Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 But this could be said of anything, not just crime. There are resources available to help one investigate and possibly change one's perception. This is not a perception issue, per se. It is more of an opinion, formed by direct experience. To a Boomer, what he experienced as to petty crime when he was young is much different than today. It is a FACT that cops used to come out for home burglaries and often solved them. It is also a fact that today they don't even come out, let alone make an investigation. No perception involved here. What you would have to do is to change a Boomer's value judgement about petty crime! In other words, convince him that when his home is burgled the cops not coming out is indeed a trivial thing. His perception has been formed by his values. To change his perception you must first change those values. This might be a difficult thing to accomplish. I'd rather it were your task than mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 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... The ones who don't get caught are the ones who stop doing it. The ones who go to prison are the ones who don't stop doing it. Eventually, you see, if you keep breaking the law, you will be caught. So you are very obviously reading these "stats" ass backwards in terms of cause and effect. ironically crime as gone down as boomers age, No, in fact, it has skyrocketed. When the boomers were growing up it was extremely low compared to today. And the police-reported crime stats can be called into question by stats can victims surveys which continue to show fewer and fewer people are bothering to even report crime to police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 What you would have to do is to change a Boomer's value judgement about petty crime! In other words, convince him that when his home is burgled the cops not coming out is indeed a trivial thing. His perception has been formed by his values. To change his perception you must first change those values. Not to cause thread drift, but it's kind of the same thing with health care. People who grew up expecting to walk into an ER and be seen within minutes are angry at the thought they now must wait eight to ten hours even for a serious injury. But younger people take that as a matter of course, as routine, and so there's no outrage among them for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 This is not a perception issue, per se. It is more of an opinion, formed by direct experience. To a Boomer, what he experienced as to petty crime when he was young is much different than today. It is a FACT that cops used to come out for home burglaries and often solved them. It is also a fact that today they don't even come out, let alone make an investigation. No perception involved here. What you would have to do is to change a Boomer's value judgement about petty crime! In other words, convince him that when his home is burgled the cops not coming out is indeed a trivial thing. His perception has been formed by his values. To change his perception you must first change those values. This might be a difficult thing to accomplish. I'd rather it were your task than mine. I have had the police respond every single time I have asked them. Including shenanigans in a local park, threats to neighbours, petty crimes and potential burglaries. They have solved many neighbourhood petty crimes, including one young moron who was kicking in doors and robbing homes at Christmas time two years ago. A couple of times they have brought one of my kids home due to shenanigans. They are on regular patrol in my solidly, aging, middle class neighbourhood. You can flag them down and ask them questions. They are, for the most part, polite, professional and doing their duty. I know police officers including a neighbourhood family of them that have served locally and currently in Metro. I know homicide, sex crimes and forensic detectives - all of them hard working and doing their job under conditions I cannot fathom. Heck I even know some probation officers and justices of the peace. I met and chatted with a SWAT guy a few weeks ago. So I am not sure where you live, but I would move if I were you. Because your local conditions appear to be giving you an idea of what goes on generally and that simply isn't the case in my city. We even have a neighbourhood watch program going on around here. I suppose that is really the difference isn't it? Around here, people are involved with justice in one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 "Hug-a-thug?" That is so last century. The heat has been turned up on the rhetorical sound bytes nowadays and it is called 'hug a rapist.' Haven't you heard? You poor fatherless ghetto gang banger - you shot that other boy - you poor thing - let me give you a hug" - It's a liberal thing....They always look to what MIGHT have caused the problem but never address the current problem with anything but sympathy and empathy - maybe it should be _ I don't care how hard done you might be - killing and crimminal actions are bad...and this is why - If you can't understand that you stupid little bastard - we will add another two years to your sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 I have had the police respond every single time I have asked them. Including shenanigans in a local park, threats to neighbours, petty crimes and potential burglaries. They have solved many neighbourhood petty crimes, including one young moron who was kicking in doors and robbing homes at Christmas time two years ago. A couple of times they have brought one of my kids home due to shenanigans. They are on regular patrol in my solidly, aging, middle class neighbourhood. You can flag them down and ask them questions. They are, for the most part, polite, professional and doing their duty. I know police officers including a neighbourhood family of them that have served locally and currently in Metro. I know homicide, sex crimes and forensic detectives - all of them hard working and doing their job under conditions I cannot fathom. Heck I even know some probation officers and justices of the peace. I met and chatted with a SWAT guy a few weeks ago. So I am not sure where you live, but I would move if I were you. Because your local conditions appear to be giving you an idea of what goes on generally and that simply isn't the case in my city. We even have a neighbourhood watch program going on around here. I suppose that is really the difference isn't it? Around here, people are involved with justice in one way or another. How is this relevant? Your experience is different from that of others. Is your city the only place with good police response? Or just your neighbourhood? I wouldn't want to move if I didn't have these things nailed down. Besides, my business is based here. It would be a financial hardship to move, especially when I have only your word for it that things would be better. A better question might be, is your experience typical of most if not all neighbourhoods in Canada? Or is mine? I'm sure our politicians and police would all be more than willing to provide us with that information. Still, this is all moot. It doesn't matter if you or I agree. What matters is the perception of the large demographic made up of Boomers, which I think I've described rather accurately. As I said, you don't have to change my mind. You have to change an appreciable number of theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Not to cause thread drift, but it's kind of the same thing with health care. People who grew up expecting to walk into an ER and be seen within minutes are angry at the thought they now must wait eight to ten hours even for a serious injury. But younger people take that as a matter of course, as routine, and so there's no outrage among them for it. Exactly! It seems to be human nature that youth accepts their own situation as the universal norm. A sense of history is something that must be learned and acquired. It does not come naturally. Politicians of course love this! If they can postpone and obfuscate about an issue long enough, the people old enough to have seen things better will die off! Younger folks will have no sense that things have deteriorated, since they didn't personally experience it. I have a suspicion that this is exactly what is going on with health care today. Wait times and a lack of a family doctor are a result of not enough resources to address the needs of the Boomer demographic. If the "system" can stall for 15-20 years the problem will begin to fix itself, as Boomers die off and the population level falls. What both frustrates me and amuses me at the same time is how some posters here will try to deny an older person's direct personal experience, blow it off as merely anecdotal or even attribute it to False Memory Syndrome! You'd almost swear they were working in some politician's PR office! Either that or they believe that their own personal experience has been the way things have always been and will ever be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 And the police-reported crime stats can be called into question by stats can victims surveys which continue to show fewer and fewer people are bothering to even report crime to police. I'm actually a little leery of calling the police. I sure as hell don't want a tasering or worse on my conscience if some cop loses control. Besides which, I only obey laws that make sense or are fair. Society should thank me given that eliminates all sorts of things I could initiate a waste of societies dollars with if I felt like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Not to cause thread drift, but it's kind of the same thing with health care. People who grew up expecting to walk into an ER and be seen within minutes are angry at the thought they now must wait eight to ten hours even for a serious injury. But younger people take that as a matter of course, as routine, and so there's no outrage among them for it. hmm a month ago I walked into an full ER waiting room in one of Calgary's busiest hospitals, I went to the triage the nurse asked what my complaint was, I told her and was instantly fast tracked and in a bed being assessed by within 5 minutes...the medical people get it right 99.999% of the time we only dwell on the times it screws up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 The ones who don't get caught are the ones who stop doing it. The ones who go to prison are the ones who don't stop doing it. Eventually, you see, if you keep breaking the law, you will be caught. So you are very obviously reading these "stats" ass backwards in terms of cause and effect.prisons are schools for criminal there is no rehabilitation, it's you who have it back asswards... No, in fact, it has skyrocketed. When the boomers were growing up it was extremely low compared to today. And the police-reported crime stats can be called into question by stats can victims surveys which continue to show fewer and fewer people are bothering to even report crime to police. sorry the stats are accurate crime rate is going down your denial doesn't change that...and we never bothered to report petty crime 40-50 yrs either(yes I was alive back then too), it was pointless the likelyhood of finding the culprits was near nil even then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 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. No the problem is that I live in an evidence based reality. We face record deficits and you want to spend billions of dollars on a crackdown on crime when crime rates are the lowest they have been in modern history and still coming down... all because youre frightened after hearing some emotional stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Could it be that crime rate stats are a tad misleading,and not taking in all the info required to make an informed decision. While it is true the rates are falling.... but could demographics be playing a major factor here, i mean the average age for a criminal is 15 to 35 and that demographic is getting smaller, it only makes sense to have a drop in crime rate....So are the current stats being improperly used to gain polictical advantage, because everyone loves to use stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Now it has a life of its own: Harper’s "tough-on-crime" bills costly, counterproductive If we are to take that article seriously, then the logical conclusion is not to send people to prison because they will come out worse than when they went it, and that we shouldn't pres charges against more criminals because it's too expensive in the form of bail hearings, trials, and incarcerations. It's a painfully stupid article from a predictably politicized organization. That's literally what the argumentation boils down - sending "non-violent" criminals to jail is a bad idea because jail is "con college". Well, if it's "con college", why not reform it? She also states that since crime rates have allegedly been dropping for many years, that we shouldn't invest more in the criminal justice system. Is that really an argument we can take seriously? What's next waiting times for certain medial procedures have been reduced, so we shouldn't spend/invest anymore into the healthcare system? It's painful to see such stupidity from a self-described policy research centre, and then advanced by someone like yourself as if it's worth the metaphorical paper it's been written on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 How is this relevant? Your experience is different from that of others. Is your city the only place with good police response? Or just your neighbourhood? My anecdotes are just as powerful as your anecdotes. As I said, which you neatly ignored, one of the telling factors - perhaps - is that my community is involved with the justice system. We expect to be involved, we demand to be involved. And we get the results of that involvement. If you can't move, maybe consider getting more involved. Why not engage some police officers, form a neighbourhood watch group, get involved in your community's well-being. Because it doesn't sound like you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 What both frustrates me and amuses me at the same time is how some posters here will try to deny an older person's direct personal experience, blow it off as merely anecdotal or even attribute it to False Memory Syndrome! You'd almost swear they were working in some politician's PR office! Either that or they believe that their own personal experience has been the way things have always been and will ever be! On the one hand, people will slough off your "direct personal experience" of they way things are, all the while claiming that their "direct personal experience" is the way things are. Meanwhile, you slough off their "direct personal experience" of the way things are because it doesn't match your "direct personal experience" of the way things are. LOFL! Do you see the problem here? I wouldn't say you have False Memory Syndrome, but you definitely have Grumpy Old Man Syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) If we are to take that article seriously, then the logical conclusion is not to send people to prison because they will come out worse than when they went it, and that we shouldn't pres charges against more criminals because it's too expensive in the form of bail hearings, trials, and incarcerations. It's a painfully stupid article from a predictably politicized organization. Perhaps it is, but no less politicized than the Conservative Party of Canada and the many other toadying "think tanks" they may have churning out bullshit to fertilize their fields. But the key thought is, The new laws will actually provide less public safety, not more. Hundreds of non-violent offenders will now attend con college, learning many dubious skills. Inmates will come back to the street bitter and angry at the treatment they have received. And many more of them will be released without any supervision whatsoever. Can you answer this with your "logic?" We all know you have nailed down the whole rhetorical aspect, but do you actually have something positive to contribute to the solution to the problem? I would say you don't. That's literally what the argumentation boils down - sending "non-violent" criminals to jail is a bad idea because jail is "con college". Well, if it's "con college", why not reform it? She also states that since crime rates have allegedly been dropping for many years, that we shouldn't invest more in the criminal justice system. Is that really an argument we can take seriously? What's next waiting times for certain medial procedures have been reduced, so we shouldn't spend/invest anymore into the healthcare system? It's painful to see such stupidity from a self-described policy research centre, and then advanced by someone like yourself as if it's worth the metaphorical paper it's been written on. Oh, but it is worth it you see. Because all you can demonstrate is your grasp on simplistic rhetoric without giving a shred of evidence that you have a clue about the problem itself. So far you have demonstrated that you are a top notch pretender, and shouldn't be taken very seriously at all. The author of the article, on the other hand, has actual credentials, experience in the justice system, expertise... The Harper government should be compelled to divulge the real costsboth financial and in human miseryof what can only be described as an ideologically-driven crime agenda. The Harper government should be compelled to do so. Open up the debate, engage Canadians in this very important aspect of our society. Instead all we get is farcical rhetoric from their colourful Internet parrots. It's a shame, since I believe - at one time - Cons had the guts to do that sort of thing. Not any more. Too much of a risk of being exposed as unknowledgeable or phoney. Or both. Edited July 27, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) Thanks for reminding me of another of her stupid arguments, which was literally, "don't send criminals to jail because that'll breed bitterness and resent towards society". Seriously? Having a law degree doesn't insulate one from criticism of stupid argumentation. You're acting like her credentials are some sort of teflon coating. Edited July 27, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) Thanks for reminding me of another of her stupid arguments, which was literally, "don't send criminals to jail because that'll breed bitterness and resent towards society". Seriously? Seriously. Where does she "literally" say "don't send criminals to jail because that'll breed biterness and resent towards society." I mean, you went to all that trouble of using quotation marks, so produce the actual line where she is quoted as saying that exact thought. You can't? Then what's with the quotation marks Bob? Are you deliberately misquoting someone? Having a law degree doesn't insulate one from criticism of stupid argumentation. You're acting like her credentials are some sort of teflon coating. No I am acting like her credentials input into thoughtful dialogue as opposed to the corny bullshit you keep shilling. Seriously Bob - "stupid argumentation?" You are resorting to making shit up and putting quotation marks around them to make them look like somebody actually said what you just pulled out of your ass? Really, you are not even a convincing phoney. Dishonest yes. Convincing no. Edited July 27, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 In my view, this paragraph: "The new laws will actually provide less public safety, not more. Hundreds of non-violent offenders will now attend “con college,” learning many dubious skills. Inmates will come back to the street bitter and angry at the treatment they have received. And many more of them will be released without any supervision whatsoever." ...can be paraphrased to: "don't send criminals to jail because that'll breed bitterness and resent towards society." That's my estimation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 On the one hand, people will slough off your "direct personal experience" of they way things are, all the while claiming that their "direct personal experience" is the way things are. Meanwhile, you slough off their "direct personal experience" of the way things are because it doesn't match your "direct personal experience" of the way things are. LOFL! Do you see the problem here? I wouldn't say you have False Memory Syndrome, but you definitely have Grumpy Old Man Syndrome. Once again, you make fun of my model and ignore my points. You know, it seems obvious that you're a lawyer, or at least well plugged into the legal system. You seem exceedingly well versed in being an advocate and totally inept at the skills necessary to be a judge. I say this because what you have done here is a standard tactic for you. "Winning" is more important than arriving at the truth. JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 In my view, this paragraph: "The new laws will actually provide less public safety, not more. Hundreds of non-violent offenders will now attend “con college,” learning many dubious skills. Inmates will come back to the street bitter and angry at the treatment they have received. And many more of them will be released without any supervision whatsoever." ...can be paraphrased to: "don't send criminals to jail because that'll breed bitterness and resent towards society." That's my estimation. You didn't 'estimate' you quoted AND removed it from the context of the article. Typical all-I-got-is-rhetoric-and-nothing-more answer. Of course you ignore all those that could or should be diverted to alternative justice programs, treatments centres, modified detention facilities. Because they are all "criminals." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Once again, you make fun of my model and ignore my points. You know, it seems obvious that you're a lawyer, or at least well plugged into the legal system. You seem exceedingly well versed in being an advocate and totally inept at the skills necessary to be a judge. I say this because what you have done here is a standard tactic for you. "Winning" is more important than arriving at the truth. JMHO "JMHO" but, once again, you ignored the problem as presented and take the poor-me victimhood upon yourself. No wonder you don't think the police do anything - because even if they did - you would still take on the role of the downtrodden victim. Gimme a break Bill. The fact IS... I didn't "ignore" your point, I merely used it to show you the absurdity of such a position. And it is absurd. And even a little circular when you look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Stomp out and frustrate cocaine and crack use - educate the kids to the fact that modern pot is a drug that can effect your life and make you a loser...much like dealing with the Taliban -but home grown ones - get rid of the stuff that generates revenue for other crimes other than drug distribution and sales...we failed to destroy the opium crop in Afganistan - and we fail to persuade our youth that dope feeds crimminals. Liberal harm reduction and governmental herione shooting galleries are also bullshit - time to get rid of the parasites that feed on our young and poor..we are to liberal when it comes to the illegal distribution of all these substances - including that filth they call Oxycodone....a freind of mine served doing some jury duty regarding a murder - the culprits were young Italians who were strung our on synthetic opiates...dope is a majore stimulator of crime..no one takes it seriously - There is a coke dealer in my hood - who openly distributes the garbage - the cops know and don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Could it be that crime rate stats are a tad misleading,and not taking in all the info required to make an informed decision. While it is true the rates are falling.... but could demographics be playing a major factor here, i mean the average age for a criminal is 15 to 35 and that demographic is getting smaller, it only makes sense to have a drop in crime rate....So are the current stats being improperly used to gain polictical advantage, because everyone loves to use stats. Good question, Army Guy. I believe the article addresses it: Homicides, attempted murders, serious assaults and robberies were all down last year from the year before. Young people were accused of committing fewer offences. Even property crime was reported less frequently with reductions in both break-ins and car thefts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) ............... Edited July 27, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.