Is Crime Really Down?

[Guest TrueMetis]

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

Well actually they were up until 2003.

See the first graph

[Wild Bill]

Well actually they were up until 2003.

See the first graph

Wasn't the point of the newspaper article I cited that while things may have dropped a few percent in the last few years that is still 300+% higher than in 1962? Doesn't that mean some folks are arguing about the trivial end of the curve?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Wasn't the point of the newspaper article I cited that while things may have dropped a few percent in the last few years that is still 300+% higher than in 1962? Doesn't that mean some folks are arguing about the trivial end of the curve?

All I was doing was addressing your claim that sexual offences were not the majority.

[WIP]

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.

Kenora doesn't connect with King street. You have a police station on King, just across Centennial Parkway on the other side of your downtown; isn't that close enough? They could do foot patrols of downtown Stoney Creek without taking the cruiser out of the station.

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!

I never said I was a supporter of amalgamation. Most of Ontario, outside of Hamilton and Toronto, still have regional government. That was supposed to help even out the costs and prevent the hollowing out of major cities as happened to many U.S. cities. Maybe it helped a little, I don't know.

[Wild Bill]

Kenora doesn't connect with King street. You have a police station on King, just across Centennial Parkway on the other side of your downtown; isn't that close enough? They could do foot patrols of downtown Stoney Creek without taking the cruiser out of the station.

I never said I was a supporter of amalgamation. Most of Ontario, outside of Hamilton and Toronto, still have regional government. That was supposed to help even out the costs and prevent the hollowing out of major cities as happened to many U.S. cities. Maybe it helped a little, I don't know.

The old police station was on Lake Avenue, in the heart of the Stoney Creek downtown. That's about a mile from the east end station. Incidently, they don't normally have many cops in that station. If you actually visit it you will see only a 'cop assistant' to take the information since it is a vehicle accident reporting station. Maybe cops in cruisers stop there to use the washroom, I dunno.

Certainly there are no beat cops walking in Stoney Creek since amalgamation!

As for "Maybe it helped a little, I don't know.", I live here! I DO know! I know how much my taxes have increased! I've watched as my services have been lessened! I just watched the parking meters go up in our downtown, which is going to absolutely KILL the local business!

Things will improve for me personally. Within months I will be moving into the old part of Hamilton. My taxes will drop to about a third! I will actually be able to take a bus somewhere and ride more than walk! It will be nice to be on the receiving end of the trough for a change. Might even take in a football game, assuming those nignogs on Hamilton council don't force the Ti-Cats to leave!

[Smallc]

If you want to live a suburban life, you have to pay for it. The reality is, Canada has been able to avoid the urban decay that has happened in many cities south of the border. Obviously we're doing something right.

[Wild Bill]

If you want to live a suburban life, you have to pay for it. The reality is, Canada has been able to avoid the urban decay that has happened in many cities south of the border. Obviously we're doing something right.

Perhaps you should take a look for yourself at downtown Hamilton.

[Smallc]

Perhaps you should take a look for yourself at downtown Hamilton.

Downtown Hamilton is probably about the worst in Canada (well, maybe Windsor), but that decay is still nothing compared to many US cities, and Hamilton still has very healthy growth. As of this year, it is the 9th largest city in Canada (down from 8th last year, after being passed by Winnipeg).

[Wilber]

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...

If two guys get into a fight they will not both be charged with assault but I otherwise agree..

Edited August 3, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

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!

Well said, much better to have judges who will use the full range of sentencing options available to them rather than looking for ways not to. Government limiting their options is a poor second choice but one which may be necessary if they are unwilling to do so.

Many would make excuses for many of the actions of criminals and their mentality as being a product of the "system", while ignoring the fact that the actions of judges and their mentality are just as much a product of their own "system". A system which to a large degree was built by themselves without accountability to anyone except each other.

[Wild Bill]

Downtown Hamilton is probably about the worst in Canada (well, maybe Windsor), but that decay is still nothing compared to many US cities, and Hamilton still has very healthy growth. As of this year, it is the 9th largest city in Canada (down from 8th last year, after being passed by Winnipeg).

That's one view, and you're entitled to it. Me, I'm different. When I see something on a downward slide I don't look for something sliding faster to compare it. If something is broken my instinct is to recognize a problem and try to correct it. When I get a guitar amp to fix I don't blow it off by saying "This one's not so bad! There's one in the corner in worse shape!"

It just seems to me that too often we dodge problems by pointing at worse examples and never get around to fixing much of anything! It's as if avoiding the blame is more important that fixing the problem.

[Wild Bill]

If you want to live a suburban life, you have to pay for it. The reality is, Canada has been able to avoid the urban decay that has happened in many cities south of the border. Obviously we're doing something right.

Non sequitur. We were living a suburban life and we didn't pay nearly as much for it! Amalgamation is a separate issue. Suburbs that ALL had balanced budgets, high levels of service and very low tax increases were forcibly amalgamated into the City of Hamilton, which had always struggled with deficits and poor taxpayer services. Hamilton was and still does survive by begging Queens Park for special handouts!

The net effect of amalgamation was that the old city core was able to take the suburbs money instead of the province being on the hook. Of course, the inevitable result was that Hamilton blew the suburbs' money by treating it just as a windfall and now it is in debt worse than ever!

Your point may be true as a generalization but in the case of Hamilton the facts speak for themselves.

[eyeball]

Well said, much better to have judges who will use the full range of sentencing options available to them rather than looking for ways not to. Government limiting their options is a poor second choice but one which may be necessary if they are unwilling to do so.

Many would make excuses for many of the actions of criminals and their mentality as being a product of the "system", while ignoring the fact that the actions of judges and their mentality are just as much a product of their own "system". A system which to a large degree was built by themselves without accountability to anyone except each other.

So what you're advocating is judges that reflect the will of the mob, whatever that is at the moment. All the politicians have to do is pump the fear hype the loathing and whip the people's will up into a bloody froth - a product of a different sort of "system."

[Wild Bill]

So what you're advocating is judges that reflect the will of the mob, whatever that is at the moment. All the politicians have to do is pump the fear hype the loathing and whip the people's will up into a bloody froth - a product of a different sort of "system."

Aren't you exaggerating just a bit? You paint a picture where there are no courthouses, just gallows in a stadium and someone to count all the thumbs up or thumbs down! You are describing essentially no court system at all and that's flatly ridiculous!

It takes time to create and change laws. It takes a political process. How fast do you think it would be for a law to get changed in Canada? If the public mood changed on a particular sentence for a particular crime, do you think it would be changed in a weekend or two?

Not bloody likely! It would take years or maybe even decades!

Leaving that aside, you really do seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens. I like to think that most citizens are fairly responsible and moral people. Perhaps your problem is that in a few key areas you yourself are out of step with the majority and can't abide the idea of not getting your own way.

As I keep saying, you can be a populist or an elitist but there's really no room in between. I can abide a populist who is wrong once in a while better than an elitist who is usually right. When an elitist goes wrong REALLY bad things tend to happen!

Elitists LOVE dictators who agree with them!

[Keepitsimple]

I don't really believe that most judges are soft on crime....our problem has mostly to do with precedents.....and over the years, precedents in passing sentences have watered down the effect of the original laws. Most, if not all laws have adequate sentencing guidelines attached to them....but lawyers can argue that if Joe Blow got 7 years for his crime last year, then "my client's" similar crime deserves no more than that......and over the years, actual sentences no longer reflect the intention of the original law. Yes, sentences can be appealed by the Crown but often, the attitude is "it's not worth the trouble to get an extra year"....so the drip, drip, drip of sentencing erosion continues. Couple that with the revolving-door parole system.....and you've got a sizable number of Canadians who are completely fed up. We need to get back to basics. That's what Truth in Sentencing is all about - restoring a balance to what the original intent was.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

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...

There are pretty easy ways to deal with such situations when writing the law. For one, you set a time limit on how far back you go. For another, you set limits on the type of criminal activity to be considered. That being said, I would not rule out putting someone away for a very long time for petty theft if it's something they are doing as a career. I'm thinking specifically of the crackhead who was much in the news last year after a shop owner in Toronto ran him down, tied him up, and held him for police. The crackhead in question had something like thirty or forty convictions for theft over the last ten or twelve years - ever since he got off the boat from some craphole in the Carribbean, I believe. He'd never done anything productive in his life and never will. All he does is steal and do drugs. Measure the cost of his constant thefts, not only the ones he's caught for, and the legal costs which follow, but all the ones he isn't caught for - against the cost of just sticking him into prison and keeping him there.

Although frankly, I'm not in favour of warehousing people. I'd make prisons large, productive centres where people work at low skill jobs in return for minimal wages and benefits. I'd have enclosed prison towns, if you will, including little areas where men and women (excluding sex offenders, obviously) could interact, shop, and go to clubs.

[eyeball]

Aren't you exaggerating just a bit?

Only just a little bit. Pumping fear and hyping loathing is indeed what certain politicians are doing...

[Argus]

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

Domestic violence was always illegal, as was beating children. It just wasn't reported very much, or at least, it was reported, then the charges withdrawn. I'm sure that is reported more commonly now than it was before, but it's a small part of the increase and it's not what worries people. Gunmen in the street are what worry people. And it's quite frustrating that our idiot politicians and bleeding heart judges can't get a grip on this.

It's not a complicated affair to solve thisl. You put anyone found with an illegal hand gun into prison for five or ten years without parole. You put anyone who shoots or stabs someone into prision for ten or twenty years without parole. You put anyone who kills anyone into prison for good, no parole.

[Argus]

So what you're advocating is judges that reflect the will of the mob, whatever that is at the moment.

Either you believe in the democratic will of the people or you don't. Why are they the electorate when it comes to choosing leaders but a "mob" when it comes to deciding on the proper sentencing for criminals? Is a jury a mob too?

The will of the people in terms of justice has not much changed and is not particularly variable. They want the punishment to fit the severity of the harm caused. Is that really so very much to ask for?

[Argus]

I don't really believe that most judges are soft on crime....our problem has mostly to do with precedents.....and over the years, precedents in passing sentences have watered down the effect of the original laws. Most, if not all laws have adequate sentencing guidelines attached to them....but lawyers can argue that if Joe Blow got 7 years for his crime last year, then "my client's" similar crime deserves no more than that......and over the years, actual sentences no longer reflect the intention of the original law. Yes, sentences can be appealed by the Crown but often, the attitude is "it's not worth the trouble to get an extra year"....so the drip, drip, drip of sentencing erosion continues. Couple that with the revolving-door parole system.....and you've got a sizable number of Canadians who are completely fed up. We need to get back to basics. That's what Truth in Sentencing is all about - restoring a balance to what the original intent was.

You're quite right. I've said the same before; there are adequate sentence lengths in place for violent crime. They simply aren't being used. Virtually all sentences fall within the lower half of any given length, and I can't recall - EVER - a person given the maximum possible sentence for ANY crime. The only reason for putting in minimum sentences if a lack of trust in judges in giving strong sentences.

[Wilber]

So what you're advocating is judges that reflect the will of the mob, whatever that is at the moment. All the politicians have to do is pump the fear hype the loathing and whip the people's will up into a bloody froth - a product of a different sort of "system."

Politicians make the laws and it is the criminal justice system's job to enforce them. If the judiciary is not enforcing the laws that our elected representatives make, it is up to those representatives to hold the judiciary accountable. The only valid reason not to is if a law is in violation of the constitution.

I am asking judges to use the full range of sentences provided under the law, not make it up as they go along and then use their own precedents as the law instead of the law as intended by the people who made it. It's interesting how you and others will advocate things like the legalization of pot by saying that a majority of people are in favour but when it comes to asking judges to use the full range of sentences as prescribed by the laws made by our elected representatives, it is the "will of the mob". It seems that whether public opinion is democratic or "the will of the mob" depends on which side of an issue you are on.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Wilber

[Smallc]

I am asking judges to use the full range of sentences provided under the law, not make it up as they go along and then use their own precedents as the law instead of the laws as intended by the people who made them.

That's not really possible, since precedent is the foundation of our legal system (outside of Quebec). Common law has precedence as the most important thing. According to one recent ruling, judges can even ignore written laws in the name of precedence in some situations. Unless you're thinking we should change the entire foundation of our legal system, there's no way that what you're proposing can be done.

[Wilber]

That's not really possible, since precedent is the foundation of our legal system (outside of Quebec). Common law has precedence as the most important thing. According to one recent ruling, judges can even ignore written laws in the name of precedence in some situations. Unless you're thinking we should change the entire foundation of our legal system, there's no way that what you're proposing can be done.

What you are saying is that we have no control over our judicial system. Makes a hell of an argument for mandatory minimums don't you think?

[Smallc]

What you are saying is that we have no control over our judicial system. Makes a hell of an argument for mandatory minimums don't you think?

As I said though, it has been ruled (either by the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court) that even mandatory minimums cannot stand in the way of precedence at times. This is the system used in countries like the US, the UK, and Australia. There's nothing really wrong with the system....and we're not really supposed to have direct control over it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As I said though, it has been ruled (either by the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court) that even mandatory minimums cannot stand in the way of precedence at times. This is the system used in countries like the US, the UK, and Australia. There's nothing really wrong with the system....and we're not really supposed to have direct control over it.

The system works, just ask the guy who got out after a sexual offense. Or a murderer walking free to be seen by the victims family. Everything is fine here in the Land of the Just Canuck.