Conservatives on crime

[Fain]

I voted conservative the last 2 federal elections but will not in the next election. I liked alot of what they did with the taxes, trying to make cellphone industry more competitive, and other issues but the new measures in crime are unacceptable(i.e. mandatory sentences). Harsh penalties for guns are appropriate but towards drugs they are being draconian. A more libertarian approach is needed

[myata]

Harper's approach to crime is purely ideological, and driven by the strategy to scare voters into voting for him.

Overall crime stats are showing continuing downward trend. There're specific pockets of problems, mostly gang and guns related, that will require specific ongoing persistent efforts to control. Instead we're offered blanket "get tough" methods. To remind, from an earlier tread related to this topic, this country is already very high (if not second highest, among the developed countries) by its rate of incarceration. Combined with higher crime rate, than most. And yes, the US is highest on both, incarceration, and crime. See the trend? Not Harper. Talk about gun control - it falls on deaf ears. Addressing social causes, no particular interest. Get tough cuts it. Simple, easy to understand for certain audience. Will it work? As likely as it did down south. Will it help them get reelected? They must certainly believe so.

[noahbody]

If you want to get gangs of the streets, mandatory sentencing is needed. It also provides a clear deterrent. If you do this crime, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts.

[madmax]

If you want to get gangs of the streets, mandatory sentencing is needed. It also provides a clear deterrent. If you do this crime, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ok, I have stopped laughing now. I can't believe people still trot out such nonsense. Countries have the death penalty and their are still murders. Countries cut off the hands of theives and there is still theft. (Conrad Black should be happy he is a convicted fellon in the US). And countries have mandatory sentencing and still have gangs.

Edited August 1, 2008 by madmax

[myata]

If you want to get gangs of the streets, mandatory sentencing is needed. It also provides a clear deterrent. If you do this crime, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts.

Getting anything off the streets first requires understanding the problem. Preventing yound kids from getting recruited into gangs would do lot more (and cost much less), than sending them to jail (and keeping, in the future). That would ask for long persistent work though, not a "bang on" slogan, something Harper crowd seems to be only interested in.

[White Doors]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ok, I have stopped laughing now. I can't believe people still trot out such nonsense. Countries have the death penalty and their are still murders. Countries cut off the hands of theives and there is still theft. (Conrad Black should be happy he is a convicted fellon in the US). And countries have mandatory sentencing and still have gangs.

Did you have a point to make here?

I don't recall anyone saying that murders, theft and gangs would vanish with mandatory sentences.

I do recall lots of statistics indicating that alot of crime is committed by repeat offenders and people put on bail which is what this legislation addresses.

This legislation does not target casual pot users in the least, those that think so do not have an understanding of the legislation.

[White Doors]

Getting anything off the streets first requires understanding the problem. Preventing yound kids from getting recruited into gangs would do lot more (and cost much less), than sending them to jail (and keeping, in the future). That would ask for long persistent work though, not a "bang on" slogan, something Harper crowd seems to be only interested in.

There are already programs and prevention in place and has been for a long time.

This is what you do with the hardened criminals. clearly a slap on the wrist wasn't working.

[myata]

We keep hearing this "slap" theory (including home printed brochures I'm regularly getting from my Conservative MP), but the problems is, it's really vague on facts. So we'll leave it at that (ie. as a theory) till facts are provided. And facts (of a different kind) were provided: Canada is second highest, among developed nations, by incarceration rate. And also one of the highest by crime. US is highest on both. So, the putting more people in jails per se won't solve any problems. Addressing crime as complex social issue, would. But that's not how Harpers' Conservatives see it. Gun control - non issue. Social measures, not to be seen anywhere. Investing into national programs, strategies to fight organized crime? Whoever heard of that? What's left? "Slap on the wrist", "Get tough" bandwagon.

[noahbody]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Let me guess. You're naked and looking in the mirror.

I can't believe people still trot out such nonsense. Countries have the death penalty and their are still murders.

That's nice. Not relevant though.

Countries cut off the hands of theives and there is still theft.

How many repeat offenders are there?

And countries have mandatory sentencing and still have gangs.

Mandatory sentencing does two things to gangs. It can decrease their current membership and ability to attract new members, making the lifestyle more risky than rewarding. Might actually provide incentives for parents to get involved.

[madmax]

How many repeat offenders are there?

I have seen multiples. I guy who already lost both his hands was having his left foot cut off for taking a comb, if you can imagine that.

Mandatory sentencing does two things to gangs. It can decrease their current membership and ability to attract new members, making the lifestyle more risky than rewarding. Might actually provide incentives for parents to get involved.

What a bunch of bullshit. Mandatory or not, putting people in Jail hasn't created the utopia you wish to pretend will be created.

The US has had mandatory sentencing for over a decade and gang membership has been increasing not decreasing according to their own documents. Meanwhile the jails are stacked with more people then any other country in the world IIRC.

Parents should be involved with their kids. Its called being a PARENT. What incentive is there for the parent when a teenager is sentenced to a mandatory jail term and comes out with a whole toolbox of criminal knowledge. By then its too late.

Parents need to be involved early well before kids are 6 years old. By the time, you envision them locked up, it is an uphill battle and a jailterm could well be the final nail in the coffin for a repeat offender. Then you got a long term case in the prison system.

Each case, needs to be looked at on an individual basis, as promoted by the crown, defense and the judge/judge and jury before sentencing of any kind.

[madmax]

Did you have a point to make here?

I don't recall anyone saying that murders, theft and gangs would vanish with mandatory sentences.

I do recall lots of statistics indicating that alot of crime is committed by repeat offenders and people put on bail which is what this legislation addresses.

This legislation does not target casual pot users in the least, those that think so do not have an understanding of the legislation.

Yes, my response was for NOAHBODY. Your comments stand on their own. Well see how the Libertarian views it.

Edited August 1, 2008 by madmax

[jdobbin]

If you want to get gangs of the streets, mandatory sentencing is needed. It also provides a clear deterrent. If you do this crime, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts.

I agree we should people who commit crimes behind bars. However, the problems of a large incarcerated population cannot be overlooked. In the U.S., some prisons are bursting at the seams and are now facing a pupils versus prisoners debate as states face the financial crunch of keeping people behind bars for lengthy sentences.

There has to be a balance between protecting the public while rehabilitating people. Moreover, crime prevention needs to take on a whole new meaning. In a lot of cases, it means interventions through education, mentoring and health lessons. In Manitoba, we are seeing too many Fetal Alcohol Syndrome people who simply have self control issues. In their case, the intervention should happen with their mothers. Stop the FAS and stop the future problems than might end of being criminal.

Not every solution to crime means throwing people in the slammer. Prevention goes a long way to stopping things long before that.

[eyeball]

If you want to get gangs of the streets, mandatory sentencing is needed.

No, what you need to do is prohibit alcohol. Yup, that's the ticket.

[eyeball]

Mandatory sentencing does two things to gangs. It can decrease their current membership and ability to attract new members, making the lifestyle more risky than rewarding.

I'm betting it will also cause the evolution of tougher more ruthless criminals who are willing to shoot it out with the police rather than risk being thrown in jail forever.

[Wild Bill]

I'm betting it will also cause the evolution of tougher more ruthless criminals who are willing to shoot it out with the police rather than risk being thrown in jail forever.

Not at all! For years now gang leaders have used juveniles as the front line shock troops, especially for shootouts. The juveniles will get far lighter sentences if caught, they will get increased status within the gang for their willingness to do violence, and the gang leaders (who don't care a whit for the juveniles anyway) can sit back with impunity.

[eyeball]

Not at all! For years now gang leaders have used juveniles as the front line shock troops, especially for shootouts. The juveniles will get far lighter sentences if caught, they will get increased status within the gang for their willingness to do violence, and the gang leaders (who don't care a whit for the juveniles anyway) can sit back with impunity.

Sounds like you just proved my point, gang leaders are more ruthless and gang members are more willing to commit violence. If there's one thing that's going to look good on your 'resume' when you're thrown in prison its that you shot at or killed a cop.

The incentives to commit violence just keep piling up over time. Mandatory sentencing - crakin' down and gettin' tough - will increase the stakes, the price, the profits and invite more corruption involving police and other justice officials, just like it did in Al Capone's day.

[Wilber]

The incentives to commit violence just keep piling up over time. Mandatory sentencing - crakin' down and gettin' tough - will increase the stakes, the price, the profits and invite more corruption involving police and other justice officials, just like it did in Al Capone's day.

Yup, lets get rid of the cops and the courts so no one can be corrupted. Makes sense to me.

[eyeball]

Yup, lets get rid of the cops and the courts so no one can be corrupted. Makes sense to me.

A better idea would be to get rid of prohibition. That's what got the gangs off the streets in Capone's day. Unfortunately most of the gang leaders probably wound up on Wall Street, probably because corruption had effectively neutralized - got rid of - the cops and the courts.

[Wilber]

A better idea would be to get rid of prohibition. That's what got the gangs off the streets in Capone's day. Unfortunately most of the gang leaders probably wound up on Wall Street, probably because corruption had effectively neutralized - got rid of - the cops and the courts.

So organized crime disappeared with along with prohibition and there were no such thing as gangs before prohibition.

[eyeball]

So organized crime disappeared with along with prohibition and there were no such thing as gangs before prohibition.

Much of the organized crime that dealt alcohol moved uptown to Wall Street and went legit. The prohibition of other drugs left the field wide open for new tougher more ruthless gangs to evolve and grow.

Do you disagree with the idea that the prohibition of alcohol directly caused an increase in gang violence?

[Wilber]

Much of the organized crime that dealt alcohol moved uptown to Wall Street and went legit. The prohibition of other drugs left the field wide open for new tougher more ruthless gangs to evolve and grow.

Do you disagree with the idea that the prohibition of alcohol directly caused an increase in gang violence?

I maintain that there has been gang violence in every culture in every era regardless of what was or was not prohibited.

[blueblood]

Much of the organized crime that dealt alcohol moved uptown to Wall Street and went legit. The prohibition of other drugs left the field wide open for new tougher more ruthless gangs to evolve and grow.

Do you disagree with the idea that the prohibition of alcohol directly caused an increase in gang violence?

There was a time when there was no prohibition of anything and it was anything goes like in your little dream world, it was called the wild west and guess what there was STILL organized crime and was a much larger problem then.

The Americans fought long and hard and passed laws that will prevent that type of insanity from returning ever again. Prohibition being won. Prohibition on alcohol was let go because of pressure from the booze industry big wigs.

Edited August 2, 2008 by blueblood

[bk59]

If you want to get gangs of the streets, mandatory sentencing is needed. It also provides a clear deterrent. If you do this crime, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts.

Why exactly is mandatory sentencing needed? The option to sentence criminals harshly is currently available in our justice system. Why not work to have the system (judges, juries, prosecutors, etc.) give out more appropriate sentences in individual cases? You can have harsher sentences where appropriate and lesser sentences where appropriate. Under a mandatory sentencing regime you do not have the option to give a lesser sentence where appropriate.

Make no mistake, even if harsher sentences are required in some cases, the solution is not to limit choices. The solution is to utilize the choices that we already have (i.e. tougher sentences).

Mandatory sentencing has no up side that we do not already have and has a down side that we do not need.

[Wild Bill]

Why exactly is mandatory sentencing needed? The option to sentence criminals harshly is currently available in our justice system. Why not work to have the system (judges, juries, prosecutors, etc.) give out more appropriate sentences in individual cases? You can have harsher sentences where appropriate and lesser sentences where appropriate. Under a mandatory sentencing regime you do not have the option to give a lesser sentence where appropriate.

Make no mistake, even if harsher sentences are required in some cases, the solution is not to limit choices. The solution is to utilize the choices that we already have (i.e. tougher sentences).

Mandatory sentencing has no up side that we do not already have and has a down side that we do not need.

Why not work to make judges apply the sentences already available? I should think that would be obvious. The general perception is that we citizens have little or no power to do this, except only in the most abstract sense.

Consider, in Canada judges are not elected. They are appointed for life. If you don't like a judge's sentencing record then that's just too bad! In fact, be careful how loud and publicly you criticize him. That too is considered a crime and he can have you charged!

If you write an angry letter to the editor, rail all you want but be careful not to mention any specific judge by name, even if he gave Paul Bernardo only a slap on the wrist.

Mandatory sentencing is perceived as a tool to FORCE such judges into giving sentences more in line with the public will! I'm not taking a stand as to whether or not it would be a good tool, just that perhaps this is the reason.

[Argus]

Getting anything off the streets first requires understanding the problem. Preventing yound kids from getting recruited into gangs would do lot more (and cost much less), than sending them to jail (and keeping, in the future).

Know what would be even cheaper and better? Get control of our immigration system. Most street gang members are either immigrants or first generation "canadians".