Facts: Sheriff Joe Arpaio installed a number of internet connected cameras (webcams) in his jail. The cameras provided 24-hour real-time coverage of what was happening in the jails to any with internet access. The main use for the jail was to provide pre-trial detention suspects and defendants who were awaiting the resolution of their cases or other disposition. That is to say, the detainees in the jails might have been charged with an offense but had not been convicted of any crime. Arpaio’s ideas for installing the webcams was to provide the community and wider public of what it was like to be in jail. Furthermore, he hoped that providing such access would deter both detainees from reoffending by “shaming’ them in public and locals from committing crimes for fear that they would be subject to similar broadcasts (Sink). Among the scenes that the webcams broadcast were that of detainees being handcuffed, fingerprinted, and taken to a jail cell (Ninth Circuit). In addition, webcams also broadcast views of a portion of the jail cells such as the bunk bed, thereby allowing partial views of the detainees in their jail cells.
Issue: Did Arpaio’s installation of the webcams violate the detainees’ constitutional rights?
Rule: State initiated pre-conviction punishment on a pre-trial detainee is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (Ninth Circuit). State-initiated pre-conviction punishment refers to any action taken by the state, which causes a harm or disability to the detainee and the intent of the state’s actions was to result in the harm or disability of the detainee (Clements).
Analysis: One of Arpaio’s goals for installing the webcams was to shame the detainees in the public. So clearly, the intention was to create a harm or disability on the detainees. Shaming can cause a wide range of harms such as exposing a person to public and private ridicule. While shaming is one of the normally consequences of punishment for committing an illegal act; detainees have yet to be convicted of a crime. Accordingly, the appellate court’s injunction should be affirmed on the grounds that the webcam’s violated the detainees’ constitutional rights (District Court).
Works Cited
Clements, Michael. “Virtually Free from Punishment Until Proven Guilty: The Internet, Web-Cameras and the Compelling Necessity Standard. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 12(1): 2005. Web. http://jolt.richmond.edu/v12i1/article4.pdf
Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020. Appellate Court for the Ninth Circuit. 2004. Web. http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/JC-AZ-0005-0004.pdf
Demery v. Arpaio, 2:01-cv-00983-EH. District Court for the District of Arizona. 2003. Web. http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9774
Sink, Mindy. “Hoping People Watch Jail and Won’t Want to Visit.” New York Times, 24 Aug. 2000. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/24/technology/hoping-people-watch-jail-and-won-t-want-to-visit.html
