Shakeyhands Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Actually over 80 years. It shows how low the homicide rate was even before the handgun registration. And even during the Great Depression! How come???? Can you explain? Dude, we're not talking about the crime rate 20 years ago, we're talking now. Have you got any data to back up what you are saying, besides CPC talking points....? Prove to me what you are saying about a rise in crime and recidivism now. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Scotty Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Early parole induced good behaviour while incarcerated and involvement in programs like AA or NA. Without incentive to participate in these programs, we'll have the same people being released at the end of the sentences having none of the advantages. Our system is still set up on the premise of rehabilitation. I am completely in favour of parole for good behavior. The problem, as I see it, was that parole became somewhat automatic. I remember reading a description of it some years ago. It went something like, if you were to be caught fighting on Monday, and then caught dealing drugs on Wednesday, you'd still get five days of that week credited towards your early parole. So really, it was far too easy to get parole, regardless of what effort you put in. And that just meant you got out earlier, committed crimes, and had to go back in again. Easier and cheaper to leave you in longer. If the system had just done its job in properly differentiating between those who deserved parole, that is, those who honestly wanted to rehabilitate themselves, and those who really had no interest in anything but continuing their lifestyle these sorts of changes would not be as popular as they are. 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 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) The number of repeat offenders in Canada is nearly four times as high as the official figure issued by the federal government, a Vancouver Sun investigation reveals. Recividism rates he most recent data from the last three months of 2007 shows 75% of adult inmates released from provincial jails were charged with another offence within two years of completing their sentence. Mannitoba Recividism In a recent study, the general recidivism rate for federal offenders (i.e., offenders serving custodial sentences of two years or more) was reported at approximately 44% within two years of their release (Bonta et al. 2003). Langevin et al. (2004) recently published a study of 320 sexual offenders who were seen for psychiatric assessment between 1966 and 1974, using a 25-year follow-up period. The authors reported that 88% of the offenders had sexually re-offended within the follow-up period. Statistics Canada Research on Recividism Edited February 17, 2011 by Scotty 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
madmax Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Read the argument. Makes as much senses as accumulating everyones accidents during their driving career, rather then removing it from their record after 2 years. Impair Drivers fall under a different category and are part of the criminal code. Yes those drunk drivers could receive jail time for under 2 years, and other more serious offenses over 2 years. I could see how this would skew the numbers for early parole. However, the bottom line is that someone sentenced to a Provincial Jail is NOT going to a Federal Jail and this the data on Federal Prisons is Correct. Quote
Scotty Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Read the argument. Makes as much senses as accumulating everyones accidents during their driving career, rather then removing it from their record after 2 years. Crimes are seldom done accidentally. You don't just accidentally fall into a bank and accidentally point your accidental gun at the teller. It's a deliberate act. Suppose you have a young pre-teen daughter. Would you have any problem letting a man babysit her who had a string of sexual offenses in his record against pre-teen girls on the basis that he hadn't been caught committing one in over two years? However, the bottom line is that someone sentenced to a Provincial Jail is NOT going to a Federal Jail and this the data on Federal Prisons is Correct. The bottom line is that the actual real number of people who reoffend is far higher when other crimes are taken into consideration. And those are just the ones who are caught and convicted. It would be pretty safe to assume others also reoffend but didn't get caught. 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
William Ashley Posted February 17, 2011 Author Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Dude, we're not talking about the crime rate 20 years ago, we're talking now. Have you got any data to back up what you are saying, besides CPC talking points....? Prove to me what you are saying about a rise in crime and recidivism now. The whole issue with all this is that dueling is illegal. If deuling were legal a lot less violent crime would occur. Pistols before 80 years ago were increasingly rare. Take some of these for instance: * 1800: John White, 39, Upper Canada's first lawyer and a founder of the law society, was fatally shot on January 3, 1800 by a government official named John Small, who challenged him to the duel. White was alleged to have gossiped at a Christmas party that Mrs. Small was once the mistress of the Duke of Berkeley in England, who'd tired of her and paid Small to marry her and take her to the colonies. * 1817: John Ridout, 18, was shot dead on July 12, 1817 at the corner of what is now Bay St. and Grosvenor St. in Toronto by Samuel Peters Jarvis, 25. The reason for the duel was unclear. On the count of two, the nervous Ridout discharged his pistol early, missing Jarvis by a wide margin. Ridout's second, James Small (whose father survived the only other duel in York) and Jarvis' second, Henry John Boulton insisted that Jarvis be allowed to make his shot. Ridout protested loudly and asked for another pistol, but Small and Boulton were adamant that the strict code of duelling must be observed. Jarvis shot and killed Ridout instantly. Jarvis was pardoned by the courts, even though he had shot an unarmed man. * 1819: What historians have called "The Most Ferocious Duel" in Canadian history took place on April 11, 1819, at Windmill Point near the Lachine Canal. The opponents were William Caldwell, a doctor at the Montreal General Hospital, and Michael O'Sullivan, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada. The dispute arose when Caldwell accused O'Sullivan of lacking courage. The two opponents exchanged fire an unheard-of five times. O'Sullivan was wounded twice in the process, and in the final volley, he took a bullet to the chest and hit the ground. Caldwell's arm was shattered by a shot; a hole in his collar proved he narrowly missed being shot in the neck. Amazingly, neither participant died during the fight, although both took a long time to recover. O'Sullivan went on to become Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in Montreal, and when he died in 1839, an autopsy revealed a bullet still lodged against the middle of his spine. * 1826: Rudkin versus Philpot a duel fought in Newfoundland at St. John's who met at West's Farm near Brine's Tavern at the foot of Robinson's Hill, adjacent to Brine's River to settle their seemingly long standing differences that was further exacerbated by the love of an Irish colleen who lived in a cottage near Quidi Vidi and a game of cards that ended in an argument over the ownership of the pot. * 1833: The last fatal duel in Canada was fought in Perth, Ontario on June 13, 1833. Two law students and former friends, John Wilson and Robert Lyon, quarrelled over remarks Lyon made about a local schoolteacher, Elizabeth Hughes. Lyon was killed in the second exchange of shots on a rain-soaked field. Wilson was acquitted of murder, eventually married Miss Hughes, became a Member of Parliament, and later a judge. * 1836: Two duelling politicians from Lower Canada were lucky to have sensible seconds. Clément-Charles Sabrevois de Bleury, a member of the Lower Canadian Legislative Assembly, insulted fellow politician Charles-Ovide Perreault. Perreault then struck de Bleury, and a duel was set. Both men were determined to settle the matter with pistols, but their seconds came up with a unique solution. The two foes would clasp hands and de Bleury would say, "I am sorry to have insulted you" while at the same time Perreault would say, "I am sorry to have struck you." They would then reply in unison, "I accept your apology." The tactic worked, and the situation was resolved without injury. * 1837: William Collis Meredith and James Scott. On Monday, 9 August 1837, at eight o’clock in the evening, Meredith (who had articled under the previously mentioned Clement-Charles Sabrevois de Bleury from 1831 to 1833) and Scott (no stranger to duels) stepped out to face one another on the slopes of Mount Royal, behind Montreal. Earlier that day, following a dispute over legal costs, Meredith had challenged Scott. Meredith chose James M. Blackwood to second him, whilst Scott's choice was Louis-Fereol Pelletier. The pistols used were Meredith's which he had bought in London, on a previous trip to England. On the first exchange Scott took a bullet high up in his thigh, and the duel was called to a stop. The bullet lodged itself in Scott's thigh bone in such a way that it could not be removed by doctors, which caused him great discomfort for the rest of his days. Ironically for Scott, this was exactly where he had shot Sweeney Campbell in a duel when they were students. In the early 1850s (Scott died in 1852), when both the adversaries had become judges, one of the sights then to see was Meredith helping his brother judge up the steep Court House steps, a result of the lameness in his leg that had remained with Scott since their encounter. Meredith was later knighted and went on to serve as Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec. * 1840: Joseph Howe was called out by a member of Nova Scotian high society for his populist writing. When his opponent fired first and missed, Howe fired his shot in the air and won the right to refuse future challenges. * 1873: The last duel in what is now Canada occurred in August 1873, in a field near St. John's, Newfoundland (which was not Canadian territory at the time). The duellists, Mr. Dooley and Mr. Healey, once friends, had fallen in love with the same young lady, and had quarrelled bitterly over her. One challenged the other to a duel, and they quickly arranged a time and place. No one else was present that morning except the two men's seconds. Dooley and Healey were determined to proceed in the 'honourable' way, but as they stood back-to-back with their pistols raised, they must have questioned what they were doing. Nerves gave way to terror as they slowly began pacing away from each other. When they had counted off the standard ten yards, they turned and fired. Dooley hit the ground immediately. Healey, believing he had killed Dooley, was seized with horror. But Dooley had merely fainted; the seconds confessed they had so feared the outcome that they loaded the pistols with blanks. Although this was a serious breach of duelling etiquette, both opponents gratefully agreed that honour had indeed been satisfied. Edited February 17, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Shakeyhands Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 I am completely in favour of parole for good behavior. The problem, as I see it, was that parole became somewhat automatic. I remember reading a description of it some years ago. It went something like, if you were to be caught fighting on Monday, and then caught dealing drugs on Wednesday, you'd still get five days of that week credited towards your early parole. So really, it was far too easy to get parole, regardless of what effort you put in. And that just meant you got out earlier, committed crimes, and had to go back in again. Easier and cheaper to leave you in longer. If the system had just done its job in properly differentiating between those who deserved parole, that is, those who honestly wanted to rehabilitate themselves, and those who really had no interest in anything but continuing their lifestyle these sorts of changes would not be as popular as they are. First, there is a difference between granted extra time for preconviction detention and parole. Second, there is a criteria that needs to be met, set out by the Parole Board and Corrections Canada, that must be met. It is in no way automatic nor is it easy to get if you haven't done a number of things such as admit culpability and make an effort to change your lifestyle and associations. There are all kinds of stipulations that must be met, or you are going right back in. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
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.