Chain gangs make a comeback
(AFP/Mike Simons)
Thu Jun 9, 2:42 AM ET


Shackled to four prisoners by a long steel chain, Harley Grimes is smiling as he shuffles down the road in his black and white striped uniform.

Huge trucks zoom within inches of his outstretched arm as he uses a long plastic grabber to pick up trash and drop it into a bag. But Grimes does not mind.

"I haven't seen the sun for nine months," said Grimes, who is 25 and serving a one year sentence for receiving stolen property. "This is a lot better than what I've been doing."

Grimes is one of 40 prisoners at the Butler County, Ohio, jail who volunteered to work on the new chain gang. The project was started in May by Sheriff Richard Jones, who hopes to make prisoners' lives a little less comfortable.

"I don't care if they don't like it," Jones said. "I want them leaving here saying that the food is bad, the beds are uncomfortable, and they work your ass off."

Jones has received congratulatory phone calls and e-mails from as far away as Italy and Australia. Even civil rights groups say there is nothing inherently wrong with the project.

"He seems to be treating the prisoners well," said Chris Link, director of the Ohio Civil Liberties Union.

On a beautiful spring day, with a light breeze blowing, working on a chain gang seems more like a surreal vacation than an extra punishment.

The four-lane highway cuts through the northern suburbs of Cincinnati, and it is lined on both sides by enormous new homes. Looking up the prisoners see lawns of recently-laid sod, many filled with swing sets and plastic toys. Occasionally a motorist passes by, honks the horn and sticks a thumbs-up sign out the window. By the second day, the prisoners hardly notice.

They wear black-and-white striped uniforms, just like prisoners in old black-and-white movies. They also wear baseball hats, but nobody uses his cap to hide his face.

"I'm not embarrassed," said Delmer Vickers, 41, who is serving nine months for not paying child support. "All my relatives already know about it. They seen it on the TV last week."

Slowly the inmates fill their trash bags with Wendy's Frosty cups and cigarette butts, roofing tiles and soda bottles, McDonald's wrappers, chicken bones and long strips of aluminum siding.

Forward movement is slow. One prisoner stops to kick his black military boots against a piece of aluminum foil embedded in the dirt. Occasionally the chain catches on the weeds, causing a man to stumble. No one gripes about the delays.

"Ain't no use in going fast," Grimes said. "I got three more months to go."

Surrounded by hurried homebuilders and speeding motorists, the inmates are the only people in this windswept place who feel no need to rush.

There hasn't been a chain gang in Ohio for over 50 years, but images of the gangs remain ingrained in the public consciousness. From the 1870s through the 1950s, prison chain gangs in the United States built highways and railroads through the summer heat and bitter winter cold. The practice died out in the 1950s and 1960s, after news reports documented widespread prisoner abuse.

But chain gangs are making a comeback. Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in Phoenix, Arizona, created the nation's first modern chain gang in the late 1990s.

Back when he was working on construction projects in Phoenix, prisoner Delmer Vickers drove past chain gangs on the freeway. He supported the idea then. Now that he is on a chain gang himself, he still does.

"This helps make the time go faster," said Vickers, who works as a drywall finisher on new houses. "Besides, this work is easier than my day job."

I don't see what this has to do with the RIAA, but I see nothing wrong with this at all. What point is trying to made posting this here?

Our city jail a.k.a the city farm inmates, mowes all the gress, and picks up trash around the city. I see nothing worng with that at all.

raiders, the powers that be on this fine site are left leaning, thus they feel a need to take shots at the way Bush is (mis)managing the country. And since they control what gets posted & what doesn't, viola!

simple politics, that's all.

what point? why, this is going to be mandatory punishment for those p2p users who couldn't afford the settlement offer. Next they will rebuild the parachute jump from Matthaussen and restore some old style gas vans. (sorry, I couldn't resist)

you just thought the patriot act was dead! It's just now being applied to it's originally intended purpose. ahahhahahahahahah! now ALL of you filesharing filth will pay! download away mother****ers! "The Man" is back from vacation! there'll be no more of that liberal slap on the wrist shit. now if you screw up you will find yourself in pillory for a good 30-60 days. These lowlife, music stealing bastards whose backs are just aching for the lash are about to learn why the good old days were good!


I mean, uh, yeah, chain gangs are ok. I guess. wasn't there a movie a long time ago about some black guy (Sidney Poitier) and a white guy (Tony Curtis) who was chained together (The Defiant Ones)? yeah that was a cool show. I thought they redid that though so it'd be in color...



I mean, I gotta sleep sometime this week.

JohnCarlton02,

Can you explain to me what this agreeably misplaced, but begnin, story has to do with the "way Bush is (mis)managing the country"?

I am at a loss to establish your connection between the with story and the Administration.

Apparently some people have the inability to distinguish between justice and fascism. Fortunately those people are in the minority.

Up here in cold cold Canada, after the spring thaws, our roads are left looking like they've been hit by meteroites...miles and miles of roads with very large holes in them, some so bad they could sink a ship.

We spend all Spring, Summer and Fall manouvering around these sink holes...obviously our governments can't get them fixed, problem being either not enough manpower nor money. I've always wondered why we couldn't put prisoners to work on these roads..serving two needs. One, giving them a sense of purpose, and two, saving our vehicles from distruction. Seems like a win win situation to me.

I commend Sherif Jones....

Twoby2,
check out the message heading.
"USA brings on chain gangs to supplement mental illness, fascism"

1. fascism - a direct shot at Bush & what's going on in government. I'm surprised it just wasn't called a theocracy.
2. the timelines about the last time chaingangs were used in Ohio feeds directly into the lefts assertion the current administration wants to drive America back into god-fearing "Leave It To Beaver"-esqe conditions.

perhaps I interpreted the article more aggressively than it was intended, based on reading other posts from the site powers that be, which at times have a definite lefty political slant.

Convicted Criminals frequently have to make restitution as part of their sentance. Labor Gangs are simply another means of allowing prisoners to make restitution. I would bet that some of the jobs they are doing would normally be given to Union Labor which is probably where the resentment comes in.

What does this have to do with music? Why, those great chain gang songs, of course.

Chain of Fools
Working on a Chain Gang
Jailhouse Rock

The list goes on and on.

Why is anything that is not on the far right fringe "leftist"? Music is a liberal art. Get used to it.

Sadly there really isn't room left for mainstream moderates in American Politics these days. The fact is that Political parties respond to the best organized and most vocal components of the party, not necessarily the largest. Naturally the more extreme activists tend to also be the best organized and loudest parts of any party, and hence tend to take the leadership positions and also contribute most of the funds. Consequently these people also have a major role in choosing the candidates so we get situations where elected officials tend to be beholden to the more extreme elements of the parties. The bulk of the electorate likes to vote for winners, which to most means a Republican or a Democrat which has precluded the development of a viable moderate third party. Most of the other parties who field candidates are simply too radical in the context of American Society to be considered viable, hence they don't get attention from the media or votes or funds from the bulk of the electorate.

"Apparently some people have the inability to distinguish between justice and fascism. Fortunately those people are in the minority."

So tell me then, how is making prisoners do community service (aka work on chain gangs) in any way releated to fascism? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Not in this case.

This article had nothing to do with fascism, or even mental illness for that matter. If anyone is reading that into this, then they have a vivid imagination, and need to get outside a little more.

This story in no way has anything to do with what I thought this site was all about, boycotting the RIAA. I have noticed the lefty attitude around here, but that can be expected on a site like this. What I wonder, is if any of those lefty supporters think that things would be any different in our battle against the RIAA, if the Dems were in office. I'm sad to inform them, that it doesn't matter who is in office, the corporations would have payed them off as well, and things would still be the same, if not worse. (Geez...Can it get any worse?)

I'm more of an independant, who slants only a little to the right at times, so it's not like I am some hard line rebublican suporter here, but I still see no fascism in this article.

For the record, I did vote for Bush though, but is was more for what is best for the area I live, and mainly to piss off all the Kerry supporters, as their internet tirades really got old very fast. I can tell you right now, a lot of people got turned off by the lefties ranting and raving during the last election, and it did cost their man a lot of votes.

Next election, maybe the Dems should try to shut up their faithful internet surfers in order to save a few votes.

Like I said already, even if Kerry was in office, our fight against the RIAA wouldn't be any different at all. Seeing that the Dems get a lot of Hollywood support, it may have even became a tougher battle.

I personaly don't think this site should be used for people's personal war against Bush, by posting articles that made their imagination wander, and are off topic to this site. I don't run the place though, so I guess every now and then we'll get a story releated to ones agenda that has nothing to do with the cause of this place at all.

If we really want to bring down the RIAA, we have to gain back controle, and as long as we are voting dem or republican, it's not going to happen. Both parties are tainted by Corporate America.

meh

oh, comp, I can't stand it. Two remarks and that's all. One: Do you really admit in public that you voted for one man to piss off the supporters of the other candidate? That is simply asinine. You place the future of our country, not in the hands of the best qualified candidate? The other remark is: this is leflaw's playground...he can lean any which way he wants to.

I didn't mean you, comp! What the heck does meh mean anyway?

ShadowMom, do you REALLY think John "Franken"Kerry was the best qualified candidate?

I think the South Park guys summed it up best: the choice in every election comes down to voting for a giant douche or a shit sandwich.

Agreed--but voting for someone and voting against someone is not the same thing--I've heard a few really lame excuses for voting for Bush, and this is one of the worst. The other one I really love to hate is, "Don't change leadership in the middle of a war." You do if you think the war is wrong. Kerry has disappointed a lot of people, especially since the election, but Bush has disappointed a lot more, I think. The point is, he didn't say he voted for Bush because he thought he was the best choice--he said he voted for Bush "mainly to piss off all the Kerry supporters." You think that's the best way to pick a president?

(Notice, comp, I have called Bush by his proper name--no name calling on my part!)

Honestly ShadowMom, by the time the politicians get to the presidential level, they're so corrupted by politics & lobbyist money, neither is worthy of leading this nation.

Bush is a disappointment, & Kerry absolutely frightened me with some of his ideas (& ratting out his fellow Vets smacked of treason, IMO), but in the end, I do what I always do: vote for the candidate who I think is going to screw me the least, or who will have the courtesy of lubing me up & kissing me when it's all over.

I have hopes every 4 years there'll be a candidate I want to vote FOR rather than AGAINST, but typically its that choice between the giant douche & the shit sandwich.

Lesser of two evils--I agree. But until we change the flow of money from corporations to candidates' coffers, this is what we're stuck with.

Political success is based on one's ability to bullshit with total disregard for the truth. This ensures that the very people who should be NOT be representing us are the only ones doing it.

Bush vs Kerry.
Skull + Bones vs Skull + Bones

I see the world very differently from your garden variety right wing left wing christian muslim liberal conservative liberative conservable fascist anti-totalitarian libertarian socialist anti-sexual...

pass the merlot. This thread is funny.

If the world is round, the more extreme right you are, the more you become closer to extreme left. Right?

Or another way of looking at it:

The US Goverment has become the mother of all Rube Goldbergs to the point that elected officials have simply become one more extraneous part.

I add myself to the large number of complaints here about relivency.

how come the irrelevent articles get the most posts?

They are usually the most inflammatory and cause the most disagreement.

If I decalre that the excessive copyright and patent terms are putting the US at a competitive disadvantage in the world economy by stifling invention and product development, I doubt many people here would jump up to disagree. Also I don't think to many would disagree that the preceding was an egregious example of a run-on sentance.

leflaw With the music scene and the riaa the way it is, we all tend to agree on...so we usually read the articles..go Yup and carry on...

These other articles of course are always interesting and people can find more ways to agree to disagree....I find therm refreshing.....George finds them non essential, etc, etc...

And besides, in broader strokes, Paul Newman was on a chain gang...what could be more relevant than that????

Shadowmom "meh" is something my teenage daughter came up with to say when she doesn't think somethings worth responding to. It gets irritating when we try to tell her what we want her to do.

anyway I'm gone for a week.

by the way, "meh" was aimed toward the political article, not any one post.

I thought it was some sort of computer-speak! Have fun!

And I think pepe's right--how many times can we say we agree with an article? Sometimes there's not a lot to add, sometimes there is. But we basically all agree on the RIAA--or what would be doing here?

Let's try that again--"what would WE be doing here?"

"how come the irrelevent articles get the most posts?"

good question leflaw, good question

(and drives me nuts, makes me think I don't do my job very well or something)

BTW, thanks pepe, stevebuggy, ShadowMom

and compmore, (I think I have used "meh" before too.)

meh

"how come the irrelevent articles get the most posts?"

Because they make everyone who would otherwise be on the same side fight with each other.

Put 'em up, George!

Don't listen to me. I'm crazy.

Can't help myself, I'm addicted...

Question: "How come the irrelevent articles get the most posts?"

Answer: "Because they make everyone who would otherwise be on the same side fight with each other."

This is sadly true. Controversy attracts more interest than agreement (i.e., preaching to the choir).
No matter how noble a cause to pursue, if a site depends even partially on income from advertisers, then a site manager cannot be satisfied with mere consensus from his base. Occasionally, things have to be stirred up somehow, don't they, even if it means going far afield.

"if a site depends even partially on income from advertisers, then a site manager cannot be satisfied with mere consensus from his base"

Very good observation CherishTruth,

...but, truth be known, "Boycott-Riaa" itself is actually non-profit.

Dmusic Networks graciously HOSTS our site for us, and "theoretically" Dmusic might be in it as a "for profit" company...

(but in my guestimation, Dmusic LLC., as a commercial 'entity' probably looses money every day and is more a labor of love by leflaw than anything else in that regard.)

Hey, I could be wrong, but I don't ask to see leflaw's books! (Nor should I!)

I'm glad to hear Boycott-RIAA may be non-profit.
I wasn't sure how this site is operated, so that's why I had left things open-ended with a generalilty,"if a site depends even partially on income from advertisers. . ."

Generating income or not, it's the nature of things for a mission-driven website to be sparking interest in attracting readers. I know that's safe to say.

P.S.
Thanks for the info.

I agree with leflaw.. check the subject threads on this site about the curbing of the public domain status (a political entity) with the DRM and other "copy"right restricitons(another political entity) and you guys hollerin' about presidential candidates, when the (fraudulant) "election" was a WHILE AGO (also political) and then not forwarding the anger to the relevant topics.. whaddaya get.. the EVENING NEWS!!! Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson.... Wake up, folks, to the political fight that unites us and awaits us.. the re-establishment of the super-patriot act, with more curbs on rights and communications..and divergent opinions (a political entity). We need to be organizing constantly to notifiy the current congress about the corporate/religious coup over the arts in this country.. and if they don't listen, then to support and elect in this country those who WILL listen.. (a political entity)..

...and welcome to dmusic, CherishTruth!

Thank you, Jazzmary2U.

I'm learning a lot on these affiliated websites. There's quite a bit of material to take in.

"but voting for someone and voting against someone is not the same thing--I've heard a few really lame excuses for voting for Bush, and this is one of the worst."


Actualy, if you people took time to read, you would see where I said I voted for Bush because He was the best choice for the area in which I live. Dems are not good for my part of the country. They just don't do things that help my area grow. That is why the state I am from votes Republican most all of the time. When a Dem is in office, it seems things go to shit around here. That was my real reason to vote for Bush. I live in a military town, and history shows, that when a Dem is in, community growth is out. That is just the way it works in my neck of the woods.

It's not like I only voted for Bush to spite Kerry supporters. It was just a very small reason, behind a bunch of bigger more importanant reasons. I do know for a fact that the agressive attitude of Kerry supporters on the web(not just here) this past election, cost Kerry a lot of votes. Your whiney attitudes turned a lot of those who sat on the fence away.

My main point anyhow, was to say it doesn't matter who is in office, all this crap would still be going on anyhow. Don't think even for a second Kerry would be doing much of anything different when it comes to copyright laws, and the issues that surround our cause. He gets his palmes greased by the industry just as much, if not more.