Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look, the role of government is to get the grass cut, the garbage taken away, and the sewers looked after. It's to maintain police, roads, health care, and to make sure the barbarians don't get over the walls. It's not to try and change "the human condition" with poorly designed social engineering experiments.

I simply can't agree with this. All of those things you mention are a result of citizens deciding what services that they want and the government designing a way to make it happen. In other words these things were designed for our society by the people and its government. By definition, that is social engineering. They were designed and implemented. These things improved the human condition and provide the standard of living that we now enjoy. You can take this a step further and state that politics is the tool that social engineering utilizes in the improvement of the human condition.

Yet there is more that society can and should do. Higher education should be at public expense for citizens, and non-citizens should be charged for this service. Education is a key to success and the heart and soul of an improved human condition. Employment is another key to improving the human condition, it provides the means for citizens to do for themselves and avoid the need of the government to look after them. Production is the foundation of any viable economy and must be considered to be of paramount importance. Knowing this, we can begin to understand the scope of the statement "improving the human condition". These three factors in the equation; education, employment and production are not the only factors in the equation of a society yet they are of significant importance. They also represent a problematic situation for governments. To a certain extent these factors are regularly addressed in government, yet never to the degree required to actually solve and of societies problems.

Even Marx knew and understood these things so many decades ago. Between him and Engel, they managed to come up with a system that they believed would serve to improve the human condition. They were wrong and the failed attempt at social engineering caused much pain and suffering, the state cannot and should not be considered to be the answer to all things. Yet, the state must responsible for all things, or at least accountable. Capitalism provides most of the economic answers, but what many refuse to believe is that communism provides many of the social answers. It is apparent that a merger of the two ideologies would provide a better solution.

To return to the point, politics and governments in fact "experiment" with social engineering all the time.

[Oleg Bach]

Look, the role of government is to get the grass cut, the garbage taken away, and the sewers looked after. It's to maintain police, roads, health care, and to make sure the barbarians don't get over the walls. It's not to try and change "the human condition" with poorly designed social engineering experiments.

Makes sense to me..good post. Yes I agree with Argus fully! We really don't need some jerks appointed by governmental officals - who sit back and think - "the people are stupifed and don"t know what to do - I will poorly design an experiment to change them - and if it fails - it will have been fun to feel so powerful and important - I don't want twits messing with me. Just cut the grass - and make sure a pot hole does not cos a harding working person a thousand bucks in repairs. And go hide the garbage - and respect police and maybe have some judges that have good judgement - other than that SHUT UP! We are more than capable of socially engineering ourselves...the amateurs need not apply.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Makes sense to me..good post. Yes I agree with Argus fully! We really don't need some jerks appointed by governmental officals - who sit back and think - "the people are stupifed and don"t know what to do - I will poorly design an experiment to change them - and if it fails - it will have been fun to feel so powerful and important - I don't want twits messing with me. Just cut the grass - and make sure a pot hole does not cos a harding working person a thousand bucks in repairs. And go hide the garbage - and respect police and maybe have some judges that have good judgement - other than that SHUT UP! We are more than capable of socially engineering ourselves...the amateurs need not apply.

It was a good post! Yet flawed. It sounds good on the surface, but when you think about for a minute, there is a lot more to the problem that needs to be addressed.

[benny]

They revolt themselves and the authorities are revolting...take a close look at the staff at the Toronto city hall - they revolt constantly against common sense...and this spreads up the ladder to the federal level - they are all revolting in such a manner.

The only good revolt - called (counter-)transference in psychoanalysis - is the revolt against too easy/cheap way out of social problems.

[jdobbin]

Look, the role of government is to get the grass cut, the garbage taken away, and the sewers looked after. It's to maintain police, roads, health care, and to make sure the barbarians don't get over the walls. It's not to try and change "the human condition" with poorly designed social engineering experiments.

Many on the right would say that it shouldn't include such social engineering things as cutting grass in parks or providing healthcare for barbarians.

[Oleg Bach]

Many on the right would say that it shouldn't include such social engineering things as cutting grass in parks or providing healthcare for barbarians.

Barbarians don't need your stinking health care...we are STRONG - but a dentistry at a resonable cost would be appreciated.

[benny]

Barbarians don't need your stinking health care...we are STRONG - but a dentistry at a resonable cost would be appreciated.

Most need refined sugar, some need harder drugs.

[Oleg Bach]

Most need refined sugar, some need harder drugs.

You seem to have learned a bit of good stylization from Bush Cheney - he's backed off on the intellectual prowess thing and being an overly informed communicator - now he like you is simplistic and focused - nothing worse than a musican that plays for other musicans - the trick is to play and feed the common person - yes - I used to take a tea spoon of sugar in my coffee - now I have gone though the gate way to the point where there is sweet residue in my cup.... as for harder drugs - like I say to coke users - actually they are unapproachable.."it gives you enough fuel to get to the moon but not enough to get back" - you have to make the round trip naturally or the mission is incomplete....boy that bannana sure tasted sweet...wonder how many spoons of un-refined sugar is in them? BUT - I know that a bit of potassium keeps the electolites glowing..had a sister in law who vomited her self to death - on bannana would have saved her life - It was odd - she moved in with a young man and his father and both were male anorexics.....off topic but I may as well bond a bit ..

[benny]

You seem to have learned a bit of good stylization from Bush Cheney - he's backed off on the intellectual prowess thing and being an overly informed communicator - now he like you is simplistic and focused - nothing worse than a musican that plays for other musicans - the trick is to play and feed the common person - yes - I used to take a tea spoon of sugar in my coffee - now I have gone though the gate way to the point where there is sweet residue in my cup.... as for harder drugs - like I say to coke users - actually they are unapproachable.."it gives you enough fuel to get to the moon but not enough to get back" - you have to make the round trip naturally or the mission is incomplete....boy that bannana sure tasted sweet...wonder how many spoons of un-refined sugar is in them? BUT - I know that a bit of potassium keeps the electolites glowing..had a sister in law who vomited her self to death - on bannana would have saved her life - It was odd - she moved in with a young man and his father and both were male anorexics.....off topic but I may as well bond a bit ..

The suicide rate of dentists is quite high and they often need cocaine to cope. So, your most revered professionals depend on harden criminal gang members.

[Oleg Bach]

The suicide rate of dentists is quite high and they often need cocaine to cope. So, your most revered professionals depend on harden criminal gang members.

It always fails them - it's artifical spirt.. originally in tiny amounts it staved off hunger and thirst allowing those in south america to get their herds to the next pasture and food - in concentrated form it removes the angelic parts of the brain..primarily the frontal lobe - I hung our years ago - with a depose aristocat who loved musicans - Lady Iris Mountbatten...she had an illigitimate son by a jazz player - she died and he took his inheritance and used cocaine - he was broke in six months - I came by and saw the water pipes frozen and they were burning royal furnature in the fire place to stay warm - nothing worse that a female lawyer jacked up on coke - coming in for the kill - I have no use for these people - one young player I know does coke and he will have no future - as the older one who left for New Orleans to wear the ball and chain - a man - who was so beautiful and gifted - left town with dark souless eyes looking like death - cocaine users spit in the face of god.

[benny]

It always fails them - it's artifical spirt.. originally in tiny amounts it staved off hunger and thirst allowing those in south america to get their herds to the next pasture and food - in concentrated form it removes the angelic parts of the brain..primarily the frontal lobe - I hung our years ago - with a depose aristocat who loved musicans - Lady Iris Mountbatten...she had an illigitimate son by a jazz player - she died and he took his inheritance and used cocaine - he was broke in six months - I came by and saw the water pipes frozen and they were burning royal furnature in the fire place to stay warm - nothing worse that a female lawyer jacked up on coke - coming in for the kill - I have no use for these people - one young player I know does coke and he will have no future - as the older one who left for New Orleans to wear the ball and chain - a man - who was so beautiful and gifted - left town with dark souless eyes looking like death - cocaine users spit in the face of god.

Some will suggest putting prison walls around New Orleans since New Orleans' murder rate continues to lead in the US.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06...e_new_orle.html

[Argus]

I simply can't agree with this. All of those things you mention are a result of citizens deciding what services that they want and the government designing a way to make it happen. In other words these things were designed for our society by the people and its government. By definition, that is social engineering.

No it's not. It's simply taking care of a necessary service. That's a far cry from trying to change "the human condition". People were cutting the grass and taking care of sewers eons ago. There's nothing soul changing about services such as these.

Social engineering concerns itself not with providing services to society but trying to change the nature of society, trying to change people's attitudes and cultural value set, for example. A fairly obvious social engineering idea is trying to enrich the poor at the expense of the rich and middle classes. Now I think we all agree that we don't want people freezing in the dark or starving on the streets. I think we all agree that the state should provide the basic necessities of life to those unable to provide for themselves. But social engineering goes beyond that in wanting to improve 'the quality of life' of such people - invariably at the expense of someone else. It wants to mix them in with the middle classes, for example, to house them, at state expense, in middle class areas in the hopes that the presence of workers will inspire the non-workers to perhaps look beyond the government dole and consider doing likewise. Like most social engineering experiments, such a thing is expensive,

[capricorn]

Some will suggest putting prison walls around New Orleans since New Orleans' murder rate continues to lead in the US.

Some will suggest putting a prison wall around a minimum security prison in Kingston to keep murderers from escaping by simply walking away.

Convicted of shooting a Toronto man in 1989, Andrew John Wood simply walked away from the minimum security Frontenac Institution in Kingston, Ontario on June 13.

Police are still searching for a man who simply walked away from jail in Kingston. Frontenac Institute is a minimum-security jail that can house up to 193 inmates. The recent escape of murderer Andrew John Wood is just another number for the escape-plagued jail. Convicted of second degree murder for the "execution style" shooting of a Toronto man in 1989, Wood was serving a life sentence. There are no fences, prison walls or guard towers to keep him at Frontenac. Officials are puzzled as to why Wood would risk his parole eligibility, as well as risk losing all the privileges he enjoyed at Frontenac. He was moved to Frontenac because of his good behaviour.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/274160

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No it's not. It's simply taking care of a necessary service. That's a far cry from trying to change "the human condition". People were cutting the grass and taking care of sewers eons ago. There's nothing soul changing about services such as these.

Social engineering concerns itself not with providing services to society but trying to change the nature of society, trying to change people's attitudes and cultural value set, for example. A fairly obvious social engineering idea is trying to enrich the poor at the expense of the rich and middle classes. Now I think we all agree that we don't want people freezing in the dark or starving on the streets. I think we all agree that the state should provide the basic necessities of life to those unable to provide for themselves. But social engineering goes beyond that in wanting to improve 'the quality of life' of such people - invariably at the expense of someone else. It wants to mix them in with the middle classes, for example, to house them, at state expense, in middle class areas in the hopes that the presence of workers will inspire the non-workers to perhaps look beyond the government dole and consider doing likewise. Like most social engineering experiments, such a thing is expensive,

Argus all of these social programs that we now have were called social engineering in their planning stages way back whenever. The basic necessities keep changing with advancements in technology. Signs of the times really when you think about it. Improving the quality of life as you state, is the main focus of our current set of social programs. They are designed as a floor from which citizens can only fall so low before our society catches them.

I do fully agree that the cost of doing these things is very high, especially when you take housing and utilities and food into consideration, but the point is that these things already exist and are incorporated into the system we fund with tax dollars. The system eats dollars for breakfast lunch and supper! There are damned few social programs that can be cut without horrific impact to citizens at the bottom of the pile. You know this.

Look Argus, what we are now experiencing is a very nasty case of social engineering with these bailouts and stimulus packages. Only this time the money is going to private ventures, so while individual citizens may get jobs out of the deal, the government is providing profits for business at tax payer expense. That is different from anything we have tried before. It may work, and it may not, but the point is that terminological statements are taking on entirely new meanings. What something means today may mean something else tomorrow.

I guess what I am getting at is that we really do need social engineering. However I do agree that such efforts must be well thought out and we need to be vigilant about the cost factor of doing them. The real question then becomes where do we go from here? Are the ills of society such that we can afford to live with them in a moral sense or are they such that we can afford to change them in a financial sense? Are the efforts worth the rewards, do the benefits outweigh the risks?

To get back to the thread, I suggest that we need to restructure the judicial system in order to provide society with an enhanced sense of security REALIZED through modified sentencing for violent offenses.

[benny]

Some will suggest putting a prison wall around a minimum security prison in Kingston to keep murderers from escaping by simply walking away.

The murderer in your story escapes not simply by walking away but also by risking his parole eligibility, as well as risking losing all the privileges he enjoyed at Frontenac.

Edited June 15, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

The murderer in your story escapes not simply by walking away but also by risking his parole eligibility, as well as risking losing all the privileges he enjoyed at Frontenac.

Good things come to those that wait....looks like he was tired of waiting....and now what he gets will not be so good - but if he was good to begin with he never would have ended up there. No matter how we view our system - they still attempt to correct...they just are not very good at it.

[capricorn]

The murderer in your story escapes not simply by walking away but also by risking his parole eligibility, as well as risking losing all the privileges he enjoyed at Frontenac.

There will be no more privileges for Wood at Frontenac. When Wood returns to custody, he will be transferred to a higher security federal pen.

[benny]

Any murderer at any time may have an epiphany*.

*A sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.

[segnosaur]

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.

Faint hope is one aspect of the Tory crime bill. There are significant other areas of mandatory sentencing, fewer paroles for other offenders and criminalizing wider areas of activity that all add to additional costs that the Tories are not taking into account.

First of all, while it is true that eliminating 'faint hope' is only one aspect of the Torie's crime bill, I had assumed that the focus in this thread was on that one particular area. (After all, it is in the title of the thread, and the opening post, created by jdobbin doesn't mention anything at all about other aspects of the crime bill.

So if you wanted to suggest the crime bill as a whole was a 'bad idea', why did you focus exclusively on the 'faint hope' clause in your opening post?

Secondly, did you actually look at any of the actual statistics? I managed to point out how eliminating the faint hope clause would only affect prision costs by less than half a percent. Why should we assume that other provisions of the bill would likewise be prohibitively expensive? (Hey, maybe they would be, but given the fact that you're the one making the claims, perhaps you should invoke some stats to back up your arguments.)

How often are things like 'conditional sentences' give? If its a very rare event, it won't really affect the size of the prison population at all. If its a common event, how many of those people given conditional sentences end up committing further crimes (which also leads to additional costs for the justice system)?

Thirdly, many of the provisions of the Tory bill involve implementing mandatory minimums for serious crimes. Do you really think its a good thing for people who have committed arson, armed robery, etc. to be released without jail time? All fine and good to complain about how this is going to somehow fill up the jails, but if there are people who actually should be in jail, then thats where they should be.

Lastly, is there any guarantee that we would see more people actually in jail as a result of increased penalties? After all, a couple of decades ago people predicted that jails in New York would be overflowing if they decided to crack down on 'minor' crimes (the 'Broken Windows' policy). Yet there was no surge in prision populations; in fact, fewer people were in jail.

Given that faint hope provisions are fairly tight...

Ah, back to "faint hope" again? In the beginning you suggested eliminating faint hope would mean they need to increase taxes, etc. After I showed that it would have little or no effect, you started talking about the other provisions in Conservative crime proposals. Now, you're back to talking about faint hope again.

...the noise about ending parole for some seems overblown.

What exactly do you mean "overblown"?

So, is your argument now "it doesn't affect many people"? Why should that matter? We need provisions to handle certain serious cases, regardless if the provisions affect 1 or 1,000,000 people. If you think that the conservatives are giving the issue too much publicity, fine... but that's a different argument about whether the bill itself is necessary.

It is less expensive and often more appropriate to use the parole system.

It would be less expensive just to release everyone from jail. Fortunately, most people would be opposed to such action.

People do things that cause harm to others, and sometimes those actions are significant enough that they have to be jailed.

As for your argument that it is more 'appropriate' to use the parole system... you certainly haven't provided any evidence to show that that is the case.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Here in Alberta, some jerk raped a 15 year old girl, he was 24 at the time. His sentence was 2 and 1/2 years. What is wrong with this picture?

[benny]

Here in Alberta, some jerk raped a 15 year old girl, he was 24 at the time. His sentence was 2 and 1/2 years. What is wrong with this picture?

You tell us!?

[jdobbin]

First of all, while it is true that eliminating 'faint hope' is only one aspect of the Torie's crime bill, I had assumed that the focus in this thread was on that one particular area. (After all, it is in the title of the thread, and the opening post, created by jdobbin doesn't mention anything at all about other aspects of the crime bill.

Since I created the thread, I suppose I can take it anywhere I want. Faint hope is the one area that the link was concerned about. There was plenty more in the bill than that.

So if you wanted to suggest the crime bill as a whole was a 'bad idea', why did you focus exclusively on the 'faint hope' clause in your opening post?

I mentioned it because Harper has no evidence to support that it cost effective or the right punishment.

Secondly, did you actually look at any of the actual statistics? I managed to point out how eliminating the faint hope clause would only affect prision costs by less than half a percent. Why should we assume that other provisions of the bill would likewise be prohibitively expensive? (Hey, maybe they would be, but given the fact that you're the one making the claims, perhaps you should invoke some stats to back up your arguments.)

Maybe I because I also posted a link by the prison watchdog that states that prisons are filled to the breaking point. Did you actually look at that?

How often are things like 'conditional sentences' give? If its a very rare event, it won't really affect the size of the prison population at all. If its a common event, how many of those people given conditional sentences end up committing further crimes (which also leads to additional costs for the justice system)?

The prison watchdog said that the crime bill as a whole would raise prison populations beyond safe limits. It will also increase costs for years to come. You seem to think it is manageable. The watchdog is sounding the warning bell.

Thirdly, many of the provisions of the Tory bill involve implementing mandatory minimums for serious crimes. Do you really think its a good thing for people who have committed arson, armed robery, etc. to be released without jail time? All fine and good to complain about how this is going to somehow fill up the jails, but if there are people who actually should be in jail, then thats where they should be.

The Tories don't trust judges, juries or parole boards. They want to exclude their involvement in the process. Mandatory sentences are a one size fits all solution that hasn't worked how well in other jurisdictions.

Lastly, is there any guarantee that we would see more people actually in jail as a result of increased penalties? After all, a couple of decades ago people predicted that jails in New York would be overflowing if they decided to crack down on 'minor' crimes (the 'Broken Windows' policy). Yet there was no surge in prision populations; in fact, fewer people were in jail.

Citation for this?

Ah, back to "faint hope" again? In the beginning you suggested eliminating faint hope would mean they need to increase taxes, etc. After I showed that it would have little or no effect, you started talking about the other provisions in Conservative crime proposals. Now, you're back to talking about faint hope again.

It does increase costs of it means building new prisons. Or are you denying that?

What exactly do you mean "overblown"?

The entire Conservative crime approach.

So, is your argument now "it doesn't affect many people"? Why should that matter? We need provisions to handle certain serious cases, regardless if the provisions affect 1 or 1,000,000 people. If you think that the conservatives are giving the issue too much publicity, fine... but that's a different argument about whether the bill itself is necessary.

There are provisions in place. The Tories just want to remove any discretion from anyone aside from them.

It would be less expensive just to release everyone from jail. Fortunately, most people would be opposed to such action.

They are opposed for all crimes and for all criminals? Think that is the one size fits all solution that I said offends justice as well as the pocketbook.

People do things that cause harm to others, and sometimes those actions are significant enough that they have to be jailed.

And sometimes juries, judges and parole boards assess those actions and decide something differently than what the Tories want. The Tories don't like that.

As for your argument that it is more 'appropriate' to use the parole system... you certainly haven't provided any evidence to show that that is the case.

In terms of costs, I didn't think it needed any evidence. Think that is common knowledge. As far as justice goes, I believe the juries, courts and parole boards have spoken. The Tories want to quash that voice though.

[benny]

There are provisions in place. The Tories just want to remove any discretion from anyone aside from them.

Conservatives seem to associate discretion with flimsiness instead of with prudence!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Conservatives seem to associate discretion with flimsiness instead of with prudence!

Judges utilizing discretion just handed out a 2.5 year sentence to a rapist. I think that perhaps the use of discretion may be a bit over-rated.

[benny]

Judges utilizing discretion just handed out a 2.5 year sentence to a rapist. I think that perhaps the use of discretion may be a bit over-rated.

First, show us the case.