Tories to end conditional sentences for some crimes

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It may make us safer...or it may create more hatred and other problems.

The criminals will hate us? Too bad, it sucks to be them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's a fatuous comment if I've ever heard one.

Really?

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.

Those were your words, not mine. I will suggest that minimum sentencing is somewhere where this debate needs to go. I will allow that some forms of discretion are indeed required on the part of the judges. On the other hand there needs to be some form of foundation from which effective penal servitude is realized. What is the point here anyway?

Crimes are simply a reality, and so is dealing with them. Some crimes may be prevented but not all. Some criminals may be rehabilitated, but not all. All that society can do is to act once the crime has been committed and then punish the convicted criminal for the offense. The true argument should be what form that punishment should take. While it is a nice touchy feely kinda thing to say we can "correct" the offender, the reality is that we are simply extending the powers and responsibility of the nanny state. Look, the individual is held responsible and accountable under the law for infractions, the government should not be responsible for anything other than capturing and punishing the individual who violates the law. Swimming pools, exercise rooms, television and movies, libraries, education opportunities, these things are what I would call luxuries in jails, not something required at all. They represent an expense to society, one in which most citizens would likely view as a waste of time money and expense on the public dime. The idea should be to make "correctional facilities" place to avoid. Not to make them as pleasant as possible. You want a deterrent to crime, make the punishment unbearable.

[Argus]

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?

Utter drivel. There are several goals of punishment. One of them is deterance. All you goody-goody types seem to be under the illusion that every criminals is merely misunderstood, was beaten by his mommy, wasn't loved, or can be bought off with higher welfare payments and bigger welfare homes. Now back in the real world, people rape and kill because it's FUN to them. They're not going to stop because smarmy lefties give them a hug, ruffle their hair, wag their finger at them, and then put them back on the street. Therefore, you have to punish them, and harshly, in order to deter them and others from doing the same thing again.

Another goal of punishment, paticularly in the case of violent offenders, is because if the state stops doing it then vigilantes will spring up and do it for themselves. Count on it. If you start letting rapists walk away because they say they're sorry then sooner or later - and probably sooner - some of them are going to turn up hanging from trees, and society doesn't want that.

Punishing someone for raping a teenage girl is neither morally doubtful nor couterproductive in any sense.

[Argus]

Which you seem to think is juries, judges and parole boards.

It is judges and parole boards. As for juries, the evidence they are allowed to view and hear is often severely limited by - the liberal judges.

So Tories want to remove any discretion of anyone but the PM when it comes to sentencing.

We just want to see to it that criminals are punished. I realize that's a serious contradiction with your determined efforts to ensure they aren't.

[Argus]

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.

Always with the fearmongering. That seems to be your only schtick. With no ideas of their own - NONE - all Liberals can do is make wild accusations and resort to fearmongering on every subject.

Given you guys have no policies, no programs, no ideas, and no beliefs why is it you want to be the government again?

Let me guess. Your campaign theme song is going to be "We're in the money", right?

[Argus]

Yes, you're correct...but when it comes down to actually administering laws that (thankfully) isn't what it's about.

But it is, actually. Often enough it's clear the judge's decision is based on his or her personal preferences and ideology, and that the law was simply interpreted to support that decision.

[Argus]

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.

Let's try it and see.

You cannot use the situation in the US as a guide here. Their crime is driven by factors which are not present here.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Twp points for Argus! Well said!!!

[Smallc]

But it is, actually. Often enough it's clear the judge's decision is based on his or her personal preferences and ideology, and that the law was simply interpreted to support that decision.

Clear enough to you that is. Judges don't just make decisions based on how they feel. There is a gret deal that goes into the decisions (not least of all precedence). Of course you won't agree, but that's ok.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Clear enough to you that is. Judges don't just make decisions based on how they feel. There is a gret deal that goes into the decisions (not least of all precedence). Of course you won't agree, but that's ok.

Judges! We need judicial reform big time. They need to preside over procedures, not pass judgment at all, that is what juries are for! Give sentencing to juries as well! Let the judge rule on points of law, and step in when the litigators mess up, but that is all we need them for.

[Argus]

Clear enough to you that is. Judges don't just make decisions based on how they feel. There is a gret deal that goes into the decisions (not least of all precedence). Of course you won't agree, but that's ok.

Do tell me why Paul Martin appointed to the Supreme Court, a pair of judges who were noted for their activism on the part of the gay community just when gay marriages was a huge issue his government was facing?

I mean, if judges made decisions solely on the basis of the written law, without any personal ideological factors weighing in, than any learned judge would come to the same conclusions, right? Only clearly Paul Martin didn't believe that was the case, which was why he stacked the bench with people he felt would make the decisions he wanted.

[Smallc]

Do tell me why Paul Martin appointed to the Supreme Court, a pair of judges who were noted for their activism on the part of the gay community just when gay marriages was a huge issue his government was facing?

The supreme court never really made a decision...they just hinted on the direction in that case.

I mean, if judges made decisions solely on the basis of the written law, without any personal ideological factors weighing in, than any learned judge would come to the same conclusions, right? Only clearly Paul Martin didn't believe that was the case, which was why he stacked the bench with people he felt would make the decisions he wanted.

The Supreme Court and the court are very different things...and nowhere did I say that judges only made decisions based on written law...that would be in direct contravention of our system.

[Smallc]

Judges! We need judicial reform big time. They need to preside over procedures, not pass judgment at all, that is what juries are for! Give sentencing to juries as well! Let the judge rule on points of law, and step in when the litigators mess up, but that is all we need them for.

That's not the way our system is set up. You don't like it, I get it, but reality shows that overall it serves Canada well.

[Bonam]

but reality shows that overall it serves Canada well.

What do you base that statement on? What metric do you use to evaluate whether Canada is well or poorly served by our justice system? I think it serves Canada poorly in many cases, especially when violent offenders are let out after unreasonablyt short periods and find new victims.

[Smallc]

I think that given the level of peace and prosperity that we enjoy, it seems to be servinc us well...much like the rest of our system. The problems that we do have will most likely not be solved by harsher sentences.

[Bonam]

I think that given the level of peace and prosperity that we enjoy, it seems to be servinc us well...much like the rest of our system. The problems that we do have will most likely not be solved by harsher sentences.

That is very subjective. Consider Vancouver's recent wave of gang violence. Is that what you consider peace? We had a murder every few days for the first few months of this year, and most of the killers are still at large.

[Smallc]

That is very subjective. Consider Vancouver's recent wave of gang violence. Is that what you consider peace? We had a murder every few days for the first few months of this year, and most of the killers are still at large.

No, but with gang violence in particular, long incarcerations may only encourage retribution if we don't also address the root problem. I'm not opposed to using longer sentences when necessary....but I am opposed to putting all of our eggs in that basket and taking away all judicial discretion.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that given the level of peace and prosperity that we enjoy, it seems to be servinc us well...much like the rest of our system. The problems that we do have will most likely not be solved by harsher sentences.

Tell that to the victims of repeat offenders.

[Borg]

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.

Agree with your comments - however I disagree with calling it a justice system - it may be that if you have a thick wallet

I believe it is a legal system - designed to f**k those who may be in the right - but do not have the cash on hand to defend themselves. Only the lawyers win.

Borg

Edited June 17, 2009 by Borg

[Argus]

I think that given the level of peace and prosperity that we enjoy, it seems to be servinc us well...much like the rest of our system. The problems that we do have will most likely not be solved by harsher sentences.

Compared to who? There are other countries more peaceful. Does that mean they have better judicial systems than ours?

Leave the US out of the equation. People always seem to compare us to the US, and figure, well, if we're doing better than them, be it in crime, health care, or whatever, then we're fine. But the US is not the scale we need to use. We need to use a world scale. Health care might be better here than in the US, but subjectively, it does not appear to serve us as well as many systems in Europe. Likewise, you have no idea how well or poorly the judicial systems in Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. serve them, how professional they are, or how learned and sensible are their decisions as compared to what comes out of the Canadian courts.

[Smallc]

Compared to who? There are other countries more peaceful. Does that mean they have better judicial systems than ours?

Maybe they do. Perhaps we should be looking to Europe for our answers?

[Hydraboss]

Maybe they do. Perhaps we should be looking to Europe for our answers?

How about Turkey? That should do it.

[jdobbin]

Always with the fearmongering. That seems to be your only schtick. With no ideas of their own - NONE - all Liberals can do is make wild accusations and resort to fearmongering on every subject.

With no idea of outcome and doing things based on ideology and not caring how much it costs, I don't think it is making wild accusations to say the prison system is under strain.

Given you guys have no policies, no programs, no ideas, and no beliefs why is it you want to be the government again?

Given that you guys don't care how much it costs as long as you can spend, spend, spend, we already know why you want to be government.

Let me guess. Your campaign theme song is going to be "We're in the money", right?

Your campaign song is "Cost is no Object."

[jdobbin]

It is judges and parole boards. As for juries, the evidence they are allowed to view and hear is often severely limited by - the liberal judges.

What utter crap. I forgot the other area that Tories hate: The Constitution.

We just want to see to it that criminals are punished. I realize that's a serious contradiction with your determined efforts to ensure they aren't.

You want to ensure that no one else has a say in sentencing except what it is in the PM's legislation.

[Oleg Bach]

Go to any Canadian court - be it civil - family or crimminal - take a copy of the Charter Of Rights..and compare IT to what is going on daily in our system ---- the charter means nothing.