Is the PMO the new Gestapo?

[William Ashley]

We've barely built any new prisons in years perhaps decades. Our population has doubled in that time.

Crime rates have also decreased.

This could be due to it being harder to file charges against the governing party than the opposition.

The increases in level of police statesque may also be a factor.

Edited February 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

Crime rates have also decreased.

From what rate to what rate over what period?

Or was it just a wish?

[Bryan]

Crime rates have also decreased.

A slightly smaller percentage of a much larger number is still an increase.

[Shady]

Ookaaay, spoken like someone who has no knowledge about what he writes...

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for Harper and Co., and they're a pretty rotten bunch of apples, but Gestapo, naaa, not even close my friend, not even close, take it from someone who knows...

Exactly. It's just like the same idiots that have signs calling Obama a Nazi.

[Mr.Canada]

A slightly smaller percentage of a much larger number is still an increase.

Exactly Bryan.

This is what people do not or will not bring themselves to understand. Crime rates could've been reduced, sure, but the overall number of criminals has increased due to our population growth.

3% of 35 million is a bigger number then 3% of 15 million which was the approx population of Canada when these Prisons were built.

Prisons are just as vital a part of the infrastructure as sewers are and should be given the same weight.

If one of Canada's prisons were to have a huge riot and hundreds of convicts escaped they'd be saying why didn't the Tories do anything about it before this happened. Cannot win with these socialists.

Socialists are against anything that has to do with law and order, common sense and conformity. They wish to blow up our society and remake it in their own progressive image and they're doing just that slowly. Our society has changed more in the last 30 years then it has in the last 500. I truly wish I had lived and died before these times we currently live in, today's world sucks.

[Wilber]

3% of 35 million is a bigger number then 3% of 15 million which was the approx population of Canada when these Prisons were built.

Good point. If you do the numbers comparing populations of 20 million and 35 million, a 25% drop from the prison rate at 20 million population still results in a 31 percent increase in prison population at a population of 35 million.

20 million pop: 2% prison rate = 40,000 prison population

35 million pop: 1.5% prison rate = 52,500 prison population

[cybercoma]

"Nearly 2.2 million crimes were reported to police in 2009, about 43,000 fewer than in 2008, according to a report released Tuesday [July 2010]."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/20/crime-statistics020.html#ixzz1DsKARO2O

In absolute numbers, crime is also decreasing. These are also crimes that are reported, rather than convictions. So you can't argue that less criminals are being convicted due to overcrowding because that point is moot here. You could argue that people are less likely to report crime now than before, but that would be tough to prove considering the current "tough on crime" political climate.

Edited February 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[Saipan]

Crime is a very vague term. The only reliable measure is homicide rate. Dead is dead.

And that is quite higher now than it was in 40's, 50's 60's before the silly gun "controls"

[cybercoma]

Another thing that's worth mentioning is this notion of growing prison populations. Do you want to know the fastest way to blow up the prison population? Put mandatory minimums in place for crimes.

[Timothy17]

I certainly am not a supporter of either of the two major parties. Proportional representation is the path that should be followed but that will be blocked by both of the major parties as it doesn't serve their purposes.

Proportional representation sounds nice ; however, it is a leaning toward a more anarchtic model of governance, and away from the responsibility model. PR would, we can safely imagine, create a plethora of diverse parties and membership, thus necessitating more alliances, coalitions, etc., which tend to require more party-to-party political agreements, along with appendage personal agreements (to more individualistic members) to determine and maintain, the people being left to judge its fruits afterward (in a future election), and never certain how the next Parliamentary crop will organize itself. PR increases the amount of minority governments you will get. I cannot think of any PR democracy that is not run by coalition governments ; furthermore, I know that the Western powers were earnest to impose PR democracy on Germany, most likely to neuter unity in its polity and ensure a compromise-minded governance, with lots of links that could be easily broken.

Few people like personal responsibility and accountability, especially people who do not want to be held responsible for the things they want to do, or their failures ; however, it is necessary for clarity in this, especially in democratic government, so the people can exercise their indirect governance by replacing bad apples (hopefully with better ones.) Committee-style government, while it seems more expansive and inclusive, tends to diminish personal accountability and responsibility, giving people an incentive to be more bold, daring or reckless than they might otherwise be, imagining that the group diminishes their personal culpability in whatever consequences actions or policies have.

Pax,

Tim

Edited February 13, 2011 by Timothy17

[Saipan]

Another thing that's worth mentioning is this notion of growing prison populations. Do you want to know the fastest way to blow up the prison population? Put mandatory minimums in place for crimes.

People want to be in prison that badly?

[Mr.Canada]

Another thing that's worth mentioning is this notion of growing prison populations. Do you want to know the fastest way to blow up the prison population? Put mandatory minimums in place for crimes.

Maybe people should stop breaking the law then if they do not want to go to prison.

Why is no onus put on the criminal but instead the law maker is blamed for the state of crime in this country?

This is absurd.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[g_bambino]

Why is no onus put on the criminal but instead the law maker is blamed for the state of crime in this country?

It's not one or the other. Criminals are called such because they have broken the law, but it is the law that defines crime. The more acts that are defined by law as criminal, the more criminals we'll have, obviously.

[cybercoma]

It's not one or the other. Criminals are called such because they have broken the law, but it is the law that defines crime. The more acts that are defined by law as criminal, the more criminals we'll have, obviously.

Mandatory minimums also take sentencing out of the hands of judges and put it into the hands of prosecutors. Judges don't have the ability to consider the circumstances of the case. Prosecutors, furthermore, are able to leverage mandatory minimums when looking for guilty pleas from people that might not otherwise plead guilty.

[GostHacked]

Maybe people should stop breaking the law then if they do not want to go to prison.

Why is no onus put on the criminal but instead the law maker is blamed for the state of crime in this country?

This is absurd.

That is not absurd......

This is ..... If only those upholding the law were abiding by the law as well.

[cybercoma]

Maybe people should stop breaking the law then if they do not want to go to prison.

Why is no onus put on the criminal but instead the law maker is blamed for the state of crime in this country?

This is absurd.

Who's putting the onus on the law makers for the state of crime in the country? I said mandatory minimums increase the prison population. I didn't say anything about crime. People don't commit more criminal behaviour because there is a change in the law, so there must be some other reason the prison population increases. Mandatory minimums imply that judges ought not have any discretion whatsoever in the application of justice. In fact, with mandatory minimums, there can be no justice because particular circumstances are not considered. That's why the prison population increases. It has nothing to do with criminal behaviour and everything to do with the written law.

[Saipan]

People don't commit more criminal behaviour because there is a change in the law, so there must be some other reason the prison population increases.

There are. For example we had almost unregulated immigration under liberals. We had case where dangerous criminal was deported three (3) times!!! He came back as if nothing happen.

Indian gangs we never had before. (see Manitoba crime) Another result of bleeding heart liberals.

And since we have many repeat offenders there have to be minimum sentences and considerably higher. Else the judges will keep releasing them through revolving door of catch-and-release program.

[DrGreenthumb]

There are. For example we had almost unregulated immigration under liberals. We had case where dangerous criminal was deported three (3) times!!! He came back as if nothing happen.

Indian gangs we never had before. (see Manitoba crime) Another result of bleeding heart liberals.

And since we have many repeat offenders there have to be minimum sentences and considerably higher. Else the judges will keep releasing them through revolving door of catch-and-release program.

Did it ever occur to you that the Indian gangs might actually be a result of their people being a little angry that immigrants came into THEIR lands, destroyed their way of life,and took away their children? (residential schools). These immigrants continue to take away a disproportinate ammount of their children (prison sytem). It is a disgrace how so many First Nations people continue to live in poverty in a country that can afford a billion dollar weekend G20 photo op for the Prime Minister.

[GWiz]

Did it ever occur to you that the Indian gangs might actually be a result of their people being a little angry that immigrants came into THEIR lands, destroyed their way of life,and took away their children? (residential schools). These immigrants continue to take away a disproportinate ammount of their children (prison sytem). It is a disgrace how so many First Nations people continue to live in poverty in a country that can afford a billion dollar weekend G20 photo op for the Prime Minister.

A VERY accurate assessment... Good post...

[Saipan]

Did it ever occur to you that the Indian gangs might actually be a result of their people being a little angry that immigrants came into THEIR lands, destroyed their way of life

You mean like Ojibway exterminating Lakotas out of Red Lake. Minnesota?

and took away their children? (residential schools).

How old are the children of the gang members?

These immigrants continue to take away a disproportinate ammount of their children (prison sytem).

Since when are prisons on "proportionate system"?

Not enough Chinese in prisons? How to rectify that problem?????

It is a disgrace how so many First Nations people continue to live in poverty in a country that can afford a billion dollar weekend G20 photo op for the Prime Minister.

Have you seen Vietnamese living in powerty? Why not. Or immigrants from Hongkong? Thailand? Why not? Why are these indians unemployed DESPITE free postsecondary education and good command of English?

Disgrace indeed.Can you explain?

[guyser]

There are. For example we had almost unregulated immigration under liberals.

2010-the highest number of immigrants allowed in a single year. Fact.

So according to your logic, problems are worse under Cons.

Ohhh.....wasnt what you wanted was it? Damn those facts huh?

[Saipan]

2010-the highest number of immigrants allowed in a single year.

When?

From what countries?

[guyser]

Have you seen Vietnamese living in powerty? Why not. Or immigrants from Hongkong? Thailand? Why not? Why are these indians unemployed DESPITE free postsecondary education and good command of English?

Disgrace indeed.Can you explain?

Sure i have.

Vietnamese,Thais,Chinese, White black yellow...

Im guessing there some point you'd like to make?

[guyser]

When?

When....I dunno....I think theres a clue somewhere in my post, its kind of cryptic though, it reads 2010....be vewy vewy afwaid...

From what countries?

What does it matter. You eluded to no such restriction in your post .

You deemed immigration levels and Libs as the problem, when in fact its Cons who have let in the most ever.

I know, it isnt going like you hoped, try again tomorrow.

Edited February 15, 2011 by guyser

[Saipan]

Sure i have.

Vietnamese,Thais,Chinese, White black yellow...

So why aren't they moaning like indians?

You must be the only one who heard of them. You ought to check places like Markham.