jdobbin Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0613?hub=Canada Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he will introduce legislation next week that will put an end to conditional sentences for criminals who are convicted of property or other serious crimes.During a news conference in Toronto on Saturday, Nicholson said the new legislation would expand the list of offences that are ineligible for conditional sentences, which call for less than two years of imprisonment. I wonder when they will announce the large prison building program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0613?hub=CanadaI wonder when they will announce the large prison building program. Why don't you ask him? It is about time some of these things happened I give a shit about the extra prisons - a great scheme for employment - and more room for those who break the law. We need them anyway - population grows and they will be necessary - and so will the jobs Bet that frigging idiot from the US that sits as leader of the libs votes in support as well - you have no complaint - your immigrant lib leader will like it as well Come to Canada - commit a crime - serve little to no time - all on the tax payers dime. Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I give a shit about the extra prisons - a great scheme for employment - and more room for those who break the law.We need them anyway - population grows and they will be necessary - and so will the jobs I look forward to hearing how much it will cost and whether we have a tax increase to do it. Bet that frigging idiot from the US that sits as leader of the libs votes in support as well - you have no complaint - your immigrant lib leader will like it as well Think you're leader was one a Liberal as well. I wonder when he will jump to a new party, Come to Canada - commit a crime - serve little to no time - all on the tax payers dime. Oh, I'm sure you be paying more, much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I look forward to hearing how much it will cost and whether we have a tax increase to do it.Think you're leader was one a Liberal as well. I wonder when he will jump to a new party, Oh, I'm sure you be paying more, much more. Building prisons would be a great idea if the designs were a lot less resort like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I look forward to hearing how much it will cost and whether we have a tax increase to do it. Unbelievable! Or, maybe, very typical for certain persons here. So, your point is that if building a new prison is too costly in your opinion, we should rather let a criminal go? Or you will say, that we should use exiting jails and next day you will be crying crocodile tears about inhumane conditions for those unfortunate who happend to get in the jails. Am I correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I look forward to hearing how much it will cost and whether we have a tax increase to do it. We can afford to put hundreds of millions into arts programs but not to keep criminals in prison? That's the sign of a degenerate society. We can afford new prisons. We'll just cut back on the step-dancing lessons for seniors, the blonde joke books and the canoe museums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Unbelievable! Or, maybe, very typical for certain persons here. So, your point is that if building a new prison is too costly in your opinion, we should rather let a criminal go? Unbelievable! It isn't just about the building but the staffing and whether it is the the most cost efficient to house inmates who might could serve their sentences in other ways. Or you will say, that we should use exiting jails and next day you will be crying crocodile tears about inhumane conditions for those unfortunate who happend to get in the jails. Am I correct? Are you saying that we should cut Old Age Security to fund a neverending prison program? In some jurisdictions it has come to pupils versus prisoners. In a conservative world, is dropping education funding less important than keeping an ever growing population behind bars despite whether there are less costly and more suitable sentences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Building prisons would be a great idea if the designs were a lot less resort like. Well, the federal government is getting away from prisons that work as farms. Why do you think they have done that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 We can afford to put hundreds of millions into arts programs but not to keep criminals in prison? That's the sign of a degenerate society. So you think the Tories will cut programs to fund their prison program. We can afford new prisons. We'll just cut back on the step-dancing lessons for seniors, the blonde joke books and the canoe museums. And you think that will be enough to fund a program that will produce costs for several governments to come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Money handed over to arts programs is cash given to those with degrees who have been conditioned and have past the test of being compliant little terds - They never hand over money to real artists - Just as corporations do not employ real independent people - just trolls...which means that those who give money to the arts - give money to the artists that are not a threat to their continued crimminality..In effect they try to engineer a culture through art - where we are all obedient little prisoners...in a very very big jail... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Unbelievable! It isn't just about the building but the staffing and whether it is the the most cost efficient to house inmates who might could serve their sentences in other ways.Are you saying that we should cut Old Age Security to fund a neverending prison program? In some jurisdictions it has come to pupils versus prisoners. In a conservative world, is dropping education funding less important than keeping an ever growing population behind bars despite whether there are less costly and more suitable sentences? I expected an answer from you precisely like this. 100% liberal demagoguery. Prisons take money from old citizens and students! There are other ways of sentensing - leave criminals in front of bars! As expected it is impossible to argue with you in a rational way in this regard. But at least you must know that the Canadian budget comprises many other expenditures, not only schools and OAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I expected an answer from you precisely like this. 100% liberal demagoguery. Prisons take money from old citizens and students! There are other ways of sentensing - leave criminals in front of bars! It is demagoguery. It is what has happened in jurisdictions with a tough on crime stance and an inability to pay for it. It literally has become as issue of pupils versus prisoners in some places. As expected it is impossible to argue with you in a rational way in this regard.But at least you must know that the Canadian budget comprises many other expenditures, not only schools and OAS. Tell me where the money is coming from and how much is needed. Otherwise this tough on crime attitude is one that consists of making promises without sufficient costing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 WHat are they going on about? Why this need to get tougher on crime, when I've been hearing that the crime rates are dropping every year, for several years in a row? Canada's crime rate drops for 3rd straight year: StatsCan "StatsCan data released Thursday shows a seven per cent drop in the national crime rate, which the agency said also stems from fewer serious violent offences like homicides, attempted murders, sexual assaults and robberies." Maybe they need to keep the jails full, so now they go for the soft criminals? These guys are nuts. Get your priorities straight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 WHat are they going on about? Why this need to get tougher on crime, when I've been hearing that the crime rates are dropping every year, for several years in a row?Canada's crime rate drops for 3rd straight year: StatsCan "StatsCan data released Thursday shows a seven per cent drop in the national crime rate, which the agency said also stems from fewer serious violent offences like homicides, attempted murders, sexual assaults and robberies." Maybe they need to keep the jails full, so now they go for the soft criminals? These guys are nuts. Get your priorities straight It's not about statistical rates of crime. It's about proper punishment for crimes commited against individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's not about statistical rates of crime. It's about proper punishment for crimes commited against individuals. Exactly. And the Tories don't trust judges, juries, parole boards or anyone else to decide these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0613?hub=CanadaI wonder when they will announce the large prison building program. What I'd like, rather than screwing around with conditional sentences and the faint hope clause is to outlaw concurrent sentencing. I think if a guy is convicted on two counts, he should have to serve each sentence consecutively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Americaization of correctional institutions is on it's way - instead of finding out how to fix the twisted quirks in society they will build more prisons - bigger, better and slower...lucrative contracts will be doled out - then step number two will be privatization - and step three via human nature and greed will be judges as we saw in the states who sentenced youthful offenders to longer terms to generate more money for those connected and operating in the private sphere.. More jails are not the answer - 25 years ago I remembered doing a couple of weeks for unpaid fines ----there were 4 to a cell and sometimes five - that are designed for one...I slept with my head against the toilet on the floor.. You would think after all this time we would have reformed the correctional and judical systems - but no...all remains stagnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I wouldn't mind seeing some stats that show people that get these conditional sentences are more likely to recommit than those who spend time in prision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Unbelievable! It isn't just about the building but the staffing and whether it is the the most cost efficient to house inmates who might could serve their sentences in other ways. I know you Liberals are really horrified at the thought of punishing criminals, but to normal Canadians, the cost just doesn't enter into doing what's right. Are you saying that we should cut Old Age Security to fund a neverending prison program? A particularly empty-headed suggestion, even for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Exactly. And the Tories don't trust judges, juries, parole boards or anyone else to decide these things. If you really boil it down, we don't trust LIBERALS to decide these things. The laws have largely been written by the Liberal Party of Canada, and most of the judges and parole board members over the years have been Liberal Party bagmen and campaign contributers rewarded by the party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I wouldn't mind seeing some stats that show people that get these conditional sentences are more likely to recommit than those who spend time in prision. It's not just about recividism. An important element of justice is punishment, and sitting at home watching a big screen tv and munching popcorn, then going on the internet to surf for porn really doesn't constitute much in the way of punishment. I would support alternative means of sentencing which involved actual punishment for non-violent offenders, like cleaning out septic tanks or digging ditches or something. Sitting at home just doesn't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's not just about recividism. An important element of justice is punishment, Yes...reasonable* punishment. *Definitions of reasonable may vary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yes...reasonable* punishment. *Definitions of reasonable may vary. True. I don't think 2.5 years (parole mandatory in 18 months) for picking up a teenager and raping her is reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm not sure that it is either, but I don't have all of the facts. It's also worth noting that even after the person gets out of jail, they aren't free and clear. They spend the rest of their lives under scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 If you really boil it down, we don't trust LIBERALS to decide these things. Which you seem to think is juries, judges and parole boards. The laws have largely been written by the Liberal Party of Canada, and most of the judges and parole board members over the years have been Liberal Party bagmen and campaign contributers rewarded by the party. So Tories want to remove any discretion of anyone but the PM when it comes to sentencing. 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.