jdobbin Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 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. I know Tories don't seem to care about costs. We have seen that since 2006. You also don't care for judges, juries or parole boards. A particularly empty-headed suggestion, even for you. A particularly empty ended retort but not unexpected from you. In some jurisdictions the throw away the key situation has become a question of pupils versus prisoners. It really has come down to cuts in education. In Canada, the federal prison program may result in cuts or a freeze to other federal programs like OAS. That is, unless the Tories plan on raising taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 You also don't care for judges, juries or parole boards. Take a look at some of the decisions judges and parole boards have been making in relation to, for example, Vancouver's latest wave of Gang violence (which you may have heard about on the news throughout the past months), and you wouldn't care much for them either. The judicial system has a tendency to set precedents which may have been appropriate in a given case, but lead to a tendency of getting softer and softer on crime over time. For example the 2 for 1 credit for time served was just at one point in one given case decided by a judge, and later taken as precedent by other judges, until it became the norm. These things can only be changed by legislation, legal precedent doesn't undo itself otherwise. That's where the government comes in. In some jurisdictions the throw away the key situation has become a question of pupils versus prisoners. It really has come down to cuts in education.In Canada, the federal prison program may result in cuts or a freeze to other federal programs like OAS. That is, unless the Tories plan on raising taxes. Several points: 1. The costs of prisons could be substantially cut if leftists like yourself didn't insist on only the most luxurious and comfortable conditions to be painstakingly provided to every prisoner. Prison is supposed to be punishment, not vacation. 2. People that are actually right wing (not the Conservative government) don't want or care about programs like OAS anyway. Save for your own retirement, pay for your own security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Punishment that doesn't have a GOAL is just pointless brutality on a white horse-- expensive, morally doubtful and seriously counterproductive. Didn't your Mama ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Punishment that doesn't have a GOAL is just pointless brutality on a white horse-- expensive, morally doubtful and seriously counterproductive. The goal is incarceration...also know as punishment...also known as consequences. Keep a criminal inside for his entire term, goal achieved. Didn't your Mama ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Maybe not, but three rights make a left... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Punishment that doesn't have a GOAL is just pointless brutality on a white horse-- expensive, morally doubtful and seriously counterproductive. Incarceration has the goal of keeping a criminal behind bars, so that they are not free to further harm others. Anyone who commits a crime that has a victim (murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc) has harmed someone else, and should thus be prevented from doing so again. Rehabilitation may be what the Canadian "justice" system is all about these days, but it's not what I think it should be about. The system should be there to ensure and improve the safety of the law-abiding public, not to look after the welfare and self-improvement of criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Too bad it's not about what you personally think. The administration of justice should be based on the circumstances and the law. The forming of laws is something that people can play a part in...we (generally) don't have the legal or judicial background to understand most of these decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Too bad it's not about what you personally think. Actually, that's exactly what posting opinions on a political board is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yes, you're correct...but when it comes down to actually administering laws that (thankfully) isn't what it's about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Right, in that case it's about following our common law, which includes legal precedent from prior cases, as well as following legislation from the government. The government is now seeking to tighten the law in some places, something that I agree with. Changing the law in this way is something that is entirely within the federal government's jurisdiction. So it seems what you have a problem with isn't that the law isn't being followed or administered correctly, but that you don't like the direction that the government is taking it. That's your opinion, and, thankfully that's not what our government is about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Actually, I have no problem with the changing of the laws in these few cases. I have a problem with A ) people constantly questioning the decisions of judges, and B ) the fact that these changes may very well be of very little benefit (as the changes don't address the root problems that cause crime...they only address the symptom). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I have a problem with A ) people constantly questioning the decisions of judges, It's called free speech. and B ) the fact that these changes may very well be of very little benefit (as the changes don't address the root problems that cause crime...they only address the symptom). Keeping a criminal off the street for longer is the benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 It's called free speech. And I'm free to have a problem with it also...funny how it works both ways. Keeping a criminal off the street for longer is the benefit. Some....probably, but there may not be a benefit to society that is cost effective...and effective in general. Some of the safest countries have the most lenient jail sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And I'm free to have a problem with it also...funny how it works both ways. Sure, enjoy your right to have a problem with it Not gonna stop you. Some....probably, but there may not be a benefit to society that is cost effective...and effective in general. Some of the safest countries have the most lenient jail sentences. Perhaps you are right, though you do not mention any examples. I would argue that the prevalence and violence of crime has a lot more to do with the culture of a nation (or a neighborhood) than its justice system. For example, some areas in the US and Canada are very safe, while others are well known for being quite dangerous, despite the same laws and justice system (nominally) applying to both. The difference is not one of jail sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You're right...but the differences are the problems that must be addressed. I haven't seen any evidence that longer jail terms will make the crime situation in high crime areas better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Perhaps, perhaps not, but once someone has committed a crime, and thus shown themselves capable of committing it, they should be kept out of the public to ensure the safety of others. How is it fair to law-abiding citizens to release predators into their midst? In Vancouver we have several criminals that have committed robbery, assault, and other crimes hundreds of times. Each time they get a tiny jail sentence, then are released, and within days or weeks re-offend. This kind of system totally destroys the livability of certain neighborhoods (where these criminals can be found), as well as draining huge amounts of public money on trial after trial after trial, as well as police resources. These people should just be kept locked up. I can see no possible argument for releasing them, time, after time, after time, after time and time again. It just doesn't make any sense. The sooner this kind of silliness is addressed in our justice system the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You're not saying that we should lock away everyone that commits a crime forever I hope. I doubt it, but I hope not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 No, of course not. The time to be served should of course be proportional to the crime. For the most part our official sentences for crimes, on paper, are of reasonable length (with a few exceptions, but meh). But in practice, with 2 for 1 credit, early release, yearly review, etc, criminals serve far shorter sentences. The other point is that criminals that repeatedly commit crimes that each have the same short sentence, should be sentenced for longer on subsequent occasions. If someone steals something, gets a week, is let out, steals again the next day, gets another week, repeat again and again, it doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I am a huge opponent of 2 for 1....so your preaching to the choir there. I'm not sure that I completely disapprove of early release and yearly review though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 A justice system is expensive. In addition societies are judged on their quality of justice. To add to the equation even in countries with the harshest justice systems, crimes still exist. The only real functional deterrent is life styles and living standards. Even then, human greed and wanton desire result in criminal activity. So even the prevention of crime remains a goal beyond our ability. Knowing this, the entire concept of a department of corrections and a catch and release penal system flies in the face of logic. Perhaps it is time to rethink the entire mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes, there are many things deserving of some review, assessment, and likely revision.... but just leaping in to remove all on-the-spot decision making, and make punishments more severe is expensive and dumb. Punishment has an extremely high rate of 'diminishing returns'. There is very little that can be accomplished with a 10 year sentence that isn't done in 5 or even 2; almost nothing that a 2 year sentence does that a 6 month sentence doesn't do just as well. Cross a line to excess, and you are doing more harm than good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes, there are many things deserving of some review, assessment, and likely revision.... but just leaping in to remove all on-the-spot decision making, and make punishments more severe is expensive and dumb. Punishment has an extremely high rate of 'diminishing returns'. There is very little that can be accomplished with a 10 year sentence that isn't done in 5 or even 2; almost nothing that a 2 year sentence does that a 6 month sentence doesn't do just as well. Cross a line to excess, and you are doing more harm than good. So rape should carry a 6 month sentence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 It will carry the sentence that the courts deem appropriate within the law...as it should be. Making the sentenc longer probably will do little (if anything) to make us all safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 It will carry the sentence that the courts deem appropriate within the law...as it should be. Making the sentenc longer probably will do little (if anything) to make us all safer. You mean besides having the criminal off the streets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You mean besides having the criminal off the streets? It may make us safer...or it may create more hatred and other problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 So rape should carry a 6 month sentence? That's a fatuous comment if I've ever heard one. 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.