benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Yes - but a good judge should be able to tell what's going on by looking for two seconds and listening for three. The rest it theatre - and you love drama and the tapestry that is living... Two, three seconds are all that it takes to kill someone when you pitifully lack self-control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Which Ontario law? The Ontario law introduced in 2001. http://www.lfpress.ca/perl-bin/publish.cgi...32&s=health Under Ontario law, hospitals and other public health-care providers are prohibited from running a deficit. You don't know about this? I did. You said that it was against the law for Alberta and NB to run deficits. They're running deficits this year, and project deficits next year. Once again, you make up your own facts. And I said that two provinces had to change their laws to keep from breaking the law on deficits. Check what I wrote because you are making up facts. For what reason? Mainly because Harper won't run it through existing municipal programs which I'm sure you know already. Once again, you misrepresent things, and make up your own facts. This is from the very link you posted..."It's undoubtedly the case that we're going to be building new prisons in the future," he said in an interview. But that need has more to do with crumbling buildings and overall population growth than Conservative plans to lock up more people, he said Hmmm. Crumbling buildings. I wonder which Party was in power for say 12 years, and let our prision system fall behind and crumble? Hmmm. Money for democratic elections vs stolen money for liberal crime, are two very different things. I'm sorry you can't see that. And you never read this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1166222/ Canada's prison system is stretched to the breaking point and any sudden influx of new inmates would be "dangerous," says the federal correctional investigator. No getting around what he is saying and you are once again proved wrong as you are always wrong. I'm proven wrong by 5 people escaping from a Regina prision last year? I believe that prisioners have been escaping prisions since prisions were created. Your link didn't say anything about the escape being related to a lack of staff and/or overpopulation. I guess you're just assuming? And apparently, using your same logic. These prisioners escaped last year, because of the influx of new inmates, that may take place this year? Ooooookkkkaaaaayyyyy. What a sorry excuse you make for extremely violent murderers escaping from a locked down prison. Yes, you are wrong. You are so wrong that you make excuses for inmates escaping. The prisoners escaped because the government is more concerned about making noise about being tough on crime thany they are fixing prisons and properly staffing them. The watchdog says they are filled to the rafters and yet you think there is no problem and laugh it up when murderers escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The prisoners escaped because the government is more concerned about making noise about being tough on crime thany they are fixing prisons and properly staffing them. The watchdog says they are filled to the rafters and yet you think there is no problem and laugh it up when murderers escape. If we let Conservatives go too far on their "Law and Order" ideology, prisoners will come to escape only to alert the general population about what is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 http://www.justicemonitor.ca/repeatoffenders.htm I'm sure you think that's an interesting read but it's got nothing to do with faint hope clause statistics. Those people are on parole for life. If they commit an offense federal or provincial then their parole is revoked and they go back to jail. The criticism in your website applies to people who've finished their sentences and then reoffend not to people like those under faint hope who never finish their sentences. The threat you're trying to prove doesn't exist. I will submit that some violent offenders deserve little more than to waste away in jail. Olson, Bernardo, to name just two. They will never get out, but they are an exception and they should not be. Another classic argument in these types of discussions and it's as misplaced as the last 1. Obviously there're some prisoners who shouldn't be given parole early or otherwise. People who support the faint hope clause aren't demanding that every prisoner be given an early parole hearing let alone early parole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm sure you think that's an interesting read but it's got nothing to do with faint hope clause statistics. Those people are on parole for life. If they commit an offense federal or provincial then their parole is revoked and they go back to jail. The criticism in your website applies to people who've finished their sentences and then reoffend not to people like those under faint hope who never finish their sentences. The threat you're trying to prove doesn't exist.Another classic argument in these types of discussions and it's as misplaced as the last 1. Obviously there're some prisoners who shouldn't be given parole early or otherwise. People who support the faint hope clause aren't demanding that every prisoner be given an early parole hearing let alone early parole. The point is the tendency of convicted felons to become repeat offenders and that represents a risk to society. That risk is foolish to say the least, and it is the responsibility of the government to protect the citizens from known risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The point is the tendency of convicted felons to become repeat offenders and that represents a risk to society. That risk is foolish to say the least, and it is the responsibility of the government to protect the citizens from known risks. Canfan answers well to your point: government protects citizens by playing one type of risk (parole) against another (debilitating jail time). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Canfan answers well to your point: government protects citizens by playing one type of risk (parole) against another (debilitating jail time). I admit that. I just think that it is wrong. Would you like a child molester next door to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 I admit that. I just think that it is wrong. Would you like a child molester next door to you? I have already mentioned on this thread that the NIMBY syndrome is more part of the problem than part of the solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 I have already mentioned on this thread that the NIMBY syndrome is more part of the problem than part of the solution. How is it part of the problem? Don't you have the cart in front of the horse? Why is another citizens right to security a problem? Why does the convicted felon have the ability to override the rights of that citizen next door? The solution is clear and simple. Don't let the criminals out on the street! Keep in mind we are talking about violent offenders here, not some pot smoking hippie type. The real problem is the liberalized concepts of social justice and the impact to society caused by this flawed ideology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 How is it part of the problem? Don't you have the cart in front of the horse? Why is another citizens right to security a problem? Why does the convicted felon have the ability to override the rights of that citizen next door?The solution is clear and simple. Don't let the criminals out on the street! Keep in mind we are talking about violent offenders here, not some pot smoking hippie type. The real problem is the liberalized concepts of social justice and the impact to society caused by this flawed ideology. The real problem is the liberalized concepts of society because of their impacts on the capacities of smaller communities to care for and supervise all their members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The real problem is the liberalized concepts of society because of their impacts on the capacities of smaller communities to care for and supervise all their members. I will agree to that. I am a westerner, and most of us don't look to the government to do stuff. We do for ourselves and we do for each other. That is the whole ball of wax with respect to a conservative position in western Canada. From a western perspective then, the less the government does, the less it costs. When the government does do something it is usually too little and too late or simply just wrong from the get go. Add to that the feeling that elections are over before we get to vote and you can begin to understand why why don't want them any deeper in our pockets then we have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The point is the tendency of convicted felons to become repeat offenders and that represents a risk to society. That risk is foolish to say the least, and it is the responsibility of the government to protect the citizens from known risks. A risk is only foolish if it's got a real chance of happening. We can't protect everyone from everything that might be a risk. If that was true we'd be demanding our government spend billions of dollars to protect us from the small chance that an asteroid will crash into Vancouver. We've got people who try to evaluate the chance of someone reoffending and for the faint hope clause that's a jury of Canadians. It's not a perfect system but does balance some of the competing interests. You may not like the system but the government is fulfilling its responsibility to its citizens in trying to deal with these risks. If you want to keep talking about the tendency of convicted felons then you'll want to look at the stats on the prisoners who get faint hope and then get parole. And those stats up until 2001 at least show that few have reoffended and most of those have not been violent offences that would harm citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 I will agree to that. I am a westerner, and most of us don't look to the government to do stuff. We do for ourselves and we do for each other. By definition, a westerner is someone who doesn't care much about his community; a westerner is someone who leaves behind his eastern roots to go after natural resources in the wild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The real problem is the liberalized concepts of society because of their impacts on the capacities of smaller communities to care for and supervise all their members. And what is the rational nexus of this post to the thread topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 By definition, a westerner is someone who doesn't care much about his community; a westerner is someone who leaves behind his eastern roots to go after natural resources in the wild. WHAT???? We don't care about our community? That sounds like an easterner talking........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 WHAT????We don't care about our community? That sounds like an easterner talking........... That's not an easterner talking. It sounds like someone from 100 or more years ago. Maybe I'll give you easterner from 100 or more years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 That's not an easterner talking. It sounds like someone from 100 or more years ago. Maybe I'll give you easterner from 100 or more years ago. I can see what you are getting at, my family moved to Alberta in 1903 from Quebec. They buried the first born and bred Canadian ancestor of mine there in 1732. So I guess you can say we came from the east! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 WHAT????We don't care about our community? That sounds like an easterner talking........... Look at the natives to find a will to rebuild their communities, when one of their brothers becomes violent, they don't hurry themselves to put him in jail forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Look at the natives to find a will to rebuild their communities, when one of their brothers becomes violent, they don't hurry themselves to put him in jail forever. To a certain extent that is true. The thing is that we need to come together as a nation with a national will to begin a "healing" process to recover from literally decades of abusing our own society. As of this moment we have taken on a decidedly left slanted policy that detracts from our ability to evolve in a beneficial political and cultural manner. While we cater to the bottom of the barrel, we lower ourselves in the effort, by perpetuating mediocrity. Instead of throwing money at the problem the root causes need to be addressed to resolve the issues. Poverty in the midst of plenty is a crime against the enlightened society. The responsible party for that crime are the political and social leaders within our communities. We need to inspire the citizenry to do better for themselves so they can help others to do the same for themselves. The nation needs to focus on producing viable products and services that our society has in demand. It need to start from the top and work its way down to the basement of society. Those at the top are best able to adapt, in fact they have even proven that they can do so by getting where they have. Along the way we can correct the ills of our society one at a time in order of priority. This problem is the tip of the iceberg and will not be resolved until as a society we begin to understand that the improvement of the human condition is the only real viable political goal that serves the best interests of citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 The responsible party for that crime are the political and social leaders within our communities. We need to inspire the citizenry to do better for themselves so they can help others to do the same for themselves. Pointing finger is the only concrete "solution" you are proposing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Pointing finger is the only concrete "solution" you are proposing here. The solution that I envision is rather complex. It would take an entire book to write it all down. The solution to this topic is actually simple. Lockup repeat offenders and never let them out again. In the case of violent offenders, no second chance to harm a citizen, lock them up forever upon conviction. These are damned harsh methods, but nothing short of these will accomplish what NEEDS to be done. If you want a system of justice that acts to both punish and prevent crime there is simply no other way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Liberal right wing extremist just love the idea of releasing murdering creeps back into society - they love to cause social problems and form huge bureacracies to sell and provide the cure. Liberalism is controled by the old established merchant class that play all sides and don't give a damn about right and left wing partizanship...Liberals are the harrassers of society that weaken the population and break their personal reslove and atonomy...they are stoolies for the elite. Cos' a harrassed populace is weak and easy to rule - Political correctness is inflicted to cause fear and remove confidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Liberal right wing extremist just love the idea of releasing murdering creeps back into society - they love to cause social problems and form huge bureacracies to sell and provide the cure. Liberalism is controled by the old established merchant class that play all sides and don't give a damn about right and left wing partizanship...Liberals are the harrassers of society that weaken the population and break their personal reslove and atonomy...they are stoolies for the elite. Cos' a harrassed populace is weak and easy to rule - Political correctness is inflicted to cause fear and remove confidence. The right is no better by any stretch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 The solution that I envision is rather complex. It would take an entire book to write it all down.The solution to this topic is actually simple. Lockup repeat offenders and never let them out again. In the case of violent offenders, no second chance to harm a citizen, lock them up forever upon conviction. These are damned harsh methods, but nothing short of these will accomplish what NEEDS to be done. If you want a system of justice that acts to both punish and prevent crime there is simply no other way to go. Treating some people like zoo animals is everything but a needed solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Treating some people like zoo animals is everything but a needed solution. Zoo animals? You mean putting them in cages and displaying them in public? Nice idea, but not one I think you could get passed as a law. I suppose you are willing to live next door to these "citizens" when you let them out of jail. I guess you will even have the child molester living next door babysit your kids. If you are not willing to do these things then I suggest your argument and sentiments are just so much nonsense. So whats the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.