Why does Harper refuse to make informed decisions?

[cybercoma]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/29/HarperPushesPrisons/

When a government starts suppressing its own research time and time again -- research the public is paying for -- it's serious business

The Conservative tough on crime policies will destroy Canada. Their own researchers have shown this, but Harper continues to push this agenda. Why does Harper refuse to make informed decisions? This is someone that shouldn't be leading a team at McDonald's, let alone the government.

[cybercoma]

From the article:

"Raw wedge politics -- in place of studied evidence -- is the new face of public policy for Canada," wrote the authors. The government "creates the notion that the decent treatment of prisoners is somehow putting the public at risk when in fact it's the compete reverse."

[noahbody]

The Conservative tough on crime policies will destroy Canada.

Yes, it's the Asian Gangs that built Canada.

[Moonlight Graham]

Crime and sentencing policies aren't just based on trying to "reduce crime". Sentencing is also about delivering justice. What is "justice" is obviously subjective. But in my opinion we have many cases where criminals are sentenced and the punishment and/or time served seems too light given the crime.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Another poorly researched post, to compare our justice system to that of the states is highly inaccurate, please research the incarceration rates per capita and re-post your theory. Lets not use the Tyee as reference as though it was actually a legitimate news source, why not just directly link to rabble.ca?

[cybercoma]

Attack the poster and the source. Let's not discuss the fact that Harper has ignored decades of research in criminal justice in order to pander to his base, creating a plan that will destroy Canada. It's all good. I wouldn't want to talk about it either, if I were a Conservative.

[mikedavid00]

Why does Harper refuse to make informed decisions?

You mean like going to massage parlous and engaging in sex with illegal prostitutes when you are holding public office?

[cybercoma]

Who did that?

[Slim MacSquinty]

here you go Mr Bluster, I'll do it for you:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

As you can see we would have to increase the incarceration rate by a factor of six to catch up, so how would a small increase in the length and frequency of incarceration rates for violent and abusive criminals either ruin our country and make us the least bit like the US?

Please make a reasoned arguement based on some credible fact.

Just stupid talk really isn't it?

[ToadBrother]

You mean like going to massage parlous and engaging in sex with illegal prostitutes when you are holding public office?

This is a fairly good example of a actionable slanderous statement.

[TimG]

This is a fairly good example of a actionable slanderous statement.

I don't see any mention of any other politician in his statement. I agree with you that this is pure slime but don't pretend that NDP party faithful would not have done exactly the same if the situation were reversed. Edited April 30, 2011 by TimG

[noahbody]

Attack the poster and the source. Let's not discuss the fact that Harper has ignored decades of research in criminal justice in order to pander to his base, creating a plan that will destroy Canada. It's all good. I wouldn't want to talk about it either, if I were a Conservative.

What you've stated isn't a fact for starters. And Lawrence Martin is out to lunch on this one. He cites two examples: one having to do with mandatory minimum sentences; the other having to do with incarceration rates. Both were said to be ineffective in lowering crime rates. If Harper's policy was focused solely on deterring crime, the two citations would be meaningful and Harper could be criticized. The thing is though, Harper's policy also focuses on punishment. Mandatory sentencing and incarceration in general are forms of punishment.

[eyeball]

Harper appeared to have little interest in hearing what the specialists had to say. In a speech in 2008, he rejected research-based justice policies, saying those behind them were trying to "pacify Canadians with statistics... Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say; crime is really not a problem. These apologists remind me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the Wizard says, 'Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.'"

Has anyone ever had this line thrown in their face when arguing for policies that address climate change?

[CANADIEN]

You mean like going to massage parlous and engaging in sex with illegal prostitutes when you are holding public office?

And you know of anybody who has done that.

AS you know, there is the case of a politician who went for a legal massage and found the embarassing way that he had ended up in a place being raided on suspicions that it might have also served as a bawdy house. And surely, as a superior white man, you know that's different from being actually caught and arrested while engaging in an illegal sex activity. Right?

[cybercoma]

What you've stated isn't a fact for starters. And Lawrence Martin is out to lunch on this one. He cites two examples: one having to do with mandatory minimum sentences; the other having to do with incarceration rates. Both were said to be ineffective in lowering crime rates. If Harper's policy was focused solely on deterring crime, the two citations would be meaningful and Harper could be criticized. The thing is though, Harper's policy also focuses on punishment. Mandatory sentencing and incarceration in general are forms of punishment.

Crime has been declining for years and 40 years of social research shows that the type of policy included in Harper's crime bill are ineffective and in some cases cause even more criminal behaviour. Yet, he wants to push through these changes and spend millions upon millions of dollars on decisions that completely ignore the facts about the criminal justice system. That's not only an irresponsible use of taxpayers' money, it's dangerous to society. Harper's policies, if given a majority, will destroy Canada even more than the NDP's economic policies.

[eyeball]

Crime has been declining for years and 40 years of social research shows that the type of policy included in Harper's crime bill are ineffective and in some cases cause even more criminal behaviour. Yet, he wants to push through these changes and spend millions upon millions of dollars on decisions that completely ignore the facts about the criminal justice system. That's not only an irresponsible use of taxpayers' money, it's dangerous to society. Harper's policies, if given a majority, will destroy Canada even more than the NDP's economic policies.

Harper's policy towards crime is actually very informed, the data confirms what he probably already knew. He wants crime to increase because it gives his party a raison d'être.

[cybercoma]

touche!

[noahbody]

Crime has been declining for years and 40 years of social research shows that the type of policy included in Harper's crime bill are ineffective and in some cases cause even more criminal behaviour.

That's probably similar to the conclusion of the researcher mentioned in the article. What I've found working with researchers is the anyone can collect statistics, far fewer can interpret it well. Coming to the conclusion that our justice system is fine and dandy because crime is declining is a misnomer. One thing stats can show is the ages in which people are most likely to commit crimes. The bulk of our population is now older. Our health care system isn't getting worse because more people are dying either. If I recall correctly, I believe stats also show that violent crime is on the rise for the 18-25 age group.

As I alluded to before, the type of measures in Harper's crime bill have only been shown ineffective as a deterrent (though saying it will not deter anyone is short-sighted, but that's not my point). They can still be seen as effective punishment. People still try to avoid jail for that reason.

Yet, he wants to push through these changes and spend millions upon millions of dollars on decisions that completely ignore the facts about the criminal justice system.

Again, he's not ignoring the facts, he just disagrees with the conclusion the researcher came to as I and many others do. If we're routinely letting people out before their time is served because 'there's no room,' we have a problem with prison space or usage.

That's not only an irresponsible use of taxpayers' money, it's dangerous to society. Harper's policies, if given a majority, will destroy Canada even more than the NDP's economic policies.

That's silly. At least building prisons creating jobs for Canadians.

[wyly]

At least building prisons creating jobs for Canadians.

and creating more public employee positions(bigger government) which the right wing so hates

[Ottawavalleyboy]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/29/HarperPushesPrisons/

The Conservative tough on crime policies will destroy Canada. Their own researchers have shown this, but Harper continues to push this agenda. Why does Harper refuse to make informed decisions? This is someone that shouldn't be leading a team at McDonald's, let alone the government.

What a load of crap, first of all comparing our crime rate to that of the states is weak. We have a high number of reoffenders in our society who often never serve any "real" time. This is not about deterring crime for me its about getting them off the street and out of the general populace. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal22a-eng.htm shows exactly why we need more prisons, look at the number of people who never served time in Major Assaults, fraud, sexual assault. Conditional sentencing and probation are a joke yet they are often 50% of the sentences among the convictions. Sorry but a major assault and someone gets a conditional sentence or parole. Someone comes and breaks your knees, leaves you permanently physically and emotionally scarred taking years to get better. Hey, give him a sentence that he has to go to councilling and live with his mom. The problem in Canada is the constitution does too much to protect the individual whether he be a criminal or not and next to nothing to address the greater good of society. I knew a group of teens well when I was growing up that were caught 5 or 6 times stealing cars and selling them to gangs in Toronto where they dissappeared. Not one of them served any real time other than a night or two in jail when they got caught and not one of them has amounted to anything 20 years later. Dont give me that left wing BS that we can save them, they see no reason to stop abusing the system.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Ottawavalleyboy

[Mr.Canada]

The Conservative tough on crime policies will destroy Canada.

Destroy Canada? Explain how Canada will be destroyed. Punishing criminals is just terrible. I know, lets just abolish all of our laws and punish no one for anything. Empty our prisons and demolish them. Then the left wing will be happy.

[scribblet]

Canada's prisons have been underfunded with serious problems for years, much of this money will go towards correcting that.

Here, federal prisons ombudsman Howard Sapers responds to news of a proposed funding boost for Canada’s prisons.

Macleans.ca: Is an increase in funding expected, or did this come as a surprise?

Sapers: I certainly wasn’t surprised. Even if there was no public policy change, there are very real, very immediate infrastructure pressures [on Canada’s prison system]. The Correctional Service already double-bunks about 10 per cent of its population: we’re talking about cells built for one person that are currently housing two, even though the Service’s current policy is single cell accommodation, which is in keeping with international standards.

The service doesn’t have the capacity it needs at certain security classifications to meet the current population, let alone any population increase. And it’s no surprise that if you make policy changes that will result in more people spending more time in prison, you’re going to need to deal with capacity issues. That means new money.

[TTM]

As I alluded to before, the type of measures in Harper's crime bill have only been shown ineffective as a deterrent (though saying it will not deter anyone is short-sighted, but that's not my point). They can still be seen as effective punishment. People still try to avoid jail for that reason.

You realize this entire paragraph contradicts itself, don't you?

Edited May 1, 2011 by TTM

[noahbody]

You realize this entire paragraph contradicts itself, don't you?

To be more clear: the threat of time behind bars (deterrent) versus spending time behind bars (paying a debt to society).

[TTM]

To be more clear: the threat of time behind bars (deterrent) versus spending time behind bars (paying a debt to society).

Right, I understand that point, but what you said in that paragraph was (to paraphrase): "the type of measures in Harper's crime bill have been shown not to be a deterrent ... the results of these measures are a deterrent"; you agree that these measures are ineffective as deterrents but should rather be seen punishments, but then you say these punishments are a deterrent. You can't have it both ways.