Is Crime Really Down?

[Guest TrueMetis]

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

And what pray tell is The U.S., 10 bucks says every criteria you use wouldn't work without a comparison.

[Remiel]

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

To be an to be not are two sides of the same coin. The statement, " America is the land of free, " is meaningless without knowing that there are some " not free " lands out there. America spent decades in the Cold War defining what it was not. America... the Great UnCommunism.

[bush_cheney2004]

To be an to be not are two sides of the same coin. The statement, " America is the land of free, " is meaningless without knowing that there are some " not free " lands out there. America spent decades in the Cold War defining what it was not. America... the Great UnCommunism.

No...it is meaningless to you. America defined what that freedom was and would look like from the git' go in American terms. See Jefferson and Adams.

America knows what it means...there is no identity crisis or foil required.

[eyeball]

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.

Speaking of comparing mice nuts, ten bucks says there are about 300% more laws and ways to break them these days then there were back then too.

Edited August 2, 2010 by eyeball

[Keepitsimple]

Home Invasions are one of the most despicable, traumatic crimes......they were non-existant back in the 60's. A story in the Sun this morning also referred to a recent killing where the perpetrator had been out on bail for the second time on gun charges.

It seems one guy’s repeat chances resulted in another not getting any at all.

Not only was Adrian Ducas’ alleged killer out on bail for firearms charges at the time of his shooting murder but he was also on a second release after breaching conditions of his first release.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/08/01/14895391.html

[Argus]

Speaking of comparing mice nuts, ten bucks says there are about 300% more laws and ways to break them these days then there were back then too.

Violent crime is violent crime. They might slice the pie more today than in 1962 but they haven't invented new violence that didn't exist then. Hitting anyone for any reason was always considered a violent crime.

[Argus]

Home Invasions are one of the most despicable, traumatic crimes......they were non-existant back in the 60's. A story in the Sun this morning also referred to a recent killing where the perpetrator had been out on bail for the second time on gun charges.

That bail and parole are far too easy is not news. I have to admit that his statement that no one ever forfeits their bail, even if the person on bail violates the conditions - or doesn't show up for trial, is a bit of an eye opener. That is certainly something which should change immediately.

The system is a bit of a joke where someone is arrested on gun charges, and two years later hasn't even gotten to trial yet. If he was tried in a timely manner and given an appropriate sentence the murder never would have happened.

But this is the problem with our ridiculously complex legal system. It doesn't act as the deterrent it should because there is no certainty of punishment. Instead an arrest results in a series of legal meetings, sort of like a tournament, where the lawyers joust and the wheel spins, and the dice are rolled and depending on conditions, a year or two from then, the offender might or might not serve a little time.

[Argus]

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.

Actually, crime is down all across the US. And the cities with the highest crime rates are the ones with the highest rates of minorities, mainly blacks and hispanics.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

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.

I don't notice sentences getting longer. Judges still sob in heartbroken horror any time they have to actually sentence a rapist or murderer to more than a few days in jail.

What's needed is to fire most of the bleeding heart judges in Canada and replace them with people who sentence according to the laws on the books.

[Argus]

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

Well, here in Ottawa, our chief proudly boasts that the police solve 23% of reported crimes.

Okay, that might not seem impressive. But then again, in Vancouver it's only 16%.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

Well, here in Ottawa, our chief proudly boasts that the police solve 23% of reported crimes.

Okay, that might not seem impressive. But then again, in Vancouver it's only 16%.

And you can bet that the large majority of unsolved crimes are committed by the same criminals - over and over again. Put them away for longer periods and show that the penalties are no longer the "cost of doing business" and at least the public will be better protected from these career criminals. Take away statutory release and modify parole so that you're eligible after one third for your first offence, after two-thirds for your second offense....and sorry - no parole eligibility if you have a third offense. This is common-sense to anyone but the hug-a-thug crowd. It's a simple societal statement - it is totally unacceptable to be a career criminal in Canada.

[Remiel]

Take away statutory release and modify parole so that you're eligible after one third for your first offence, after two-thirds for your second offense....and sorry - no parole eligibility if you have a third offense. This is common-sense to anyone but the hug-a-thug crowd. It's a simple societal statement - it is totally unacceptable to be a career criminal in Canada.

We already have violent offender status. And a blanket three strikes rule is just dumb. Shoplifting should hardly count as a prior offense in this way when adjudicated grand theft or assault.

[eyeball]

Violent crime is violent crime. They might slice the pie more today than in 1962 but they haven't invented new violence that didn't exist then. Hitting anyone for any reason was always considered a violent crime.

Like when I got belted by my teacher? No doubt the crack down get tough crowd would like to see this particular crime legalized again.

[Wild Bill]

Like when I got belted by my teacher? No doubt the crack down get tough crowd would like to see this particular crime legalized again.

I'm curious. Did you deserve it? Was it a case of a slap-happy teacher or a mouthy kid?

The reason I ask is that both cases occur in nature. Somehow in these arguments people seem to think that things are all one way or the other. Either teachers ALWAYS slap kids for no reason or they NEVER do!

We are seeing this type of thinking already in this thread. Someone calls for harsher sentences for criminals and immediately someone else starts ranting that it's unfair to put someone away for life if his 'third strike' is just for spitting on the sidewalk!

Surely we can have SOME perspective!

As for 'hitting kids', I'm one of those who believes that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of NEVER applying corporal punishment to juveniles! The adolescent brain is usually too underdeveloped to properly appreciate cause and effect, or consequences for inappropriate behaviour. Also, pain and public humiliation can have a strong impact on a juvenile. The object after all is to correct inappropriate behavior in a timely and effective fashion, not to 'coddle' the juvenile. I'm not against using other techniques except that once again, as a 'tech' I have no respect for what doesn't work! From what I have seen with my own eyes and from what my own children, teachers and neighbours have related to me it seems obvious that present 'touchy feely' methods have a poor success rate.

Once again, I think the problem comes down to putting corrective power into the hands of competent judges. Just as a teacher should have enough perspective to refrain from corporal punishment for all but the most severe offenses a judge should have the same perspective when handing out sentences. It is equally wrong to give a young offender probation after probation terms when he appears time after time in court as it is to put a man in jail for life when his 'third strike' is stealing a pizza!

Come to think of it, if judges practiced effective perspective in sentencing there would be no need for a 'three strike' rule at all!

Stiffening up mandatory sentences is really just a band aid solution for having poor judges that are not being effective or responding to the public will. We are trying to 'automate' the process so that judges cannot be too 'soft' and that just causes more problems at the other end. There is no substitute for effective people. If our judges did a better job we wouldn't be having this debate!

The whole purpose of a justice system is to protect the public's life and property first and rehabilitate the offender second. We should keep those aims in the proper order and not allow any other yardsticks when we measure its effectiveness.

[Wilber]

We already have violent offender status. And a blanket three strikes rule is just dumb. Shoplifting should hardly count as a prior offense in this way when adjudicated grand theft or assault.

Very big difference. Dangerous offender status is is a very difficult thing for the Crown to get and only applies to very violent repeat offenders. It does nothing to stop cronic offenders. I agree that a rigid three strikes rule is stupid but when you have people who just will not stop offending, you either make it impossible for them to offend or let them continue to create victims.

Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, it costs each of us every day in the increased prices we pay for goods and higher insurance rates.

[Wilber]

Like when I got belted by my teacher? No doubt the crack down get tough crowd would like to see this particular crime legalized again.

I got the strap once when I didn't deserve it. Mistaken identity. Didn't like it much at the time but it was a good life lesson. Sometimes life just isn't fair, get used to it.

[Remiel]

Very big difference. Dangerous offender status is is a very difficult thing for the Crown to get and only applies to very violent repeat offenders. It does nothing to stop cronic offenders. I agree that a rigid three strikes rule is stupid but when you have people who just will not stop offending, you either make it impossible for them to offend or let them continue to create victims.

Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, it costs each of us every day in the increased prices we pay for goods and higher insurance rates.

The way I meant it though was this: a couple of drunkards in their late 40's or early 50's get in a fight, and both get charged with assault. One has a couple of shoplifting charges from his late teens. They are both sentenced, but one guy is eligible for parole after 1/3 of the sentence, and the other guy has to serve the whole thing... because of a much less severe crime from decades ago? THAT is what I am saying is just dumb...

[bloodyminded]

That was never MY position! My premise was that there was much less crime, especially violent crime, in the early 60's than today.

It was certainly your position; you might note that I was quoting you:

"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!"

You use this as part of your evidence that people report less crime today than they used to. This means--according to you--that a woman who was sexually asaulted in 1962 would be more likely to report it than she would today.

Which, by the way, is almost certainly the literal, direct opposite of the truth.

[bloodyminded]

I'm curious. Did you deserve it? Was it a case of a slap-happy teacher or a mouthy kid?

The reason I ask is that both cases occur in nature. Somehow in these arguments people seem to think that things are all one way or the other. Either teachers ALWAYS slap kids for no reason or they NEVER do!

Your disagreement is not with eyeball. Your disagreement is with Argus.

[WIP]

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.

Unless I'm mistaken, didn't we get amalgamation because of a conservative government?

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.

Everybody's got an axe to grind! The people who lived near the old police station on Kenilworth weren't happy when it got moved to Stoney Creek, so stop your whining!

[WIP]

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.

We are not far off the American Experience, especially when we have a government that wants to copy everything they do.

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.

A few shocking headlines are frequently used to convey the impression that we don't have a criminal justice system. It's about raising the fear level to buy votes and build more prisons.....likely new for-profit privately run prisons that are sprouting up everywhere in the U.S.

[WIP]

You mean the cities with the highest parking rates?

Here is an interesting piece of American information:

Quote

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.

Bingo! I saved that quote box because it contains the most significant addition to everything connected with crime -- the War On Drugs has been a long bad experiment in behaviour modification, similar to the Prohibition Era a couple of generations ago. If it wasn't for the general inability to deal with drug consumption and addiction in a mature way, there would be no Mexican drug cartels, and drug related crimes -- which are at the root of violent crime, prostitution and everything from burglary to armed robbery....since drug addicts will use any means possible to get their drugs at inflated prohibition prices. If Harper was really serious about reducing crime, including violent crime, he would tell the U.S. that Canada was declaring an end to this war and changing policy to treat narcotics as a health issue, not a law enforcement issue.

And speaking of Mexico, we should also acknowledge that they have suffered far worse because of U.S. drug policies. Mexico has never been able to attract significant investment that was promised with NAFTA, largely because of the violence and corruption created by the cartels. They ended up with the worst of both worlds from NAFTA -- millions of farmers forced off the land by agribusiness, and no new industry to provide alternatives......and ultimately it ends up treated as a race issue by the right.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Violent crime is violent crime. They might slice the pie more today than in 1962 but they haven't invented new violence that didn't exist then. Hitting anyone for any reason was always considered a violent crime.

Uh no actually, see domestic violence, see beating children, see, well a lot of things actually.

[Wild Bill]

It was certainly your position; you might note that I was quoting you:

"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!"

You use this as part of your evidence that people report less crime today than they used to. This means--according to you--that a woman who was sexually asaulted in 1962 would be more likely to report it than she would today.

Which, by the way, is almost certainly the literal, direct opposite of the truth.

Upon reflection, I realize you're absolutely right! I misinterpreted the thrust of your question and lost track of the 'flow chart'.

My only excuse is that I was trying to be logical and as CR has made me understand, that in itself is delusional.

However, sexual crimes are not the majority...unless of course they are all anecdotal...

As I later said, the newspaper piece I cited explained things far better than I did anyway.

[Wild Bill]

Unless I'm mistaken, didn't we get amalgamation because of a conservative government?

Everybody's got an axe to grind! The people who lived near the old police station on Kenilworth weren't happy when it got moved to Stoney Creek, so stop your whining!

Does the fact that it was a Tory government make it ok? I don't get your point. Just because I have so little respect for most Liberals hardly is reason to respect all Tories! I appreciated much of what Harris did but it would be illogical to consider him perfect in everything he did. After all, the man IS a politician, after all!

When YOU support a particular party or politician do YOU approve of EVERYTHING they do?

As for moving the old police station to Stoney Creek, I've lived here since 1960. When the hell did that ever happen? As I had said, our police station was closed and the closest one is near Kenora and King Street, well within the lines of the old Hamilton and out of Stoney Creek.

As for whining about amalgamation, several generations will have to grow old and die before that happens. You see, there are NO success stories for the suburbs as a result of amalgamation. Worse yet, Hamilton keeps picking at the scabs, wanting to 'even out' the taxes which will increase the load on the suburbs or fighting the idea of the new football stadium being in the east end (after flatly preventing the idea of Confederation Park as a site even being considered!)

If someone could come up with even a few ways that the suburbs have benefited by being forced into the city of Hamilton it might dull the resentment. It's been quite a few years now and we haven't heard any!

If you're so sure you're right, how about naming 3! Make sure they are REAL things, like how much we are taxed and if a service has been improved!