Prisons, Harper buried own findngs?

bloodyminded · May 11, 2011

But there's no guarantee that will happen. It depends on whether you believe, that criminals are made, not born. I wonder what Harper's CPC would vote on that.

I think there's no pat answer to the chicken-or-egg question ("made" or "born"), and that it's a fallacious formulation anyway, based on the preposterous notion that "criminals"--meaning, simply, those who break the law and are caught and indicted--are a distinct species from the rest of us.

Actually, they are us, and we are them. A few sociopaths aside, perhaps, there's no fundamental distinction to be made.

Who has never, ever, broken the law?

A rhetorical question, of course. The answer is: "almost nobody."

Edited May 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

Scotty · May 11, 2011

Funny, aren't they the well heeled and paranoid Harper voters that are so big on spending other people's money on the if-you-build-them-they-will-come superjails bill?

No.

Scotty · May 11, 2011

Comedy gold !

This link is old (2006) but the facts are there for all to see, and brother crime is not increasing. Step away from the kool aid.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2007005-eng.pdf

You know, guyser, you have a habit of responding in near total ignorance. I mean, not just ignorance in that you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, but ignorance in a way which suggests your parents never taught you any manners. It would be bad enough if your mockery had any substance to it. That is, if I was actually wrong about anything I said. But of course, I'm not. Police reported crime might be down but Stats Canada's victims survey shows no such decline, only a decline in reporting rates. So we can't say that crime is or isn't really down from last year. What we can say is that crime shot up back in the sixties when we got all kind and gentle and caring. This is absolute fact and the only people who would question it are those who are completely ignorant about Canada's historical crime rates.

By the way, if you weren't so intellectually lazy, you'd have read the historical crime rate figures in your own cite. But I guess you couldn't be bothered scrolling down that far.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Scotty

Scotty · May 11, 2011

I call bull on that one. I have tried to search this on google but most things I find require a paid subscription. But many people I admire and respect say you are wrong. So give us a link.

I guess you're just not very good at googling then. Scroll down to page nine.

You'll see that the violent crime rate was 221 per 100k in 1962.

It is now, after a decade of 'falling crime' at 930, a fall from its peak of 1090

So crime rises from 221 to 1090 and we're supposed to sing halleluiah because it's now fallen to 930?

The overall crime rate was 2771, which rose to over 10,000 by 1991 and has now fallen to just under 7,000

But bear in mind all of that is for 'police reported' crime. If it doesn't get reported to police, then it doesn't get included in these statistics. And Stats Canada's victims survey shows only a minority of crimes are reported, and that the rate of reporting, ie, the number of people who tell police about crimes committed against them, has been declining for the past ten years.

Canada's crime rates by year

ninjandrew · May 12, 2011

Interesting. Considering how few police we have, Alberta isn't doing too bad.

guyser · May 12, 2011

Aw scotty...dont be so sore buttercup.

You claimed one thing and now you try and scramble to cover it.

In you post even you showed crime rates are dropping . But what, they arent? Oh my :lol:

The very first line of your link says "The 2007 national crime rate reached its lowest point in 30 years"

I guess that means its rising ....right?

Oh and that 'unreported' crime....must be skyrocketing but of course you have some secret, no wait double secret way of knowing how bad it is out there.

Oh lord this is too easy.

Hey, say what you want about my parents, but they taught me to read. Try it sometime , it will be less embarassing for you.

Edited May 12, 2011 by guyser

cybercoma · May 12, 2011

The fact is that the crime rate will continue to drop as the population ages. There seems to be a correlation between age and crime, so it only makes sense as a bigger proportion of the population gets older the crime rate will drop. However, as the government focuses all of its services and efforts on the aging population, crime may become more severe within the populations where it is most prevalent. We can't lose sight of the assistance and services that are necesary for at risk groups, even as the rate drops.

Edited May 12, 2011 by cybercoma

RNG · May 12, 2011

You know, guyser, you have a habit of responding in near total ignorance. I mean, not just ignorance in that you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, but ignorance in a way which suggests your parents never taught you any manners. It would be bad enough if your mockery had any substance to it. That is, if I was actually wrong about anything I said. But of course, I'm not. Police reported crime might be down but Stats Canada's victims survey shows no such decline, only a decline in reporting rates. So we can't say that crime is or isn't really down from last year. What we can say is that crime shot up back in the sixties when we got all kind and gentle and caring. This is absolute fact and the only people who would question it are those who are completely ignorant about Canada's historical crime rates.

By the way, if you weren't so intellectually lazy, you'd have read the historical crime rate figures in your own cite. But I guess you couldn't be bothered scrolling down that far.

Links please. Or at least link. And Stockwel Day's "unreported crime" BS doesn't count.

RNG · May 12, 2011

I guess you're just not very good at googling then. Scroll down to page nine.

You'll see that the violent crime rate was 221 per 100k in 1962.

It is now, after a decade of 'falling crime' at 930, a fall from its peak of 1090

So crime rises from 221 to 1090 and we're supposed to sing halleluiah because it's now fallen to 930?

The overall crime rate was 2771, which rose to over 10,000 by 1991 and has now fallen to just under 7,000

But bear in mind all of that is for 'police reported' crime. If it doesn't get reported to police, then it doesn't get included in these statistics. And Stats Canada's victims survey shows only a minority of crimes are reported, and that the rate of reporting, ie, the number of people who tell police about crimes committed against them, has been declining for the past ten years.

Canada's crime rates by year

Page 9 of what?

yarg · May 12, 2011

I am wondering, what is the motivation for wanting to rehabilitate a violent criminal? Murder being the ultimate in violent offenses, after having crossed that line, why would we ever want to give that individual another chance? At some point I don't care what your childhood was like, or how hard done you were by the system, there are no doubt many, many more people who came from similar circumstances that did not turn out like the murderer. Why is it that some of you have this need to fix that poor guy who only killed his wife because he grew up in an alcoholic family, parents who grew up in the residential school system and never raised him right..why does it matter? At the end of the day he is a murderer and much more likely to do something violent or murder someone again than the rest of us are, that is reason enough to keep that person behind bars, it is a simple, basic reality.

Yes, simple drug offenses, or theft should not put you away for 20 years, but for the worse crimes the other 7 billion of us can carry on the human race without your child molesting, raping, murdering asses.

dre · May 12, 2011

Even if crime were falling, and there really isn't any evidence of that, given Stats Canada's victims survey, justice remains a concept most Canadians are attached to. If someone hurts someone we want them to be sufficiently punished. You seem to feel, well, even if people get away with a slap on the wrist, hey, there's less crime!

Not good enough!

:lol:

So its not "good enough" to measure the effectiveness of the system by its very purpose (reducing crime), and instead we should measure it based on your own personal and emotional appeals to justice! :lol: Yeah.... ok...

Edited May 12, 2011 by dre

dre · May 12, 2011

I am wondering, what is the motivation for wanting to rehabilitate a violent criminal? Murder being the ultimate in violent offenses, after having crossed that line, why would we ever want to give that individual another chance? At some point I don't care what your childhood was like, or how hard done you were by the system, there are no doubt many, many more people who came from similar circumstances that did not turn out like the murderer. Why is it that some of you have this need to fix that poor guy who only killed his wife because he grew up in an alcoholic family, parents who grew up in the residential school system and never raised him right..why does it matter? At the end of the day he is a murderer and much more likely to do something violent or murder someone again than the rest of us are, that is reason enough to keep that person behind bars, it is a simple, basic reality.

Yes, simple drug offenses, or theft should not put you away for 20 years, but for the worse crimes the other 7 billion of us can carry on the human race without your child molesting, raping, murdering asses.

I am wondering, what is the motivation for wanting to rehabilitate a violent criminal?

Why on earth would you "wonder" about the answer to such an obvious question?

cybercoma · May 12, 2011

Furthermore, I wonder why people believe that criminals ought to lose their basic human rights when they are convicted. Other countries do this and we send our military there.

TimG · May 12, 2011

Furthermore, I wonder why people believe that criminals ought to lose their basic human rights when they are convicted. Other countries do this and we send our military there.

Taking away the human rights of criminals is the basis for our justice system (i.e. locking up a criminal is a denial of their fundemental right to mobility). The only rights which should care about are those designed to protect against wrongful conviction. Edited May 12, 2011 by TimG

guyser · May 12, 2011

Why is it that some of you have this need to fix that poor guy who only killed his wife

Not married huh?

guyser · May 12, 2011

Furthermore, I wonder why people believe that criminals ought to lose their basic human rights when they are convicted. Other countries do this and we send our military there.

We all lose some rights when we approach a border too !

TimG is right, they onlye the mobility right.

cybercoma · May 12, 2011

Taking away the human rights of criminals is the basis for our justice system (i.e. locking up a criminal is a denial of their fundemental right to mobility). The only rights which should care about are those designed to protect against wrongful conviction.

I'm talking about the universal human rights. We lock people up for the protection of society, but that does not mean that we can all of a sudden torture, abuse, and enslave criminals. We don't harvest the organs of criminals to save the sick, for instance.

Edited May 12, 2011 by cybercoma

TimG · May 12, 2011

I'm talking about the universal human rights.

The right of free movement is a universal human right that we choose to violate for criminals.

We lock people up for the protection of society

No we don't. We lock criminals up to punish them for the crimes they have committed.

but that does not mean that we can all of a sudden torture, abuse, and enslave criminals. We don't harvest the organs of criminals to save the sick, for instance.

There is considerable debate on what constitutes torture. Denying access to cable TV is considered torture by some.

We can only have a reasonable discussion about what to do with prisoners if we dispense with the notion that violations of human rights make something automatically wrong. There are many cases where it probably do not want to violate rights but that has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Edited May 12, 2011 by TimG

Scotty · May 12, 2011

Aw scotty...dont be so sore buttercup.

You claimed one thing and now you try and scramble to cover it.

Anyone interested in honesty (that clearly excludes you) can scroll back to find that what I claimed is exactly what the facts are.

In you post even you showed crime rates are dropping . But what, they arent? Oh my

English a third language for you? Into early senility? I've already stated that there is a difference between 'police reported' crime, and actual crime. Is that too monumental a concept for your brain cells to handle?

The very first line of your link says "The 2007 national crime rate reached its lowest point in 30 years"

Which is irrelevant to the point I made that the present crime rate is multiple times higher than it was a generation ago.

Oh and that 'unreported' crime....must be skyrocketing but of course you have some secret, no wait double secret way of knowing how bad it is out there.

Statistics Canada's Victims of crime report has been posted numerous times already detailing that victim reported crime has not fallen, but that fewer people are bothering to report crime to police.

Oh lord this is too easy.

It's boorish to brag and strut about your success, but it's really declassé when your success is in your own head.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Scotty

Scotty · May 12, 2011

Page 9 of what?

It is the first table at the end of page 9

Edited May 12, 2011 by Scotty

icman · May 12, 2011

Which does not detract from what I said. You can't teach 'justice'. Justice is a concept and it's based on society's feelings during a given point in time. Ie, what was considered 'just' a century ago likely would not be now. There is no reason to suggest a judge has a better concept of justice than I do.

Even if your idea was true, which it is not, your argument would still fail. By your own argument, judges are members of this monolithic society, so there is no reason to suggest that a judge has a WORSE concept of justice than you do. So judges, with their societally bred knowledge of justice, and years of training and experience in the law, and years of experience managing the space between law and justice, are pretty good people to make decisions on individual court cases based on the circumstances of the case. It's the reason we have judges, to ensure someone with good judgement, strong intellect, and long steeped in the law can manage the process of convicting people of crimes and sentencing them to appropriate punishment.

Scotty · May 12, 2011

So its not "good enough" to measure the effectiveness of the system by its very purpose (reducing crime), and instead we should measure it based on your own personal and emotional appeals to justice! Yeah.... ok...

So, let me get your theory straight here. We soften up the laws and make parole easier, crime skyrockets, and stays high for decades, then it slowly eases down a little bit - though still several times what it used to be before we softened up - and this is proof positive that the softening of the laws worked really well?

Recall the figures for violent crime in particular. 221 ---> 1024. This during your glorious period of thoughtful, judicious restraint on the part of the state towards criminals. Now it's dropped.... all the way to 930, still more than four times what it was, and this contents you?

Scotty · May 12, 2011

Furthermore, I wonder why people believe that criminals ought to lose their basic human rights when they are convicted. Other countries do this and we send our military there.

Maybe you have a different understanding of what basic human rights are than others.

For example, 'hard labour' is still a term used in sentencing by the British, but I have a feeling it would absolutely horrify the Canadian Left.

Scotty · May 12, 2011

Even if your idea was true, which it is not, your argument would still fail

Oh, how is it not? Would you care to articulate the reason?

. By your own argument, judges are members of this monolithic society, so there is no reason to suggest that a judge has a WORSE concept of justice than you do

.

No, there isn't. I don't recall saying that. I merely said there was no reason to suggest that the concept of 'justice' as made by any given judge or a group of judges would be any closer to reality than that made by the citizenry at large. The argument, after all, was whether the great unwashed of society, and their opinion of justice, had little merit compared to 'trained' judges.

So judges, with their societally bred knowledge of justice, and years of training and experience in the law, and years of experience managing the space between law and justice, are pretty good people to make decisions on individual court cases based on the circumstances of the case.

Maybe, or maybe not. Judges occupy a privileged position in society. They don't live in poorer areas. They don't live in high crime areas. Their children don't go to schools in poorer areas and are pretty unlikely to be menaced by or recruited by gangs and such. In other words, judges are not subject to the same reality that many other Canadians are. Their viewpoints are necessarily different, then, from society as a whole, part of which is made up of people who do experience a different reality. Carol Goar wrote a column in the Star today saying poor people voted Conservative because the Tories' tough on crime agenda appeals to them, they being the most affected by crime.

It's the reason we have judges, to ensure someone with good judgement, strong intellect, and long steeped in the law can manage the process of convicting people of crimes and sentencing them to appropriate punishment.

We don't select judges based on their intelligence or good judgement. We select them based on a variety of criteria of which actual legal knowledge and ability are secondary, at best. They are political appointees, after all.

guyser · May 12, 2011

We don't select judges based on their intelligence or good judgement. We select them based on a variety of criteria of which actual legal knowledge and ability are secondary, at best. They are political appointees, after all.

You know you tend to make observations without any facts so I will leave this right here.....to counter the asinine notion of yours that I put in bold...... :rolleyes:

How to Become a Judge in Ontario.

1

Belong to and be in good standing with a bar association in one of the provinces or territories of Canada for at least 10 years.

2

Educate yourself and be abreast of the law, the social issues and the cultural diversity of Ontario.

3

Do not have any errors, omissions or complaints on file with the Law Society of Upper Canada or any other law society.

4

Have a clean criminal history. Applicants with a criminal record will not be considered.

5

Check the Ontario Reports for vacancies. The Ontario Judicial Appointment Advisory Committee appoints judges. The committee posts vacancies for judicial positions in the Ontario Reports. Your bar association should have a copy of the latest Ontario Reports for you to check.

6

Submit 14 copies of the judicial appointment application to the Ontario Judicial Appointment Advisory Committee. For a copy of the application, see the link in the resources below.

7

Check with the Ontario Judicial Appointment Advisory Committee in a few weeks after you send in your application to inquire about an interview or if they have filled the vacancy. Once you send the application, all you can do is wait and hope the committee calls you in to interview.