There's a new sheriff in town.
OK, no, there isn't, but we wish there were. Why?
Well, among other reasons, our current sheriff has a few issues. Like the poor conditions he allows in his prisons. Like the detestable treatment he allows for his inmates. Like the amount of time he spends on issues largely outside of his jurisdiction — immigration raids, anyone? Like the over-bloated reign of power he enjoys within a county that somehow seems to still adore him. Like the general ruination of the badge. You know, all that stuff … and some more.
For example, how, at his essence, he's just an old attention-whore.
For that reason alone, we're giving him the Voldemort treatment, making him the Sheriff-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. After all, it seems to us that seeing his name in print is all he cares about, thus we assume he's got a Google feed set up to catch any news with his name on it.
We don't intend to give him that pleasure.
However, given today's front-page story, we're sad to say he'll get a little twitter of excitement this morning. Thankfully, we can sleep well because the story highlights a panel discussion held on campus last night with three people who have recently sued the sheriff.
But honestly, with all the ridiculous stunts this man pulls, there's plenty that he could be sued for. Wednesday's forum piqued our interest, for if it seems to you that this attack on the Sheriff-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is unprovoked, you clearly don't know this man. Allow us to share some things:
In a case brought against the Sheriff's Office by Jeremy Flanders, a young man who was nearly beaten to death in a certain prominent county camp-like containment facility, Judge Jefferson L. Lankford put the following in his statement: "The sheriff admitted knowing about, and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence: i.e., the lack of individual security and inmate control inherent in a tent facility; the small number of guards; a mixed inmate population subject to overcrowding, extreme heat, and lack of amenities."
According to a Web site with the sheriff's last name as the domain, an Irish judge refused to extradite an accused child molester to Arizona because of "concerns about the safety of [Sheriff-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's] prisons."
And then there was his First Amendment-betraying flap from October. In this case, two of our fellow journalists were thrown in jail for revealing grand jury testimony in a case that came out of simply posting the sheriff's easy-to-find address (the horror! the horror!). America's toughest sheriff, are you actually a widdle scared?
But our sheriff still thinks himself an idol. Since 1993, we're seen him on television and billboards as often as we've seen his deputies out in public. Rumor has it that he keeps 8-by-10 glossy print photos in his desk that he pulls out in autograph-giving situations.
Overall, the point is, his office has two duties — to control the jail system and to provide forces for unincorporated areas — and we were kind of wondering when those are going to be worked on in place of the nonstop puckering up for the camera; we're sick of it.
Well, actually, to be honest, we're just sick of him.
And maybe, if Maricopa County voters come to their senses in November, we can finally say adios to our Sheriff-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named — and his 8-by-10 glossies.
