Lax sentencing for criminals

[Molly]

That you are offended by the statement has no actual impact on its truthfulness.

Likewise, its offensiveness provides no testament at all to its veracity, but tells a great deal about the character of the person who wrote it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Molly

[dre]

You are correct. That is why the law needs to be changed. The moment you make the decision to walk out of the door with a gun that should be considered premeditation. Anyone who dies because of that should bring automatic first degree murder charges and convictions.

The moment you make the decision to walk out of the door with a gun that should be considered premeditation.

Ouch! Thats gonna put a damper on my fall hunting trips! Luckily emotional reactionists dont write public policy!... Hmmmm wait...

[PIK]

Ouch! Thats gonna put a damper on my fall hunting trips! Luckily emotional reactionists dont write public policy!... Hmmmm wait...

And make sure that deer is dead, no lawsuits that way.

[guyser]

I've seen cases where a gun was fired at a victim, the victim was chased, got away, found again hours later and shot again, and the crown still couldn't convict of attempted murder. The law really is written by incompetants and bleeding heart liberals.

Sure would like to see 'those cases' .

The law is written by learned men and women who generally understand the law of unintended consequences and not as you opine.

[dre]

Sure would like to see 'those cases' .

The law is written by learned men and women who generally understand the law of unintended consequences and not as you opine.

Well thats the whole point... you find a few extreme and isolated incidents... even make up some that dont exist! And then you try to use them as a reason to overhaul the system, which for the most part works pretty well.

Classic emotionalism, reactionism, and appeal to anecdotes.

[RNG]

Sure would like to see 'those cases' .

The law is written by learned men and women who generally understand the law of unintended consequences and not as you opine.

No, it's written by politicians. And historically, mostly Liberal politicians.

[Molly]

No, it's written by politicians. And historically, mostly Liberal politicians.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004572

I could say something snarky about it apparently being done mostly by learned people and large-c Conservative politicians, because Harper and Mulroney seem to share that same determination to make sure no one with any actual expertise gets near the process...

..but I really just mean to say that even most politicians recognize their limitations, and take lawmaking seriously. They don't just sputter out a bunch of blind-ignorant mishmash blather and call it law to be imposed on an unsuspecting public.

[RNG]

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004572

I could say something snarky about it apparently being done mostly by learned people and large-c Conservative politicians, because Harper and Mulroney seem to share that same determination to make sure no one with any actual expertise gets near the process...

..but I really just mean to say that even most politicians recognize their limitations, and take lawmaking seriously. They don't just sputter out a bunch of blind-ignorant mishmash blather and call it law to be imposed on an unsuspecting public.

I'm a strong (small c) conservative. In fact a libertarian by the American definition, but just look at Harper's "tough on crime" bullshit. QED.

[dre]

No, it's written by politicians. And historically, mostly Liberal politicians.

Actually most of it comes from British common law. But its really more about common sense than it is liberal/conservative. Various attempts at "crackin down and gettin tough" have for the most part been objective statistical failures, that cost an awfull lot of money. Like the "war on terror", the "war on drugs" etc.

The reality is that Canada's laws have made it one of the safest countries in the world. And the other reality is we are headed for a time of austerity. We should be shrinking and streamlining the criminal justice system. It takes the total taxes collected from 8 full time workers to keep one person in jail, and I dont want to pay more money to feel more safe. I feel plenty safe already. Id actually like to pay a little less money and be a little less safe.

Now these abject retards are going to start introducing mandatory minimums for things like growing a 1/2 dozen pot plants in your back yard. And their gonna come whining to me for money yet again.

Edited June 30, 2011 by dre

[RNG]

The reality is that Canada's laws have made it one of the safest countries in the world.

I agree. I have had the opportunity to work "all over the world", to overstate it somewhat. There are places with a better climate, there are richer places, but there is not one that I would sooner live in than Canada. But that doesn't mean it can't be better here.

[dre]

I agree. I have had the opportunity to work "all over the world", to overstate it somewhat. There are places with a better climate, there are richer places, but there is not one that I would sooner live in than Canada. But that doesn't mean it can't be better here.

It can be better. We should stop overcriminalization. Thats the number one problem with our justice system. Too much time and money is wasted enforcing laws the majority of the population doesnt even support.

You can get caught assualting your spouse a dozen times without seeing the inside of a jail cell, but soon youll be spending a year there because of soft drug convictions.

These people dont know if they are coming or going. The same folks that are morally outraged about all the crime are the same ones closing down courthouses and firing prosecutors. I have an anecdote of my own... A close friend runs a successfull criminal defense practice and more than 3/4 of his work involves drugs or prostitution.

[Molly]

One last nitpick for the road:

It takes the total taxes collected from 8 full time workers to keep one person in jail, and I dont want to pay more money to feel more safe. I feel plenty safe already. Id actually like to pay a little less money and be a little less safe.

Now these abject retards are going to start introducing mandatory minimums for things like growing a 1/2 dozen pot plants in your back yard. And their gonna come whining to me for money yet again.

I dispute the notion that longer sentences make us (feel) more safe. When discipline/consequence crosses the line into gratuitous abuse, it causes more harm than it cures. Not only does the criminal become victim, but the criminal becomes more confirmed criminal, too, from 'curable' to 'not curable'... so we face both the danger of being victimized by our own laws ((Mandatory minimums guarantee more miscarriages of justice.), but damage from criminal behaviour is likely to be increased, too.

[eyeball]

I've seen cases where a gun was fired at a victim, the victim was chased, got away, found again hours later and shot again, and the crown still couldn't convict of attempted murder. The law really is written by incompetants and bleeding heart liberals.

So if the bleeding hearts are the liberals it stands to reason the conservatives are the incompetents. I mean, the Crown has been writing the law for well over a hundred years now right?

Now the incompetents are poised to build a slew of new prisons and broaden the criminal code.

[dre]

One last nitpick for the road:

I dispute the notion that longer sentences make us (feel) more safe. When discipline/consequence crosses the line into gratuitous abuse, it causes more harm than it cures. Not only does the criminal become victim, but the criminal becomes more confirmed criminal, too, from 'curable' to 'not curable'... so we face both the danger of being victimized by our own laws ((Mandatory minimums guarantee more miscarriages of justice.), but damage from criminal behaviour is likely to be increased, too.

I agree with all that.

But the most important thing to me is that we make policy based on empirical evidence and statistics, not emotion, and that we dont get too mired in "conventional wisdom".

We should look into changing the way our system works so that we can try things out on a limited basis.

For example... If the contention is that stiff sentences will reduce various crimes... then try it! Enlist a few willing cities, or a willing province and put the idea on trial with a 3 year sunset clause. If it doesnt work roll it back. If the consensus is that legalizing soft drugs will save money and reduce crime related to having a huge black market economy without significantly increasing use then TRY IT... in a few willing cities or a province with a sunset clause.

Then we would have real empirical evidence and a body of useful data that we can mine.

Instead we have a big ideological fight about it, and whoever wins makes a decision for ALL of us thats very hard to undo... thats at least partially wrong and flawed most of the time whether liberals or conservatives are in charge.

They dont even ATTEMPT to talk to us like adults. The government wants to "get tough on crime", and introduce mandatory sentencing for a number of crimes. Maybe Im just not paying attention but did they even TRY to make a case for that based on any real study of the statistics available from diferent approaches tried around the world?

If people think we need to "get tough on crime" then they should prove it. Am I supposed to believe that after thousands of years of humans trying different approaches to crime/punishment/justice that the best they have for me is some emotional anecdotes and stories where our system went wrong? What other countries/societies/civilizations have gotten better results than we get NOW by "gettin' tough on crime"?

[Molly]

But the most important thing to me is that we make policy based on empirical evidence and statistics, not emotion, and that we dont get too mired in "conventional wisdom".

....

They dont even ATTEMPT to talk to us like adults.

Aye and amen to that first part, but the second part... ech, here I am about to come off as a rabid Liberal partisan again, but that perception misrepresents cause and effect...

I agree that statement is certainly true of the Conservatives, (and truth be told, it has often enough been true of the NDP, too), but that 'conventional wisdom' equivalency that since Conservatives do it, then all politicians (specifically, the LPC politicians) must do it too is not so true in this case-- and again, I refer you to the Law Reform Commission as evidence that some parties/partisans prefer evidence-based decision-making, and discussion of the various subjects on something more respectful than 'Animal Farm' style propagandizing.

I say that as someone who has participated in the lawmaking process as Joe Civilian (for the most part, as a cardholding _Progressive Conservative, too), through a wide variety of lobbying methods, but for this discussion, several times through commissions that existed exactly in order to ask for some adult and expert input (admittedly with a dash of manipulative switcheroo: pretend to ask/restrict evidence to force the conclusion you want/blame the result on the committee of civilians) (That switcheroo was Roy Romanow's signature move.) .

The fact that Liberals habitually create and fund such research/recommendation bodies (and enact many of the proposals that are their fruit) while Conservatives remove and defund them, and then offer us sloganeering, 'class' bigotry and outright misrepresentations of fact in support of bad, 'conventional wisdom'-based lawmaking... 'a pox on all their houses' is not appropriate.

[Scotty]

Ouch! Thats gonna put a damper on my fall hunting trips! Luckily emotional reactionists dont write public policy!... Hmmmm wait...

You do your hunting at a night club, do you, and carry a hand gun in the back of your belt in case you see a deer flying past?

[Scotty]

Sure would like to see 'those cases' .

The law is written by learned men and women who generally understand the law of unintended consequences and not as you opine.

And here I thought you didn't have a sense of humour!

:lol:

[Scotty]

Actually most of it comes from British common law. But its really more about common sense than it is liberal/conservative.

You fire a gun at someone across the street and that's not proof of attempted murder. How exactly is this common sense? You stab someone in the chest or belly but that's not proof of attempted murder either.

Common sense has little to do with the way laws are written in Canada.

The reality is that Canada's laws have made it one of the safest countries in the world

.

You have *any* evidence to support that, whatsoever?

We are a wealthy western country. If you compare us to Zimbabwe or Russia then sure, we're safe. Compared to other wealthy, western nations, we appear to have higher rates of violence and murder than most.

What safety we have as individuals is far more dependent on the cohesion of our society and its wealth than the laws written by incompetent political hacks over the years, and their poor enforcement by bleeding heart judges and prison authorities, not to mention highly undermanned and under-trained police forces.

[Scotty]

It can be better. We should stop overcriminalization. Thats the number one problem with our justice system. Too much time and money is wasted enforcing laws the majority of the population doesnt even support.

You can get caught assualting your spouse a dozen times without seeing the inside of a jail cell, but soon youll be spending a year there because of soft drug convictions.

You know, it gets really annoying how often any discussion of crime, even involving violent crime winds up getting taken off the rails by potheads who obsess on the Tories' new anti-drug laws.

[Scotty]

So if the bleeding hearts are the liberals it stands to reason the conservatives are the incompetents. I mean, the Crown has been writing the law for well over a hundred years now right?

I don't think you reason very well. The law has been written by liberals and largely interpreted by liberal judges for most of the last generation.

[Scotty]

I agree that statement is certainly true of the Conservatives, (and truth be told, it has often enough been true of the NDP, too), but that 'conventional wisdom' equivalency that since Conservatives do it, then all politicians (specifically, the LPC politicians) must do it too is not so true in this case-- and again, I refer you to the Law Reform Commission as evidence that some parties/partisans prefer evidence-based decision-making, and discussion of the various subjects on something more respectful than 'Animal Farm' style propagandizing.

Your odd belief that the Liberals were so determined to operate only on the evidence of science and just study is charming but laughably naive. Do you really have no concept of how you do these things in the big world? You simply stock your committee or commission with the proper people, ensure that those who are given leave to testify are, for the most part, favourable to the outcome you want, and then presto, you have justification for what you wanted to do to begin with. This works especially well when you have a media which is largely sympathetic to your ideological viewpoints.

The Tories are just not really bothering with the expensive and time-consuming showcase for the masses, and instead cutting to the chase.

And hopefully, there'll be more and tougher laws on violence, now that they're the majority, laws which greatly expand definitions to encompass obvious actions and don't require the criminal actually testify about his intent.

Because when you shoot guns at people or stab them, your intent is patently clear from the outset.

[Molly]

You know, it gets really annoying how often any discussion of crime, even involving violent crime winds up getting taken off the rails by potheads who obsess on the Tories' new anti-drug laws.

Take that one up with the Tories. If they weren't engaging in such flagrant, vivid stupidity, no one would have it to obsess over.

[Molly]

Do you really have no concept of how you do these things in the big world?

Well, actually, I was the one who pointed out that 'Romanow gambit' in the very post you quoted. Glad you could remember it long enough to offer it back in reply... but it's existence excuses neither the Tory bread and circuses lawmaking nor your own nasty and unrealistic damfoolery.

[yarg]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010433/More-150-rapists-freed-early-prison-went-rape-again.html

If only they been let out even earlier maybe they wouldn't have felt so hard done by.

Edited July 2, 2011 by yarg

[Wild Bill]

Now these abject retards are going to start introducing mandatory minimums for things like growing a 1/2 dozen pot plants in your back yard. And their gonna come whining to me for money yet again.

I agree, Dre! and 'abject retards' sadly is a perfect description!

I mean, I agree with almost everything else the Tories are doing to address the problems in the criminal system. I just can't understand why they're taking the cheap shot of making a few marijuana plants such a big target. Sure, they'll get a lot more arrests and longer convictions but what will they REALLY achieve?

They will make more people into criminals over an issue that has tepid popular support, at best. It can so easily boomerang to make the Tories look like "Deputy Dawgs" a la that movie, "Reefer Madness". It will be like what happened to that lady mayor in Toronto, the one before Miller, that got her knickers in a twist over the idea of a band with the name "Bare Naked Ladies" playing before City Hall, or Kissinger when in the ultimate expression of having absolutely no commonality with the American common man got upset at the idea of a "Rock Band" like "THE BEACH BOYS" play at a White House function.

Worse yet, taking the cheap shot at weed will divert resources from attacking REAL criminals! There won't be enough money to catch robbers and murderers if the Tories are paying for cops to sneak into backyards at night, looking for a half a dozen pot plants! This is a CLASSIC political tactic! It makes it look like they're doing something about big problems when in actual fact they're pissing around with the little ones, making a lot of noise and sadly, fooling a lot of naive voters.

Damn, Harper is looking more and more like Mulroney every day! Mulroney, the man who almost single-handedly sparked the rise of the Reform Party and brought the once proud Tory Party down to 2 seats!

Once again, I say that Harper is playing a dangerous game. It's one thing to successfully leave a large chunk of his support backing him because they have no other alternative but if he keeps rubbing salt in the wound he might very well trigger the whole chain of events all over again!

If you keep kicking a dog you're a fool to be surprised if it bites you!