Harper Neocons favour ideology instead of data

[ToadBrother]

Why because the evil Americans did it, it's always wrong?

I don't get why private options are so toxic? Canadian food is privately processed and goes through rigorous CFIA inspection standards. Why not have private prisons that generate revenue, are federally inspected so no abuses go on there, and save the public tax dollars?

No, it's wrong because 1. only the State has the power to incarcerate, so only the State should do the actual incarceration and 2. private prisons are open to too many abuses, and 3. show me how exactly there will be cost savings.

[noahbody]

So the Tories will support increased abortion?

Is that the next hidden agenda theme the Liberals are going to push?

[Moonbox]

With violent youth crime on the rise as was pointed out earlier, its far to big of a gamble throwing them in for a year, and hoping they are magically cured.

I speak from experience from my profession. I deal with clients all the time who I see right before they go to jail. They come to me after they go to jail, and I find out from their spouses a month later that they're right back in. I'm one person. I can easily name you three kids I know (by kids I mean early-mid 20's) who have been to prison twice this year for violent crimes. Rehabilitation ---- 50% of the time it works every time.

[segnosaur]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Pr...3147/story.html

The Harper government has ignored reams of research and conclusive evidence about prison policy in favour of slogans and pandering. They promise to get tough on crime. Problem is, crime rates have been dropping across Canada

...

Empirical evidence should matter to policy-makers. Crime rates are one piece of evidence about what is and what is not working in the corrections system. Ignoring research and statistics is a formula for producing bad policy.

Ok, here are a few things you should recognize about that particular article, and about our criminal justice system in general...

That particular article depends in part on work by Graham Stewart, who is the former head of the John Howard society... The John Howard society is a prisioner rights group, and as such any "work" done by them is liable to be biased. (Its kind of like asking the republicans about what they think of the Iraq war... you just aren't likely to get an unbiased view of things.)

Yes, crime rates have been dropping in Canada, but that may not have anything to do with how we handle our justice system. Crime depends on a lot of factors... the drop in crime rate could just as easily be due to aging population demographics (older people are less likely to engage in crime) or improved standards of living over the past decade. If I remember correctly, the crime rate in the U.S. has also been dropping, even though their justice system is different than ours, suggesting our drop in crime rates doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what Canada is doing 'right'

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007...4129904-eng.htm

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Lo...P/prb0223-e.htm.

Frankly, the issue should not be "are crime rates dropping. The issue should be "are they as low as they can go". The fact that they are currently dropping doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.

The article also has the line:

But is the U.S. really any safer as a result of its jam-packed prisons?

Actually, yes, in many ways, it IS safer than Canada.

You see, we have this myth that Canada is somehow 'safe'. But, if you look at the 2004 United Nations human rights report, you see that a higher percentage of Canadians are victims of crime than in the U.S. (Yes, the U.S. may have more murders per captia, but Canada seems to have more assaults, muggings, etc. And yes, there are a lot of people in jail in the U.S., but many of them are in jail for simple drug posession; reforming the drug laws in the U.S. may be a good idea, but suggesting their prisions are full because they are 'tough on crime' is incorrect.)

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr04_complete.pdf (section 23)

Among the key recommendations the government has adopted is ending "statutory releases" after prisoners serve two-thirds of their sentences, in favour of earned parole that is tied to following a corrections plan.

Instead of being supervised in the community, prisoners would serve longer and then be dumped into communities with no conditions. Ending a program that might be perceived as offering early release to prisoners may be good optics, but is it good policy?

Releasing prisoners with no conditions and no support might actually make the public less safe than earlier release that comes with conditions and support.

Here's the problem wtih that logic...

Prisoners would still be elegible to get parolled before the end of their sentence. If an individual is unable to behave in prison to the point where they can get parole, why exactly should they be released? Why would we expect the average prisoner's behaviour to improve if they are released on mandatory supervision and have more freedom (even if they are monitored) than they were when they were behind bars?

It's become quite clear that Harper is a poster boy for the US based International Republican Institute. These are the people who, for whatever reason, have great disdain for scientific facts and research based evidence. They can't be reasoned with. They can only be replaced.

I find it ironic that you would accuse Harper of ignoring "facts" and "evidence", considering the fact that I've managed to debunk your own arguments using basic logic and "facts" that were quite easily available.

Edited October 15, 2009 by segnosaur

[blueblood]

No, it's wrong because 1. only the State has the power to incarcerate, so only the State should do the actual incarceration and 2. private prisons are open to too many abuses, and 3. show me how exactly there will be cost savings.

1. The state is doing the incarcerating, its just private companies footing the bill instead of taxpayers.

2. How would there be abuses going on if they were federally inspected like food processing plants?

3. Imagine prisoners working on clothing, shoes, etc. for companies instead of kids in third world countries. The savings on freight could very well work out in this case.

[Michael Hardner]

eyeball

I simply meant we need something to provide a better reality check. I suppose that's the Fourth Estate's role but it seems more interested in what sells than what's real.

I agree that an educated informed populace is or was our only hope. That said how do we prod the poplulace to become that? We could make voters take issues comprehension tests and if people fail perhaps they'd be encouraged to smarten themselves up.

In any case I think its too late myself. There are just too many intractable problems piling up too fast for anyone to react appropriately i.e. intelligently.

How do we prod the populace ? We are the populace, so we need to do it ourselves for a start, right here and in every day conversation. When you hear somebody start a statement with "statistics show..." then ask them some basic questions so that they know that you're not a sucker.

I'm discouraged that you seem to want to wait for the government to do something that's not in its best interest to do. It's HARDER for them to manage government if we're informed, because then they have to do real work rather than just issue press releases about how great everything is.

[eyeball]

eyeball

How do we prod the populace ? We are the populace, so we need to do it ourselves for a start, right here and in every day conversation. When you hear somebody start a statement with "statistics show..." then ask them some basic questions so that they know that you're not a sucker.

We've got all the time in the world to do that, as for politicians however...the last few all candidates meetings I've attended were so choreographed that questions had to be screened and vetted before you could even ask them. There was certainly no attempt on the part of moderators to stop politicians from avoiding direct questions and using them to launch themselves off in an entirely different tangent that had little to do with the questions they were asked. I end up feeling like a sucker when I come away from these things.

I'm discouraged that you seem to want to wait for the government to do something that's not in its best interest to do. It's HARDER for them to manage government if we're informed, because then they have to do real work rather than just issue press releases about how great everything is.

I'm discouraged that you seem to think that's all I'm doing. I'm looking for a means to force the politicians and governments to do things that are not in their narrow interests.

[Sir Bandelot]

Why because the evil Americans did it, it's always wrong?

If you have to ask that question, then you have no idea what Canada is all about.

Or should I say, aboot

[madmax]

If our system of revolving door justice is perfect, may I suggest moving to a neighbourhood where there are ex cons out of jail and where crime is rampant.

If its for private prisons with prison labour contracted out to various companies I'm all for it.

We don't put our criminals in jail. We don't convict any because in order to get a conviction, you need to have laws to deal with criminal behaviour. It took a country like the US to put Conrad Black in Jail. The convicted fellon better not be allowed to return to Canada.

There are entire financial neighbourhoods just reaping with criminal activity. People get stolen and ripped off again and again and nothing happens or changes.

[dre]

We don't put our criminals in jail. We don't convict any because in order to get a conviction, you need to have laws to deal with criminal behaviour. It took a country like the US to put Conrad Black in Jail. The convicted fellon better not be allowed to return to Canada.

There are entire financial neighbourhoods just reaping with criminal activity. People get stolen and ripped off again and again and nothing happens or changes.

Most of our crime is a direct result of bad government policy in the first place... for example making a law that says only criminals get to sell pot, and respectable regulated businessmen arent allowed into the multi billion dollars market.

The market is there either way... the demand... and the supply. Our government just decided it wanted to have a lot of violence and extortion to go along with the inevitable consumption.

NEWS FLASH... Stupid things happen to stupid people. Canadians pretty much get what they deserve.

[blueblood]

If you have to ask that question, then you have no idea what Canada is all about.

Or should I say, aboot

I know that its not Europe, what the leftists dream that Canada should be like.

[DrGreenthumb]

Most of our crime is a direct result of bad government policy in the first place... for example making a law that says only criminals get to sell pot, and respectable regulated businessmen arent allowed into the multi billion dollars market.

The market is there either way... the demand... and the supply. Our government just decided it wanted to have a lot of violence and extortion to go along with the inevitable consumption.

NEWS FLASH... Stupid things happen to stupid people. Canadians pretty much get what they deserve.

Well said. Anyone else notice that in the Cons new crime bills there are MINUMUM sentences for pot offences but identity theft , fraud and other white collar crimes that steal millions from citizens are only deemed worthy of MAXIMUM sentences? 5 years in the maximum sentence for these offences but growing pot plants warrants a 15 year maximum??? shouldn't we step back and ask WTF?

[Sir Bandelot]

Well said. Anyone else notice that in the Cons new crime bills there are MINUMUM sentences for pot offences but identity theft , fraud and other white collar crimes that steal millions from citizens are only deemed worthy of MAXIMUM sentences? 5 years in the maximum sentence for these offences but growing pot plants warrants a 15 year maximum??? shouldn't we step back and ask WTF?

Yes we really should. Most people have little clue what these guys are up to, or don't care. It doesn't affect the majority of slavish corporate drill thralls, so long as they can suit up appropriately every morning, work 40 hours plus take work home on weekends, and pay up their taxes at year end (as we all are about to do) to shore up the banks and faltering industries, that were previously gutted by elitist profiteers. Bravo.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Sir Bandelot]

"Three justifications are offered for mandatory penalties: evenhandedness, transparency, and the prevention of crime. None withstands careful scrutiny.

There is substantial evidence demonstrating that when mandatory penalties are seen as being too severe, prosecutors and judges will often (but not always) circumvent them, in effect moving sentencing decisions from the open courtroom to dark hallways and private offices. This ensures that the penalties handed down are neither consistent across similar cases nor transparent to anyone. That mandatory sentencing laws are often nullified when their application would be unfairly harsh has been known for at least 3 centuries."

http://criminology.utoronto.ca/lib/CrimHighlightsV11N1.pdf

http://criminology.utoronto.ca/lib/criminological_highlights.html

An interesting read of a study that was funded by the federal government. Ironically it flies in the face of the governments proposed mandatory minimum sentencing.

Tough-on-crime policies don't work, study finds

Research at odds with Tories' crime agenda

The Canadian Press

Published On Mon Mar 15 2010

The most recent issue of Criminological Highlights, published last month, with federal assistance, by the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology, blows gaping holes in several of Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's most cherished anti-crime measures.

Mandatory penalties, says the research digest, "undermine the legitimacy of the prosecution process by fostering circumventions that are wilful and subterranean. They undermine ... equality before the law when they cause comparably culpable offenders to be treated radically differently."

In other words, people who can afford good lawyers agree to backroom plea bargains to avoid harsh mandatory sentences, while the average Joe is hit hard.

[nicky10013]

1. The state is doing the incarcerating, its just private companies footing the bill instead of taxpayers.

2. How would there be abuses going on if they were federally inspected like food processing plants?

3. Imagine prisoners working on clothing, shoes, etc. for companies instead of kids in third world countries. The savings on freight could very well work out in this case.

1. Don't fool yourself. The government contracts out these private companies. We're still footing the bill. Take Toronto street lights for instance. The city of Toronto actually produced and stockpiled these street lights. That operation was sold for 60 million dollars to Toronto Hydro. Great! Right? Well, the same day, the city contracted out to rent street lights from them for 420 million. Just like how Mike Harris sold the 407 and prices went straight through the roof. The notion that the free market can always do it better is just as ideological as the notion that the government can do it better. Pragmatically speaking, it's a combination of both. Reckless privitization has on the whole can very much hurt the consumer more. Depends on the case.

CFIA is a bad example as well. Sure, they do mostly a good job, but we still got a listeria outbreak and mad cow, right? Then who's to blame? The farmer, the inspectors? Who did what and why? The issue becomes far more murky and hard to deal with possibly allowing the conditions to continue while attempting to ascertain what went on down the line.

[Argus]

"Three justifications are offered for mandatory penalties: evenhandedness, transparency, and the prevention of crime. None withstands careful scrutiny.

There is substantial evidence demonstrating that when mandatory penalties are seen as being too severe, prosecutors and judges will often (but not always) circumvent them, in effect moving sentencing decisions from the open courtroom to dark hallways and private offices.

Which is why we need to get rid of liberal judges appointed purely for ideological reasons and put judges in place who will follow the law as written. BTW, plea bargains also move sentencing decisions from the open courtroom to dark hallways and private offices, and no one is suggesting we do away with them.

This ensures that the penalties handed down are neither consistent across similar cases nor transparent to anyone.

Is a ten year sentence transparant to everyone? That's what a man was given for beating a 3 year old to death. But he was out on the street a couple of years later. How come? Well, the judge gave him double time for time already served in pri-trial custody, then the parole board set him free early. Now he's in jail charged with beating a man to death.

Tough-on-crime policies don't work, study fin...

In other words, people who can afford good lawyers agree to backroom plea bargains to avoid harsh mandatory sentences, while the average Joe is hit hard.

Simplistic blather which ignores the fact that the study took place in the US, which has a completely different seet of circumstances driving its crime, and that the words could be used to describe any number of provisions of the current law. People with good lawyers already fare much better than people without.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Which is why we need to get rid of liberal judges appointed purely for ideological reasons and put judges in place who will follow the law as written.

In other words, get rid of liberal judges, and appoint conservative-leaning judges. They do that in the States, and it still confounds the political parties that judges they feel they own so often don't play that game. It's long been observed that judges at every level happily bite the hand that feeds them because once you're a judge, you're pretty much no longer in a position where you have to kiss butt. I mean, I can't even imagine how you would go about getting rid of "liberal" judges. I'd dearly love to hear how you plan to do it.

BTW, plea bargains also move sentencing decisions from the open courtroom to dark hallways and private offices, and no one is suggesting we do away with them.

Then, rather than getting rid of judges, you're going to have to hire a whole bunch more, build more courtrooms, expand the number of Crown Prosecutors and supporting staff.

[Argus]

Then, rather than getting rid of judges, you're going to have to hire a whole bunch more, build more courtrooms, expand the number of Crown Prosecutors and supporting staff.

Actually, if I could remake the legal system, I would start with getting rid of juries. They no longer serve a purpose, are costly and time consuming and are fairly easy to manipulate by lawyers. I would have a judge and two JPs sit on important cases. I would have JPs decide the less important, simpler cases, dispositions to be reviewed by an appropriate, independant board (call it a board of justice) to ensure decisions and sentences were apropriate, and in keeping with fundamental justice. Appeals beyond that board would have to be paid for by the citizen himself - no legal aid. I would do everything possible to speed cases along. Ideally, someone arrested on a simple crime - ie, common assault, shoplifting, prostitution, drug posession, would be tried and sentenced same-day. Cases of a greater severity should be heard and done within a month of an arrest.

[wyly]

If you have to ask that question, then you have no idea what Canada is all about.

Or should I say, aboot

I don't know anyone who says "aboot" and only one that says "eh"

[ToadBrother]

Actually, if I could remake the legal system, I would start with getting rid of juries. They no longer serve a purpose, are costly and time consuming and are fairly easy to manipulate by lawyers. I would have a judge and two JPs sit on important cases. I would have JPs decide the less important, simpler cases, dispositions to be reviewed by an appropriate, independant board (call it a board of justice) to ensure decisions and sentences were apropriate, and in keeping with fundamental justice. Appeals beyond that board would have to be paid for by the citizen himself - no legal aid. I would do everything possible to speed cases along. Ideally, someone arrested on a simple crime - ie, common assault, shoplifting, prostitution, drug posession, would be tried and sentenced same-day. Cases of a greater severity should be heard and done within a month of an arrest.

In one post you seem disturbed that certain types of judges wield too much power, and in this post you declare that you want to essentially give them all the power. What's more, you would limit the appeal process, effectively delivering even more than that.

[Argus]

In one post you seem disturbed that certain types of judges wield too much power, and in this post you declare that you want to essentially give them all the power. What's more, you would limit the appeal process, effectively delivering even more than that.

I'm not giving them more power. Juries are irrelevent. I'm replacing them with JPs who, through experience, will at least develop the ability to see-through the manipulations of lawyers. Further, because there will be JPs instead of juries that will limit the grounds for appeals on even serious cases. Many such appeals are based around the determination by the system that juries are complete and absolute morons and the slightest misstatement by a judge in front of them is enough to throw a six month trial out the window. Appeals will still be allowed, it's just that on simple cases they wouldn't be funded by the government past the review board.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not giving them more power. Juries are irrelevent. I'm replacing them with JPs who, through experience, will at least develop the ability to see-through the manipulations of lawyers. Further, because there will be JPs instead of juries that will limit the grounds for appeals on even serious cases. Many such appeals are based around the determination by the system that juries are complete and absolute morons and the slightest misstatement by a judge in front of them is enough to throw a six month trial out the window. Appeals will still be allowed, it's just that on simple cases they wouldn't be funded by the government past the review board.

I think this is what is known as an argument for hyperbole. Unless you can quote me some actual statistics on trials that collapse because of juries, I'm going to take this is a case of rhetorical overstatement.

The point behind juries, and has been for centuries, is that an accused should have the right to be judged not by some rarefied legal scholar or other such magistracy, but his peers.

What you really want is the removal of any kind meaningful defense, and worse, the removal of any meaningful way to appeal when a judgment goes against you. Yes, you have a "review board", which most certainly will be occupied by similar people to the original judge. And for what, because every once in a while, a jury screws up? Well, judges screw up to, as do all manner of review boards.

And the idea of "simple cases" has me astounded. Can you even give a precise definition of a "simple" case? Such an important issue as the application of modes of law will be defined by what someone thinks as "simple" versus "complex"?

So let's get this straight. You don't like judges, or at least some fraction of them, because you perceive them as "liberal" for not going by the letter of the law (whatever that may precisely mean). You also don't like lawyers, because they manipulate (isn't the whole point of argument to manipulate). You don't like juries, because, apparently, they're stupid and screw things up (though you fail to give any notion of just how often this happens).

I think what you really want is trial by computer, where some witless government lackey punches in facts, and through some odd divination process, guilt, innocence, and who gets the bill, is popped out the other side. You don't want justice, you want a lottery.

[msdogfood]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Pr...3147/story.html

The Harper government has ignored reams of research and conclusive evidence about prison policy in favour of slogans and pandering. They promise to get tough on crime. Problem is, crime rates have been dropping across Canada, so in order to win public support, the government has had to rely on emotion rather than facts. And the government is happy to admit it. Critics "try to pacify Canadians with statistics" Prime Minister Stephen Harper told an audience last year. "Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say, crime is really not a problem."

Empirical evidence should matter to policy-makers. Crime rates are one piece of evidence about what is and what is not working in the corrections system. Ignoring research and statistics is a formula for producing bad policy.

Among the key recommendations the government has adopted is ending "statutory releases" after prisoners serve two-thirds of their sentences, in favour of earned parole that is tied to following a corrections plan.

Instead of being supervised in the community, prisoners would serve longer and then be dumped into communities with no conditions. Ending a program that might be perceived as offering early release to prisoners may be good optics, but is it good policy?

Releasing prisoners with no conditions and no support might actually make the public less safe than earlier release that comes with conditions and support.

The Harper government would move the country's correctional system closer to the U.S. model, which would see more prisoners incarcerated for longer periods, thanks to mandatory minimum sentences and the elimination of gradual release. The plan would see the construction of U.S.-style super prisons.

But is the U.S. really any safer as a result of its jam-packed prisons?

----------------------

It's become quite clear that Harper is a poster boy for the US based International Republican Institute. These are the people who, for whatever reason, have great disdain for scientific facts and research based evidence. They can't be reasoned with. They can only be replaced.

under this PMO what ware you expecting??

[DrGreenthumb]

I think this is what is known as an argument for hyperbole. Unless you can quote me some actual statistics on trials that collapse because of juries, I'm going to take this is a case of rhetorical overstatement.

The point behind juries, and has been for centuries, is that an accused should have the right to be judged not by some rarefied legal scholar or other such magistracy, but his peers.

What you really want is the removal of any kind meaningful defense, and worse, the removal of any meaningful way to appeal when a judgment goes against you. Yes, you have a "review board", which most certainly will be occupied by similar people to the original judge. And for what, because every once in a while, a jury screws up? Well, judges screw up to, as do all manner of review boards.

And the idea of "simple cases" has me astounded. Can you even give a precise definition of a "simple" case? Such an important issue as the application of modes of law will be defined by what someone thinks as "simple" versus "complex"?

So let's get this straight. You don't like judges, or at least some fraction of them, because you perceive them as "liberal" for not going by the letter of the law (whatever that may precisely mean). You also don't like lawyers, because they manipulate (isn't the whole point of argument to manipulate). You don't like juries, because, apparently, they're stupid and screw things up (though you fail to give any notion of just how often this happens).

I think what you really want is trial by computer, where some witless government lackey punches in facts, and through some odd divination process, guilt, innocence, and who gets the bill, is popped out the other side. You don't want justice, you want a lottery.

If there was ever any doubt about Argus being a willing little fascist, it has now been dispelled.

[bloodyminded]

I don't know anyone who says "aboot" and only one that says "eh"

I say "eh" all the time.

But "aboot"? I think you're right; I've only ever heard it pronounced that way to make fun of the manner in which nobody talks.