Is the PMO the new Gestapo?

[Scotty]

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?

Well according to Statistics Canada, the crime rates remain unchanged. Yet the police say that crime reported to them is less. That would seem to imply then, that reporting rates are falling. For example, according to Stats Canada, reported rates of robbery, including attempted robbery, have risen by 44% in the last ten years. Those numbers are not reflected in police reporting, so that again suggests rates of reporting are going down.

Statitics Canada Criminal Victimization Survey

[Scotty]

A law maker several years ago can determine the sentence of someone that commits a crime today and that's justice?

It might be, depending on circumstances.

For example, if they say a purse snatching should get a minimum of 90 days in jail on a first offense. I would consider it to be justice if a first time offender who snatches a woman's purse gets about that much time in jail. Now if they say he should get twenty years minimum I would consider that injustice.

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.

That is the weakness of mandatory minimums, no question. The strength is that if society in general as represented by their lawmakers decides that a certain crime should get, at minimum, a certain sentence, regardless of circumstances, then that wish is carried out. And society in general seldom wishes for massive injustice.

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

.

Well, I'm not sure why you would come up with this sort of example since we don't charge people with murder for drunken driving. In fact, the charge is, the aptly named, Impaired Driving Causing Death. in fact, Impaired Driving does have minimum punishments as set out in the criminal code.

255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,

(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,

(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,

(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days, and

(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety days;

And, of course, the maximums are raised for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death though the minimums are not.

[GWiz]

How about it?????

Liberals prefer to show only homicide by guns. Majority of homicides don't count for them.

It's all about confiscation.

Are simple answers beyond you comprehension?

It seems even the simplest of things are far beyond your understanding, or is it more a matter of your not liking the answers you've been getting?

So is it simple mindedness or feeblemindedness in your particular case?

[Saipan]

A law maker several years ago can determine the sentence of someone that commits a crime today and that's justice?

Yes.

Creating mandatory minimums takes discretion from judges and turns sentencing into a formulaic practice of meeting particular legislated conditions.

Maximums sentences only creates revolving door and we end up, as we do today, with tons of repeat offenders with mile long criminal record who eventually kill someone. And sometimes even murderers get out.

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

NO, he's not.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Saipan

[cybercoma]

It might be, depending on circumstances.

End of story. Those circumstances are considered by judges, instead of having Maybe Justice thanks to pre-determined mandatory minimums.

[cybercoma]

Maximums sentences only creates revolving door and we end up, as we do today, with tons of repeat offenders with mile long criminal record who eventually kill someone. And sometimes even murderers get out.

I'm not sure what this red-herring has to do with anything. I made no claims whatsoever about maximum sentences.

[Saipan]

Are simple answers beyond you comprehension?

It seems even the simplest of things are far beyond your understanding

It's so nice you said it twice.

Now try some specifics. Belittling others won't help you in any debate, except schoolyard.

[Saipan]

I'm not sure what this red-herring has to do with anything. I made no claims whatsoever about maximum sentences.

So why do we have catch-and-release justice system and so many repeat offender, many very dangerous???

[GWiz]

It's so nice you said it twice.

Now try some specifics. Belittling others won't help you in any debate, except schoolyard.

Are you stupid, or just acting that way? Honest question...

[GWiz]

It's so nice you said it twice.

Now try some specifics. Belittling others won't help you in any debate, except schoolyard.

To make it easier to answer I'll repeat my questions...

Are simple answers beyond you comprehension?

It seems even the simplest of things are far beyond your understanding, or is it more a matter of your not liking the answers you've been getting?

So is it simple mindedness or feeblemindedness in your particular case?

[Saipan]

I take it you have no specifics to debate so you throw tantrums.

Have a ball

[GWiz]

I take it you have no specifics to debate so you throw tantrums.

Have a ball

Got no answers, thanks for the confirmation...

Edited February 17, 2011 by GWiz

[cybercoma]

So why do we have catch-and-release justice system and so many repeat offender, many very dangerous???

You seem to have a problem staying on point. First you were on about maximum sentences. Now you're claiming that Canada has a high recidivism rate, something StatsCan warns about trying to calculate. What are you basing this opinion on? News articles? Personal anecdotes? I'm just wondering.

[Saipan]

Are you stupid, or just acting that way? Honest question...

Now try some specifics. Belittling others won't help you in any debate, except schoolyard.

[Saipan]

You seem to have a problem staying on point.

You have no point.

First you were on about maximum sentences.

There shouldn't be any.

Now you're claiming that Canada has a high recidivism rate, something StatsCan warns about trying to calculate. What are you basing this opinion on? News articles? Personal anecdotes? I'm just wondering.

The lenght of criminal record. How can someone be in prison for the third time? Didn't the first time was tough enough?

Example. Jamaican who was here illegally and ordered to be deported was here three year later and shot two cops. Only one survived. It turns out he was deported three times.

Indian woman stabbed sleeping man to death. Got only community service as a "punishement". What the fuck is going on?

Edited February 17, 2011 by Saipan

[William Ashley]

Danelaw was a much more effective sentencing system for petty offences.

In the purse snatcher instance 90 days in jail should only be a last resort if the purse snatcher can't make up the purse owners demands or anyone else on a first offence. and they should be working in jail to pay for the below --- bear in mind --- jails that cost more than a person can earn in a day are foolish. Say 1/2 the cost of potential earnings for a days work. Keep them in there until they pay their jail tab and restitution charges.. and forget time based sentencing on economic offences.

For example something like 40 hours of community service return of the purse or equivocable return of the purse + payment for any items that are non returnable (some items that are priceless may require the victim to set a reasonable amount for - and the judge to agree with)

Likewise payment of all court costs ect..

just having the tax payer pay for 90days of club fed is a huge waste of tax payer funds (stealing the public purse) you are talking thousands of dollars, and this person pays for none of it.

Instead they are destaablized and put in with criminal elements. How is this "helping"?

It is stupidity to perpetuate a system that way.

take away the damages don't make more.

In regard to higher potential earnings on the outside for non dangerous offenders - let them line up a job and as long as they are earning more and repaying more on the outside than on the inside who cares. Have more monitoring less imprisonment.

Non serious crimes should just be repaired with interest and a slight deterent, jail only hardens people and criminalizes them and desocializes them. Once alienation occurs going back is made that much harder. It doesn't repair the damage it only exchanges it, and that is stupidity to tear the whole thing down, only an idiot would aim to tear everything down in peices. The justice system should be constructive not destructive.

People got to understand bunking people up in closed facilities costs money - money Canadians don't have. It also reduces productivity. We definately don't need prison old age homes.

Fact is minor crime is common putting people in jail for these things is just a form of fishing. It is much better to have them *gasp* contribute, you know pay back their debt to society -- not society to go in debt.

The system is broken. It needs to be changed.

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/justicesystemreform_htm.htm

Jail should be a last resort only after work camps are turned down by dangerous and repeat offenders. Or for the criminally infirm -

people who don't pay it off don't get out. Set the price tag for civil damages cost to the system and cost to the public for rehabilitation after release and forget about time based sentencing. Time doesn't pay, paycheques do.

Infirm criminals should be in hospitals or care centers not jail. even one such facility should be enough to handle the gamut of infirm-- and there are stil ways they can be utilized such as earning by taking part in clinical studies on their ailments.

Edited February 17, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

bear in mind --- jails that cost more than a person can earn in a day are foolish.

True. They should be made profitable.

[William Ashley]

True. They should be made profitable.

this disturbs me.

[Saipan]

Yes, profit is a bad word

[g_bambino]

Yes, profit is a bad word

I'm sure you know it was the concept of a profitable prison that he found disturbing, not the idea of profit itself.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, profit is a bad word

Without profit , no jobs would be created. Without profit there would be no jobs, no taxes collected which means no social programs. So before you people crap on companies wanting to make a profit remember that without them making a profit our civilization would grind to a halt.

[cybercoma]

Without profit , no jobs would be created. Without profit there would be no jobs, no taxes collected which means no social programs. So before you people crap on companies wanting to make a profit remember that without them making a profit our civilization would grind to a halt.

Profiting off incarcerations?

[William Ashley]

I'm sure you know it was the concept of a profitable prison that he found disturbing, not the idea of profit itself.

No what disturbed me was that myself and Saipan Agreed on something. usually every post Saipan makes I find incredibly stupid - so this disturbs me that either Saipan has gotten more intelligent (maybe stopped sniffing gunpowder) or no that's got to be it.

[Saipan]

I'm sure you know it was the concept of a profitable prison that he found disturbing, not the idea of profit itself.

Why is that?

[Saipan]

Profiting off incarcerations?

In upside down civilizaton it's the victims who have to work and pay.