Youth justice

[noahbody]

And yet, crime is down.

According to information collected by Canadian police forces, the violent crime rate among youth aged 12 to 17 increased by 12 per cent between 1997 and 2006, and 30 per cent since 1991.

http://www.canada.com/mapleridgetimes/news...9a-2650cc741575

I think it's more accurate to say overall reported crime is down. I have to wonder how many property crimes go unreported because it's known the police won't bother doing anything about them. That's been my experience, even with an attempted vehicle theft.

[Smallc]

Yes, youth crime is up, but the ovrall crime rate is down, despite all the predictions of the downfall of society. Counter to what you say, it could alslo argued that better reporting is behind the increase.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Smallc

[myata]

To treat violence with more violence? Sounds like an explosive idea. I'd rather try something common sense. There must be a real, practical sanction for any non trivial offence. If it cannot be violence, on one hand, or empty words on another, then fine would be a most obvious alternative. Why couldn't we start with something simple and obvious, and see where it'd take us? Is there any problems with this solution?

[Hydraboss]

Why couldn't we start with something simple and obvious, and see where it'd take us? Is there any problems with this solution?

Tried that. All the french guy did was screw us up as a country in 1982.

[Smallc]

Yeah, having a constitution with guaranteed civil liberties is a terrible thing.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Smallc

[bjre]

Yeah, having a constitution with guaranteed civil liberties is a terrible thing.

Just don't tell people what is allowed to do and what is not too much. The nation will pay for that.

[noahbody]

Yes, youth crime is up, but the ovrall crime rate is down, despite all the predictions of the downfall of society.

That has more to do with the aging of our population than anything else.

Counter to what you say, it could alslo argued that better reporting is behind the increase.

What better reporting is that? Would you agree with a slap on the wrist system, it would be more likely that violent incidents would go unreported out of fear of retribution?

[bjre]

Yeah, having a constitution with guaranteed civil liberties is a terrible thing.

Just don't tell people what is allowed to do and what is not too much. The nation will pay for that.

The more not allowed by law, the more bureaucracy will needed, the more people will pay for it, the more error will happen, the more corruption will make use of it, the more unfairness will generated, the more ability of children for solving problems will be disabled, the more nation and people's future will be worse.

(edit to add) The more constitutional freedom will be recalled.

Edited May 25, 2009 by bjre

[myata]

Yeah sure, lawless wild west is lot better. Nobody to tell you what to do, and nobody whatsoever to protect you if somebody decides that the thing to do is to take your house, wife, etc and kick you out or worse. Sure you can prove how it leads to more constitutional freedom be given, just try.

[bjre]

Yeah sure, lawless wild west is lot better. Nobody to tell you what to do, and nobody whatsoever to protect you if somebody decides that the thing to do is to take your house, wife, etc and kick you out or worse. Sure you can prove how it leads to more constitutional freedom be given, just try.

That is another extreme. Law is necessary to protect people, but not the only thing we can rely on, education is more effective than law, education included in school, from TV, from home, from society.

Too many laws is just as harmful as no law. People can easier to find a law to do legal attack:

"First we kill the lawyers!"

It's not the corporate system. It's our public system! If you stop to help someone who has been in an accident you can't help but think of cases that have actually happened where the victim sued the person trying to help for not being qualified.

If someone steals your property and gets hurt while you chase them they can and do press charges against YOU! What's more, almost any daily paper has reports of where the thief or assailant gets off with far fewer charges than the victim.

A local school bus driver was tried and CONVICTED of molesting a little girl! What happened? A little girl was crying her eyes out and wasn't getting up to leave at her stop. The driver went back and tried to comfort her, giving her a hug. This was in broad daylight with a full busload of children. He walked her off the bus to her mother that was waiting at the stop.

Later, when the mother found out that he had hugged her little girl she decided to "make a federal case out of it" and brought charges!

Unfortunately, before it ever went to court he lost his job and his reputation. The judge threw the charges out but it didn't matter. The damage was done.

Now, if a child is crying no bus driver in my town will do anything. Who can blame them?

We have a society where Good Samaritans are looked on as villains or at the least, easy targets for a lawsuit.

Perhaps you can explain how I've missed some corporate connection.

The law grant someone to take kids from their parents makes Harper at apologize to native people:

"While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences at residential schools, these stories are far overshadowed by tragic accounts of the emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children, and their separation from powerless families and communities." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/...al-apology.html

The law grant someone to take kids from their parents makes 36% CAS in care kids end up in correction system

For kids in B.C. care, jail a more likely future than graduation

Preliminary findings from a study by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond indicate that 44 per cent of adolescents receiving services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development end up facing criminal charges.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...36-85962a55e571

Laws become a shield for hospitals to hide their error so that they can continue take large sum of money from tax payers with poor service that kills as many as 24000 Canadians a year by Medical error:

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...61-dad8ae00afda

Medical errors kill 24,000 annually: Report

As many as 24,000 people die each year from in-hospital adverse events like surgical errors, wrong medication and hospital-acquired infections, according to statistics from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

BY CANWEST NEWS SERVICE， MARCH 29, 2007

New laws aimed to take more people's freedom and right away:

Canadian Bill C51 purportedly proposes sweeping changes to the herbal supplement and naturopathic/homeopathic remedies market. The following excerpted from an anti Bill C51 website, although not independently confirmed, suggests that the bill would (amongst other things):

1) Fasttrack pharmaceutical drug approval and

2) Make over 70% percent of current herbal drugs illegal.

http://mwiner.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/can...-trial-funding/

And too many others and unknowns.

Is the more laws, the better? No, Canada has too many laws, it will make Canada become worse because people's freedom becomes less and less with the increase of the laws. New inventions / new business will be illegal, Jobs, economy growth points will went away to find place with low cost, low risk, much freedom.

[Smallc]

Would you agree with a slap on the wrist system, it would be more likely that violent incidents would go unreported out of fear of retribution?

'Slap on the wrist' is a subjective term. By European standards, our system is quite harsh. And Europe seems to have even less crime than we do...and by international standards, we enjoy quite a low rate. Justice isn't about what you want to see done, it's about what is deemed to be fair and right in the eyes of the law. People should report crime...and let the system handle the rest. It will, or course, make mistakes, but letting justice take it's course is always the best option.

[Smallc]

Crime goes up and down, and we always seem to work it out. I'm unconcerned by an overall up trend right now, provided it doesn't continue. Violent crime is a terrible thing, but overall, we'll quite safe, and it's probably safe to assume that it will remain that way.

[Argus]

And yet, crime is down.

Crime overall is down, as most experts believe, due to a steady drop in the percentage of the population which is comprised of young males.

But that does not mean young males are less violent. On the contrary. Young males - and young females, are much more violent than before.

[Argus]

To treat violence with more violence? Sounds like an explosive idea. I'd rather try something common sense. There must be a real, practical sanction for any non trivial offence. If it cannot be violence, on one hand, or empty words on another, then fine would be a most obvious alternative. Why couldn't we start with something simple and obvious, and see where it'd take us? Is there any problems with this solution?

I dunno. The violence bit worked quite well for about nine thousand years. It deterred people from breaking the law within societies.

Also served to enforce discipline among soldiers.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Argus