Jump to content

Tories to crack down on parole for non-violent offenders


Recommended Posts

Utter nonsense? I think not. In many jurisdictions prisons have started to squeeze all other parts of the budget.

Which jurisdictions? Be specific.

But it's probably not worth discussing this issue with you, if you're so obtuse as to think incarcerating 30 - 40 thousand people costs more than providing healthcare for 30 - 40 million people. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which jurisdictions? Be specific.

California for one. Other states are now facing the same problem as you well know.

But it's probably not worth discussing this issue with you, if you're so obtuse as to think incarcerating 30 - 40 thousand people costs more than providing healthcare for 30 - 40 million people. :blink:

You are so obtuse that you don't have any control over spending desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone on the right considered what this vastly expanded enforcment/incarceration machine will be used for if it falls into the hands of Nanny-state socialists? Does anyone honestly believe they'll just leave it sitting there without further expansion and added applications?

Our ongoing progress towards complete dictatorship as I've said, is mutually assured.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

California for one. Other states are now facing the same problem as you well know.

Why are you referencing another country? Site some examples in Canada. California isn't a Canadian jurisdiction.

You are so obtuse that you don't have any control over spending desires.

Do the math. The cost of 30,000 people in prison vs the cost of healthcare for 30 million citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you referencing another country? Site some examples in Canada. California isn't a Canadian jurisdiction.

I have cited Manitoba already and gave you the actual numbers this month in jail and the riot that resulted a few weeks ago.

Do the math. The cost of 30,000 people in prison vs the cost of healthcare for 30 million citizens.

I have. And your party has a spending habit that results in deficits.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have cited Manitoba already and gave you the actual numbers this month in jail and the riot that resulted a few weeks ago.

Oh, you mean the riot that was "in part" due to overcrowded prisons? Any why was the prison overcrowded? Did just proposing a change in legislation fill the prison? Maybe the fact that prisons are overcrowded means more need to be built regardless of any new law.

I have. And your party has a spending habit that results in deficits.

I didn't ask you about deficits. I ask you about your premise, that prison spending was going to crowd out healthcare spending. Please tell us how much money we spend on jailing 30,000+ inmates, versus providing healthcare for 30 million plus citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean the riot that was "in part" due to overcrowded prisons? Any why was the prison overcrowded? Did just proposing a change in legislation fill the prison? Maybe the fact that prisons are overcrowded means more need to be built regardless of any new law.

I didn't ask you about deficits. I ask you about your premise, that prison spending was going to crowd out healthcare spending. Please tell us how much money we spend on jailing 30,000+ inmates, versus providing healthcare for 30 million plus citizens.

I think the more pertinent question is how will this be paid for? Are we going to raise taxes or cut other services? Those are our only two options. Which is it going to be and how deep will the cuts/gouging need to be to pay for it? It's all well and good to just accept this as a necessary evil. I for one want to know up front how much it's going to cost me and that is not an unreasonable expectation in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone on the right considered what this vastly expanded enforcment/incarceration machine will be used for if it falls into the hands of Nanny-state socialists? Does anyone honestly believe they'll just leave it sitting there without further expansion and added applications?

Our ongoing progress towards complete dictatorship as I've said, is mutually assured.

If this government was in the least bit interested in addressing the country's drug problem we would see some mandaTORY sentences for alcohol offences. Why doesn't providing alcohol to a minor carry a more significant sentence? Maybe Driving impaired should carry a mandatory prison sentence as well? How about all the violence committed by drunks? Alcohol is by far the most destructive drug to society yet it is strangely absent from the Tories mandatory minimum laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't ask you about deficits. I ask you about your premise, that prison spending was going to crowd out healthcare spending. Please tell us how much money we spend on jailing 30,000+ inmates, versus providing healthcare for 30 million plus citizens.

I thought you might find this interesting: from Colin Thatchers new book 'Final Appeal'...

"One of the first items discussed by the Devine cabinet after assuming office was replacing the antiquated Regina Correctional Centre, built in 1913. No one in cabinet had ever seen the facility, which likely would not have influenced the decision anyway. Attorney General Gary Lane inherited the proposal from the NDP and duly presented it to cabinet. I vividly recalled the discussion two years later while being checked into the place. In times of restraint and tight funding, a new jail rated a low priority to rural members more interested in hospitals and nursing homes for their constituencies. The proposal was quickly trashed, and the facility remained destined for perpetual turndowns until the walls began falling down. Jails are at the bottom of the totem pole for capital funding in an era of cutbacks."

Note: The choice, in his opinions, was hospitals and nursing homes OR the jail. To spend money on one meant less money available to be spent on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean the riot that was "in part" due to overcrowded prisons? Any why was the prison overcrowded? Did just proposing a change in legislation fill the prison? Maybe the fact that prisons are overcrowded means more need to be built regardless of any new law.

The riot was based on overcrowded conditions.

And it is why I have asked where the growing numbers of prisoners would be kept.

I didn't ask you about deficits. I ask you about your premise, that prison spending was going to crowd out healthcare spending. Please tell us how much money we spend on jailing 30,000+ inmates, versus providing healthcare for 30 million plus citizens.

I think that is the question I have asked you. How much more is it going to cost for the policy? We have seen elsewhere in Naorth America how budgets are seeing an every growing chunk taken by corrections. You seem to think it is insignificant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the more pertinent question is how will this be paid for? Are we going to raise taxes or cut other services? Those are our only two options. Which is it going to be and how deep will the cuts/gouging need to be to pay for it? It's all well and good to just accept this as a necessary evil. I for one want to know up front how much it's going to cost me and that is not an unreasonable expectation in the least.

Oh get real. When was the last time a government at any level told you it was imbarking on xxxx and it would cost yyyy and the costs weren't considerably higher than they had first estimated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh get real. When was the last time a government at any level told you it was imbarking on xxxx and it would cost yyyy and the costs weren't considerably higher than they had first estimated?

Exactly. The Liberal's gun registry comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the thing to consider before embarking on a large prison building binge.

Yeah, it's too bad the Liberal's didn't take that into consideration before their multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I wonder how many prisons could have been built with several billion dollars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's too bad the Liberal's didn't take that into consideration before their multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I wonder how many prisons could have been built with several billion dollars?

I never supported the gun registry and have said so.

Will you say the same thing if prison building goes wildly out of control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun registry vs Prison repair is not a good analogy, every prisoner is well and truly registered long before they arrive at prison.

Certainly the public will think differently if it escalates wildly in costs. They will only think about how it hits them in the pocketbook and what else might have been done with the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never supported the gun registry and have said so.

Will you say the same thing if prison building goes wildly out of control?

Sure. But it's hard to imagine the building of a prison ending up 1000 times over budget. I mean, the Liberal's told us that the gun registry would only cost around 2 million dollars. And well, 2 billion dollars later, we recieved the actual bill. That must be a world record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL It sure can't go 1000X over budget if there IS no budget, no plan, and no consideration of what the cost might turn out to be.

There will be a budget before a shovel hits the ground. But one can't know the cost until several things have been decided. Like where to build, how big to build, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be a budget before a shovel hits the ground. But one can't know the cost until several things have been decided. Like where to build, how big to build, etc.

If the boys bothered to research the impact of this legislation at all, they'd have a good idea how many more would need to be housed, and thus be able to estimate.

Look, asking them to have a clue about the effect of what they are proposing is not asking too much.

Cripe! Do they even have an objective more solid than firming up the particularly unthinking branch of the 'tough on crime' vote? It certainly doesn't appear so. Mike Harris at least set paramaters by which the success or failure of initiatives could be measured. This is just, "We're doing it because we're doing it. We don't care what effect it has or what it costs."

That's not acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just, "We're doing it because we're doing it. We don't care what effect it has or what it costs."

That's not acceptable.

I disagree with your premise. You're jumping to conclusions because you don't like the very idea of cracking down on parole for non-violent offenders. Just because legislation is proposed, doesn't mean it takes effect right away. Like I've already said. I'm sure the Conservative government will take into consideration the expected costs much more than the Liberal's did with their 2 billion-dollar suppose tobe 2 million-dollar gun registry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not according to your link. It was "partly" based on overcroweded conditions.

Which led to the report that came out a few weeks later that showed that overcrowded conditions existed in every jail in Manitoba and was leading to troubles across the board.

It is hard to come to any other conclusion that the system is creaking under the pressure now and escapes, riots and other issues are going to come up even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. But it's hard to imagine the building of a prison ending up 1000 times over budget. I mean, the Liberal's told us that the gun registry would only cost around 2 million dollars. And well, 2 billion dollars later, we recieved the actual bill. That must be a world record.

So you'll be okay so long as it doesn't hit the highwater mark. Acceptable if it is 100% over? 200%

Your fallback position will be that at least it didn't hit that mark? And if it did, I'm sure you would be saying it was justifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...