Federal prison overhaul plan

Wilber · September 28, 2009

Crime rates statistics can be very misleading. The more difficult a society makes it to actually charge someone, the lower the crime rate will be and the less it will reflect the actual number of crimes being committed. The huge workload we now put on the police and prosecution for them to actually bring a charge, requires them to prioritize what crimes they will prosecute according to the number of cases they can handle, not the number of crimes being committed.

ToadBrother · September 28, 2009

Crime rates statistics can be very misleading. The more difficult a society makes it to actually charge someone, the lower the crime rate will be and the less it will reflect the actual number of crimes being committed. The huge workload we now put on the police and prosecution for them to actually bring a charge, requires them to prioritize what crimes they will prosecute according to the number of cases they can handle, not the number of crimes being committed.

I thought crime statistics were based on reporting, not on conviction rates.

Wilber · September 28, 2009

I thought crime statistics were based on reporting, not on conviction rates.

Reported by who? I'm talking about charges laid, not conviction rates. But what does it matter if crime we do have goes unpunished. Perhaps that would be a better measure of how good our system is. Crimes reported compared to convictions obtained as well as percentage of crimes by repeat offenders. But if an increasing number of crimes go unreported because of a lack of results or fear of retribution, how good would that statistic be? I'm just trying to say that it is easy to latch onto a statistic and talk yourself into believing things are something other than they may really be.

When we see the really bad repeat offender who is responsible for an astronomical amount of property crime continually put back on the street, not only does that represent a huge cost to the victims, insurance companies and consumers but it represents hundreds if not thousands of man hours of work by police officers and prosecutors. Yet some still say it is too expensive to put them away where they can't commit these crimes and hopefully get some treatment for any substance abuse problems they may have. Makes no sense to me. At what point is it too expensive not to put someone in jail?

myata · September 28, 2009

Really. The simplistic approach again. There are many social, economic and other reasons for the crime rates in different countries. One could just as well ask, do societies have "tough justice" because they have high crime rates? Why do you assume justice is a cause of crime?

I don't. Only that "tough justice" by itself does not solve any crime related problems. On the other hand, it could help in solving a particular government's reelection problems by throwing up an eye catching populist agenda.

To J-F:

it's not a matter of being our brother's keeper, more like coming up with a rational policy to achieve meaningful goals (like reducing levels and severity of crime), rather than somebody's ideological views (criminals are born bad and should rot in hell).

Wilber · September 28, 2009

I don't. Only that "tough justice" by itself does not solve any crime related problems. On the other hand, it could help in solving a particular government's reelection problems by throwing up an eye catching populist agenda.
To J-F:

it's not a matter of being our brother's keeper, more like coming up with a rational policy to achieve meaningful goals (like reducing levels and severity of crime), rather than somebody's ideological views (criminals are born bad and should rot in hell).

If nothing else it makes it very difficult to repeat offend. If it as an agenda that people will agree with, it will get them elected. If not, it won't. What makes it different from any other political agenda?

Like it of not we are our brothers keeper in a civilized society. Who said all criminals are born bad and should rot in hell? What is the matter with saying one of the duties of our system is to protect society? Why is it that only views that you disagree with are idealogical and yours are not?

Edited September 28, 2009 by Wilber

eyeball · September 28, 2009

The issue here should be the containment of the perpetrators of violent crimes. The entire issue is clouded by those with agendas of moral superiority and a predisposition to forming judgments. The reality is that we are our brothers keeper, and as such do we or should we become our brothers parent? Do we take responsibility for all of the actions of our brother or do we simply ensure our brothers safety and freedom?

No kidding. This is pretty much the only reason I'll never vote for a Conservative...ever. Everything to do with this issue is guided either by self-rightous morality or the desire to get elected, mostly the latter. There is little doubt in my mind that conservative political parties know full well that sustaining a certain level of crime can be useful when it comes to being elected.

I get just as pissed off when I hear about a multiple repeat offender committing yet another heinous crime but mostly because of the way these act like little galvanizing events that continually drive people nuts and drive our society towards becoming a police state in reaction.

The other parties are just as complicit by standing spinelessly mute in the haste to avoid any whiff off being soft on crime. What they're all really soft on is principles and this country is really beginning to suck because of that, what else can I say?

Just what is it that people want the government to do?

Take a principled approach to serious issues for starters.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

As a society we need to decide what we want. We already have a legal system, but we don't have a justice system. As a society we need to decide to create a system of justice. In my view that would mean removing threats to society and empowering citizens to that end.

eyeball · September 28, 2009

If nothing else it makes it very difficult to repeat offend. If it as an agenda that people will agree with, it will get them elected. If not, it won't. What makes it different from any other political agenda?

It doesn't know when to quit. Crime rates could fall another 90% and conservatives would still be tearing their hair out and screaming for harsher punishments, more police, more prisons etc etc.

I think we really do need to be concerned about the way this fear and loathing perpetually leads us towards becoming a police state. I can't figure out why you so-called libertarian types are so blind to this.

Edited September 28, 2009 by eyeball

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

The libratarian types are not blind to it. In fact that is where the criticism comes from in the first place.

eyeball · September 28, 2009

The libratarian types are not blind to it. In fact that is where the criticism comes from in the first place.

Then why do so many vote for Conservatives?

ToadBrother · September 28, 2009

As a society we need to decide what we want. We already have a legal system, but we don't have a justice system. As a society we need to decide to create a system of justice. In my view that would mean removing threats to society and empowering citizens to that end.

Are you arguing that we return to the 19th century notions of imprisonment (ie. the Bastille), where offenders get tossed in prison forever? We don't have farflung continents to thrown bread thieves and prostitutes on to.

Even in the late Victorian period, there came to be some notion of rehabilitiation, that unless you were simply going to throw every criminal in prison forever, you'd best see how you can get them reintegrated into society.

I don't know why you guys seem so willing to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Our neighbor to the south has some of the harshet penal codes in the industrialized world, all sorts of three-strikes-your-out laws and in some places even capital punishment, and all its done is to take an inordinant number of people from economically depressed groups and throw them in jail.

Believe me, I'm all for removing the faint hope clause, for making a proper life sentence that sees first degree murderers and the other most heinous violent criminals out there permanently taken off the streets. But I'm not all that keen to see us turn to a US-style criminal apparatus.

Violent crime rates are falling. Other than getting out the old "law and order" vote, what problem is anyone proposing to solve which isn't already being solved already?

Edited September 28, 2009 by ToadBrother

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

Then why do so many vote for Conservatives?

They vote for the least amount of government, period.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

Are you arguing that we return to the 19th century notions of imprisonment (ie. the Bastille), where offenders get tossed in prison forever? We don't have farflung continents to thrown bread thieves and prostitutes on to.
Even in the late Victorian period, there came to be some notion of rehabilitiation, that unless you were simply going to throw every criminal in prison forever, you'd best see how you can get them reintegrated into society.

I don't know why you guys seem so willing to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Our neighbor to the south has some of the harshet penal codes in the industrialized world, all sorts of three-strikes-your-out laws and in some places even capital punishment, and all its done is to take an inordinant number of people from economically depressed groups and throw them in jail.

Believe me, I'm all for removing the faint hope clause, for making a proper life sentence that sees first degree murderers and the other most heinous violent criminals out there permanently taken off the streets. But I'm not all that keen to see us turn to a US-style criminal apparatus.

Violent crime rates are falling. Other than getting out the old "law and order" vote, what problem is anyone proposing to solve which isn't already being solved already?

The problem to be resolved is repeat offenders. In addition there is another issue of the expense of keeping these degenerates behind bars. That cost should be offset through the productive efforts of the ones being confined. In other words we should have as many as we can work off their expense imposed on society by their offenses. They are the cause and they should be made into the solution.

Wilber · September 28, 2009

It doesn't know when to quit. Crime rates could fall another 90% and conservatives would still be tearing their hair out and screaming for harsher punishments, more police, more prisons etc etc.
I think we really do need to be concerned about the way this fear and loathing perpetually leads us towards becoming a police state. I can't figure out why you so-called libertarian types are so blind to this.

Crime rates would fall 100% if we got rid of all the police and prosecutors.

Keepitsimple · September 28, 2009

What's so difficult about having a common sense parole system.....let the good guys out, keep the bad guys in. How many times do you have to go to prison before you lose your right to get out early?

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

What's so difficult about having a common sense parole system.....let the good guys out, keep the bad guys in. How many times do you have to go to prison before you lose your right to get out early?

Good guys don't go to prison dude. That is your first mistake. Your second mistake is letting them out at all. Violent offenders should NEVER get out. All others need long term sentences to work off the cost to society and letting those out would increase the costs of confinement. It is not that complicated.

OddSox · September 28, 2009

Believe me, I'm all for removing the faint hope clause, for making a proper life sentence that sees first degree murderers and the other most heinous violent criminals out there permanently taken off the streets.

That's pretty much what the current government has proposed - what's the problem? It seems that you're the one who is adding all sort of 'bogeymen' to the issue.

eyeball · September 29, 2009

They vote for the least amount of government, period.

Well, it sure looks like the government has only gotten bigger and meaner to boot. Way to go.

eyeball · September 29, 2009

That's pretty much what the current government has proposed - what's the problem? It seems that you're the one who is adding all sort of 'bogeymen' to the issue.

In our inexorable march towards becoming a police state, how long do you think it will be until people are thrown in jail for things like pot? Sooner or later someone is going to finally wake up to the fact that the only way to stop the supply is to go after the demand. As it becomes increasingly obvious that a slap on the wrist won't cut it the demand for harsher measures will inevitably follow.

Its like a chain reaction - I just fail to see how anyone can stop it from happening

Wilber · September 29, 2009

In our inexorable march towards becoming a police state, how long do you think it will be until people are thrown in jail for things like pot? Sooner or later someone is going to finally wake up to the fact that the only way to stop the supply is to go after the demand. As it becomes increasingly obvious that a slap on the wrist won't cut it the demand for harsher measures will inevitably follow.
Its like a chain reaction - I just fail to see how anyone can stop it from happening

Why don't you call up your local PD and ask to go on a ride around on a busy Friday night. You will get to see how they prioritize their time, the number of arrests they actually make and the logic behind them, versus the number of idiots they come in contact with. Many will do that you know, if they really think you are interested. I would recommend it for anyone. Be prepared to stay up late. A night shift for our PD is from 7 PM to 7 AM but you can leave any time you want.

You have no clue as to what a police state is. You live in a country that is one of the least like a police state on the planet.

eyeball · September 29, 2009

You have no clue as to what a police state is. You live in a country that is one of the least like a police state on the planet.

I know how they become one and our country is on its way.

Wilber · September 29, 2009

I know how they become one and our country is on its way.

:lol:

Topaz · September 29, 2009

Who is going to take them? All you are advocating is that someone else should have to deal with your problems.

Let me ask you, would you break the law if you knew you had to leave the country? I say no, you wouldn't.

Wilber · September 29, 2009

Let me ask you, would you break the law if you knew you had to leave the country? I say no, you wouldn't.

I'll ask you again, what country is going to let people with criminal records in other than Canada?

Keepitsimple · September 29, 2009

Good guys don't go to prison dude. That is your first mistake. Your second mistake is letting them out at all. Violent offenders should NEVER get out. All others need long term sentences to work off the cost to society and letting those out would increase the costs of confinement. It is not that complicated.

Gee....and I thought I was tough on crime. I still have some sympathy for non-violent first time offenders. I know we can debate what "violent" means but if someone is a first time arguably non-violent offender, shows remorse and takes all the programs that are recommended, then I'm OK with parole - if they've earned it. Like I said previously, I like 3 strikes parole - you can earn 2/3 off the first time, only 1/3 off the second time.....and then after that, you're s*it out of luck. Certain violent offenses have no parole - I don't know what they would be but if they sound really bad - that likely would fit the bill. Keep in mind that we can't change the world overnight - there are too many hand wringers out there - so the three strikes makes sense to me.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Keepitsimple