Is Crime Really Down?

[nicky10013]

This is a poser, Nicky. There is much truth in your scenario. However, it's also true that judges overwhelmingly tend to issue the MINIMUM sentences, carte blanche!

So what do you do when the judges use their flexibility to give EVERY perp the minimum?

Take it a step further. Suppose you are a model inmate of a prison. You want to earn time for good behaviour. Yet you can't help but notice that EVERYBODY gets a third off their sentence, or more, regardless. (Unless they knife a guard or something, of course!)

What does that do to your motivation? What life lesson does that teach you?

These arguments always go back and forth, with merit on both sides. The real problem seems to always come back to the judges! We all want a system with some built-in intelligence, where someone makes the hard decisions for hopefully sensible reasons.

I submit that many of our judges fail in this capacity. Our system seems to lack any control over a judge after he is appointed, unless he gets caught in a sex scandal or something. What's more, a good portion of our citizenry LIKES it that way! They have absolute faith in the way judges are handing out sentences right now and don't want it changed, regardless of the wishes of the majority of their fellow citizens. They believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Even more, even if they are in the minority they should still get their own way!

I don't see an easy solution for this one. Certainly not a quick one!

I'm one of those people. Judges get to be judges because they have years of experience in the system. They know infinitely better than the people who are pissed off because they see on tv every now and again a person released early. The whole point of a non-political appointment of judges IS to keep the political control out of the judicial system. What would you rather have, a judge sentencing based on precedent and his true knowledege of the system, or a judge who is elected who knows he can score easy points by handing out nothing but life sentences?

As for the scenario you put forth, I don't see much truth in it. As I mentioned above, I don't really know what goes on and I doubt many people outside the correctional program does. That being said, what I do know happens is the ability to do such things as work release, the ability to attain education - both university and technical. They also benefit from therapy. These basic things are what allow people to make it when they're released from prison. A lot of people think this is a really weak way of handling things, but internationally speaking our crime rates compare fairly favourably. There are always going to be problems with the system and not all of them can be fixed. However, why throw a major wrench in the gears when there really isn't a major problem?

[Bonam]

However, why throw a major wrench in the gears when there really isn't a major problem?

Whose asking for a "wrench in the gears"? Slow, incremental, change to try to improve the system is what I'd like to see. We've made a start with things like eliminating 2 for 1 credit. We need to keep going and making tweaks like this, to toughen up laws where needed, loosen up others where that may be warranted.

[nicky10013]

Whose asking for a "wrench in the gears"? Slow, incremental, change to try to improve the system is what I'd like to see. We've made a start with things like eliminating 2 for 1 credit. We need to keep going and making tweaks like this, to toughen up laws where needed, loosen up others where that may be warranted.

Longer sentences generally increases recidivism rates. More people re-offending means a higher crime rate. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to build more prisons. It's a strategy that just doesn't work.

[Bonam]

Longer sentences generally increases recidivism rates.

Proof? This is just a broad claim you'd need some really solid evidence to back it up.

[nicky10013]

Proof? This is just a broad claim you'd need some really solid evidence to back it up.

From the article I posted.

Prison deters? Not much, not the worst

Some people argue that the system works: that crime has fallen in the past two decades because the bad guys are either in prison or scared of being sent there. Caged thugs cannot break into your home. Bernie Madoff’s 150-year sentence for running a Ponzi scam should deter imitators. And indeed the crime rate continues to drop, despite the recession, as Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an advocacy group, points out. This, he says, is because habitual criminals face serious consequences. Some research supports him: after raking through decades of historical data, John Donohue of Yale Law School estimates that a 10% increase in imprisonment brings a 2% reduction in crime.

Others disagree. Using more recent data, Bert Useem of Purdue University and Anne Piehl of Rutgers University estimate that a 10% increase in the number of people behind bars would reduce crime by only 0.5%. In the states that currently lock up the most people, imprisoning more would actually increase crime, they believe. Some inmates emerge from prison as more accomplished criminals. And raising the incarceration rate means locking up people who are, on average, less dangerous than the ones already behind bars. A recent study found that, over the past 13 years, the proportion of new prisoners in Florida who had committed violent crimes fell by 28%, whereas those inside for “other” crimes shot up by 189%. These “other” crimes were non-violent ones involving neither drugs nor theft, such as driving with a suspended licence.

[dre]

Whose asking for a "wrench in the gears"? Slow, incremental, change to try to improve the system is what I'd like to see. We've made a start with things like eliminating 2 for 1 credit. We need to keep going and making tweaks like this, to toughen up laws where needed, loosen up others where that may be warranted.

The only really major flaw in our criminal justice system is the prohibition of soft drugs. Prohibition causes a lot of the nations organized crime, and is the primary source and funding of organized crime.

If we are gonna fix stuff we should start with whats broken the most.

[Wild Bill]

The only really major flaw in our criminal justice system is the prohibition of soft drugs. Prohibition causes a lot of the nations organized crime, and is the primary source and funding of organized crime.

If we are gonna fix stuff we should start with whats broken the most.

Well, that would certainly free up a lot of money to address the REAL crimes! Prohibition laws are really just political pandering to the Ned Flanders set, who tend to run on 'faith' and no amount of evidence or logic will ever change their minds.

Me, my hippy days are long past but I bitterly resent being taxed in order to waste money on a futile "war against drugs". If others can be catered to for some of their pet foolishness I have a few foolish ideas myself I would appreciate being addressed...

[Bonam]

From the article I posted.

I read that article, several days ago actually, when it first went up (I read the economist a fair bit). Note that neither what you quoted nor anything else in the article supports the statement that I asked for proof for.

nicky stated:

Longer sentences increase recidivism rates

To put that simpler: people who are incarcerated for longer are more likely to re-offend

Is that supported by the article? By the part you quoted? No. It merely states that tougher sentences, more imprisonment, lead to a reduction in crime that is lower than might be hoped for. The main gist of the article is how long sentences can sometimes be imposed in the US on people who do not deserve to be in jail for nearly that long, such as years for having a few Percocet pills in Massachusetts, and how that does much more harm than good. It does not state that tough sentences for serious (violent) offenses are unwarranted or that they have an adverse effect on society.

[Wild Bill]

I read that article, several days ago actually, when it first went up (I read the economist a fair bit). Note that neither what you quoted nor anything else in the article supports the statement that I asked for proof for.

nicky stated:

Longer sentences increase recidivism rates

To put that simpler: people who are incarcerated for longer are more likely to re-offend

Is that supported by the article? By the part you quoted? No. It merely states that tougher sentences, more imprisonment, lead to a reduction in crime that is lower than might be hoped for. The main gist of the article is how long sentences can sometimes be imposed in the US on people who do not deserve to be in jail for nearly that long, such as years for having a few Percocet pills in Massachusetts, and how that does much more harm than good. It does not state that tough sentences for serious (violent) offenses are unwarranted or that they have an adverse effect on society.

Bonam, does it sometimes seem to you as well that some posters will post cites they don't appear to have read themselves? It's as if they simply take a big chunk of url's from a quick google, expecting the sheer quantity of cites is enough in itself to prove their point!

[nicky10013]

Bonam, does it sometimes seem to you as well that some posters will post cites they don't appear to have read themselves? It's as if they simply take a big chunk of url's from a quick google, expecting the sheer quantity of cites is enough in itself to prove their point!

Well hell, if you can't read lets mock the person who posted it.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm

[Wild Bill]

Well hell, if you can't read lets mock the person who posted it.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm

That's not the situation being discussed! I'm talking about when someone posts a cite supposedly as a rebuttal but they haven't actually read it closely enough to understand that it doesn't rebut but rather SUPPORTS the other's argument!

Frankly, isn't that deserving of mockery?

[WIP]

Longer sentences generally increases recidivism rates. More people re-offending means a higher crime rate. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to build more prisons. It's a strategy that just doesn't work.

I am suspicious over whether there is any honest attempt to make the "tough on crime" strategies work. We only have to look south and see how ineffective and counterproductive U.S. policies like bringing back the death penalty and the Three Strikes policy have been at dealing with violent crime in U.S. cities. The cities with the harshest laws and the highest rates of incarceration, still have the highest murder rates. This whole tough-on-crime plank is intended to win support from people looking for some form of revenge or retribution. Sometimes these motives lead to worse consequences for everyone.

[WIP]

Then you would disagree with my recollections of officers responding to burglaries, patrolling streets and highways to give warnings as well as tickets, cops walking beats, the seeming lack of danger to hitchhiking and so on? Is it still the same in your neighbourhood or am I imagining all of that?

Since you live in Stoney Creek, have you ever taken a walk in downtown Hamilton? I didn't grow up here, so I can't speak for how it was 30 or 40 years ago; but there are police on foot patrols downtown now, so where are you getting this idea they don't patrol the streets anymore?

[Wild Bill]

Since you live in Stoney Creek, have you ever taken a walk in downtown Hamilton? I didn't grow up here, so I can't speak for how it was 30 or 40 years ago; but there are police on foot patrols downtown now, so where are you getting this idea they don't patrol the streets anymore?

Please! Hamilton is Hamilton. They may have some cops on beats in the old part of the city.

Stoney Creek is a suburb. We are a conquered people, thanks to amalgamation. We DON'T get beat cops, or much of anything else! We are merely a source of tax money for Hamilton councilors to waste for endless attempts to make a silk purse out of the downtown core sow's ear.

Some parts of Glanbrook don't even get police or fire protection anymore. At least, in practice. Officially they do! It's just that now those services are no longer locally provided but are booked out of the main city. This means that for a fire the trucks will arrive just about when the coals are burned down just right to toast marshmellows. As for the police, criminals have long since figured out that they can clean a house out and be gone long before the police arrive. Farmers are locking their doors at night for the first time and are keeping more dogs. They also are more likely to have an unregistered shotgun or two hidden in the house!

It was the fireman's union that killed their local fire protection. They had had a very successful volunteer force for years but when amalgamation occurred the firefighter's union made an issue about allowing 'scabs' on the force! Hamilton did not want to pay for more full time positions so the local force was gone and things were covered by the main city services, located much further away.

There is a police station there. It's just that despite how it always looks nicely cleaned and tended there's no one actually in it! In Stoney Creek they tore down our police station. We're covered by a tiny office in the east end of old Hamilton, backed up by larger stations downtown.

Now the residents are watching as Hamilton is calling for 'area rating' of taxes, which will mean an 'evening out' across the entire new city. Since those rural suburbs like Glanbrook or Flamborough don't even get as much as a bus or two the bitterness is quite strong.

I guess in theory you're right that there are still police on foot patrol. It's just that "some pigs are more equal than others", I suppose.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Keepitsimple]

I am suspicious over whether there is any honest attempt to make the "tough on crime" strategies work. We only have to look south and see how ineffective and counterproductive U.S. policies like bringing back the death penalty and the Three Strikes policy have been at dealing with violent crime in U.S. cities. The cities with the harshest laws and the highest rates of incarceration, still have the highest murder rates. This whole tough-on-crime plank is intended to win support from people looking for some form of revenge or retribution. Sometimes these motives lead to worse consequences for everyone.

That's a common theme from the media - look at the US and try and compare it to Canada. The fact is, we are not close to being the same. We are not Americans and we do not have their big city problems where the cores have been hollowed out and infested with gangs and rampant with drugs. Racial inequality is still a problem. Tough on crime can only work in conjunction with addressing root problems. Poverty and inequality in Canada are much less - helped along by reasonable access to education, healthcare and welfare. We addressed a lot of social issues but our lenience towards all types of crime has created a criminal underworld that sees our slap-on-the-wrist system as simply the cost of doing business. Criminals and would-be criminals need to understand that society expects consequences for devient actions. Sentencing for violent crimes must reflect society's revulsion......not revenge - just simply a recognition that it's unacceptable. We are not the USA - we are Canadians.

[Smallc]

But the thing is, laws have been strengthened a great deal over the last few years....at great cost. There comes a point when enough is enough.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... We are not the USA - we are Canadians.

Indeed...with definition all but impossible without comparisons to the USA.

[Pliny]

I am suspicious over whether there is any honest attempt to make the "tough on crime" strategies work. We only have to look south and see how ineffective and counterproductive U.S. policies like bringing back the death penalty and the Three Strikes policy have been at dealing with violent crime in U.S. cities. The cities with the harshest laws and the highest rates of incarceration, still have the highest murder rates.

You mean the cities with the highest parking rates?

Here is an interesting piece of American information:

All five of the country’s most dangerous cities in 2009 are known drug transit points for Mexican drug cartels, according to the Department of Justice.

By harsh laws do the harshest gun control laws count?

the statistics show that the cities with the tightest gun control laws are the cities with the highest violent crime rates.

Washington DC perhaps?

What does tough on crime mean to you? Reducing TV time? 20 lashes for the "crime" of spitting on the sidewalk is being tough on crime. I am not saying we should get that tough or even consider such things crimes but "going to bed without dinner", etc., is not really being tough on crime.

[bloodyminded]

Once again you seem to lack "real world" experience! Many people don't report crimes because they don't expect the criminals will actually be caught but they DO expect negative consequences for themselves!

A woman who has been sexually assaulted may feel that she will have the aggravation and embarrassment of being "run through the system" for no positive result. She will endure shame and perhaps time off of work while the perp will never be identified or worse yet, if he is and there is a court trial the defense attorney will attack HER for her own sexual history and the perp will get off!

Do you really, honestly believe that sexual assaults were more likely to be reported in 1962 than they are now?

[Machjo]

I haven't read this thread beyond the first post yet, but just to comment, how many more crimes are caught today?

I remember my mother mentioning that when she was younger, one man in Ottawa was also collecting welfare from both Ottawa and Toronto, double dipping essentially. With modern technology today, that would be much more difficult. So how much of it has to do with more crimes just being caught today compared to before?

[Wild Bill]

Do you really, honestly believe that sexual assaults were more likely to be reported in 1962 than they are now?

That was never MY position! My premise was that there was much less crime, especially violent crime, in the early 60's than today. I was positing that those who make the claim that "crime is down so no need to be tougher with sentencing" are comparing a drop of a few percent over the past few years, which is mice nuts compared to 50 years ago.

This was in today's Sunday Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/07/30/14883086.html

"That is, while crime rates in Canada are today falling slightly on a year-over-year basis and are down from their historic highs of the early 1990s, they remain alarmingly and stubbornly high compared to the early 1960s, when comparable crime stats first started being kept.

I can now tell you there were 920 violent crimes reported to police per 100,000 population in Canada in 2009.

The good news is that’s a slight drop from the 936 violent crimes reported per 100,000 in 2008.

The bad news is it means our violent crime rate remains more than 300% higher than what it was when comparable statistics first started being kept in 1962.

At that time, our violent crime rate was 221 incidents per 100,000 of population.

That means last year’s violent crime rate of 920 incidents per 100,000 was 316% higher than in 1962.

A similar pattern can be seen for other forms of crime."

It's a good read and makes the point much better than I did. Of course, I guess you can prefer to believe that crime REPORTING is over 316 % higher than in 1962 instead of crime itself but 316% is such a huge number that I'm not sure anyone would care to defend that position...

Edited August 1, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why is 1962 the chosen date? All the Data I've been able to find starts at 1962.

Some crime stats.

Edited August 1, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Remiel]

Indeed...with definition all but impossible without comparisons to the USA.

And pray tell, how exactly would you define the USA were there no other countries to implicitly compare it to?

[Topaz]

If a community has most of its citzens working and then crime will go down. I know when one of the main industry shut down here about a year ago, the crime rate went up. People were drinking and driving more, domestic problems, break and enters, drugs, a lot of the crime that wasn't a problem before.

[bush_cheney2004]

And pray tell, how exactly would you define the USA were there no other countries to implicitly compare it to?

Easy.....define what it is instead of what it is not. Canada...the Great UnCola.