Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 And unfortunately amnesty international would have a hissy fit of biblical proportions. Which would put the kibosh on a good idea. Well, first, I don't care what Amnesty International thinks. Second, I'm not talking about starving people. I'm saying you slap them in a cell, and you give them no extras. You give them bland, but nutritious food, and virtually nothing else unless they work to help pay for it. If they want to worry about that in a world where people are jammed forty into a cell with no lights, no beds, and a hole in the corner for a toilet then forget them. 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 March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 Work should be a privilege for them. Violent offenders should have nothing more than solitary confinement. Britain and parts of the US still retain and use sentences which require 'hard labour'. 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
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Well, first, I don't care what Amnesty International thinks. Second, I'm not talking about starving people. I'm saying you slap them in a cell, and you give them no extras. You give them bland, but nutritious food, and virtually nothing else unless they work to help pay for it. If they want to worry about that in a world where people are jammed forty into a cell with no lights, no beds, and a hole in the corner for a toilet then forget them. We're still talking about what changes the $1B will mean for the Federal system, and how that is expected to reduce crime. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 $47 billion? You've touched on the REAL factor here, Scotty! That's actually almost certainly a gross under estimate. It's based on recorded crime, but as we know, the majority of crime is never reported to the police. 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 March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 Castration should be mandatory for convicts? Get help. How about just for the likes of Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, and Russel Williams? 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 March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 Conservative thinking on this is dishonest. Crime goes up: we need more prisons and police because there are more criminals. Crime goes down: we need more prisons and police because being tough on crime works. I would dispute that crime is going down. Police-reported crime is going down, but according to Statistics Canada, people are not reporting the majority of crimes to police, and the percentage that does report crime to police is declining. 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 March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 I guess this could be true, I saw a couple passing a joint between them the other day but I didn't report it. Should I have? The majority of rapes are not reported. The majority of assaults are not reported. The majority of robberies are not reported... 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
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 That's actually almost certainly a gross under estimate. It's based on recorded crime, but as we know, the majority of crime is never reported to the police. Not only based on reported crime: According to a 2004 Canadian study, researchers estimated that the cost of pain and suffering experienced by victims of crime was close to $36 billion. Researchers used police and self-reported data to determine the emotional and physical impacts of victimization (Leung, 2004). Victims Study 2004 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Bonam Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 How about just for the likes of Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, and Russel Williams? No. Locking them up for life is what matters, so they won't threaten anyone again. If they are in prison, there is no need for them to be castrated to protect others. And we shouldn't be forcefully mutilating people unless there is a good reason to do so. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 We have a nice little thread going on about the actual issue here. Unless Harper has somewhere suggested that the government intends to launch a Federal Castration Policy, these are silly things to discuss don't you think ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) We're still talking about what changes the $1B will mean for the Federal system, and how that is expected to reduce crime. Well, I think it stands to reason that if - and all criminologists and police agree on this - the majority of crime is perpetrated by repeat offenders, if we put those people in prison for longer, even indefinite sentences, then crime ought to go down. And it doesn't have to go down very much to make this an economically viable policy, even if we disregard the fact that the cost to victim amount provided by Justice Canada is low due to the underreporting of crime. Aside from economics - which, by the way, is the only argument I've heard the opposition use against this initiative, we have the morality. I think it's entirely moral to say to someone who has multiple repeat convictions, that they're going to pay an ever growing cost for that. I know people like to focus on the most extreme violent offenses, but go back to my burglary example. This is a breed of criminals who causes enormous cost to society in terms of the damages done, and in terms of the costs of security equipment used to dissuade them. Justice says $47 billion to victims. Now you take a guy arrested and convicted for 22 burglaries. He serves six months, comes out, and a year later is arrested for another 20 burglaries. He gets nine months this time, and is back out, and after a while is arrested again for multiple crimes. Is it really immoral to send this person up for say the next twenty years or more? I don't think so. Especially if we reform the prisons. I think, for example, that violent offenders of any type, or even violent prisoners, ought to be separated out from the rest of prisoners entirely. Edited March 30, 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
bloodyminded Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 The majority of rapes are not reported. When have they been? The majority of assaults are not reported. And again...I'd wager they never were. The majority of robberies are not reported... Do you have a citation for this? And if so, is this a change? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 When have they been? And again...I'd wager they never were. Do you have a citation for this? And if so, is this a change? Self–reported victimization data indicate that rates of robbery (including attempted robbery) have remained fairly stable between 2004 and 2009, though they have increased by 44% since 1999 (Table 6). This change is primarily due to an increase in the overall number of females reporting robbery. Females were more likely to report being the victim of a robbery in 2009 than they were ten years earlier, resulting in a rate similar to that for males. Though the GSS data indicate a rise in the rate of robbery over the 10-year period, police-reported data indicate a downward trend. Statistics Canada 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
bloodyminded Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Self–reported victimization data indicate that rates of robbery (including attempted robbery) have remained fairly stable between 2004 and 2009, though they have increased by 44% since 1999 (Table 6). This change is primarily due to an increase in the overall number of females reporting robbery. Females were more likely to report being the victim of a robbery in 2009 than they were ten years earlier, resulting in a rate similar to that for males. Though the GSS data indicate a rise in the rate of robbery over the 10-year period, police-reported data indicate a downward trend. Statistics Canada So...rates of robbery might have increased between 1999 and 2004--or it might be that reporting went up (not down, as you claim); further, rates may have stablized since 2004. Am I reading this correctly? Because I'm not sure it buttresses what you've said. I'm making no great claims here, Scotty, I'm just trying to figure this out. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Well, I think it stands to reason that if - and all criminologists and police agree on this - the majority of crime is perpetrated by repeat offenders, if we put those people in prison for longer, even indefinite sentences, then crime ought to go down. In the short term it will. It would be better to lower the rate of re-offending, since they will get out at some point. Aside from economics - which, by the way, is the only argument I've heard the opposition use against this initiative, we have the morality. I think it's entirely moral to say to someone who has multiple repeat convictions, that they're going to pay an ever growing cost for that. I know people like to focus on the most extreme violent offenses, but go back to my burglary example. This is a breed of criminals who causes enormous cost to society in terms of the damages done, and in terms of the costs of security equipment used to dissuade them. Justice says $47 billion to victims. You start out talking about morality, then talk numbers in the end. Did the opposition really make an economic argument or did they just point at the cost and say "too much !" ? Now you take a guy arrested and convicted for 22 burglaries. He serves six months, comes out, and a year later is arrested for another 20 burglaries. He gets nine months this time, and is back out, and after a while is arrested again for multiple crimes. Is it really immoral to send this person up for say the next twenty years or more? I don't think so. Especially if we reform the prisons. I think, for example, that violent offenders of any type, or even violent prisoners, ought to be separated out from the rest of prisoners entirely. You are indeed talking about 3 strikes. That's an expensive option. As I said, reducing the reoffence rate would be better. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) So...rates of robbery might have increased between 1999 and 2004--or it might be that reporting went up (not down, as you claim); further, rates may have stablized since 2004. Am I reading this correctly? Because I'm not sure it buttresses what you've said. I'm making no great claims here, Scotty, I'm just trying to figure this out. It's complicated because we're trying to compare police-reported crime stats to Stats Canada's juristat surveys. All we know with reasonable accuracy is that less than half of offenses classed as robberies are reported to police, and that the percentage reported to police has gone down in the last five years (see table 10). This is somewhat peripheral to the topic of prisons and prisoners, but I wonder if anyone else is concerned about a low and falling rate of reporting? What is that saying about people's confidence in the police and justice system? Or at least, in the complex system victims of crime must endure in order to make a report? I haven't seen any comments on this from the police bureaucracy, and I wonder if they care. After all, if a crime isn't reported, then it doesn't exist and they don't have to worry about it. Good bureaucrats would be quite satisfied with that. But how healthy is it for society? Edited March 30, 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
bloodyminded Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 It's complicated because we're trying to compare police-reported crime stats to Stats Canada's juristat surveys. All we know with reasonable accuracy is that less than half of offenses classed as robberies are reported to police, and that the percentage reported to police has gone down in the last five years (see table 10). Ok, I think I gotcha now. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) In the short term it will. It would be better to lower the rate of re-offending, since they will get out at some point. Maybe, but that's a highly complex issue which has challenged governments around the world for centuries. You start out talking about morality, then talk numbers in the end. Did the opposition really make an economic argument or did they just point at the cost and say "too much !" ? I don't believe the opposition has tried to actually make an economic case, merely said we shouldn't be spending money on prisons, but instead should spend it on health care, or education or whatever. You are indeed talking about 3 strikes. That's an expensive option. As I said, reducing the reoffence rate would be better. I'm not a baseball player. I'm not saying three strikes. I am saying that surely there comes a time, when someone has proven over a period of years that they are nothing but a criminal, that they have no intention of doing anything other than being a predatory leach on society, when we ought to just say "Enough" and lock them away indefinitely. And the start of that is longer sentences, particularly for repeat offenders. Edited March 30, 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
William Ashley Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) No, 'cause there are no questions. Actually everything put before parliament is a question. You can call them "work camps", we call them prisons - where they can't simply walk away as it often happened. No a work camp is not a prison, there is a definate difference between the two. If you can't recognize this then you have never been to a prison or a work camp. THis is part of the reason why the military would be tasked to track 'workmates' at the camps. Any reasonable use of force including shooting escapes would be allowable. Also non lethal means of capturing inmates would be viable.. also escapees would risk being moved up to the next highest level. Prisons would be reserved for non compliant prisoners who would not be commuted due to not repaying society (life sentences for non compliance until it was worked off - with the option of death on consensus of the inmate) Yes. And castration should be mandatory. What about lobotomies for people like you? Main problem is that the victims are not compensated from the work of the criminals. This is not the main problem but it is a big issue, and I think we sadly agree that there needs to be more focus on restitution to victims and society. Edited March 30, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
bloodyminded Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) I'm not a baseball player. I'm not saying three strikes. I am saying that surely there comes a time, when someone has proven over a period of years that they are nothing but a criminal, that they have no intention of doing anything other than being a predatory leach on society, when we ought to just say "Enough" and lock them away indefinitely. And the start of that is longer sentences, particularly for repeat offenders. Isn't that what "Dangerous Offender" status means? Won't help for the lifelong burglers, true, but for violent offenders it's there. Edited March 30, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Isn't that what "Dangerous Offender" status means? Yes and no. Dangerous offender status is only for violent offenders, and even then, only the most dangerous of violent offenders. Judges are very hesitant to impose this designation, even then. Ie, a bank robber is not going to get a dangerous offender designation, not unless he shoots people with every robbery. Drug dealers don't qualify either. The legislation for dangerous offender status was altered and strengthened by the tories in 2008 to make it provide for a reverse onus on those who commit three dangerous offenses, but as I said, this only applies in fairly narrow circumstances. If we're going to accept that something like 37% of inmates re-offend I think we have to look at either longer sentences or some sort of treatment combined with training, if anyone can imagine some that would reduce that rate. Edited March 30, 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
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Maybe, but that's a highly complex issue which has challenged governments around the world for centuries. I think we can work with their findings and improve on them. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
bloodyminded Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 I think we can work with their findings and improve on them. I think so too. Why not? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 I think so too. Why not? A two year sentence seems to cost Canada about $100K. There are savings to be had. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 A two year sentence seems to cost Canada about $100K. There are savings to be had. The cost per prisoner is frankly ridiculous. As I said before, if you have free labour, basically, can you not set up labour intensive factories and make some profits? In case you're wondering the average cost to house a male prisoner is about $87,000 per year. The average cost to house a delicate, dainty, oh so sad, not-her-fault, female prisoner in a lovely cottage atmosphere with all the amenities is between $110-$250,000 per year, depending on which holiday resort we send them to, and how many servants they have, I guess. 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
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.