Federal prison overhaul plan

[jdobbin]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Federal+p...8026/story.html

Canada's blueprint for overhauling federal prisons is an amateur and "alarming" document that ignores human rights, gives the false impression that crime is rising, and provides no costs for flawed policies that would flood penitentiaries with more inmates, says a new report.

The study by two veteran prisoner-rights advocates attacks the Harper government for its speedy, wholesale adoption of a 2007 Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety that made more than 100 recommendations, based largely on the premise that prisoners don't have automatic rights — they earn them.

It will be interesting to see the reaction.

I'll have to read the report to see what it has to say.

[M.Dancer]

If crime isn't rising, what danger is there that the jails will be flooded with inmates?

[Michael Hardner]

Longer sentencing...

[edited to add] or more correctly - longer time served.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[M.Dancer]

Longer sentencing...

[edited to add] or more correctly - longer time served.

Oh...well that will be hard to sell to average non-criminal canadians..

[jdobbin]

Longer sentencing...

And even bigger prisons and higher costs. Not a lot of evidence of effectiveness.

[eyeball]

If crime isn't rising, what danger is there that the jails will be flooded with inmates?

The danger is that Conservatives, especially Harper's, will pass more laws for people to break.

First they build the mill then they produce the grist.

[myata]

Indeed, all parts of Conservatives crime control agenda are coming into the open:

1) less restrictions on gun possession to get them into more hands;

2) tough and adversary penitentiary system to raise hardened criminals;

3) no attention to causes of crime and meaningful prevention outside of jail to get more initiates into those prisons.

Lets see if the result would be different that the model they are aiming at (with the highest in the developed world levels of serious crime and incarceration). It's much more fun to see our tax $$$ invested in prisons, rather than healthy communities and gun control.

[DrGreenthumb]

Indeed, all parts of Conservatives crime control agenda are coming into the open:

1) less restrictions on gun possession to get them into more hands;

2) tough and adversary penitentiary system to raise hardened criminals;

3) no attention to causes of crime and meaningful prevention outside of jail to get more initiates into those prisons.

Lets see if the result would be different that the model they are aiming at (with the highest in the developed world levels of serious crime and incarceration). It's much more fun to see our tax $$$ invested in prisons, rather than healthy communities and gun control.

Don't forget that the Conservative government plans to fill all these new jails with non-violent drug offenders who are otherwise law abiding tax paying citizens. If the conservatives really want to get tough on drugs why don't they propose a ban on alcohol, the only drug with a proven track record of leading to violence and crime? We need a crackdown on violence, not on personal freedom.

99% of the violence associated with the drug trade is directly attributable to the prohibition of said drugs. Leaving the supply of these popular products to the black market leaves no legal recourse to buyers, or sellers, for conflict resolution. A secondary consequence of leaving the supply to the black market is that there is no incentive for sellers to sell their products only to responsible adults. There are essentially no rules, and no control.

[M.Dancer]

Don't forget that the Conservative government plans to fill all these new jails with non-violent drug offenders who are otherwise law abiding tax paying citizens.

well they shouldn't cost much to look after then. They can go into the minimum security facilities..

[wulf42]

This is exactly why Harper needs to win!!

It s time to get tough on crime and criminals...prison isn t supposed

to be a country club, it is to get low life off the streets and protect law

biding citizens!! The whiny Liberal human rights nonsense is getting old!

Harper is going to make major changes when he gets his majority..and

i say thank God!

[Argus]

And even bigger prisons and higher costs. Not a lot of evidence of effectiveness.

There's not a lot of evidence that coddling criminals is effective either. The recidivism rate is not very impressive, and letting every criminal off with only 2/3rds their sentence makes no real sense. It was implemented as a cost saving measure - even though they all fell all over themselves to deny it. There's no evidence it has lowered recividism that I've seen, or that it has helped protect Canadians.

Effective? If the criminal is in prison then he isn't hurting anyone. That seems to be about as effective as we're going to get.

[Argus]

The danger is that Conservatives, especially Harper's, will pass more laws for people to break.

First they build the mill then they produce the grist.

Yeah, well, if you're into bizarro conspiracy theories, I guess.

[jdobbin]

There's not a lot of evidence that coddling criminals is effective either. The recidivism rate is not very impressive, and letting every criminal off with only 2/3rds their sentence makes no real sense. It was implemented as a cost saving measure - even though they all fell all over themselves to deny it. There's no evidence it has lowered recividism that I've seen, or that it has helped protect Canadians.

I think the evidence of people breaking laws after being released in widely available.

There is a case for some of what you say but not all. In places where the prisons have filled to rafters, it has become an ever growing line item in the budget. The question is: Is it the most effective way to deal with all crime?

Effective? If the criminal is in prison then he isn't hurting anyone. That seems to be about as effective as we're going to get.

Not exactly true. They hurt other inmates and prison officials as we have seen in the riots of the 1970s.

[Hydraboss]

In places where the prisons have filled to rafters, it has become an ever growing line item in the budget.

One bullet per hardened, repeat, violent offender is cheaper.

The question is: Is it the most effective way to deal with all crime?

Actually, a bullet behind the ear is THE most effective way to deal with crime. It solves the issue of recidivism of violent offenders, and will scare the others straight.

Not exactly true. They hurt other inmates and prison officials as we have seen in the riots of the 1970s.

Again, a bullet to the head cures the problem of prison violence and rioting.

So, is anyone actually looking for the most effective method of dealing with crime? Or are they simply looking for the system that is most palatable to them? There is no cost too great when it comes to protecting children from violent predators (unless you would like to disagree with that statement), so the cost of prisons and extended incarceration should not bother anyone.

Of course, a bullet is still cheaper.

[Keepitsimple]

There is a case for some of what you say but not all. In places where the prisons have filled to rafters, it has become an ever growing line item in the budget. The question is: Is it the most effective way to deal with all crime?

No it's not...the Tories are more focused on violent crime and serious drug criminality....not small time stuff.

However - having said that, how many times have you heard about someone being arrested for break and enter or assault who has 50 or 60 priors? I advocate for three strikes parole. On first conviction of a, you're elibible for parole after one third of your sentence. On a second conviction, you are eligible after serving two thirds. On a third conviction, you're out of luck - you serve the full sentence. Oh...and no statutory release. We don't need a lot of new sentences - we need a reformed parole system.

The problem with repeat offenders is that we only hear about the times that they get caught. A break and enter crook might be charge with 3 counts but in fact, he or she probably did another 20 where they didn't get caught or charged. Making repeat offenders serve their full sentence keeps them off the street and unclogs our courts.

[jdobbin]

One bullet per hardened, repeat, violent offender is cheaper.

Why stop there?

[jdobbin]

No it's not...the Tories are more focused on violent crime and serious drug criminality....not small time stuff.

Like reducing Fetal Alcohol Syndrome so that we don't have people born who have difficulty knowing wrong from right?

However - having said that, how many times have you heard about someone being arrested for break and enter or assault who has 50 or 60 priors? I advocate for three strikes parole.

We have seen that in some jurisdictions.

It sometimes becomes prisoners before pupils because of money.

[DrGreenthumb]

No it's not...the Tories are more focused on violent crime and serious drug criminality....not small time stuff.

Yeah SERIOUS drug criminality like growing 1 cannabis plant or passing a joint to your brother while watching a hockey game.(trafficking)

I;m all for long sentences for VIOLENT crimes, but imprisoning people who are only involved in consensual acts is wrong. The conservatives think we need an ottawa-daddy to make sure we make healthy choices, but in a free country we cannot allow the government to make healthy choices mandaTORY. C-15 is a terrible bill that will increase violence in our streets, and turn experimental teens into hardened criminals.

[Hydraboss]

Yeah SERIOUS drug criminality like growing 1 cannabis plant or passing a joint to your brother while watching a hockey game.(trafficking)

Please cite the last one or two cases of this occuring (charges being laid for passing a joint to their brother while in their own residence).

Thanks.

[Hydraboss]

Why stop there?

I agree. As long as they are repeat, violent offenders or are found guilty of first degree murder or any first time violent offence against children-------->bang. Problem solved.

A lot cheaper too.

[myata]

There's not a lot of evidence that coddling criminals is effective either.

If it was meant to say that "tough justice" can reduce crime, the evidence (to the countrary) can be found right before our eyes: down south, in the system this goverment appears to be aspiring to, they have the highest rate of inprisonment in the entire developed world, and also (and by far, like, in the multiples), the highest rates of violent crime.

BTW, here in Canada our incarceration levels are pretty high already compared to other developed countries (references were posted in another thread).

But rational thinking and common sense was never an obstacle to ideology. And on this agenda, government is acting exclusively on the grounds of ideology and populism.

[jdobbin]

I agree. As long as they are repeat, violent offenders or are found guilty of first degree murder or any first time violent offence against children-------->bang. Problem solved.

A lot cheaper too.

I was thinking of all offenders. And why have a trial at all?

Edited September 25, 2009 by jdobbin

[Hydraboss]

I was thinking of all offenders. And why have a trial at all?

Geez Dobbin, I think you're getting a little extreme wanting to shoot everyone. I'd be happy with just the child molesters, child murderers, first degree murderers, repeat violent offenders and rapists. There's probably more, but I don't feel like going through the entire penal code right now.

You should take a more liberal approach to justice buddy. Not everyone has to die. As for trials, you know we can't get rid of them...we'd have to change the saying to "We won't give him a fair trail and hang him in the morning."

[ToadBrother]

I agree. As long as they are repeat, violent offenders or are found guilty of first degree murder or any first time violent offence against children-------->bang. Problem solved.

A lot cheaper too.

Not if the US is an example. Sure, if you want Chinese-style justice with questionable court procedures and summary executions, but then, I doubt very many Canadians would like to live under such a system. But in the US, Death Row is incredibly expensive.

[ToadBrother]

Geez Dobbin, I think you're getting a little extreme wanting to shoot everyone. I'd be happy with just the child molesters, child murderers, first degree murderers, repeat violent offenders and rapists. There's probably more, but I don't feel like going through the entire penal code right now.

You should take a more liberal approach to justice buddy. Not everyone has to die. As for trials, you know we can't get rid of them...we'd have to change the saying to "We won't give him a fair trail and hang him in the morning."

And when we find out we executed innocent people? What do you propose then?