Prisons, Harper buried own findngs?

[guyser]

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

removed due to pity.

Edited May 12, 2011 by guyser

[Scotty]

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......

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.

In other words, you have to be a lawyer who hasn't been formally found guilty of fraud or incompetence lately, nor arrested. Wow. Major qualifications there! Oh, and you have to submit an application, and then check back on occasion to see how it's going. I am really impressed.

[RNG]

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.

And crime stats have been dropping for years, according to the Calgary Herald and the Vancouver Sun. So where's your non-anecdotal data?

I just checked the table you referenced, and looks like crime is falling to me. That's what your data says.

[guyser]

In other words, you have to be a lawyer who hasn't been formally found guilty of fraud or incompetence lately, nor arrested. Wow. Major qualifications there! Oh, and you have to submit an application, and then check back on occasion to see how it's going. I am really impressed.

Perhaps you could re-read that list? One cannot have any complaints or E&O problems on file, which in and of itself is pretty good.

Then an interview which I assume is not easy, plus the laundry list of other things.

But it is a far cry from..........

actual legal knowledge and ability are secondary, at best. They are political appointees, after all.

Hey if there is a problem, I could get my parents to come over and teach you to read if you'd like

Edited May 12, 2011 by guyser

[guyser]

I just checked the table you referenced, and looks like crime is falling to me. That's what your data says.

No no....falling means rising .

Edited May 12, 2011 by guyser

[RNG]

No no....falling means rising .

....... Total Incidents, Violent, Property, Other

1991 - 10,342 - 1,059 - 6,160 - 3,122

2007 - 6,984 - 930 3,320 - 2,734

From your link. Looks like the crime rates are dropping to me.

Edited May 12, 2011 by RNG

[Scotty]

From your link. Looks like the crime rates are dropping to me.

Police-reported crime, which is how Stats Canada defines it, is dropping. On the other hand, also according to Stats Canada's Victims survey, people are not bothering to report crime to police as much as they used to. The reporting rate dropped by 5% last year over the previous survey taken five years earlier - where it had also fallen 5%. That means 10% fewer crimes are being reported to police - not that there are 10% fewer crimes.

But as I wrote earlier in this thread, regardless of the crime rate, Canadians want individuals who commit crime to be properly punished, no matter how many of them there are.

[Scotty]

Perhaps you could re-read that list? One cannot have any complaints or E&O problems on file, which in and of itself is pretty good.

Then an interview which I assume is not easy, plus the laundry list of other things.

But it is a far cry from..........

Hey if there is a problem, I could get my parents to come over and teach you to read if you'd like

I'm quite capable of reading. I'm just less credulous than you in being told how gosh-darned impressive it is that prospective judges have to fill out a form and then check back later. Oooooo! Aaaawww! Ooooo!

Oh, and they have to do an interview? Wow! You ever held a job, by chance? Doing an interview is generally a normal part of being hired.

You know, my girlfriend recently applied for a promotion. Here's what she had to do. First, she had to go and take several mini-tests to determine if she 'might' have the competencies in 5 key areas. After determining that she did, she was required to write a statement, generally 5-10 pages, giving an example of when she had displayed the competency, backed up by an observer. She had to do this for each of the five competencies. After all that was approved, then she was able to write the test, and after that the interview, and after that she was in the pool. Oh, and I forgot, she also had to submit performance appraisals to show she had already done a good job.

So pardon me if I'm not so impressed by your little check list of minor requirements to be a judge.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Scotty

[guyser]

Police-reported crime, which is how Stats Canada defines it, is dropping.

About time you said that.

Uh oh....here comes another 'statement'...

On the other hand, also according to Stats Canada's Victims survey, people are not bothering to report crime to police as much as they used to. The reporting rate dropped by 5% last year over the previous survey taken five years earlier - where it had also fallen 5%. That means 10% fewer crimes are being reported to police - not that there are 10% fewer crimes.

Well now, unless you are talking about something else, some other Stats Can release, then I would say its time you stopped posting your own thoughts to help forge some debate because.......

First results from the 2009 General Social Survey (GSS) on victimization show that 27% of Canadians aged 15 and older said they had been a victim of a criminal incident in the 12 months before the survey. This proportion was unchanged from 2004, the last time the victimization survey was conducted.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100928/dq100928a-eng.htm

Or we can look ar your assertion that reporting is down shall we?

the proportion of incidents reported to the police by respondents fell from 34% in 2004 to 31%

in 2009

Ok, so 3% , not 10%...lets keep going

For violent crime, 29% of incidents were reported to police in 2009, essentially the same as 2004.

Nope, no change, not 5 not 10%.

But as I wrote earlier in this thread, regardless of the crime rate, Canadians want individuals who commit crime to be properly punished, no matter how many of them there are.

Hmm...maybe , but considering those people have no understanding of what is punishment beyond their own noses and all they want is vigilante justice , who cares what they think.

Besides, overwhelmingly most people feel perfectly safe !

Edited May 12, 2011 by guyser

[guyser]

I'm quite capable of reading.

I should hope so!

I'm just less credulous than you in being told how gosh-darned impressive it is that prospective lawyers have to fill out a form and then check back later. Oooooo! Aaaawww! Ooooo!

Oh, and they have to do an interview? Wow! You ever held a job, by chance? Doing an interview is generally a normal part of being hired.

Why be credulous or incredulous? They want the job they put in their name on an application ? Of course, and you know this , they have to do that and so much more.

You know, my girlfriend recently applied for a promotion. Here's what she had to do. First, she had to go and take several mini-tests to determine if she 'might' have the competencies in 5 key areas. After determining that she did, she was required to write a statement, generally 5-10 pages, giving an example of when she had displayed the competency, backed up by an observer. She had to do this for each of the five competencies. After all that was approved, then she was able to write the test, and after that the interview, and after that she was in the pool. Oh, and I forgot, she also had to submit performance appraisals to show she had already done a good job.

So pardon me if I'm not so impressed by your little check list of minor requirements to be a judge.

I hope she got the job.

But back up a bit.

Shall we assume she spent 4 yrs in gettting an undergrad degree,a yr writing/studying for LSAT , then find a place to study and pay thru the nose, then 4 yrs at law school , 1 yr articling, then write the bar exam and then get called to the bar and then find employment?

Oh yeah, then wait 10 F'ing years before she could apply to become a Judge?

Somehow I doubt it.Tell her to put in her app and wait 20 yrs for an answer , then we'll talk.

Minor requirements my ass. You havent the vaguest notion of what you speak. That is no opinion of mine, you have proven it quite nicely.

Edited May 12, 2011 by guyser

[cybercoma]

Police-reported crime, which is how Stats Canada defines it, is dropping. On the other hand, also according to Stats Canada's Victims survey, people are not bothering to report crime to police as much as they used to. The reporting rate dropped by 5% last year over the previous survey taken five years earlier - where it had also fallen 5%. That means 10% fewer crimes are being reported to police - not that there are 10% fewer crimes.

But as I wrote earlier in this thread, regardless of the crime rate, Canadians want individuals who commit crime to be properly punished, no matter how many of them there are.

The Victim's Survey is more accurately called the Self-Reported Victim's Survey. This does not capture crimes that are reported by witnesses. A body doesn't turn up and go unreported. A violent assault or rape that requires medical attention doesn't happen and go unreported. One's doesn't have thousands of dollars worth of property stolen out of their home and not report it. The things that aren't reported are spray-painted walls in alleys, smash & grab incidents with property in cars, and garden gnomes mysteriously wandering off. Your inference that crime is actually worse because victim reporting is down is disingenuous and actually ignores what Stats Canada themselves have written on the topic. Moreover, the victim themselves does not have to report it for the police to respond to the incident and report it themselves. The police could witness criminal activity themselves, be contacted by witnesses or other bystanders, or myriad other scenarios where the victim doesn't actually report the crime, yet the police respond and report on it themselves.

[dre]

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?

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?

No its not proof positive of anything. You havent shown a causative link between softer sentencing and easy parole and violent crime rates. You think you see a correlation but thats about it. Theres a whole host of other factors that could be behind any increase in crime rates besides sentencing.

If it COULD be shown that stiffer sentencing laws were likely to reduce violent crime rates (and you havent even come close to doing that) then I might be in favor of it.

The problem is though they dont just want to increase sentences for VIOLENT criminals. It sounds to me like the want to ratchet up the drug war as well and throw people in federal prisons for have a couple of pot plants. And if you ratchet up the drug war you will INCREASE violent crime, not reduce it (for obvious reasons). Also when it comes to violent crime rates, Id like to see how many of those crimes involved innocent victims or bystanders. I could care less if drug dealers and gang members are killing each other.

[Bonam]

Shall we assume she spent 4 yrs in gettting an undergrad degree,a yr writing/studying for LSAT , then find a place to study and pay thru the nose, then 4 yrs at law school , 1 yr articling, then write the bar exam and then get called to the bar and then find employment?

Oh yeah, then wait 10 F'ing years before she could apply to become a Judge?

Somehow I doubt it.Tell her to put in her app and wait 20 yrs for an answer , then we'll talk.

Umm, 10 years of school is standard for anyone doing a PhD program or advanced professional degree. It's certainly a lengthy span of education, but it's not really anything special. Most people I know spent 8-10 years in university, and guess what, they are still just normal people like anyone else. All the requirements you listed are standard for lawyers by the way, and there are all kinds of lawyers, good ones, bad ones, ethical ones, not so ethical ones, etc. So they go through law school. Big freaking deal.

[guyser]

Umm, 10 years of school is standard for anyone doing a PhD program or advanced professional degree. It's certainly a lengthy span of education, but it's not really anything special. Most people I know spent 8-10 years in university, and guess what, they are still just normal people like anyone else. All the requirements you listed are standard for lawyers by the way, and there are all kinds of lawyers, good ones, bad ones, ethical ones, not so ethical ones, etc. So they go through law school. Big freaking deal.

I did not suggest it was special. I said what they had to go through.

You missed the point though, to become a Judge is in fact a 20 yr wait so it is not 'easy' and I know the peer review is exhaustive.

And yes, they put their pants on one leg at a time

[Saipan]

Well now, unless you are talking about something else, some other Stats Can release, then I would say its time you stopped posting your own thoughts to help forge some debate

Lead the way.

[Saipan]

No its not proof positive of anything. You havent shown a causative link between softer sentencing and easy parole and violent crime rates. You think you see a correlation but thats about it. Theres a whole host of other factors that could be behind any increase in crime rates besides sentencing.

Like what?

If it COULD be shown that stiffer sentencing laws were likely to reduce violent crime rates (and you havent even come close to doing that) then I might be in favor of it.

In the days of capital punishment in Canada crime was much lower. Even in the absence of these crazy liberal gun legislations and police state mentality.

The problem is though they dont just want to increase sentences for VIOLENT criminals. It sounds to me like the want to ratchet up the drug war as well and throw people in federal prisons for have a couple of pot plants.

To use your words from above: "you havent even come close to doing that" (showing evidence)

[guyser]

Lead the way.

Dont be a f'ing idiot, I posted links that blew his notions out of the water.

Try it yourself sometime, you almost never post links.

[Saipan]

Dont be a f'ing idiot

Listen Einstein, we have liberal moderator, so if you resort to name calling I will be banned again for "third party name calling"

Stay with the issue, if you can.

[ninjandrew]

Listen Einstein, we have liberal moderator, so if you resort to name calling I will be banned again for "third party name calling"

Better than the mods on most of the forums I've been on in the past. Some of them try to be judges to every debate, delete innocent threads theyve determined to be flaming with reckless abandon and leave a trail of banned accounts in there wake...

[guyser]

Listen Einstein, we have liberal moderator, so if you resort to name calling I will be banned again for "third party name calling"

Stay with the issue, if you can.

Dont be an annoying troll then. It is what you do, so stop it and you wont get labled as bad as you already are.

[Saipan]

Not interested in your labels.

[Scotty]

del

Edited May 13, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Well now, unless you are talking about something else, some other Stats Can release, then I would say its time you stopped posting your own thoughts to help forge some debate because.......

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100928/dq100928a-eng.htm

Next time why don't you include some text so it's easier to respond to.

What you quoted was them saying the rate of crime was UNCHANGED, which is what I said.

Or we can look ar your assertion that reporting is down shall we?

Ok, so 3% , not 10%...lets keep going

Nope, no change, not 5 not 10%.

Again, what they said, what you quoted, was that the reporting rate dropped from 34% to 31%. Now I don't know where you went to school, but as far as I'm concerned that means a drop of about 9% if measured by just that group. Now if you want to measure it from the whole, ie, from the 100%, then yes, it's a drop of 3%. But in reality, 'reporters' if you will, fell by 9%. Split the two and you have 5%.

Hmm...maybe , but considering those people have no understanding of what is punishment beyond their own noses and all they want is vigilante justice , who cares what they think.

You're saying the public at large are ignorant about matters of justice? Yet it's their standards our society is enforcing. Or are you saying the standards belong only to elitists and that the general members of society should, due to their ignorance, have no say in what those standards of justice should be? Why do you think people should even get to vote, then?

Besides, overwhelmingly most people feel perfectly safe !

Which is why, overwhelmingly, nobody had any interest in supporting the Tories crime agenda, right?

Edited May 13, 2011 by Scotty

[guyser]

Next time why don't you include some text so it's easier to respond to.

What you quoted was them saying the rate of crime was UNCHANGED, which is what I said.

No , you said.........

The reporting rate dropped by 5% last year over the previous survey taken five years earlier - where it had also fallen 5%. That means 10% fewer crimes are being reported to police

One cannot intermingle the %'s and add them together. Especially when you want to admomish me for not seeing that you referenced the drop from 34% to 31 % as a 9% drop. A 5% drop from one year cannot be added to a %5 drop in another year and you cannot claim it is 10%

Again, what they said, what you quoted, was that the reporting rate dropped from 34% to 31%. Now I don't know where you went to school, but as far as I'm concerned that means a drop of about 9% if measured by just that group. Now if you want to measure it from the whole, ie, from the 100%, then yes, it's a drop of 3%. But in reality, 'reporters' if you will, fell by 9%. Split the two and you have 5%.

Anyhow , I will leave this right here and stop this silliness....(from the link) "Rates of victimization resulting from violent crimes, namely sexual assault, physical assault and robbery, remained stable between 2004 and 2009" Yes Stable , not up nor down.

You're saying the public at large are ignorant about matters of justice? Yet it's their standards our society is enforcing.

Pretty much...Yes.

See it all the time. One only has to mention the name Homolka and listen to them blame the justice system and how she should have been locked away for ever, should be hung and our "justice system" is soft etc etc.

Hey they have their opinions, but none of them based in fact. Blame the Judge, blame the lawyers but frankly they are too stupid to blame the real culprit in that mess, the police. Pure and simple.

Or are you saying the standards belong only to elitists and that the general members of society should, due to their ignorance, have no say in what those standards of justice should be? Why do you think people should even get to vote, then?

Every citizen over the age of 18 gets to vote. Why bring that into discussion?

The standards are set from precedence and other factors. The public by and large dont know what is truly fair and dont bother with the details that may mitigate a case, so in some sense have no say, and thats a good thing.

Which is why, overwhelmingly, nobody had any interest in supporting the Tories crime agenda, right?

If that is why they voted Tory,this single issue, holy smoke are people that dumb?

93% of people said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their personal safety from crime, similar to 2004 (94%).

So, maybe they are hypocrites? Who knows?

.

[Saipan]

They could be just pollsters who are often wrong. 'Specially predicting federal elections.

Opinions of selected people. Then adjusted.