(January 2, 2019 at 8:32 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(January 2, 2019 at 6:12 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Being sued doesn't indicate guilt, responsibility, or anything else. You go to a trial and evidence is presented. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. What I'm looking for is at what point did he personally have all the said evidence to process? Was it during the court hearing? Was it after he even had a chance to act on it? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying "I" can't conclude he's a monster because I don't know enough details. Also, was he sued directly? Like he was ruled against, and he had to fork out the cash? I understand he was "in charge", which often defaults the responsibility to the supervisor, but that doesn't always mean it was directly their fault, just that they must assume fault for their employee.
I have to ask - are you legitimately stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse?
He's in charge of the jail. One female inmate is raped multiple times. She sues and is awarded $6.7 million by the court. Between the time the lawsuit was filed and the time Clarke resigned, there were multiple incidences of abuse and neglect at the jail, which he did nothing to stop. This isn't a case of a 'few bad apples', it's a case of a horrific culture that the guy in charge did nothing to prevent. I'll try another analogy, maybe that'll sink in.
Suppose you run a daycare centre - 5 adults caring for 50 kids. One of your staff beats a child in your care so badly that they child has to be hospitalized. The parents sue your business. While the case is winding its way through the courts, you are made aware of children at the centre not being properly fed, or given their meds, and in some cases going home with bruises. You continue to run your centre the same way, with the same staff, with no increased training or oversight, with no changes in policy. This would make you a horrible, horrible person.
The is precisely the case with Clarke. He failed to fix problems he knew existed.
Boru
Stupid because I'm not passing judgment on someone? Whatever guy. Well then I guess I'll be "stupid" because I don't go around passing judgment of people just because someone insists I should based on what they believe.
I just spent a few minutes reading up on it. The person who was accused was a corrections officer name Xaview Thicklen. He denied the incident and later resigned. No indication that Clarke had anything to do with it directly, but it was at the jail, so it had to pay $6.7 million.
The separate incident with the guy dying for no water. It was three officers who were responsible. The inmate had some mental health issues he was receiving medication for, and in light of his condition, he was attempting to turn on the water to flood his cell. As a result, the officers turned off the water, then never turned it on. It was also noted that they did not report their actions to any supervisor.
So unless you have something else, on what basis does this make him a monster? Some people did some pretty bad stuff, but they acted independently and without informing others.
Although I don't agree with his position on everything, I still don't think it validates going as far as to call him a "monster."
