Oleg Bach Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Sure I do. But I don't trust those agencies and organizations which have repeatedly proved themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent. How can law enforcement trust a judge - who releases his hard earned crimminal catch? Kind of like tossing the prize bass back in the lake - and expecting you to go out and get more....If I was law enforcement - I would stop catching fish I was not allowed to eat ----wouldn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 The RCMP and the justice system prove that more often than not, they come up with a result that is fair and that people are satisifed with. It's not their fault that people from certain sectors focus only on the negatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 The RCMP and the justice system prove that more often than not, they come up with a result that is fair and that people are satisifed with. It's not their fault that people from certain sectors focus only on the negatives. You have to give some focus on the negatives - you can't pretend they do not exist or you put yourself at peril....eg..."young men you are strong for you have mastered evil (negatives)....this means you have to understand the negatives and have power over them and not fear them - or be controlled by the lack of understanding and crippling terror..you must face it head on and know - that YOU are in control - then the negatives make a run for it - It's called taking authorship of the future - commonly called authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Put the criminals behind bars, that is where they belong. Violent offenders deserve to be in jail and nowhere else. I do not believe anyone has the right to take a life, not me, or any of you, and especially the government. Still, something has to be done to prevent re-offenders, capital punishment and duration of natural life sentences are the only two ways of doing that. So I am left with one viable option, and I believe it to be the only possible means of dealing with the problem. Life is fragile to a point where a simple strike can kill. Most kids, early in their development, are compulsive strikers. If nothing is done properly with them, they may easily become adult re-offenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Ontario made deficits illegal for hospitals in 2001. Hospitals aren't a jurisdiction. They're part of the Ontario government. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick made deficits illegal. Hmm, you may wanna re-check your 'facts'. But then again, you never let facts get in the way of your posts. N.B. government projects $285M deficit The Liberal government is prepared to live with short-term deficits and increases in net debt if it helps the economy recover from the global turmoil CBC Alberta forecasts $4.7B deficit CBC Quebec. Manitoba. So Stephen Harper is responsible for a bridge that collapses in Quebec, before he is elected as Prime Minister? All of them. Or are you under the impression they have capacity and staff? No, all of our prisions aren't 'filled to the rafters'. Please rely on facts, instead of sterotypes and urban legends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Hospitals aren't a jurisdiction. They're part of the Ontario government. Regional health authorities are a jurisdiction according to Ontario's laws. They have autonomy and a budget and the rule is no deficits. Hmm, you may wanna re-check your 'facts'. But then again, you never let facts get in the way of your posts. You wanna check what I said about two provinces having to change their laws so they wouldn't break them? Yeesh. Read what I wrote. Only two of those provinces changed their law to ensure they weren't breaking the rule on deficits. Guess which provinces those were. Yeesh. So Stephen Harper is responsible for a bridge that collapses in Quebec, before he is elected as Prime Minister? Didn't say that. He is responsible for the slow pace for present infrastructure work though. No, all of our prisions aren't 'filled to the rafters'. Please rely on facts, instead of sterotypes and urban legends. I'm afraid it you who has it wrong. You wrong in the morning, you are wrong in the afternoon...in fact, there isn't a day where you are not wrong. The last report came a few days ago. You think that I just dreamed that our prisons were at capacity? http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/644515 Sapers said the country's 58 institutions are barely managing about 13,500 inmates. Another 8,000 prisoners are under varying degrees of supervision on the outside.The majority, including sex offenders, never fully complete rehabilitation programs because of long waiting lists and frequent transfers, he said. Adding to the pressure is a spike in the number of mentally unstable offenders in the last 10 years following the closure of residential institutions without the creation of adequate community supports. Adding more inmates could tip the scales toward disaster, Sapers said. So once again you are wrong. You have been proved wrong. Tell me again how the prisons in Canada are ready for a great influx of people? Edited June 9, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 If we need more prisons, then so be it. Are you suggesting that since the prisons are full we simply stop prosecuting those who break the law? Or maybe we should change the laws so they won't be broken and then we can avoid putting people in jail. What is your point here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) If we need more prisons, then so be it. Are you suggesting that since the prisons are full we simply stop prosecuting those who break the law? Or maybe we should change the laws so they won't be broken and then we can avoid putting people in jail. What is your point here? I am saying the Tories have not taken into account prisons costs. Their promises endanger the lives of inmates, corrections officers and the public since escapes seem inevitable without proper staffing of facilties. If you are going to make such a promise tell us how much it will cost and don't endanger lives in the process of doing. It seems a simple thing to ask. Edited June 9, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I am saying the Tories have not taken into account prisons costs. Their promises endanger the lives of inmates, corrections officers and the public since escapes seem inevitable without proper staffing of facilties.If you are going to make such a promise tell us how much it will cost and don't endanger lives in the process of doing. It seems a simple thing to ask. Because jails are quite unproductive infrastructures, a complete cost analysis has to include forgone incomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I am saying the Tories have not taken into account prisons costs. Their promises endanger the lives of inmates, corrections officers and the public since escapes seem inevitable without proper staffing of facilties. I think it is disgusting how you left wingers care more about money than the safety of the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I think it is disgusting how you left wingers care more about money than the safety of the public. It is disgusting how you right wingers don't realize that money and how it applies to prisons and staffing is about public safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I think it is disgusting how you left wingers care more about money than the safety of the public. Welfare is a function of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I think it is disgusting how you left wingers care more about money than the safety of the public. Exactly. It's the typical liberal revolving-door prision concept. And I'd like Dobbin to explain why, if 'all of our prisions are filled to the rafters', and 'all of our prisions are understaffed', and 'escapes seem inevitable'. then, where are all these so-called prision escapes? Or is this yet another 'fact' which in reality is only a figment of your imagination? It is disgusting how you right wingers don't realize that money and how it applies to prisons and staffing is about public safety. Yes, it definitely is about public safety. That's why, if we need to build another prision, we should build another prision. And not pretend it has anything to do with deficit worries. Your pseudo-outrage is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Oh, and I bet we could have built a fairly nice prision with the $200 million dollars the liberals wasted and abused via sponsorship. PIC Edited June 9, 2009 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Oh, and I bet we could have built a fairly nice prision with the $200 million dollars the liberals wasted and abused via sponsorship. I bet we could also have a nice prison from the $300 million from the last election that Harper called and the electorate wasn't that interested in seeing. By the way: The Tories have re-instated sponsorship money. How much money do you think they waste? Edited June 9, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Exactly. It's the typical liberal revolving-door prision concept.And I'd like Dobbin to explain why, if 'all of our prisions are filled to the rafters', and 'all of our prisions are understaffed', and 'escapes seem inevitable'. then, where are all these so-called prision escapes? Or is this yet another 'fact' which in reality is only a figment of your imagination? Yes, it definitely is about public safety. That's why, if we need to build another prision, we should build another prision. And not pretend it has anything to do with deficit worries. Your pseudo-outrage is ridiculous. Through the NIMBY syndrome, public safety concerns are pushing the weakest to commit crimes in the anonymity of big cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I bet we could also have a nice prison from the $300 million from the last election that Harper called and the electorate wasn't that interested in seeing.By the way: The Tories have re-instated sponsorship money. How much money do you think they waste? Uhm, isn't your boy talking about calling an election NOW over the spurious issue of EI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I bet we could also have a nice prison from the $300 million from the last election that Harper called and the electorate wasn't that interested in seeing.By the way: The Tories have re-instated sponsorship money. How much money do you think they waste? It wasn't about what you wasted. It was about what you stole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Uhm, isn't your boy talking about calling an election NOW over the spurious issue of EI? EI can also be seen as a crime prevention tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Exactly. It's the typical liberal revolving-door prision concept. Typical right wing response but then not backed up with money to keep people in prison. And I'd like Dobbin to explain why, if 'all of our prisions are filled to the rafters', and 'all of our prisions are understaffed', and 'escapes seem inevitable'. then, where are all these so-called prision escapes? Or is this yet another 'fact' which in reality is only a figment of your imagination? You really are grasping at straws. Here is a fact: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2008/08/25/6569486.html Five prisoners described as dangerous and possibly armed were at large Monday after escaping from the Regina Correctional Centre.Police said six prisoners escaped around 10 p.m. Sunday night, but one was apprehended shortly before midnight. Once again you proven wrong. Wrong every day, all days. Have you ever been right except in your political views? Yes, it definitely is about public safety. That's why, if we need to build another prision, we should build another prision. And not pretend it has anything to do with deficit worries. Your pseudo-outrage is ridiculous. Show me in the budget where there is money for prisons and staffing. Stop talking about both sides on your mouth. Murderers are escaping from out locked down prisons now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Uhm, isn't your boy talking about calling an election NOW over the spurious issue of EI? There will be no election. The NDP have already said they will support the government. Ignatieff is calling Layton's bluff more than anything else. His free ride is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 It wasn't about what you wasted. It was about what you stole. What I stole? If the Tories still believe Liberal MPs are guilty of theft, they should call the RCMP or launch another investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 What I stole?If the Tories still believe Liberal MPs are guilty of theft, they should call the RCMP or launch another investigation. To me, a partisan is a prisoner, not in a jail but of a party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 The RCMP and the justice system prove that more often than not, they come up with a result that is fair and that people are satisifed with. It's not their fault that people from certain sectors focus only on the negatives. Ummm... Just wondering... where exactly is your proof that people are "satisfied with" the results of the justice system? I've seen stats which indicate just the opposite... From : http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap...r01_1/p4_1.html - 69% of respondents believe that sentences handed down by the courts are not severe enough. - 65% would like to see parole made more strict (Forgive me if that's already been discussed... I've been away and haven't had the chance to read every page of this thread yet.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I am saying the Tories have not taken into account prisons costs. Before talking about costs, consider: - According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know, not the best source, but it seems to jive with other stuff I've read), 145 people applied for the fait hope clause between 1987-2006, around 7-8 per year. At any one time, there are between 13,000-14,000 people in federal custody (not counting provincial custody, since they likely wouldn't be affected by the 'faint hope' clause). So eliminating the 'faint hope' clause affects only around 0.06% of the prison population. Even if every one of those prisoners were released (which doesn't happen), AND they all stayed out of jail it would only affect the prison budget by about 0.5%. (And this is only for the FEDERAL prison budget... if you include provincial jails, you're looking at a number that's around 0.2%) - Even if money IS saved by releasing an inmate, the government is not going to save every penny. In fact, you have to take into account: - The cost of running a parole board hearing for inmates applying under faint hope - Any cost of monitoring a released inmate - If an inmate is released and commits a crime, any money saved from the initial released must be weighed against the cost of tracking down, arresting and trying the criminal for their new crime So, ultimately, its doubtful the faint hope clause would cause any SIGNIFICANT burden to our prison system, and may even save money depending on the costs of handling the parole and dealing with any reoffenders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_hope_clause http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/St...685-601-XIE.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.