Canada's Crime Rate Hits 40 Year Low

[Wild Bill]

Sorry, but the way that Iv seen conservatives present this legislation is in the context of a "tough on crime" bill, and many of its supporters have been tossing about examples of criminals being let out too early, or sentences that were too light in support of it. In this context it makes good sense to mention that there is no "crime wave" and in fact crime is at a 40 year low.

If Harper had come to the taxpayers and said that we need more prisons because of overcrowding then people would look at that differently. But the thrust behind what they are proposing is a "tough on crime", and an "anti-crime" adgenda, and the evidence we have doesnt support spending a lot of money on those things right now. Especially when we have huge defecits, and most of the money will need to be borrowed.

Heres how harper himself describes his agenda...

"Canadians have been saying yes to our approach on cracking down on crime"

That doesnt sound like a politician thats trying to address overcrowding.

Whatever, Dr. Dre. The fact remains that there has been a strong perception out there for decades now that the Canadian system is "soft" on crime. Any successful politician deals with public persceptions. We here on MLW can argue about the validity of the perception but to a politician it doesn't matter. Any time someone comes up with rational evidence to show our system works well there will be a newspaper report of some judge somewhere making a stupid decision in sentencing. On a percentage basis stupid decisions may well not approach a significant number but it doesn't matter. Just as a Harper hater needs only one bad quote to perpetually fuel his distaste someone who believes our system is lax with criminals needs only one example for his perception.

[cybercoma]

That's all crap! You either really want to quit or you don't. Anything else is just playing mental games or excuses.

http://drugabuse.gov/scienceofaddiction/sciofaddiction.pdf

http://www.nida.nih.gov/consequences/

Drug addiction is a brain disease. Although initial drug use might be voluntary, drugs of abuse have been shown to alter gene expression and brain circuitry, which in turn affect human behavior. Once addiction develops, these brain changes interfere with an individual’s ability to make voluntary decisions, leading to compulsive drug craving, seeking and use.

According to people that actually study this stuff, you're wrong.

[Bob]

Sorry, but the way that Iv seen conservatives present this legislation is in the context of a "tough on crime" bill, and many of its supporters have been tossing about examples of criminals being let out too early, or sentences that were too light in support of it. In this context it makes good sense to mention that there is no "crime wave" and in fact crime is at a 40 year low.

If Harper had come to the taxpayers and said that we need more prisons because of overcrowding then people would look at that differently. But the thrust behind what they are proposing is a "tough on crime", and an "anti-crime" adgenda, and the evidence we have doesnt support spending a lot of money on those things right now. Especially when we have huge defecits, and most of the money will need to be borrowed.

Heres how harper himself describes his agenda...

"Canadians have been saying yes to our approach on cracking down on crime"

That doesnt sound like a politician thats trying to address overcrowding.

Why don't you provide us with the full context of that quote, considering none of us really trust your free-style editorializing?

[dre]

Whatever, Dr. Dre. The fact remains that there has been a strong perception out there for decades now that the Canadian system is "soft" on crime. Any successful politician deals with public persceptions. We here on MLW can argue about the validity of the perception but to a politician it doesn't matter. Any time someone comes up with rational evidence to show our system works well there will be a newspaper report of some judge somewhere making a stupid decision in sentencing. On a percentage basis stupid decisions may well not approach a significant number but it doesn't matter. Just as a Harper hater needs only one bad quote to perpetually fuel his distaste someone who believes our system is lax with criminals needs only one example for his perception.

On a percentage basis stupid decisions may well not approach a significant number but it doesn't matter.

No youre basically right... Reality doesnt seem to be a factor for most of these people. Theyll spend billions chasing ghosts, and theyll show up next year with their hand out wanting another 40 thousand bux from me to spend on chasing them.

Maybe its a waste of time to use statistics that prove the whole premise is objectively false. Its tough to talk someone out of what is essentially a religious belief.

[Shwa]

These people insist on acting on reactionist emotion is my problem. As evidence that new legislation is necessary they trott out worst case scenarios and point out cases where the current system has gone wrong, and take an absolutist position.

This is all just lame-brained pap. There is not "crime wave" that justifies big defecit spending on "cracking down". We already spend enough money of this stuff, and get acceptable results.

If we have an overcrowding issue, then we should look at it, and either let out some of the people that shouldnt even be there in the first place, or undertake some modest upgrades of our prisons to deal with this. If thats the case then they need to frame the question that way in the first place.

Exactly dre, it appers to be an emotionalist reaction in the face of fear stirred up for political purposes. This sort of politik is as old as prisons themselves. Fixed ideas, sometimes caused by the onset of old age. The baby boomers are starting to get a little antsy as they grow old. All those young people out there, fornicatin' and stealin'.

I think the overcrowding issue is a key issue that can be addressed without breaking the bank, but as Wilber asks - how? To use a familiar Hardner refrain - we need to see the data....

Edited July 26, 2011 by Shwa

[dre]

Why don't you provide us with the full context of that quote, considering none of us really trust your free-style editorializing?

Why dont you punch it into google. Its from a speech he made in surrey.

The point being your tried to bullshit us by using overcrowding as a justification for your dopey assessment that the OP of this thread had no merit. But in the context of the broad "crackdown on crime" that Harper is pushing it makes a whole LOT of sense to point out that crime-rates are at a 40 year low.

Frankly its hilarious to see the sheer animosity with which you people have for any kind of empirical evidence.

[Bob]

Why dont you punch it into google. Its from a speech he made in surrey.

The point being your tried to bullshit us by using overcrowding as a justification for your dopey assessment that the OP of this thread had no merit. But in the context of the broad "crackdown on crime" that Harper is pushing it makes a whole LOT of sense to point out that crime-rates are at a 40 year low.

Frankly its hilarious to see the sheer animosity with which you people have for any kind of empirical evidence.

It was probably a speech to address lax sentencing laws in Canada. You made the claim, you can back it up. If Harper is trying to sell this spending/investment as a "tough on crime" endeavour and NOT as a movement to address "overcrowding in prisons", as you're alleging, feel free to prove it.

[dre]

Exactly dre, it appers to be an emotionalist reaction in the face of fear stirred up for political purposes. This sort of politik is as old as prisons themselves. Fixed ideas, sometimes caused by the onset of old age. The baby boomers are starting to get a little antsy as they grow old. All those young people out there, fornicatin' and stealin'.

I think the overcrowding issue is a key issue that can be addressed without breaking the bank, but as Wilber asks - how? To use a familiar Hardner refrain - we need to see the data....

I think the overcrowding issue is a key issue that can be addressed without breaking the bank, but as Wilber asks - how? To use a familiar Hardner refrain - we need to see the data....

Absolutely! The overcrowding issue might be serious, and it might justify spending money on new prisons. Once theres evidence that documents the problem, and evidence that suggests the solution being proposed will FIX that problem, we should get started.

But for people here to try and use overcrowding to justify a broad set of measures that are being described even by proponents as a "crackdown on crime", and as part of an "anti crime adjenda", is outrageously dishonest.

These clowns are just backpedaling, and the very last thing they wanted to see was some real evidence on crime rates.

Its damage control time.

[Shwa]

It was probably a speech to address lax sentencing laws in Canada. You made the claim, you can back it up. If Harper is trying to sell this spending/investment as a "tough on crime" endeavour and NOT as a movement to address "overcrowding in prisons", as you're alleging, feel free to prove it.

I have 30 seconds to spare:

2006

Opposition gutting tough-on-crime legislation: Harper

"Obviously I think it's irresponsible," Harper said. "Canadians elected politicians, not just the Conservative party, to get tough on crime."

"I don't think Canadians think house arrest for break and enter or for auto theft is good enough."

Further on...

"We'll keep trying to push forward some tough-on-crime legislation, but at some point, if the opposition won't pass it, they'll have to answer to the Canadian people."

Now it has a life of its own:

Harper’s "tough-on-crime" bills costly, counterproductive

[dre]

It was probably a speech to address lax sentencing laws in Canada. You made the claim, you can back it up. If Harper is trying to sell this spending/investment as a "tough on crime" endeavour and NOT as a movement to address "overcrowding in prisons", as you're alleging, feel free to prove it.

No Bob. YOU made the claim that this was about overcrowding now YOU back it up.

Your silly assertion is ludicrous, and I wont waste another minute of my time on it. This is all based on legislation that was killed when Harper shut down parliament. It contains a whole pile of legislation that includes hundreds of amendments to the criminal code, that for the most part increase the penalties and give police new powers.

"This is a national priority," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Thursday in unveiling the package, called the Tackling Violent Crime Act, or Bill C-2. "Canadians want action on crime now, and that's what we aim to deliver."

Lemme guess. He meant to say "Canadians want action on OVERCROWDING" right?

Edited July 26, 2011 by dre

[eyeball]

Assuming there is a big shortage of prison space available for the existing need to house criminals, then this political endeavour is worthwhile.

Not in the hands of Conservatives and right-wingers in general is it worthwhile. I'd rather this technical job be left to experts and technocrats. If and I don't think it should be, done as a political endeavour then I sure as hell don't want right-wing ideologues put in charge of the job. Half the reason why is because of the moralistic bible-thumpers amongst their ilk and the other half is divided between the natural tendencies of right-wingers to be sycophantic little toadies to authority and their desire to have big corporations make a profit from incarcerating people, especially one's they don't like.

Right-wingers are just too damned mean to the point of sadistic is what it basically boils down to.

Edited July 26, 2011 by eyeball

[Bryan]

Not in the hands of Conservatives and right-wingers in general is it worthwhile. I'd rather this technical job be left to experts and technocrats. If and I don't think it should be, done as a political endeavour then I sure as hell don't want right-wing ideologues put in charge of the job. Half the reason why is because of the moralistic bible-thumpers amongst their ilk and the other half is divided between the natural tendencies of right-wingers to be sycophantic little toadies to authority and their desire to have big corporations make a profit from incarcerating people, especially one's they don't like.

Right-wingers are just too damned mean to the point of sadistic is what it basically boils down to.

With that kind of hyperbole, I think we can all see who is the ideologue here.

[Scotty]

I have no idea where you think I think that we need to be soft on crime or criminals...

But you simply refused to answer the question in this rambling diatribe about how we reintrgrate these people back into society...Because that's going to happen...

What do you imagine we do now to 'reintegrate' people into society? I really don't get what you're asking. You seem to be suggesting that if we keep a career criminal behind bars for a longer period of time, he'll have more difficulty getting back to a normal life than if we only kept him in prison for a short time. But he's a career criminal! His normal life is crime!

Unless you simply want to lock 'em up and throw away the key?

There are a lot of people we ought to do that to, to be honest. If you've established that you're nothing but a criminal, and that you have no real interest in changing, why should we ever let you out?

[Scotty]

These people insist on acting on reactionist emotion is my problem.

I think I've stated, with some clarity, both the desire for justice against those who break laws, and the economic justification for keeping career criminals behind bars longer. There's no real emotion to it.

This is all just lame-brained pap. There is not "crime wave" that justifies big defecit spending on "cracking down". We already spend enough money of this stuff, and get acceptable results.

Clearly, the majority of Canadians disagree with your 'satisfaction' at the system. Canadians have long been unhappy with the injustice and lax sentencing, and wanted something done. I recall, years ago, seeing an item where the RCMP in the west weren't even willing to bother with investigating most fraud cases simply because the sentences were so slack it wasn't worth the time and effort invested. Fraud is all around us now, and growing. You can't hire a tradesman or a mechanic without getting a recommendation because too many of them are crooks. Theft costs us tens of billions every year. You might be content with that but others are not.

If we have an overcrowding issue, then we should look at it, and either let out some of the people that shouldnt even be there in the first place, or undertake some modest upgrades of our prisons to deal with this. If thats the case then they need to frame the question that way in the first place.

So you actually don't know anything about it, but you think some 'modest upgrades' will do the work. Nice, logical approach there.

[Scotty]

Not in the hands of Conservatives and right-wingers in general is it worthwhile. I'd rather this technical job be left to experts and technocrats. If and I don't think it should be, done as a political endeavour then I sure as hell don't want right-wing ideologues put in charge of the job. Half the reason why is because of the moralistic bible-thumpers amongst their ilk and the other half is divided between the natural tendencies of right-wingers to be sycophantic little toadies to authority and their desire to have big corporations make a profit from incarcerating people, especially one's they don't like.

Right-wingers are just too damned mean to the point of sadistic is what it basically boils down to.

Another frenzied, mindless drooling rant against the right. You know, I seem to recall you used to have a brain. What happened to it? Too much pot kill too many brain cells?

[Scotty]

Exactly dre, it appers to be an emotionalist reaction in the face of fear stirred up for political purposes.

Yeah, sure, cause there's no crime and everyone is perfectly safe.

Anthony Bennett is the poster boy for the need for tougher laws - both criminal and immigration. He's been a crack addict since he got off a boat from the Caribbean, and now has 46 separate convictions for theft. There's nothing this person will ever do in his life other than steal from others. Why shouldn't he be locked up permanently? It'd be less expensive to society, especially given we already pay for his food, clothing and shelter through welfare.

And I recall reading of the acquittal of the shopkeeper who arrested him, where his lawyer pointed out that there were three separate thefts from that store just the previous day. A certain kind of 'person' feels perfectly at ease stealing anything and everything they can when they know there's such lax sentencing. Send them up north to a coal mine or something. Make them break rocks or starve. Maybe they'll come back and decide theft, burglary, mugging, or whatever, isn't worth the risk.

[Wild Bill]

http://drugabuse.gov/scienceofaddiction/sciofaddiction.pdf

http://www.nida.nih.gov/consequences/

According to people that actually study this stuff, you're wrong.

I was speaking from my own direct personal experience. I will allow there is some physical component but I stand by my point that most of it is simply rationalizing and mind games used as excuses to not buckle down and do it!

I suspect that what organizations like those in your links are really trying to establish is "you can't do it without US!"

Everything has to be certified and accredited these days. No one seems to have the initiative to just learn or do something on their own. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that few people buy any textbooks in their lives once they leave school! They simply stop learning or doing anything on their own.

[Scotty]

Absolutely! The overcrowding issue might be serious, and it might justify spending money on new prisons. Once theres evidence that documents the problem, and evidence that suggests the solution being proposed will FIX that problem, we should get started.

I'm not sure what gives you the idea that this hasn't already been done, but I think we can safely assume it has, else we wouldn't be building new prisons.

But for people here to try and use overcrowding to justify a broad set of measures that are being described even by proponents as a "crackdown on crime", and as part of an "anti crime adjenda", is outrageously dishonest.

You seem to be helplessly confused here. Prison overcrowding is the ONLY reason you build new prisons. Some of that prison overcrowding has been around for a long time. Some of it is anticipated in light of the government stiffening sentencing. So the need to build prisons is self-evident.

What you're really whining about is the crackdown on crime. You don't believe criminals should be put away for a long time for some reason. Maybe you ARE a criminal. Maybe you have criminals who are relatives. Maybe you just utterly lack empathy for victims and have no idea of the damages crime does. I don't know. But you're lost on this weird red herring about prison building.

These clowns are just backpedaling, and the very last thing they wanted to see was some real evidence on crime rates.

And again, what has this utterly irrelevant whining got to do with the number of people in prisons?

If you tell me crime fell by 99% last month, and I believe it, that still is not going to make me want to go easy on the people who commit crimes and hurt people.

[Wild Bill]

Exactly dre, it appers to be an emotionalist reaction in the face of fear stirred up for political purposes. This sort of politik is as old as prisons themselves. Fixed ideas, sometimes caused by the onset of old age. The baby boomers are starting to get a little antsy as they grow old. All those young people out there, fornicatin' and stealin'.

I think the overcrowding issue is a key issue that can be addressed without breaking the bank, but as Wilber asks - how? To use a familiar Hardner refrain - we need to see the data....

As one of those Boomers, I should point out that it is easy to see how we get the perception that the system has gotten progressively softer on crime.

When I was a lad, our home got burgled. Cops came out, did an investigation and made a report. Within a few days they caught some young men and charged them with a number of such crimes in the neighbourhood. From what I remember they received a few months of jail time. We never had another incident.

Years later, my car was burgled overnight in my driveway. This was the mid 80's. An officer came out, made a report and gave me a report number to give my insurance company. I never heard or saw anything about the incident again.

In the 90's, our home was broken into and we were robbed. No cop came out. We just got a report number over the phone! Over the next few months we heard from talking with our neighbours that there was a raft of burglaries going on. The kids from the local elementary school all knew who was doing it. There was a young lad "with problems" doing the crimes, basically just "smash and grabs" by breaking down a door, racing through the house checking bedrooms for jewelry and taking only such, along with any loose cash and anything small enough to be easily carried. One old woman lost $20,000 of jewelry, which was never recovered. Insured, fortunately, but that doesn't cover the emotional and sentimental portion of the losses.

Ironically, this young JD committed most of his crimes on the days he was expelled from school!

Anyhow, eventually we all decided as a group to start bugging the hell out of the police and our local councilor until they couldn't stand it anymore and finally starting patrolling the neighbourhood. They caught the little bugger. He received additional probation to the probation he was already serving! When we in the neighbourhood heard that a number of us went out and got big dogs.

There seems to be a cultural difference here between the generations. To Boomers, home breakins are serious crimes. To the modern generation, they are trivial and not worth any effort.

I realize that as a society we have only so much resources to spend and that high dollar frauds and crimes of assault and violence should take priority. I'm simply putting this forward as a possible factor in why there is a perception that the system is soft on crime. The average person, especially a Boomer, doesn't make fine distinctions in what he perceives. To him or her, it's all part of a general perception, fueled by direct personal experience with petty crime that becomes associated with all crime in general.

[eyeball]

Another frenzied, mindless drooling rant against the right. You know, I seem to recall you used to have a brain. What happened to it? Too much pot kill too many brain cells?

No, my willingness to suffer sphincters gladly is clearly suffering. I need better reasons why I should.

[Shwa]

Yeah, sure, cause there's no crime and everyone is perfectly safe.

Another emotion driven response.

Anthony Bennett is the poster boy for the need for tougher laws - both criminal and immigration. He's been a crack addict since he got off a boat from the Caribbean, and now has 46 separate convictions for theft. There's nothing this person will ever do in his life other than steal from others. Why shouldn't he be locked up permanently? It'd be less expensive to society, especially given we already pay for his food, clothing and shelter through welfare.

And I recall reading of the acquittal of the shopkeeper who arrested him, where his lawyer pointed out that there were three separate thefts from that store just the previous day. A certain kind of 'person' feels perfectly at ease stealing anything and everything they can when they know there's such lax sentencing. Send them up north to a coal mine or something. Make them break rocks or starve. Maybe they'll come back and decide theft, burglary, mugging, or whatever, isn't worth the risk.

You see? Send them up north to a coal mine or something. Now we are getting closer. And while he is mining coal, or trees or cleaning dithches, whatever it is - a work camp - he will be getting paid. And while he is getting paid, he will have the cost of his crimes deducted, including any reparations to the victim. He will then have to pay for his clothing out of his pay with the exception of basic need work issue.

That could be a start. As harsh as that sounds, I believe work camps can be good things. Then again, I think the hard timers should be house in a prison in the Arctic with no cells and no shoes.

If ya don't got the time, don't do the crime.

[Shwa]

I realize that as a society we have only so much resources to spend and that high dollar frauds and crimes of assault and violence should take priority. I'm simply putting this forward as a possible factor in why there is a perception that the system is soft on crime. The average person, especially a Boomer, doesn't make fine distinctions in what he perceives. To him or her, it's all part of a general perception, fueled by direct personal experience with petty crime that becomes associated with all crime in general.

But this could be said of anything, not just crime. There are resources available to help one investigate and possibly change one's perception.

[bush_cheney2004]

...There seems to be a cultural difference here between the generations. To Boomers, home breakins are serious crimes. To the modern generation, they are trivial and not worth any effort....

I think you are spot on with this....the notion of respecting private property got lost somewhere along the line. I caught two teenage perps burglarizing a neighbours car in his driveway last weekend at 2:30AM. The cops said it was his fault for not locking the door!

[wyly]

the truth about crime and in the past is crime pays few get caught, any anecdotal evidence that claims cops were better in apprehending criminals the past is crap and this comes from my cop buddy of 40ys...I've been victimized by vandalism and burglaries in the 60's and no one was apprehended and I've had happen this year(twice) with the same results...it's pointless increasing incarceration for petty crimes that are not solvable unless the criminal is caught in the act or with the stolen goods...

stats support that those young adults who are caught and imprisoned tend to repeat their lifestyle those who are never caught mature into law abiding citizens, so prisons appear to re enforce criminal behaviour rather than eliminate it...

ironically crime as gone down as boomers age, the stats would indicate it was mostly boomers committing the crimes but they're mellowing with age and dying off ...

Edited July 26, 2011 by wyly

[Wilber]

Please explain... who would you like to see in charge of such a review? Royal Commission perhaps?

You explain, it's your idea. I wouldn't be asking Corrections if I wanted to know if Corrections is doing a good job and I wouldn't be asking a bunch of judges and lawyers if I wanted to know if the legal system was doing a good job.