bloodyminded Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Well then it's just as fair of me to conclude that those who are saying we don't need more prisons want criminals to serve less time and be out on the street faster and earlier, right? No. My conclusion is based precisely on what has been said. Yours is based on a faulty extrapolation and wild speculation; as if anyone who has some disagreement with you must be in favour of letting rapists out on the street. !!!! You don't even believe this, but are simply lashing out. The only people advocating more prisons are the numbers people who evaluate government's intent to make criminals serve more time, and decide how many spaces will be needed. The rest of us are merely in favour of criminals serving just sentences for the crimes they've committed. If, as a consequence, that means more prisons, which it obviously does, okay. Well, you asked scornfully who was advocating for more prisons, implying they didn't exist; now you're answering your own question, admitting they exist...and somehow you think this proves your point? Edited July 22, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shwa Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) It's 1/3rd of the new costs. But there are a variety of other reasons for the new costs, primarily related to keeping prisoners in prison longer. That's right. So if the recidivism rate is low, keep them in longer. That makes no sense whatsoever. So You Want to Know the Recidivism Rate If the recidivism rate is high, I can understand, but that would essentially mean throwing money at a system of rehabilitation that is not working. But if the recidivism rate is low, chances are you can release people earlier since the chances of the re-offending is also low. So why would you want to keep people in prison longer again? Do you have a reason for this? Edited July 23, 2011 by Shwa Quote
dre Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 It's a lot cheaper to put them away than to endure the massive costs of their criminal behavior Thats really just an assumption. In some cases its probably true, but in some cases it isnt. The reality is that incarceration is extremely expensive, and for every person sitting in jail 4-8 Canadians have to work full time and pay taxes (thats assuming 100% of their taxes went to prisons). And the reality we actually CREATE a lot of these criminals through misguided policies like the war on drugs, and prohibition of soft drugs. Once these people are willing to live in an evidence based reality then Ill be a little more trusting with my money. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Scotty Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Thats really just an assumption. Stats Canada has posted its best estimate as $57 billion per year. That is the cost of crime to Canadians. That does NOT include the cost of prisons, the police, or the court system. That is the cost to you and me, which we pay in the form of damage or loss to our property, loss of time/earnings, cost of extra locks, alarms, bars on windows, etc., and the cost we pay in excess insurance fees because of theft and fraud, extra costs at stores because of shoplifting, extra... well, you get the idea. So I'm willing to spend some extra to keep more people in prison, especially the repeat offenders who simply get out to commit more crimes, then go through the system again, with expensive lawyers, judges, etc., then get out and start all over. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Building prisons accounts for 1/6th of the budget, did you actually read the article? It's 1/3rd of the new costs. But there are a variety of other reasons for the new costs, primarily related to keeping prisoners in prison longer. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
dre Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Stats Canada has posted its best estimate as $57 billion per year. That is the cost of crime to Canadians. That does NOT include the cost of prisons, the police, or the court system. That is the cost to you and me, which we pay in the form of damage or loss to our property, loss of time/earnings, cost of extra locks, alarms, bars on windows, etc., and the cost we pay in excess insurance fees because of theft and fraud, extra costs at stores because of shoplifting, extra... well, you get the idea. So I'm willing to spend some extra to keep more people in prison, especially the repeat offenders who simply get out to commit more crimes, then go through the system again, with expensive lawyers, judges, etc., then get out and start all over. So I'm willing to spend some extra to keep more people in prison, especially the repeat offenders who simply get out to commit more crimes, then go through the system again, with expensive lawyers, judges, etc., So I'm willing to spend some extra to keep more people in prison Then go cut em a check! I doubt corrections will refuse the money. But Im not interest in growing government right now. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Tilter Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) So much wrong with that, Huh? Post a cite, you'll find the truth. Yeah---- ANYONE who reads the papers & watches TV news can immediately how the crime rate is going down. read the papers from about May--- do your own research, I'm not your bitch Edited July 23, 2011 by Tilter Quote
Scotty Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Then go cut em a check! I doubt corrections will refuse the money. But Im not interest in growing government right now. Given your expressed political inclinations here you're certainly not interested in shrinking government. You believe government should be spending massive amounts of money in social safety and stabilization systems. You just don't like the idea of putting people in prison for long periods of time no matter the reasons. Too bad for you. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 No. My conclusion is based precisely on what has been said. Yours is based on a faulty extrapolation and wild speculation; as if anyone who has some disagreement with you must be in favour of letting rapists out on the street. I'm using your logic. If those calling for stronger sentencing are advocates of more prisons, then those who oppose more prisons are advocates of weaker sentencing. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Shwa Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 It's 1/3rd of the new costs. But there are a variety of other reasons for the new costs, primarily related to keeping prisoners in prison longer. That's right. So if the recidivism rate is low, keep them in longer. That makes no sense whatsoever. So You Want to Know the Recidivism Rate If the recidivism rate is high, I can understand, but that would essentially mean throwing money at a system of rehabilitation that is not working. But if the recidivism rate is low, chances are you can release people earlier since the chances of the re-offending is also low. So why would you want to keep people in prison longer again? Do you have a reason for this? Quote
TimG Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 That's right. So if the recidivism rate is low, keep them in longer. That makes no sense whatsoever.It makes lots of sense if you remember that there are 3 (three) goals which the justice system must meet: rehabilitation, deterrent and retribution. The last one is what the 'hug a rapist' crowd tends to forget. Now it is possible for reasonable people to disagree on what level of retribution is required for a credible justice system, however, it is not something that can be settled with statistics because it is basically opinion. Quote
Shwa Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 It makes lots of sense if you remember that there are 3 (three) goals which the justice system must meet: rehabilitation, deterrent and retribution. The last one is what the 'hug a rapist' crowd tends to forget. Now it is possible for reasonable people to disagree on what level of retribution is required for a credible justice system, however, it is not something that can be settled with statistics because it is basically opinion. Not if the victim is involved in the retribution process. The problem is for all those crimes that are not "hug a rapist" what do you believe then - we should keep the prisoners in longer, so they are not contributing members of society for a longer period of time just to assuage the victim's feelings? What you are basically saying is that we need to spend billions more on "basically opinion." Quote
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Not if the victim is involved in the retribution process. The problem is for all those crimes that are not "hug a rapist" what do you believe then - we should keep the prisoners in longer, so they are not contributing members of society for a longer period of time just to assuage the victim's feelings? What you are basically saying is that we need to spend billions more on "basically opinion." Tim is right that there are 3 goals that the justice system has to meet... Sadly,conservative types really only want the retribution side of things to dominate...They seem to feel that retribution will make sure the other two,rehabilitation and deterrent,will be covered. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Shwa Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Tim is right that there are 3 goals that the justice system has to meet... Sadly,conservative types really only want the retribution side of things to dominate...They seem to feel that retribution will make sure the other two,rehabilitation and deterrent,will be covered. I think is some cases, that might be true. In some cases - which are to be determined by the courts, as they already do through instruments of law, such as the dangerous offender designation. Otherwise, applied generally, it is a baffling phenomenon which BM touched on earlier by alluding to the fact that more money for prisons doesn't seem to be a problem for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation who are constantly in the news with their gripes about our social welfare system. Well... Wouldn't it make MORE sense to have these people - most of whom will not re-offend, integrated back into society making a contribution to the tax pool by working? Instead, some would see these types kept longer in prison, reducing their tax paying contribution and - to boot - burning up over $100k per year of "tax dollars" while we house and feed them, entertain them and education thenm. All because of an "opinion" based on the feelings of victimization obtained through empathy. Quote
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 I think is some cases, that might be true. In some cases - which are to be determined by the courts, as they already do through instruments of law, such as the dangerous offender designation. Otherwise, applied generally, it is a baffling phenomenon which BM touched on earlier by alluding to the fact that more money for prisons doesn't seem to be a problem for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation who are constantly in the news with their gripes about our social welfare system. Well... Wouldn't it make MORE sense to have these people - most of whom will not re-offend, integrated back into society making a contribution to the tax pool by working? Instead, some would see these types kept longer in prison, reducing their tax paying contribution and - to boot - burning up over $100k per year of "tax dollars" while we house and feed them, entertain them and education thenm. All because of an "opinion" based on the feelings of victimization obtained through empathy. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a conservative free market thinktank... If they had their druthers,I suspect they would prefer the penal system in Canada be privatized and made for profit,like some US states have... Being conservatives,they seem to have a reflexive love for crime and PUNISHMENT legislation...So,they most likely temper their free market ethos safe in the knowledge that their legislative aparatchiks are going to get "tough on crime"... And,it does make alot more sense to reintegrate people who are incarcerated back into society... You can pay on the front end or pay alot more on the back end... I'm all for victims rights and harsh sentences for those who really deserve it,but the idea of "Lock' em up and throw away the key!" is far too short sighted...At some point in time,these people are going to come out of prison and one would hope they become functioning members of society again... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
noahbody Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Wouldn't it make MORE sense to have these people - most of whom will not re-offend, integrated back into society making a contribution to the tax pool by working? Instead, some would see these types kept longer in prison, reducing their tax paying contribution and - to boot - burning up over $100k per year of "tax dollars" while we house and feed them, entertain them and education thenm. All because of an "opinion" based on the feelings of victimization obtained through empathy. A great deal of employment is generated by constructing and operating new prison. As far as the jobs of inmates, their positions will be filled by someone else if they're not self-employed. It sounds like your solution to overcrowding is to just to release prisoners even earlier. Is that right, or do you agree that we do need some new prisons to deal with the overcrowding. Also, are you currently or have you ever been a prisoner? Quote
Scotty Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 That's right. So if the recidivism rate is low, keep them in longer. That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not sure what recidivism rates have to do with things. Your link will not work, but since its apprently coming from corrections Canada I can pretty much guess what it says. It says the parole system works wonderfully, and virtually no one re-offends. Am I close? The problem is that Corrections Canada is not one of our more honest agencies. Michael Harris exposed their dishonesty many years ago in a series of articles and then a book. More recently, the Vancouver Sun pointed out just how CSC had arrived at their supposed recidivism rate. Recividism Rate Four Times Higher than Reported Basically they decided only federal prisoners count, and so anyone arrested who served time of less than two years didn't count. Also, they didn't count people who re-offended - that is, were actually caught and convicted of an offense - more than two years after release. So why would you want to keep people in prison longer again? Do you have a reason for this? To keep society safe. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Not if the victim is involved in the retribution process. The problem is for all those crimes that are not "hug a rapist" what do you believe then - we should keep the prisoners in longer, so they are not contributing members of society for a longer period of time just to assuage the victim's feelings? Let's take your average burglar. Now, he breaks into houses and robs people. This causes people enormous distress, not to mention the cost of damaged doors and windows and lost property. He does this again and again and again. Let's say he breaks into thirty or forty houses over the course of several months. Eventually he is caught for one (the solution rate for burglaries is very low). He is immediately released on bail, whereupon he goes right back and burglarizes more houses, or he is kept in jail, accumulating, under the old system, 2 or 3 for one credit for time served. After anywhere from 3 months to a year and a half, depending on whether he actually goes to trial (unlikely) or pleads out, he is sentenced to about six months. Minimum time served being 2 months. If he's been kept in jail to that point he's immediately released. If he's been out on bail robbing people, he has to serve two months or so in jail. He gets out, and immediately starts burglarizing houses again. After three or four or six months, and God knows how many burglaries, he gets caught again, and the whole process repeats, and repeats, and repeats. He probably winds up being convicted of about 10% of his actual crimes, and serves very little time. This, to your mind, is not a problem because, after all, the police-reported rate of crime is falling... Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 And,it does make alot more sense to reintegrate people who are incarcerated back into society... Cool. Contact Corrections Canada and ask them to fill your street with paroled criminals. I'm sure you'll do a great job helping them "reintegrate" into society. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Shwa Posted July 24, 2011 Report Posted July 24, 2011 A great deal of employment is generated by constructing and operating new prison. As far as the jobs of inmates, their positions will be filled by someone else if they're not self-employed. It sounds like your solution to overcrowding is to just to release prisoners even earlier. Is that right, or do you agree that we do need some new prisons to deal with the overcrowding. Also, are you currently or have you ever been a prisoner? You seem to think that the only solution to overcrowding is to build more prisons. Is that all you got? Come now, seriously, that is all you can come up with? How about alternatives to incarcertation like restorative justice? How about an efficient justice system than can process trials more quickly and not leave accused persons on dead time for 6 months or more? How about work farms or factories? Quote
Shwa Posted July 24, 2011 Report Posted July 24, 2011 I'm not sure what recidivism rates have to do with things. Your link will not work, but since its apprently coming from corrections Canada I can pretty much guess what it says. It says the parole system works wonderfully, and virtually no one re-offends. Am I close? Nope, not even close. In fact, the opening paragraph is cautionary basically saying that recidivism rates are hard to calculate overall, but can be best used in particular categories. It doesn't give an opinion about the parole system, but nice try. The problem is that Corrections Canada is not one of our more honest agencies. Michael Harris exposed their dishonesty many years ago in a series of articles and then a book. More recently, the Vancouver Sun pointed out just how CSC had arrived at their supposed recidivism rate. Right. Corrections Canada themselves are criminals. LOFL! Read the article when you can and get back to me. Recividism Rate Four Times Higher than Reported Anyone can make shit up. The Sun did an admirable job in this regard 7 years ago. Basically they decided only federal prisoners count, and so anyone arrested who served time of less than two years didn't count. Also, they didn't count people who re-offended - that is, were actually caught and convicted of an offense - more than two years after release. The report was from Corrections Canada after all. Duh Scotty. And, the report I linked to above certainly does count people returning to prison more than two years after release. To keep society safe. So let's put this all together now: You are saying that to "keep society safe" we need to build more prisons and incarcerate criminals for longer periods, all the while citing a story from the Vancouver Sun saying that the prison system isn't doing their job and, even worse, lying about the job they are doing in the first place! Funny how, now that the CPC are in government, that the Corrections Canada article on recidivism hasn't been removed from their website. According to the Sun story: "The corrections system wants to show that it is racking up impressive success rates. And to accomplish that they fudge definitions and skew statistics. It amounts to a campaign of disinformation," says Manitoba MP Vic Toews, justice critic for the federal Conservative party. Don't you find that somewhat odd? Vic Toews finally gets in a Minister of Justice and he still allows Corrections Canada to publish their outright lies and "disinformation" on their website? Quote
Shwa Posted July 24, 2011 Report Posted July 24, 2011 This, to your mind, is not a problem because, after all, the police-reported rate of crime is falling... To mind mind, the real problem here is your criminal use of cascading fantasy as some sort of means to argue a point. I mean, what is stopping the guy from just robbing people? More than likely - in many similar fear fueled fanatasies - this guy will eventually rape, murder, commit genocide and, eventually, set of a nuclear bomb that kills us all. Because in a fantasy, only you can make a difference Scotty. Only you... Quote
eyeball Posted July 24, 2011 Report Posted July 24, 2011 The only thing that needs to be said anymore about this issue is that conservatives are f&*king morons when it comes to crime although Conservatives are brilliant when it comes to keeping these stupid pinheads in a state of breathless diarrhea and chest-pains while paralyzing the opposition with it's soft on crime label. Myself, I'm sick to death of suffering these assholes gladly anymore and I suggest the Opposition take the only approach that's left given the corner it's in - time to get mean on stupid. Forget the niceties, go for the throat and tell the country that the Conservatives are just plain stupid on crime. Why? Because they're morons. It's real simple. People actually want morons running the country? Give your head a shake. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
noahbody Posted July 24, 2011 Report Posted July 24, 2011 You seem to think that the only solution to overcrowding is to build more prisons. Is that all you got? Come now, seriously, that is all you can come up with? How about alternatives to incarcertation like restorative justice? How about an efficient justice system than can process trials more quickly and not leave accused persons on dead time for 6 months or more? How about work farms or factories? I would fully support sentencing people of white collar crimes to work on road crews. But we'll never see the day. Like it or not, prisons are a necessity. If they build a few more, it should be seen as bennefiting prisoners. My own feeling is that we should be targeting gangs and gun crimes and make sure there's enough room to put those involved away for a long time. When innocent bystanders get shot in the middle of the day by gang members, it's time something was done. You didn't answer the question about you being a convict. Quote
Wilber Posted July 24, 2011 Report Posted July 24, 2011 How about alternatives to incarcertation like restorative justice? How about an efficient justice system than can process trials more quickly and not leave accused persons on dead time for 6 months or more? How about work farms or factories? It just took us twelve years to extradite someone to China. That's twice as long as it took us to fight WWII. You must be dreaming. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
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.