing to have to wear a jumpsuit with "DOC"printed on the back than pink boxers.


    You might argue that (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    but your argument is irrelevent.  And I already know that you tend to come down on the guilty until proven innocent side of things and have no qualms about dehumanizing humans.

    You have many fine qualities, jb.  In my mind, your "lawn order" predisposition is not one of them.


    Compared... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    to living in tents in 100 degree heat and being served green bolgna, pink prison garb is but a minor problem with how Sheriff Shmoe rolls...true enough.

    But even you can admit there is no legitimate purpose for it jb...I promise they won't take your membership in the law & order club for stating that obvious fact;)


    They would dump the prison garb (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:14:02 AM EST
    ... but keep the pink underwear underneath whatever they use to replace the jumpsuit?  Unless they're just going to walk around in underwear (which would attract a lot of attention in and of itself), I don't see how pink underwear is any more helpful than underwear with a "DOC" stamp.

    To be honest, I don't really care about the pink underwear issue, either, but I'm not buying Arpaio's explanation for the pink underwear (i.e. it was done to control the theft/sale of white underwear with the Maracopa County jail stamp) or to identify prisoners (underwear isn't visible under the jumpsuit, and would be ditched with the suit).  He does it because he wants to embarrass them and make them as uncomfortable as possible:

    "I'm going to go down as a pink underwear sheriff."

    Yes, you read that correctly.  Arpaio forces male inmates at his jail to wear pink underwear.  "They hate pink.  Why would I give them a color they like?  They may like pink in some other states but they don't like it where I'm the sheriff."

    Just like the larger pattern of baloney sandwiches, putting tent cities by the dump and the waste disposal plant, etc., etc.


    Hogwash (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    If these same boxer shorts were being sold for $40 with Michael Jordan's name embossed on them, and someone on American Idol wore them, these guys would all proudly wear them to the grocery store and the beach.  I see peopke walkung the city streets every dsy with "important" jobs who should be more embarrassed about what they are wearing than prisoners wearing pink boxers that go UNDER their clothes.

    Yes, they can dump the jumpsuits and steal clorhes to put on (wait for it) over the boxers.  It's not like it hasn't happened before.

    Despite what sj says,this has nothing to do with being "law & order" (as opposed to "criminal & chaos" I guess), but rather,  this is about picking your battles.  Sheriff Joe has plenty of legitimate gripes against him and should be held responsible accordingly.  Pink underwear is not one of them, and in fact, is a ridiculous thing to be so upset about.

    And what's wrong with baloney sandwiches?


    No idea what point ... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    ... you're trying to make in that first paragraph, but my point was that pink underwear is not being used to identify prisoners.  If they escaped, they would ditch the underwear along with the jumpsuit, unless the police have x-ray vision.

    I agree that pink underwear is not a big issue, but it's part of a larger pattern of Arpaio attempting to embarrass/shame prisoners.  Nothing wrong with baloney sandwiches per se, but that's the least of the "reforms" proudly promoted by Arpaio - denying access to medical/mental health care, prescribed medicines, toilets, sinks, soap, food that meets the minimum USDA dietary standards, as well as dangerous overcrowding.

    Pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail are regularly given moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food. Detainees with serious medical, mental health and dental needs receive inadequate care, and they are routinely denied beds or bunks at intake, forcing them to sleep on the floor. Additionally, severe overcrowding in three of the jail's facilities has created extremely dangerous environments by significantly increasing the potential for violence among inmates.

    Yes, pink underwear is not a huge issue, but Arpaio's doing it for the same reasons he enacted so many of his other reforms - to embarrass, humiliate, and make life as uncomfortable as is legally permissible - and in some cases, not permissible.  With regard to the pink underwear specifically, Arpaio himself said he chose the color pink because they hate it.


    I'm With JB, Somewhat (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    Of all of Sheriff Joe's bad deeds, this is easily the least harmful.  He needs to go down, and in this case for the abuse, not the death.  Who the hell knows what was going through a schizophrenics mind.  And who's to say white underwear or the orange jumpsuit, or a deputies aftershave would not have sent him off.

    It sucks, for sure, but go after Joe for physically abusing people, putting them in life endangering heat, for chaining down a pregnant woman while she gave birth, for denying a quadriplegic care that ended up causing serious injuries, and on and on.  

    There's no legitimate reason for the underwear, but beyond mild humiliation, it's not worth making a stink over when there are so many people who have suffered a thousand times worse at the hands of Sheriff Joe.


    Get back to me when Michael (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    Jordan is actually selling them.  Although I agree with you that of all the gripes against him, there are others more egregious.  And yet... this one resulted in a death.

    Oh, and it's "law & order" as opposed to "blind justice" btw.


    Baloney indeed (none / 0) (#52)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    "Gripes"? Really?


    Get a grip JB.


    you've made your point twice (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    any more is chattering, please move to another thread.

    this is to jbinc (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:26:52 PM EST
    IOW (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:33:50 AM EST
    Either way you'd have no problem with wearing hot pink underwear...

    Gee Edger, when I was in highschool (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:27:35 AM EST
    we had pink shirts, pink pants, pink ties, pink sport coats and pink cars... You should have seen me in my charcoal grey pants, bright pink shirt, light pink sport coat accented with a charcoal tie with pink stripes... and... of course... white buckskin shoes...and driving a light blue '54 Ford pickup...

    Man, we were cool before it was cool to be cool.


    So no, if EVERYBODY else was being made to wear pink I would just accept it and get on with life.

    To me the issue is this. No prisoner should be made to dress in a manner that is different from any other prisoner.


    To me this issue is this... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    no prisoner should be forced to suffer petty humiliations outside the unavoidable dehumanizing humiliation that is unavoidable in a prison setting.

    You know I would agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    if it was a single, or even a group, but when it is all... well, that's fair.

    And if everyone else is wearing pink underwear I don't see the humiliation.


    Surely... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:14:03 AM EST
    you also see no legitimate purpose.

    If uniformity is what is sought, white boxers and white jumpsuits work just as well no?  Why make it an issue?

    Starting to think Sheriff Shmoe is compensating for something...feeling like less of a man himself?  Small member?  Being surrounded by men in pink makes him feel like a Billy Badass?


    By that logic,you'd have no problem (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    ... replacing all naval aviator uniforms with pink tutus, right Jim?  As long as they all have to wear them, they shouldn't be bothered by it at all ...


    (Oh, ... sorry.  All those "in naval aviation" ... not "aviators".

    Big difference.)


    Don't forget pink carnations... (none / 0) (#36)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    He's 79? He hasn't got much karma left. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    Geez... (none / 0) (#44)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    I've never seen such discord over pink before on a political crime blog.  i graduated from high school in 1956 and lots of guys had the pink and grey thing going.  My dad and I were commercial fishermen in the Columbia river and trust me we didn't wear pink  We wore grey, brown, and black and if we were lucky got some pink salmon blood on us...

    I've got nothing against pink.. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    I've got something against piling on prisoners for no good reason whatsoever...if they don't like pink I see no good reasons for not accomodating their dislike and picking another uniform color.  They're still human beings and we can still try to be decent towards our prisoners.

    Arpaio pink is not a fashion statement; (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    there's no LaCoste alligator or Ralph Lauren logo on the breast pocket.  Arpaio chose pink because pink is the color of girls and making men wear it is  meant to be humiliating, to make them feel less like men and more like they are being branded as gay.

    Which, in the tiny little minds of the Joe Apraios of the world, is one of the worst things a man can be labeled.

    Apparently, Arpaio doesn't understand that by the time one gets through the processing protocol, of being printed, stripped naked, and one's body cavities searched by strangers, the dehumanizing is just about complete; putting everyone in identical uniforms, being told when you can eat, having someone else control the lights and what you eat - it's all part of taking your "self" away.

    The pink - whether it's uniforms or underwear - is just overkill; it serves no institutional purpose - it just serves Joe Arpaio's need to bully and humiliate.

    People like that don't belong in positions of power.


    Unfortunately, those are the people (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    most attracted by power's perqs.

    Pretty narrow question for Court of Appeals (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:31:59 AM EST
    and now, again, the trial court.  Won't get rid of this really abusive "public servant."  

    by golly! Isn't it awful (none / 0) (#61)
    by the capstan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    to be stigmatized as being like a female in some way?  Nothing worse than having (or wearing) female characteristics.  Somehow, i detect a link to the self-righteous ones who are legislating women back to being 'secondary,' as Karzai says.  I bet they'd have a hissy fit if made to wear pink.

    No wonder gay parades sometime feature brawny males in tutus; guaranteed to blow minds in the bastion of male privilege.

    Charcoal pants, pink shirt, wide tie with big colorful flowers, white buckskin shoes: my husband loved them!  (My gay son did not.)

    I Would Wear Them... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    ...with a badge of honor, especially if I had earned them, those are fricken cool.  I'm not saying it should be forced on inmates, but is there anything more Americana then Sheriff Joe pink briefs.  Surely, but they are still cool.

    I am assuming the above pic is the brief.

    Guarantee they would sell like hotcakes.
    Just looked, sad to report there are some out there, but not the real deal, all pro-pink nonsense.  LINK