Conservatives on crime

[Argus]

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

Perhaps, but violent crime is up $350% in Canada over the past 40 years. So clearly there are cultures in which it is common and those in which it is rather less common.

[jdobbin]

Most street gang members are either immigrants or first generation "canadians".

In the west, a majority are aboriginal or Metis.

[Argus]

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.

Crime is a cultural problem. It is the byproduct of cultural failings. If you look at some of the poorest countries on earth, into the small communities where there is extreme poverty, you find little or no crime. Community is strong, and people get by as best they can. When you get into big cities family and community ties break down and values fall by the wayside. Still, you can do a lot to instill a culture of obedience to the law. Criminologists tell us that the best way is to ensure that anyone who breaks the law is caught quickly, tried quickly, and guaranteed punishment. We have none of that at present. You might or might not be caught, given how overworked police are and how burdened by paperwork. If you get caught, you might or might not be punished at some distant point in the far future, perhaps a year, or a year and a half down the road depending on negotiations between your lawyer and the Crown. Then you may or may not actually serve your sentence, if you get one, but almost certainly not much of it, because of early parole.

We need more police, and more of them working rather than filling out paperwork. We need MUCH faster trials or sentences, preferably within one week of arrest in most cases, and an end to parole except for those who have really put out an effort at reform.

[Wilber]

In the west, a majority are aboriginal or Metis.

They sure as hell aren't in BC.

[eyeball]

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

True enough but prohibition makes bad situations worse. Its a cure that's worse than the disease.

[Smallc]

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!

And that's a very good thing. Judges should be accountable to the laws of the land, not to the people. The people know nothing about justice in most cases. As the old saying goes, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[eyeball]

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.

Yes, doing drugs and alcohol are wrong because they're bad for society. Likewise, affording more opportunity to industry bigwigs is also wrong and very bad for society.

There's nothing stopping the CPC from prohibiting alcohol again or refusing to bow to pressure from industry. I think the most important message any government can send, above all else, is that it intends to apply its laws and use its power in a principled consistent manner. Anything less will result in cycnicism, crime and anarchy.

All you have to do is look around to see the evidence of this. Its everywhere.

[jdobbin]

They sure as hell aren't in BC.

In B.C., I believe the number is 31% of gang activity is aboriginal in nature which comprises the largest percentage.

The next largest percentage after that was biker gangs.

Together, they form the majority of organized crime.

Just a guess and I would say that means that the majority or organized crime in B.C. have been in Canada a few generations.

Edited August 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

Crime is a cultural problem. It is the byproduct of cultural failings. If you look at some of the poorest countries on earth, into the small communities where there is extreme poverty, you find little or no crime. Community is strong, and people get by as best they can. When you get into big cities family and community ties break down and values fall by the wayside. Still, you can do a lot to instill a culture of obedience to the law. Criminologists tell us that the best way is to ensure that anyone who breaks the law is caught quickly, tried quickly, and guaranteed punishment. We have none of that at present. You might or might not be caught, given how overworked police are and how burdened by paperwork. If you get caught, you might or might not be punished at some distant point in the far future, perhaps a year, or a year and a half down the road depending on negotiations between your lawyer and the Crown. Then you may or may not actually serve your sentence, if you get one, but almost certainly not much of it, because of early parole.

We need more police, and more of them working rather than filling out paperwork. We need MUCH faster trials or sentences, preferably within one week of arrest in most cases, and an end to parole except for those who have really put out an effort at reform.

Argus, you make so much sense.....but to broaden the argument - we all know that there are several pillars to addressing criminal behaviour, of which accountability and punishment is a major one. It's the one that should reflect society's level of revulsion with particular categories of crime. But we also know that we require educational, prevention, and rehabilitation programs to catch bad behaviour as early as possible. Those on the Left would have us believe that the Right simply want to throw everyone in jail. Any lame-brain knows that you have to do both - it is not an either/or proposition as the MSM would have people believe. As you have stated, Canada's problem is that we have so weakened the accountability side of the equation that punishment no longer reflects society's abhorrance to major crime, society is exposed to repeat offenses, and criminals simply thumb their noses at the law as a "cost of doing business".

In the real world, it's as plain as day.....get the violent offenders off the street and protect society. Put the multiple-repeat offenders away longer so they can no longer use the Justice System as "the cost of doing business".

[Wild Bill]

And that's a very good thing. Judges should be accountable to the laws of the land, not to the people. The people know nothing about justice in most cases. As the old saying goes, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Interesting viewpoint. You've just totally negated the very concept of a democracy!

So the laws of the land should not come from the people, as they aren't smart enough to know what's right and wrong. We must appoint men who we recognize are of a better calibre and look after the little babies.

So who chooses who's fit to be a judge? Not just for a time but for life. You've ruled out the people.

[bk59]

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.

...

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.

There is a catch-22 in your argument. If Canadians have no power to affect how judges sentence criminals then Canadians would have no power to force judges to give mandatory sentences. Obviously Canadians, through their representatives in Parliament, can introduce mandatory sentencing. Therefore they can also, through Parliament, introduce some types of guidelines that make it clear that tougher sentences are required in some circumstances while not affecting a judge's ability to give a more lenient sentence where appropriate.

This approach is not as easy as forcing blanket minimum sentences, I give you that. But mandatory sentencing makes the justice system less flexible and arguably less fair. We shouldn't shy away from a more appropriate solution just because it is harder to implement.

[Smallc]

Interesting viewpoint. You've just totally negated the very concept of a democracy!

So the laws of the land should not come from the people, as they aren't smart enough to know what's right and wrong. We must appoint men who we recognize are of a better calibre and look after the little babies.

So who chooses who's fit to be a judge? Not just for a time but for life. You've ruled out the people.

Judges are appointed by the people that we elect. Democracy has its part at that stage. A judge should not have to worry about an upcoming election when they make their decision. In general, people know nothing about the law....they also know nothing about politics, but thats a different issue. I don't want people who are uneducated on justice deciding what is right and what isn't.

[bk59]

Judges are appointed by the people that we elect. Democracy has its part at that stage. A judge should not have to worry about an upcoming election when they make their decision. In general, people know nothing about the law....they also know nothing about politics, but thats a different issue. I don't want people who are uneducated on justice deciding what is right and what isn't.

Well, it isn't just this idea of an "uneducated populace" that makes judicial elections a bad idea. (That rationale is a bit elitist and perhaps simplistic.) Even those educated about the law may not have the specifics of a particular case. A judge will hear all of the evidence and take into account all of the circumstances of a case when giving a sentence. Often the general public does not have that information or insight into the case. A judge should feel free to give a sentence appropriate in the circumstances without worrying about keeping his or her job. Particularly when there may be misinformation about the case floating around.

[Smallc]

Well, it isn't just this idea of an "uneducated populace" that makes judicial elections a bad idea. (That rationale is a bit elitist and perhaps simplistic.) Even those educated about the law may not have the specifics of a particular case. A judge will hear all of the evidence and take into account all of the circumstances of a case when giving a sentence. Often the general public does not have that information or insight into the case. A judge should feel free to give a sentence appropriate in the circumstances without worrying about keeping his or her job. Particularly when there may be misinformation about the case floating around.

That is basically what I meant. By saying uneducated, I was not being elitist, as I don't pretend to be educate on the law. The people that select judges are mostly people that have a great deal of experience with law I don't want that job shifted to the people, who in general do not have the same experince and knowledge on the particular subject.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

That is basically what I meant. By saying uneducated, I was not being elitist, as I don't pretend to be educate on the law. The people that select judges are mostly people that have a great deal of experience with law I don't want that job shifted to the people, who in general do not have the same experince and knowledge on the particular subject.

Your attitude is quite common. In fact, it may be the majority view. I find this absolutely amazing!

In effect, nobody knows for sure anything about the people who pick judges yet we are all confident that they are qualified and represent our best interests.

I don't know and that's why I'm asking the questions. I guess I'm less of a "faith" person than most.

[Wilber]

In B.C., I believe the number is 31% of gang activity is aboriginal in nature which comprises the largest percentage.

The next largest percentage after that was biker gangs.

Together, they form the majority of organized crime.

Just a guess and I would say that means that the majority or organized crime in B.C. have been in Canada a few generations.

Biker gangs are big as are other Caucasian gangs but aboriginals aren't even on the map when it comes to gang violence, unless you consider Asians and South Asians to be aboriginals. But yes, a large number were born here.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Biker gangs are big as are other Caucasian gangs but aboriginals aren't even on the map when it comes to gang violence, unless you consider Asians and South Asians to be aboriginals. But yes, a large number were born here.

When it comes to the violence, you have a point. The battle between the Hell's Angels, United Nations and Independent soldiers are mostly Caucasian and East Indian/Asian. They've accounted for a great deal of the murders in Vancouver and the lower mainland.

I double checked the numbers and the RCMP states that the 31% is for independent gang activity which in B.C. is street level dealing, prostitution and other crime. That was a 2004 report. Aboriginal gang activity was confined to reserves, the north and East Side Vancouver.

Compared to the rest of the west, B.C. has probably the most diverse of ethnic groups involved in organized crime.

[bk59]

In effect, nobody knows for sure anything about the people who pick judges yet we are all confident that they are qualified and represent our best interests.

This has been discussed recently on this forum in the topic "The Argus Party". I can't say that I know anyone involved in the process personally, but I am aware of the process for picking judges. Let me re-post some links...

Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Superior Court

Federally appointed judges generally and the committees

At the very least this process ensures that judges are qualified. Hopefully it also ensures that judges represent the best interests of the justice system.

[Wild Bill]

At the very least this process ensures that judges are qualified. Hopefully it also ensures that judges represent the best interests of the justice system.

Well, I guess it all depends on what you consider most important.

You worry about them representing the best interests of the justice system.

I worry about them representing the best interests of the people.

Perhaps in some ways they coincide.

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, I guess it all depends on what you consider most important.

You worry about them representing the best interests of the justice system.

I worry about them representing the best interests of the people.

Perhaps in some ways they coincide.

I would be right there with the conservatives and probably still a party member if they could get through their thick skulls the difference between "vice" and "crime". I think the system needs to be a lot harder on violent offenders, and thieves. I cannot and will not ever support a party that believes it has the right to punish people for the medicines they choose, or the foods they eat. Nobody has the right to tell me how to use my body. I can't support a government that regards using or growing plants as a crime. It is not a crime it is a natural right.

[normanchateau]

Mandatory sentencing is perceived as a tool to FORCE such judges into giving sentences more in line with the public will!

Do you seriously believe that the public will in Canada is a mandatory sentence of six months for growing one marijuana plant? That's what the social conservative Stephen Harper has introduced as legislation:

http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/canada...arijuana-fades/

[Visionseeker]

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.

Interesting.

Listen, I have this nagging pain in my thigh after I jog for more than 30 minutes, how might I fix this?

I suspect you are no more qualified to address this medical issue than you are in addressing correctional policies.

Gang activity will not be dissuaded by mandatory sentences for the simple reason that gangs fill vacancies with amazing efficiency. Like any pest, a gang adapts and grows stronger from any superficial means used to combat them. Just as a colony of roaches stands unaffected by the squishing of one of its members, a gang is largely unbowed by law enforcement pecking-off individual colours.

The solution to gangs is two fold: leadership and environment. If you truly want to put a gang out of business, you have to bring down its leaders and change the environment in which the gang operates. These can only be accomplished through effective infiltration coinciding with well thought-out community outreach activities.

[Visionseeker]

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".

I'll do you one better: nearly all stem from poverty.

You insist on fighting symptoms rather than the disease. And that is why you, and society fails.

[Visionseeker]

Interesting viewpoint. You've just totally negated the very concept of a democracy!

So the laws of the land should not come from the people, as they aren't smart enough to know what's right and wrong. We must appoint men who we recognize are of a better calibre and look after the little babies.

So who chooses who's fit to be a judge? Not just for a time but for life. You've ruled out the people.

Justice is the anti-thesis to democracy. It is the notion that fairness must override individual or communal whim. The “laws of the land” are free to come from the people. But it falls to the court to ensure that those laws are indeed fair.

The majority may dictate that left-handed people conform to the right-handed or have their left hand chopped off, but he court shall (and must) intervene to declare such provisions as invalid.

Having the people determine who shall serve on the bench nullifies any judicial safe guard.

[Wild Bill]

Do you seriously believe that the public will in Canada is a mandatory sentence of six months for growing one marijuana plant? That's what the social conservative Stephen Harper has introduced as legislation:

http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/canada...arijuana-fades/

What's your point? That because Harper is being unreasonable with mandatory sentencing over a marijuana plant that we should not have mandatory sentences for violent crimes?

I wasn't aware that we have to apply it to EVERYTHING!