jdobbin
-
Posts
21,438 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jdobbin
-
-
Yes, that was your basic premise. Like I've said before, if it helps, think of prison construction as stimulus shovel-ready jobs for unionized workers. Are you against economic stimulus? Are you against creating well-paying unionized jobs? Are you against locking up criminals? Are you against justice?
Are you against producing budgetary numbers? If this is stimulus money, let's hear how much money. Is this stimulus money for the next ten years? Is this an attempt to take the burden off off provincial jails by making many crimes federal crimes with sentences over 2 years?
Let's hear the numbers? And if they produce a deficit or an increased percentage of federal spending, let's hear what taxes will be increased or what cuts will be made?
Why so vague? If it is $60 million, break it down. Does it include more prisons? Is that in addition to other judicial changes?
Are you against transparency? Are you against Canada?
-
President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months, but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.
Obama burn his toast this morning?
-
I'm not so sure at all about needing a whole bunch more prison capacity.
Okay. So you don't think new prisons need to be built? How do you come to that conclusion?
Here is the situation in Manitoba:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/loc...re-65891527.htm
Manitoba prisons/capacityNumber of provincial jails: 12
Total capacity available: 1,662
Actual number of prisoners in provincial jails: 2,158
Number of prisoners in provincial jails on remand: 1,554 (72 per cent)
Number of prisoners serving sentences in provincial jails: 604
If you eliminate bail, if you increase sentences, if you increase arrests, it results in more people incarcerated.
If the sentences are over 2 years, the Feds take over. There will be costs. So what are they?
And if there are savings from having people in jail, what are they?
We're basically talking about drug pushers. These leeches are arrested over and over again....they clog up the courts and treat jailtime - if they actually serve it - as a cost of doing business. Keeping them in jail longer to counter the "cost of doing business" attitude should make SOME of these bloodsuckers think twice about their choice of professions......and if these professional pushers are in jail longer, it's not a sure bet that someone will replace them on the street if the consequences of their actions finally mean something. It should free up the courts to some extent in that the same guys are not parading through the revolving door that we laughingly call justice.Then let's hear what those cost savings are. And let's hear what the numbers are for prisons. Why the vagueness?
If Conservatives feel strongly about this, we should hear solid reasons and numbers.
-
I think we are long overdue for a few new prisons anyway. Saying "we can't afford it" is an awful lame excuse not to punish criminals.
I didn't say that at all.
I said let's talk about the costs financially. Where are the numbers? If you talk tough on crime, you should be able to give the financials in carrying out the policy.
It is a lame excuse if you can't tell what the budget of such a policy is.
"White collar crime" needs to be dealt with more severely. While maybe non-violent, they can and have destroyed lives. There is no deterrent right now for someone with low morals to take a chance on ripping some innocent people off of their savings.That's all well and good. But let's hear the numbers. Let's hear how effective it will be in deterrence.
Tough on crime seems to mean vague on budgets.
-
The present system has been hiding costs for years! By releasing criminals early and making punishments light, instead of money for prisons we have money stolen from us directly!
How are the costs hidden? On future crimes?
It's harder to track the cost of a break-in. Insurance totals only the replacement cost of the property involved. The time and aggravation is not paid for at all. It is born by the victim. Any deductibles on the insurance policies are paid by the victims. Often in areas where that type of crime is rampant insurance premiums become exorbitant. In other threads it's been mentioned that some shopkeepers can't get insured at any price. When they are robbed they bear the entire cost with no mitigation.The main concern for someone convicted of a crime should be punishment and where possible restitution. Thereafter, the parole system should be set up to drop the hammer on recidivism.
If a non-violent offender who is likely not to commit a crime again is kept in prison for a lengthy period, the taxpayer will have to bear those costs.
Saving money on prisons seems to me to be false economy. It lets governments offload costs back onto citizens, in a manner easy to obfuscate. What's more, if sentences were stiffer it's possible that after an initial increase in prison enrolments the numbers may start to fall, as fewer potential criminals care to risk the price.And yet in some jurisdictions, the issue of prisons becoming ever greater draws on the purse-strings becomes greater.
I don't think I've seen evidence that long sentences curbs crimes. Do you have anything on that subject?
I do know that several days ago, the breakdown on prison populations in Manitoba showed every prison was overcapacity. If the Feds wish to increase sentences, they will see a greater number of provincial prisoners transferred to federal prisons because anything over 2 years ends up in the national system.
There will be costs. Let's hear them. And if the government has estimates on costs saved from keeping people in jail, let's hear those too.
But for heaven sakes, let's talk about numbers.
-
The perception that white-collar criminals get off with a slap on the wrist, coupled with some large-scale rip-offs has created a public desire for this.
No doubt. Let's just see the costing up front since there is a public desire not to push the deficit to a permanent fixture too.
-
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ub=TopStoriesV2
The federal government is planning to introduce legislation to crack down on early parole for non-violent offenders, CTV News has learned.Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan is expected to lay out the Conservatives' plan to reduce parole opportunities for non-violent offenders such drug dealers and white collar criminals on Monday.
"Offenders will no longer be eligible for day parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence," CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Sunday on the planned legislation. "Offenders will no longer be released on full parole after serving only one-third of their sentence."
It looks like we are going to need a massive amount of prisons built. Wish that Van Loan would reveal the cost to his plan.
In Manitoba, the Free Press revealed that every prison in the province was way over capacity. A riot in Brandon in the last weeks was due in part to crowded conditions, according to officials themselves.
If the goal is to ensure that everyone convicted of a crime serves a long sentence, we will need a lot more prisons than we do now and will have to pay more annually than we do now.
The Tories always play the tough on crime stance but they downplay the tough on finances aspect of their policies.
-
That's not what Ignatieff said. Ignatieffs reasons were to put pressure on the NDP. Infact all his actions were more about dealing with the NDP, then dealing with the CPC or more importantly, dealing with current issues such as EI.
There was certainly a move to counter the NDP who would have voted against the EI changes if the Liberals had said they were supporting them. I have no doubt about that.
However, at the heart of the problem was the belief that the Tories would call an election anyway and it was important to not continually back down.
End of the day, it has proven to be a short term tactical blunder that may well grow into a long term strategic failing.If the polls stay high for the Tories for the next three months. That is a lifetime in politics.
Its too early to tell, but the LPC have suffered the most.That's true. And the NDP have benefited the least. The BQ and Tories have done well though.
-
Dobbins is basically correct here: Canadians really don't want an election. And nobody else is going to force an election right now. So it's catch-22 for Harper... he's got enough support to come close to his majority if there were an election right now, but if he called an election to take advantage of the opportunity he wouldn't have that support anymore.
No one would be asking the question of Harper calling an election if he hadn't done it once before. The fixed election date is worthless.
One of the reasons the Liberals expressed no confidence in the first place was based on the belief that propping up the government was of little use if Harper was planning on calling an election contrary to the legislation anyway.
All I hear once again is that it is impossible for that to happen. It isn't impossible. All of the people in this forum who said they would not vote Tory again if they called an election without losing a confidence vote found a reason to vote for them despite that.
Harper has to seriously look at the timing. I'm sure that internal polling is asking Canadians what would be an acceptable trigger for an election and what the winning issues would be.
The high poll numbers now might be not lost given the unexpected in politics. A simple Auditor General's report on stimulus spending could turn off voters. If not that, a poor response to a disaster has been shown to be a turning point in a few countries. I expect Harper knows that support goes up and it goes down.
It is hard to believe that Harper would completely leave the possibility of an early election to chance.
-
We'll see if Harper decides to go for an election now.
-
Again, if you're suggesting an majority election result is the event that will change the direction of the military, that's an easy question for the government to answer. The answer is obvious. Why aren't they asked this do you think?
Harper has already said that if he had a majority, he would be doing different things. He won't be pinned down on specifics though.
Angling eh?
We saw that last week with talk about how many military people will be staying. Or did you miss that?
Yes, if they're building hospitals like the NDP has always wanted, they're going to be shot at even if they're wearing peacekeeping uniforms. Is the Liberal position that Canada will no longer play any role in Afghanistan or any other situation where casualties could be involved?Think the Liberal position is that Canada should withdraw from Afghanistan to re-group and to re-evaluate where we would best serve Canadian security and help Afghanistan.
I don't believe there is a non-combat role in Afghanistan and that as long as Pakistan remains a haven, it is impossible to secure Afghanistan. Only Afghanistan and Pakistan can secure their own countries.
Who is the extreme right wing? Are you suggesting the Conservative government is extreme right wing? What is this hidden agenda? To be thrown out of office?Think I am suggesting certain posters are.
You remind me of Les Nessman and his relentless communist conspiracy theories.You remind me of Rush Limbaugh with all his mainstream media conspiracy theories.
So you're interested in learning about Harper's positions so you can dismiss them. lolAnd you are interested in hiding them so they can come to pass?
What is your view on the combat mission in Afghanistan past 2011?
-
I don't remember hearing dobbin whining about where the money was spent when The Liberals were in power.
Then you haven't read what I have written on overspending.
-
Do they speak for the government? No. Does their opinion on what "could" happen matter at all? No.
Until I hear that the government has definitively ruled out a change if an election produces a majority, it remains an open question.
At the moment, the government is angling to keep troops in place while somehow redefining what their job is.
As some of the critics around the world have pointed out, it doesn't matter what a foreign soldier's role is, they are still in a combat situation if they are out in the country-side.
It's the reporter who should be lumped in the the Liberal party, if anyone, or at least the shitty journalist party.The extreme right wing complains about a hidden agenda of the media while saying they themselves don't have one?
I think it is Harper himself that says Conservatives can't be conservatives while in a minority. I'd love to know what means on a variety of issues including Afghanistan.
All I hear is that it is impossible that he will break the 2011 rule. Well, his promise means nothing since he can't even stick to fixed election dates.
-
Dancer, have you ever watched...
It is funny how some people think Granastein and Hillier are Liberals. On CTV interviews they both said how a Conservative majority could change Canada's stand on staying.
Hillier was particularly strong in his view about minority government and how it affected his job in interviews with the media.
Pathetic and desperate indeed how these two individuals are suddenly lumped in with the Liberal party.
-
Which area gives more bang for the buck?
Which REALLY makes more sense?
Economically, I'd be hard pressed to think that spending less in the urban areas will act efficiently as a stimulus.
-
A lot of smoke has been raised about more stimulus money - on average - going to Tory ridings. While the Conservatives have made inroads into urban ridings, they are the dominant party in Rural Canada. Here's an interesting article that puts things in perspective:
I think this comes into the category: To the party in power go the spoils of power.
-
C'mon Dobbin - that's pretty harsh and I wouldn't expect it of you. The issue is not whether through various calculations, more money went to Tory ridings...the issue is whether there was any overt partisanship in selecting the "projects". Projects are chosen in conjunction with the Provinces and Minicipalities - that's a fact.
It is also a fact that the U.S. has better disclosure of their stimulus funding and what outside analysts have been able to find thus far is spending that happens more in Tory held ridings.
If that isn't tru, tell the Tories to disclose the spending as they do in the States. I'm not the only one asking for this. Many analysts, some right of center, say this a problem.
George Smitherman has acknowledged that at this point in time, more money has gone to Tory ridings - but in working with the Harper government, he has not seen any unfair treatment and across all Federal funding envelopes, he expects things will work out equitably - that's a fact. The Smitherman article also pointed out that Toronto fared better than other parts on Ontario - and they have NO Tory ridings - that's a fact. And from one of the previous articles, here's a quote from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities:And yet even Smitherman and others have said they noted that Tory ridings seem to be favoured more.
-
Harper has been absolutely, categorically clear that Canada's military will leave in 2011. Parliament voted and decided.
In a minority government.
Some analysts have been saying this week that a majority for the Tories could change that.
-
Dobbin, I am not saying that the Queen's award to Chretien explains entirely current federal Liberal poll results - or even the federal Liberal poll numbers in Quebec.
That exactly what you seemed to be saying.
I am saying that if Chretien cared about federal Liberals rather than his own vanity, he would have refused this honour. And I'm also saying that Stephen Harper seems to have made some wise political decisions in the past few months.What you seemed to suggest back then was that Harper gave the Queen approval to give an award despite any evidence to support it.
I'm fairly certain that the award barely registered with most Canadians.
What has registered was that there was a possibility of an election and the public rejected that idea if the polls are any indication.
Harper's problem now is that he can come down firmly against an election so any attempt to call one himself or act with the previous belligerence he has shown will probably take away the points in the polls so that once again he falls short of a majority.
You can be sure that the Queen's award won't weigh on anyone's minds in an election.
-
Well, how is Ignatieff doing in the polls now, Fall 2009? In particular, how is the federal Liberal Party fairing in Quebec?
And you think this is all related to the Queen's award of a prime minister, two governments past?
Next you'll be saying that the Republicans secretly had approval of the Nobel Prize for Obama.
-
A Provincial Liberal in the Ontario government has already refuted the info presented in those articals, his statement was in the articals posted earler in the thread but you seem to have conviently decided to ignore them.
And he also said in the same article that it appeared as if some ridings held by Tories were getting more money. You conveniently ignored that.
Smitherman, who is believed to be weighing a Toronto mayoral bid, conceded an analysis of the parks, rinks and recreational program does seem a bit more favourable to rural Ontario.So once again, stop lying.
-
So you have proof of this spending? Lets see it.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/22/...s-spending.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1333239/
You have called me a liar but have provided no proof, just empty rhetoric.I do call you a liar.
I expect that you will say that these reports are inaccurate.
And I will tell you to reveal what the actual figures are since even the Budget Officer has not got other numbers at this time despite many requests.
-
Do you see a campaign, I don't.
I see four campaigns going on right now.
I see the CPC advancing the stimulus, the same stimulus I might add that both the Liberal Party and the NDP were ready to excute a coup on the government to force it to create and spend.And Harper ran to the Governor General in terror to stop it so that he could keep spending in Tory ridings.
I don't lie, or mislead. I call them as I see them.So do I. And I am telling you what I see in your posts.
-
Rebagliati doesn't have a snowball's chance in this socially conservative BC riding which includes a high percentage of retirees from Alberta.
I agree it seems a longshot.
Day has stuck to his knitting in cabinet. The only way I seem him losing is something completely unexpected.
Tories to crack down on parole for non-violent offenders
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
If that is the case, let's hear even the vague numbers.
I haven't seen deterrence work yet in this area. Do you have any numbers? Perhaps if they had long sentences for users of say... 5 years, you might see some change in behaviour. I don't know. How many people do you want to put in jail?
We still need to hear the numbers. This was the main problem with three strikes, you're out. It was an ever increasing money number.