Saipan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 I think theres a clue somewhere in my post, its kind of cryptic though, it reads 2010....be vewy vewy afwaid... 2010 year and 2010 immigrants? What a coincidence What does it matter. Simple, if you bring people from a country with very high crime you'll get higher crime. It doesn't take rocket surgeon to figure that out. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Simple, if you bring people from a country with very high crime you'll get higher crime. It doesn't take rocket surgeon to figure that out. If you don't see what's wrong with that statement, god help us. Quote
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 How about Voo-Doo? What's Canada's old Fighter Jet got to do with this? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 2010 year and 2010 immigrants? What a coincidence Simple, if you bring people from a country with very high crime you'll get higher crime. It doesn't take rocket surgeon to figure that out. Russia, the country with the highest crime rate, are a very, very, small part of that number... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 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. Maybe YOU should have your drinking water checked... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Saipan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Maybe YOU should have your drinking water checked... Belittling others won't help you win any debate, as you can see. Quote
Saipan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Besides, I drink only rain/snow water. Quote
Saipan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Russia, the country with the highest crime rate, are a very, very, small part of that number... You have evidence? See homicide rate in Caribbean, Africa, Central and South America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Quote
guyser Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 2010 year and 2010 immigrants? What a coincidence Yup, 2010, highest number of immigrants allowed. And who is in power? Cons...fact. Simple, if you bring people from a country with very high crime you'll get higher crime. It doesn't take rocket surgeon to figure that out. So the goalposts get moved once again. Nice deflect , but perhaps you have a cite that will confirm your notions? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Nationalisim...or social nationalism and internationalism...are just an evolved version of the old Nazi party...and a lot of elite really like the German version...Never heard the Queen ever say anything bad about uncle Hitler...she even allows her kids to dress up in vintage uniforms bearing the evil iron cross....as for Harper...if he is backed by big buisness...then he is in agreement to the old methods of operation...which is a type of eletist capitalist socialism...in other words - well disguised facism..the whole world is run in this manner...there is only one party...no left no right - the big dogs have a handle on both hands...left and right. Quote
guyser Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 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. Move tha goalposts. Damn, you never stand behind anything you post. Quote
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 You have evidence? See homicide rate in Caribbean, Africa, Central and South America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Ahhh, the only crime that's worthy is homicide, who knew... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Nationalisim...or social nationalism and internationalism...are just an evolved version of the old Nazi party...and a lot of elite really like the German version...Never heard the Queen ever say anything bad about uncle Hitler...she even allows her kids to dress up in vintage uniforms bearing the evil iron cross....as for Harper...if he is backed by big buisness...then he is in agreement to the old methods of operation...which is a type of eletist capitalist socialism...in other words - well disguised facism..the whole world is run in this manner...there is only one party...no left no right - the big dogs have a handle on both hands...left and right. Lights are on but there's nobody home... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Saipan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Move tha goalposts. Damn, you never stand behind anything you post. Like for example. Quote
Saipan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Ahhh, the only crime that's worthy is homicide, who knew... If you're the one about to die it always is. Anything more important? Anything better indicatior of crime rate? Quote
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 If you're the one about to die it always is. Anything more important? Anything better indicatior of crime rate? Yeah, how about CRIME as opposed to one type of crime... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
guyser Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Like for example. Every second post of yours in here. You are a blatantly dishonest inarticulate poster. You asked if anyone has seen Thais or Chinese who are poor, and the answer was yes. So then you say where and why? Thats moving the goalposts, and as you can see , people are fed up with your lying bullshit. Your view of reality is skewed beyond belief. Quote
Saipan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 Yeah, how about CRIME as opposed to one type of crime... How about it????? Liberals prefer to show only homicide by guns. Majority of homicides don't count for them. It's all about confiscation. Quote
guyser Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 It's all about confiscation. Please show a cite that confirms your assertion. Quote
Scotty Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 "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. According to Statistics Canada only a small percentage of crimes are ever reported. And regardless of political climates many people find it not worthwhile to report crimes, either because they fear the police will never find the person anyway, or because they don't want to go through all the formality, reports, investigations, etc, if they believe little justice will be done anyway. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 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. Mandatory minimums are popular when a population believes judges are not exercising their discretion with sufficient severity. Ie, when they believe judges are too slack and limp-wristed in their sentencing. In fact, with mandatory minimums, there can be no justice because particular circumstances are not considered. That's not logical. There might be cases of injustice due to mandatory minimums, but then there might be cases of injustice without. Presumably lawmakers consider the damage done by a crime when deciding what the mandatory minimum punishment ought to be, so there is no certainty of injustice at all. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 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? No, it never occurred to me. There are Native gangs because their cultures are often falling apart, with too many of them located in areas without economic opportunities and many of them thus rotting away with alcoholism and drug addiction. People without a purpose in life often find things to do society might not like. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 According to Statistics Canada only a small percentage of crimes are ever reported. And regardless of political climates many people find it not worthwhile to report crimes, either because they fear the police will never find the person anyway, or because they don't want to go through all the formality, reports, investigations, etc, if they believe little justice will be done anyway. Do you have anything that suggests those that don't report crime are increasing? Or should we just say it's fair to assume that looking at statistics year upon year, those the amount of crime that goes unreported remains relatively consistent? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2011 Report Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Presumably lawmakers consider the damage done by a crime when deciding what the mandatory minimum punishment ought to be, so there is no certainty of injustice at all. A law maker several years ago can determine the sentence of someone that commits a crime today and that's justice? The lawmaker doesn't consider the circumstances of a particular case when deciding sentencing; judges do. Creating mandatory minimums takes discretion from judges and turns sentencing into a formulaic practice of meeting particular legislated conditions. Let's say murder carries a mandatory minimum of life in prison without the possibility of parole. I gave this example already. A man and his wife are celebrating their 10th anniversary. They have dinner at a restaurant and order a bottle of wine. After dinner it starts raining on the way home. The husband loses control of the vehicle, flips it and his wife dies due to her injuries. The police check his blood-alcohol and he is barely over the legal limit. He's charged with his wife's murder because he was driving drunk. Not only can the prosecution, before the trial, levy the mandatory minimum against him for a guilty plea, but if he's convicted the judge is absolutely required to sentence him to life in prison. The judge can make no consideration for the fact that the man killed his wife own wife and may be suffering incredibly as a result, nor can the judge consider that the man has children at home that need a parent, especially after losing their mother. The judge is required to follow legislation written by law-makers at some point in the past who cannot possibly know the particulars of every case that comes before the courts. For that reason they cannot possibly know the damage done by any given crime, since the specifics of every crime are different. Mandatory minimums take discretion away from the judges, who hear those specifics, and for that reason there can be no justice with mandatory minimums in place. Edited February 16, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Recommended Posts
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.