guyser Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Less crime reported does not mean there is less crime. Just fo you. The General Social Survey ;Victimization is the non reported stats. It has remained stable which means no real increase or decrease However, crime rates have dropped. So if the same % of people dont report, yet the reported crime is dropping both in numbers and %'s then you can extropolate what? Both crime and non reported crime numbers are down. Yahoo ! But we need more criminal bills cuz ya knw.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) You know, I have always wondered when Harper spouts his stuff, or Layton spouts his stuff, or when Iggy spouted his stuff, do they really believe it or are they pandering to their respective bases and lying to try and get more votes? In this case the whole "tough on crime" schtick prompted my rant. Edited June 22, 2011 by RNG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 You know, I have always wondered when Harper spouts his stuff, or Layton spouts his stuff, or when Iggy spouted his stuff, do they really believe it or are they pandering to their respective bases and lying to try and get more votes? In this case the whole "tough on crime" schtick prompted my rant. I will take lying for $100 Alex. The thing is, some of ou prisons are deplorable and in need of expensive maintenance, but more likely to be replaced since the infrastructure and buidl methods are so far out of date. But that doesnt sell to simpletons. Telling them crime is rising and we are unsafe does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I will take lying for $100 Alex. The thing is, some of ou prisons are deplorable and in need of expensive maintenance, but more likely to be replaced since the infrastructure and buidl methods are so far out of date. But that doesnt sell to simpletons. Telling them crime is rising and we are unsafe does. But the real truth is that the elites created the internet so that they could manipulate the working class into thinking they had free access to information. But then the elites created websites such as nationmaster to disseminate false information to cause the working class to start putting the blame on the corporations for the social injustices. This would allow the elites to wrest back control from the corporations and the invisble hand of the market. The elites plan to eventually establish a new world order where there are no countries, just the working class and the elites. Who are the elites? Aliens of course! Of course none of you simpletons can see this horrifying real truth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 But the real truth is that the elites created the internet so that they could manipulate the working class into thinking they had free access to information. But then the elites created websites such as nationmaster to disseminate false information to cause the working class to start putting the blame on the corporations for the social injustices. This would allow the elites to wrest back control from the corporations and the invisble hand of the market. The elites plan to eventually establish a new world order where there are no countries, just the working class and the elites. Who are the elites? Aliens of course! Of course none of you simpletons can see this horrifying real truth! One-Worlders, the UN, Aliens, the FSM. [/tinfoil hat] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Crime has dropped very little in the last 5 years, and by using my list or yours it does not say anything except perhaps staus quo....My piont is our country has spent to much time and effort into to seeking if our sentences deter crime...and to little to see if it's an effective punishment that fits the crime....Frankly i don't care if it deters anyone at all...i want it to fit the crime....I also don't want them living the life of riley while they are serving this punishment, and all rights suspended until they are released. I suppose I can get my head around this when you apply it to real crimes like murder or armed robbery but the trouble is the people you've voted for to do this also want to cultivate and bring the same attitude towards behaviour that shouldn't be considered a crime at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 However, some violent crimes did increase. There were 806 attempted murders in 2009, 85 more than in 2008. Increases were also reported in the rate of extortion, firearms offences and criminal harassment. There were 610 homicides in 2009, about the same as the previous year. The homicide rate has been relatively stable for the past decade and well below the peak during the mid-1970s. http://www.apolicemanslife.com/search/label/Canadian%20Crime%20Stats Like i said it depends on qwhat source you use and what info was pluged into the stat, an article below seems to cast some doubt on how our crime stats are compliled and how they could be used to mislead. http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/new-mli-paper-canadian-crime-stats-don%E2%80%99t-add-up/ If you assumption is the criminal sets the rules then the premise is wrong from the outset. Someone is setting the rules, all one has to do is take a look back 10 to 15 years and compare what rights and privilages they had then to now...they vote, they recieve pensions, sat/cable tv, movies, day passes,free education the list goes on...So i ask you should convicts that have been convicted of seriuos crimes be entitled to these ? and why .... If one doesnt take away, then there is nothing to give back. Right are not suspended nor should be...ever. (prior conciliation standing)We in this country are born with rights and they stay with you forever. Here is where we differ, for seriuos offensives i think you should forfiet all your rights, not just some of them all of them, After all was it not them that took it upon themselfs to suspend their victems rights, to take a life forever....what makes you think a murderer should be treated equal while in prison ? The example i give is military prison, please note none of these prisoners have commited any federal offensives. and the stats for prisoners coming back for a second vist are well below 1 %. They are awake at 0500 am,and asleep at 2100 hrs eat 3 times a day, they have kit inspections, parades/ drill, PT, and work around building or at the farm, no TV/ games unless it is Sunday, NO smoking Unless you've earned it then only 8 cigs per day. no talking unless spoken to... lets just say life is alittle more controled. and according to their stats it does work... Those studies are not from this country if what you say is true.'Very few rights given out" is not from this country. Or are you talking about privileges that some prisoners can earn? The studies were down in both the US and Canada, these study was written for the Solictor General Canada http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm They signed up for the job. And get paid. And according to you so do they when they work, and with much less risk, That has got to say something that a convict in our nations jails can recieve more priviliages than a soldier serving his country....does that make sense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 What is the purpose of punishment, if you don't care about deterrence? Should it not be the goal of the criminal justice system to reduce crime? If not, are you ok with a criminal justice system that has harsh punishments but increases crime? The main purpose of punishment is to punish, Deterence although part of that should not be the main factor,making sure the punishment fits the crime should be... And no it should not be the main goal of the justice system to reduce crime, but to ensure everyone recieves a fair trial and sentence if convicted..that should be the main goal....if crime gets reduced then it would be a bonus...reducing crime is the job of the police,and other depts... And no one said anything about harsh punishments, what i said was punishments that fit the crimes, IE 25 years for murder means 25 years served, and not entiled to all the rights and pivilages they have now....in fact i'm all for making them earn and pay for there own way while in prison... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 ROFLMAO... Yeah sure no problem. Its in the post i was replying to for god sakes. Try to pay attention. Paying for the crime rate has many facets. The crimminals have to be tried. This costs a lot of money and supports a very privledged class of professionals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Army Guy, We don't look at absolute numbers as causing an increase in the crime rate because the population also changes over that time. You need to look at the rate of those crimes. A country with a higher population is obviously going to have more murders, so it really only makes sense to look at the crime per capita. Also, everyone's opinion about what punishment fits the crime is going to be different. You say you want the justice system to do that, but I say the punishments do fit the crimes. How do we determine whose punishment is the most fitting? I believe the justice system is setup to do just that, particularly through judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing. Meanwhile, the Conservatives want to legislate that away from judges, creating a one-size-fits-all scenario that doesn't actually work in real life. And I'm still curious about whether you would accept an increase in crime if it meant that criminals were being punished more "fairly", as you say. The reason I ask this seemingly hypothetical question is that there is a correlation between criminality and the amount of time spent in jail. If people spend more time in jail, crime is likely to increase. The cliche is not far from the truth, "if you weren't a criminal before you went to jail, you'll be one when you get out." Edited June 23, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 We are still under the old British system that maintains the status quo through a conspiratorial judical system. It is still mostly about property law. If you take a man that is important and steal his property - The courts will give you ten years in the slammer. If you kick a beggar to death you will be out in 18 months. Property and the maintainance of wealth for a few is more important than human rights. Our system is still colonialist in nature. Those that want to go hard on common crime and want to build super jails are usually those with vested interest in the privitization of jails. What they do in order to mobilize public thinking in their behalf is appeal like the wanna be premier _ HUDAK to the hate vote...Hudak suggested turning the prisons into labour camps. Of course this is going to stimulate the haters.....meanwhile most of those in jails are from economically deprived segments of society. In other words this extremist right wing approach is to further marginalize and persecute the poor and most disadvantaged...who end up in the jail house...There has to be a better way. For instance think long term - don't have society support a family law system that removes "bad fathers" THEN replaces them with state santioned fathers of a sort...the state does not love other peoples children...and a fatherless child raised by the state will become one of two things - a gayish twit - or a gang banger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Cybercoma: We don't look at absolute numbers as causing an increase in the crime rate because the population also changes over that time. You need to look at the rate of those crimes. A country with a higher population is obviously going to have more murders, so it really only makes sense to look at the crime per capita. I understand that, but if you look at the stats, violent crime has gone up, and when you include the increase of population these types of crimes are increasing not decreaseing. and not just violent crimes but other crimes as well. overall Canada has seen a decrease but the crimes that count ie murder, etc have gone up or remained at a steady state. Also, everyone's opinion about what punishment fits the crime is going to be different. You say you want the justice system to do that, but I say the punishments do fit the crimes. How do we determine whose punishment is the most fitting? For the most part it has already been done, murder is suppose to be a 25 year sentence. and yet i can provide thousands of examples were convicts did not serve any where close to 25 years, the Inter net is full of examples of some serving as little as 4 to 6 years for taking a life... Meanwhile, the Conservatives want to legislate that away from judges, creating a one-size-fits-all scenario that doesn't actually work in real life. I'm ok with that, tell me something you loss a love one to a murder or drunk driver, is not the result the same....or in the case we are talking about here a life has been changed forever...and what was the sentence again... and this is not an isolated case...we have for a long while been more concerned with the rights of the criminal rather than the victem... And I'm still curious about whether you would accept an increase in crime if it meant that criminals were being punished more "fairly", as you say. Your assuming that is what would happen, but discount the other studies mentioned in my link which have stated that the more austre the prison, the more deterent it serves.... The reason I ask this seemingly hypothetical question is that there is a correlation between criminality and the amount of time spent in jail. If people spend more time in jail, crime is likely to increase. The cliche is not far from the truth, "if you weren't a criminal before you went to jail, you'll be one when you get out." I agree with you, in fact the other 2 studies in my link even say as much, That prison is a unverisity for the criminal mind...Under the current justice sys nothing will change....unless we stop locking these guys up...So whats left, i'm saying make prison the last place you want to be in not the country clubs they got now....I'm not talking unhuman but a place full of discpline and hard work...And if thats all they take from prison is to be better convicts so be it...next time they are caught they can spend even more time there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) However, some violent crimes did increase. There were 806 attempted murders in 2009, 85 more than in 2008. Increases were also reported in the rate of extortion, firearms offences and criminal harassment. Correct, there are increases in some segments Someone is setting the rules, all one has to do is take a look back 10 to 15 years and compare what rights and privilages they had then to now...they vote, they recieve pensions, sat/cable tv, movies, day passes,free education the list goes on...So i ask you should convicts that have been convicted of seriuos crimes be entitled to these ? and why .... Priviliges, not rights Army Guy. Its a whole 'nother conversation. Here is where we differ, for seriuos offensives i think you should forfiet all your rights, not just some of them all of them, After all was it not them that took it upon themselfs to suspend their victems rights, to take a life forever....what makes you think a murderer should be treated equal while in prison ? They forfeit their freedom and mobility, some privacy. They must have all other rights maintained as we are a civil nation that upholds the Charter. The example i give is military prison, please note none of these prisoners have commited any federal offensives. and the stats for prisoners coming back for a second vist are well below 1 %. They are awake at 0500 am,and asleep at 2100 hrs eat 3 times a day, they have kit inspections, parades/ drill, PT, and work around building or at the farm, no TV/ games unless it is Sunday, NO smoking Unless you've earned it then only 8 cigs per day. no talking unless spoken to... lets just say life is alittle more controled. and according to their stats it does work... The Military has its own code of conduct specifically for the members of our Armed Forces for actions they committed against said code or on base. Criminal actions in Canada for soldiers are still sent to Provincial/Superior Courts , not the internal courts for military. And according to you so do they when they work, and with much less risk, That has got to say something that a convict in our nations jails can recieve more priviliages than a soldier serving his country....does that make sense... In sense yes, and I understand what you are saying. However, it is a volunteer force, they can leave , but those 'rights' that get suspended for a military man are sepcific and done for security reasons. Edited June 23, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Priviliges, not rights Army Guy. Its a whole 'nother conversation. Some are rights such as the right to vote, which correct me if i'm wrong is something new, as they did'nt always have this right....Recieving old age pension is also something new.... They forfeit their freedom and mobility, some privacy. They must have all other rights maintained as we are a civil nation that upholds the Charter. So do my kids when i ground them for sneaking out, or something else that is petty...So should murders be entitlted to everything else...Perhaps someone can show me were it states that they can not work for their food and lodgings, and were in the charter does it say they should be entitled to sat tv, movies, day passes etc etc.... However, it is a volunteer force, they can leave , but those 'rights' that get suspended for a military man are sepcific and done for security reasons. So we can suspend rights if it's due to security reasons, not if you've committed a violent crime and have taken a life....the piont is we have suspended some rights for some groups why can we not extend that to another group.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Some are rights such as the right to vote, which correct me if i'm wrong is something new, as they did'nt always have this right....Recieving old age pension is also something new.... The right for prisoners to vote used to be a provincial concern. Then the Feds were onvolved only allowing inmates serving two yrs or less to vote. That was ruled unconstitutional some years ago. Old age pension was ruled out as of Jan 1 . ...So should murders be entitlted to everything else...Perhaps someone can show me were it states that they can not work for their food and lodgings, and were in the charter does it say they should be entitled to sat tv, movies, day passes etc etc.... Satt tv, movies , dasy passes etc are not rights, nor did I suggest they were. So we can suspend rights if it's due to security reasons, not if you've committed a violent crime and have taken a life....the piont is we have suspended some rights for some groups why can we not extend that to another group.... We make applications to suspend rights for security purposes to ensure the security of the country. There is no need nor is there any legal reason to suspend prisoners rights apart from those that get suspended due to the crime commited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 One-Worlders, the UN, Aliens, the FSM. [/tinfoil hat] It`s true....but why worry about it. A prime example regarding the èlites is in the fact that OUR elite buisness men made the deals with China to create more profit...they were totally disloyal to their own nations....and now the so-called èlites are richer than ever...and China that our elites enriched are now considering waging war on the hand that fed them....How can we have a just judical system when these so-called èlites....don`t care about their own Canadian brothers and sisters......as for the crimminals being released on bail after being caught with a gun.....................well our èlites get a kick out of seeing crimminals harrass our society...these elites are just plain mischievious ....You would be too if you were so bored because you got priblege and riches at birth.....gotta do something that is excieting - like destroy and betray a whole nation............now that is a big hobby to have....you have to love those elites...they are just like pushy bullies in nice clothes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The stats clearly show that both crime and crime severity are decreasing. How someone can take that to mean that violent crime is increasing is far beyond my comprehension . Also, the purpose of a criminal justice system should be to prevent crime. Isn't that always our goal as a society? Punishment should be a secondary concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The stats clearly show that both crime and crime severity are decreasing. How someone can take that to mean that violent crime is increasing is far beyond my comprehension . Because that is what the links say, overall crime is decreasing, however violent crimes are increasing perhaps you should try reading the link... Also, the purpose of a criminal justice system should be to prevent crime. Isn't that always our goal as a society? Punishment should be a secondary concern. Your full of shit...perhaps you can provide a source on that...Within the criminal code it lists infractions and recommended mins and maxs, were does it state preventive methods..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Because that is what the links say, overall crime is decreasing, however violent crimes are increasing perhaps you should try reading the link... Perhaps you should try reading the actual stats canada statistics. Crime severity has been decreasing, and it's been decreasing for a very long time. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090421/dq090421b-eng.htm Your full of shit...perhaps you can provide a source on that...Within the criminal code it lists infractions and recommended mins and maxs, were does it state preventive methods..... Do you even know what goes on in Canadian jails? The whole experience is centred around rehabilitation, therapy, and behaviour modification. Does it always work? No. Is it intended to punish before anything else? No. Edited June 23, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Also, the purpose of a criminal justice system should be to prevent crime. Isn't that always our goal as a society? . I will bet you meant "as a deterrent" to crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I will bet you meant "as a deterrent" to crime? I was talking about future crime, so yes. Then again, no, deter is not a good word. Rehabilitation is not realy designed as a deterrent, but rather a prevention of future crime. Edited June 23, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Even as a deterrent harsher penalties don't work. You would think being put to death in certain states would stop murders from happening or at the very least reduce them. It doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Perhaps you should try reading the actual stats canada statistics. Crime severity has been decreasing, and it's been decreasing for a very long time. Then perhaps you should read you entire link, including the below Quote, then perhaps reread what i posted.... but to a lesser degree. However, the seriousness of police-reported violent crime did not follow this downward trend and remained stable. Here is what i posted: However, some violent crimes did increase. There were 806 attempted murders in 2009, 85 more than in 2008. Increases were also reported in the rate of extortion, firearms offences and criminal harassment. Because that is what the links say, overall crime is decreasing, however violent crimes are increasing perhaps you should try reading the link... The stats clearly show that both crime and crime severity are decreasing. How someone can take that to mean that violent crime is increasing is far beyond my comprehension I'm not sure how else to explain it, so you can comprehend it. But the fact is for this time period there has been NO decrease....IN Violent crime, and yes overall crime and the crime severity Index has gone down, i was not disputing that, infact i did mention that in my post... Do you even know what goes on in Canadian jails? The whole experience is centred around rehabilitation, therapy, and behaviour modification. Does it always work? No. Is it intended to punish before anything else? No. WOW, alittle testy are we....Do i know whats going on in jails, I'm no expert,but then again i can read, hav'nt done any time in one if thats what you mean, have been to a couple of riots with DND at the Kingston Pen does that count. Did'nt see much rehabilitation going on although lots of behavior modification. To say the whole experience is centered around "treating the immate" is a crock...while it may happen while the convict serves his time it is centered around his sentence...Treatment is not mandatory,unless dictated at sentencing, nothing is, not treatment, not work,other than following the rules of prison a prisoner can fill his day with nothing....except serving his sentence... You mentioned does rehabilitation always work , there is more than one study out there that says it's a failure on many levels, so much so that they believe the only schooling the majority of inmates get is the one they give themselves on how to be a better criminal.... But lets not forget the main reason they are behind bars to start with they commited a crime and were sentenced to x amount of time as punishment ...what they do with that time is up to them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Even as a deterrent harsher penalties don't work. You would think being put to death in certain states would stop murders from happening or at the very least reduce them. It doesn't. Why would they, they don't do all the time anyway, and they are living the life of riley in prison, although in some states taking away all those privilages and placing convicts in austre conditions has dramtically decreased the return rate, i remember watching a documentary on some US prison that housed convicts in tents, and forced them to work on a huge farm , that grew most of there food, and provided profits to pay for the facility seemed to work , as they had the lowest return rate of any US prison.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) Why would they, they don't do all the time anyway, and they are living the life of riley in prison, Yes, sleeping in an overcrowded room with eight guys is awesome. And yes, violent crime has remained stable, but it hasn't increased, and overall crime has become less serious, so what were you saying again? Edited June 24, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.