carepov

You must have missed it in my earlier post:

This guy seems like he would make a good leader, what do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izzeldin_Abuelaish

Wow. How could the USA allow such a disfuctional justice system to continue for so long?!

Here's a good indicator of gross mismanagement in Quebec compared to the ROC: "One kilometre of road cost 37 per cent more to build in Quebec in 2008 than the average cost for the rest of the country, according to the study." http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-mafia-controls-80-per-cent-of-road-contracts-whistleblower-says/article4288973/?service=mobile

No, sorry, I sarcastically meant the "good ole days" that cybercoma referred to earlier. These days US police kill 370-500 people/year, I wonder how many people were shot by police in the 50's, 60's... 90's? It would be even more interesting to have the numbers of "justified" and "unjustified" killings. No, I do not think that this is amazing at all, considering: 1. Crime rates are down 2. Practically all workplaces are safer in the US. Look at death and injury rates for taxi drivers, miners, factory/construction workers, etc.. all down significantly. I would bet that prison guard deaths/serious injuries have been dropping too despite an explosion in prison population.

OK so we are talking US. Yes officer deaths do seem to be declining - but I would not say they are way down. Perhaps they are down because the police is getting better at taking out potential cop killers? Like I said earlier perhaps the number of people shot by police in the US is up due to more guns on the street? Anyways I only found data from 2003 to 2009, I wonder how many people were killed by police "back in the good ole days when cops walked the beat and served their community"?

Yes both in Canada and the US. Perhaps in Canada but not in the US. Yes in the US, but is this true in Canada? I cannot find any data. In the US, perhaps it is related to more guns on the street? Maybe the same is happening in Canada?

I disagree, but how would either of us be able to support our opinions with data? Well, at least one police cheif seems to be against excessive capabilities. I don't see the link however between militarization and abuse of power or police misconduct. If anything, if the police were more like the armed forces conduct and discipline should improve. Yes crime is at its lowest - police deserve some credit for that, don't you think? Before tasters I guess cops used smellers... Seriously, I think that before tasers the cops just used guns. hmmmm... maybe, yet the fact that crime is at a 40 year low seems to counter this idea. *** Here is data from the UK: http://iapdeathsincustody.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Appendix-1-Police-deaths-2000-to-2010.pdf It looks like fewer people are dying while in police custody (19 people in 2010). Here is some data from the US: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf On page 4, there is a steady increase in deaths from 376 in 2003 to 497 in 2009. This seems very high compared to the UK. It would be interesting to know what percentage of these killings were "justified". On the other hand, police officers are also getting killed, about 150 per year in the US. http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html Is the increase of death by police in the US due to the police (abuse of power, misconduct, etc) or is it due to the perpetrators (increased gun ownership)? I couldn't find any trends is police brutality (reports of abuse per year, charges/convictions of police officers per year, etc...) Yes we have plenty of recent videos of police brutality but unless I see concrete data, I am going to assume that these videos are available now because of the available technology, not an increase in police brutality. I am all for these videos and an increase in accountability, I think that police brutality will continue to decline because officers know they are being watched.

With all these examples there is clearly a problem. Do you think that the problem is getting worse or is it just more visible now compared to the past?

Well I never thought it and I certainly never wrote it, so was it the voices in your head that told you that my position was that all crime is caused by inner city poverty?

The Conservative crime agenda is regressive and is one of the main reason that I don't support them. The unreported crime justification was retarded, serious crimes are reported and if anything are being reported more often now. That said, it is a valid question in the case of fraud. How much fraud are we unaware of? How many people collect and work for cash? How many people collect and have no intention of returning to work?

Well, perhaps I am naive, but I would have thought that the government administrators would have based the target on past results and made them achievable. I have no trust in what politicians say (so please do not bring Ford into the discussion), but I am not (yet) so cynical about bureaucrats, should I be?

Guyser2, How would we know how much fraud is going undetected? (How many people are collecting and working under the table, etc...) What do you think about the government target of each invesigator saving $500,000 per year? Doesn't that suggest that it is worth putting the effort into investigating fraud?

Yes and no. Simply put, disadvantaged kids need more and better health care, nutrition, education and recreation. What's most frustrating is that this is not happening enough, especially in Canada's aboriginal communities and in US inner cities.

I addressed this issue earlier:

I never claimed that mandatory minimums increase crime - I claimed that they do not decrease crime. You are critical of trying the "same old solutions that have failed" - add mandatory minimums to your list. Look up the analysis of California's "three strikes you're out" for proof. The main reason that longer/harsher prison sentences do not work is that criminals typically do not even think once about their crime, never mind twice.

Although I can see you are exaggerating to make a point (I hope!), I found it very ironic that: 1. Supposedly ISP filtering out porn and letting people to call in to unblock their service costs too much, and then you put up ideas that would cost us gazillions of dollars. 2. You are against censorship and do not want the government making decisions regarding internet porn, but you would put the government in charge of deciding who should be allowed to reproduce.

Some are good ideas, but most of them would require a lot of money. I did not realize that you (and Bill O'Reilly) were in favour of so much government spending. A very bad idea is the mandatory sentences. It should be blatantly obvious that putting more people in jail does not reduce crime, creates many more social problems, and costs (wastes) a lot of money.

Where in the West does the law treat women as second class citizens?

You are stretching it. Drawing parallels between misogomy and the average Republican voter /"traditional values"? This is not at all helpful. You may want to rethink your attacks on those people with "family values" - they are typically the ones raising children.

Yes agreed. At the same time, I think that the vast majority of men (and of course all women) would like to see an end to violence against women and the end of all unjust and misogynistic laws.

Sure, we will never stop access - but I am in favour of reasonable measures that will significantly reduce the amount of pornography that children view without significantly inconveniencing adults.

This inspired me to make another good point. Why do we restrict access to strippers for children? Surely watching strippers are harmless relative to most internet pornography?

It is easy to restrict the device? Is it easy for the child to get around the device restrictions?

Let's say: I subscribe to the service, my child has an e-mail account, and we block porn at home. Can my kid take a tablet and surf porn at a wifi hotspot?