Shwa Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Got a feeling it wouldn't matter how many "exceptions" I provided. Well that is the problem right there isn't it? Your "feeling" about something. Do you often argue a point with a feeling? I get a sense you do. LOL! Quote
Wilber Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Well that is the problem right there isn't it? Your "feeling" about something. Do you often argue a point with a feeling? I get a sense you do. LOL! They weren't "feelings", they happened. Fact is, if someone can afford the legal help, it is incredibly difficult to get rid of them. Easier targets, not so much. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Oleg Bach Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Corrections Canada are not in the buisness of correcting - They have been out of the correction buisness for a while now. They are in the buisness of containment...and even that is poorly done...There was a time when jails were correctional - and you would have fatherly Scottish guards who actually took care of prisoners - knowing society was not fair and many were in prisons and jails because of circumstance...We also had a system that was very colonial for the most part - and saddling young men with crimminal records was their primary agenda - some sort of class control system. I remember in the old court houses of Ontario the Crowns and lawyers would approach young men in trouble and say "Plead guilty - they will go easier on you" - I wonder how many innocent people pleaded in this manner and now are offically crimminals? Quote
Shwa Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 They weren't "feelings", they happened. Fact is, if someone can afford the legal help, it is incredibly difficult to get rid of them. Easier targets, not so much. So what you have proven is that the legal system needs some adjustment, not that such adjustments are impossible. Quote
Wilber Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 So what you have proven is that the legal system needs some adjustment, not that such adjustments are impossible. You tell me. When you consider how our system is now weighed down by case law and Charter interpretations, what do you think? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Shwa Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 You tell me. When you consider how our system is now weighed down by case law and Charter interpretations, what do you think? I think there must be another way and would gladly pay for research to find it. Wouldn't you? Quote
Scotty Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Sure they do. I can give a couple of examples. Alcoholics who committed assault while drunk, Drug addicts, and people who can't control their emotions and harmed someone in the heat of passion. People who act 'under the influence' have an entirely different problem. They don't necessarily need rehabilitation. They need treatment for their addiction, and believe me, I'm all in favour of them getting it. 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
Bob Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Show me exactly where I said we need less prisons? Either way, your OP displays a lack of ability to think lucidly. Your implication is clear - crime is down, so why are we building more prisons? It's a stupid position, you might as well admit it. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Scotty Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 No, I wouldn't expect you to explain something to which you have no clue and lookee here, you oblige. Now if only you could learn from my example. Why would you want to keep people in jail longer when the recidivisim rate is rather low? Keeping people - who likely won't re-offend - in jail longer only leads to increased costs of incarceration and overcrowding. To begin with, your belief that their self-admitted 25% failure rate is "low" is not shared by everyone. Add in that they admit right in that cite that they're only talking about those returned to federal custody. They don't count those arrested and then sentenced to less than 2 years in prison. Which is what the Vancouver Sun said. Most of the rest of us would say that if you're arrested and convicted for a crime then you've failed your parole. Add in that, as I said several posts ago, this whole line of discussion is really beside the point. What Canadians want is for criminals to be kept in prison as long as they're a danger to the citizenry at large. Clearly that means some assessment of their likelihood to re-offend, and not all criminals do. But those who do re-offend will continue to do so, likely for a long period of time. Canadians want such people kept in prison longer. Clearly, you don't, but then, you're clearly not too bright. And in addition to that, of course, Canadians want just punishment for a given offense. They don't like the idea of people committing a great deal of damage, be it massive fraud or violence, and getting a slap on the wrist. And telling them the statistics about crime rates or recidivism is really rather pointless. Incidentally, Canadians' collective interest in fairness in sentencing also would not be made happy by heavy-handed punishments which are seen as undeserved. The fact no one seems to be worried much about such things happening (except for potheads) seems to me to be an indication that virtually no one (except the potheads) thinks existing punishment is too harsh. 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
eyeball Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) People who act 'under the influence' have an entirely different problem. They don't necessarily need rehabilitation. They need treatment for their addiction, and believe me, I'm all in favour of them getting it. What about the manufacturers, distributors and dealers who prey on these poor addicted souls? You figure they should continue to get the kind of official respect that Royal crests and seals convey or the execution you prescribe for all other dope dealers? Exactly what kind of message are you and your beloved State trying to send anyway? I don't get it. Edited July 25, 2011 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 When did overcrowding suddenly become an issue? About 30 years ago Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Shwa Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Now if only you could learn from my example. Well at least you admit to it and that is the first step in becoming aware. To begin with, your belief that their self-admitted 25% failure rate is "low" is not shared by everyone. So what? They are the ones charged with the responsibility and have therefore developed the research. When "everyone" can come up with something better - and in sufficient force -I am sure they will look into it. Add in that they admit right in that cite that they're only talking about those returned to federal custody. Because Corrections Canada is a... wait for it... federal institution. They don't count those arrested and then sentenced to less than 2 years in prison. Which is what the Vancouver Sun said. Most of the rest of us would say that if you're arrested and convicted for a crime then you've failed your parole. Most of the rest of us would say that less than 2 years in prison is for minor crimes. The major stuff - the real, fearsome, horrifying stuff that counts the most - is federal jurisdiction. Add in that, as I said several posts ago, this whole line of discussion is really beside the point. What Canadians want is for criminals to be kept in prison as long as they're a danger to the citizenry at large. Clearly that means some assessment of their likelihood to re-offend, and not all criminals do. But those who do re-offend will continue to do so, likely for a long period of time. So let's take a look at this statement, regardless of it's substantiation. You say that "Canadian want" for criminals to be kept in as long as they are a danger. But then you say this: And telling them the statistics about crime rates or recidivism is really rather pointless. Criminals who don't re-offend are not dangerous. Do you get that? Do you actually understand that linkage between your fearful thought and how recidivism can help you through those teeth gnashing tough times? Canadians want such people kept in prison longer. Clearly, you don't, but then, you're clearly not too bright. So you are saying 75% of the population wants longer criminal sentences for every single conviction? Substatiate that please. Go ahead, show me ample evidence about what "Canadians want." If you can't, then you are not too bright. Well, its more evidence that you are not too swift at any rate. And in addition to that, of course, Canadians want just punishment for a given offense. They don't like the idea of people committing a great deal of damage, be it massive fraud or violence, and getting a slap on the wrist. And you can prove this... how? Let me guess: a Fraser Insitute study right? Come on now, bring it on. Incidentally, Canadians' collective interest in fairness in sentencing also would not be made happy by heavy-handed punishments which are seen as undeserved. The fact no one seems to be worried much about such things happening (except for potheads) seems to me to be an indication that virtually no one (except the potheads) thinks existing punishment is too harsh. Wow, Scotty, I grossly underestimated you. You now have your pulse on the "collective interest" of Canadians. WOW! That's like superpowers or something. Surely, with such astute insight, you should be able to lead our country or at least win a seat in a local election... you have more power than the CBC! Quote
Scotty Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 What about the manufacturers, distributors and dealers who prey on these poor addicted souls? You figure they should continue to get the kind of official respect that Royal crests and seals convey or the execution you prescribe for all other dope dealers? Exactly what kind of message are you and your beloved State trying to send anyway? I don't get it. I didn't advocate execution for drug dealers. I said, actually, if you go back and read, that a war doesn't work if there are half measures. If you're going to win a war, you go all out, and in light of that, yes, executing drug dealers and smugglers would be a very good idea - nor would I really cry over that given the nature of what kind of people we're speaking of. I didn't actually say I was in favour of the 'war on drugs'. For the most part, my philosophy is that it's your own responsibility if you get addicted to something. I don't blame beer commercials because someone became an alcoholic any more than I blame McDonalds for someone getting fat. I blame the individual himself. Most people can drink responsibly without ever being poorly influenced. How many people can snort crack responsibly without their lives being turned to shit? 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 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Well at least you admit to it and that is the first step in becoming aware. That still puts me considerably further ahead than you. Because Corrections Canada is a... wait for it... federal institution. You say that as if you believe that has some meaning. I wonder why. A criminal is a criminal. If you break the law, you have failed your parole. Most of the rest of us would say that less than 2 years in prison is for minor crimes. The major stuff - the real, fearsome, horrifying stuff that counts the most - is federal jurisdiction. The dumb ones might think that, but given the slack sentences Canada's judges hand out you can easily get sent to a provincial pen for vicious, brutal assaults, including sexual assaults, weapons offenses, armed robbery, etc.. But that isn't really the point. You might not consider burglary or fraud or arson to be particularly dangerous, but they represent an enormous burden of cost to Canadians. Even shoplifting, particularly by professionals, represents a huge loss of money to retail outlets which in turn causes hikes in prices to the rest of us. As I said earlier, that cost is estimated at $57 billion per year. Repeat offenders are a particularly expensive part of that, and locking them up for longer is both economically sensible and just. As an example, I would assign a burglar on his first conviction to community service. Second conviction, six months in prison. Third conviction, one year. Fourth conviction, two years. Fifth conviction, five years. Sixth conviction, ten years. Seventh, twenty years... That's the sort of escalation we should see with all criminal sentencing, because once a criminal has established that this is, in effect, their job, they represent a continuing danger and should be locked away to safeguard the public, forever, if necessary. Criminals who don't re-offend are not dangerous. Do you get that? They still need to serve a sentence which is in keeping with the severity of their crime. A man who kills his children probably isn't in much danger to re-offend. By your way of thinking he should get a weaker sentence, then. Have I got that right? Wow, Scotty, I grossly underestimated you. You now have your pulse on the "collective interest" of Canadians. WOW! That's like superpowers or something. Surely, with such astute insight, you should be able to lead our country or at least win a seat in a local election... you have more power than the CBC! It's not that, it's just that I'm smarter than you. I don't take much pride in that, however. I think most people could make the same claim. 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 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 That still puts me considerably further ahead than you. Yep, it sure does. You are far more deluded that I could ever hope to be. You say that as if you believe that has some meaning. I wonder why. A criminal is a criminal. If you break the law, you have failed your parole. No, of course Scotty. You are right here. I mean, what possible meaning could statistics pertaining to the mandate and responsibilities of a federal department possibly have. They are meaningless. I am not ever sure why they report in the first place. The dumb ones might think that, but given the slack sentences Canada's judges hand out you can easily get sent to a provincial pen for vicious, brutal assaults, including sexual assaults, weapons offenses, armed robbery, etc.. But that isn't really the point. You might not consider burglary or fraud or arson to be particularly dangerous, but they represent an enormous burden of cost to Canadians. Even shoplifting, particularly by professionals, represents a huge loss of money to retail outlets which in turn causes hikes in prices to the rest of us. As I said earlier, that cost is estimated at $57 billion per year. Repeat offenders are a particularly expensive part of that, and locking them up for longer is both economically sensible and just. So to allay the costs of crime to society, add more costs to society by giving longer prison sentences. Because that equation is "economically sensible." As an example, I would assign a burglar on his first conviction to community service. Second conviction, six months in prison. Third conviction, one year. Fourth conviction, two years. Fifth conviction, five years. Sixth conviction, ten years. Seventh, twenty years...That's the sort of escalation we should see with all criminal sentencing, because once a criminal has established that this is, in effect, their job, they represent a continuing danger and should be locked away to safeguard the public, forever, if necessary. Meh. Ankle bracelets show promise. They still need to serve a sentence which is in keeping with the severity of their crime. A man who kills his children probably isn't in much danger to re-offend. By your way of thinking he should get a weaker sentence, then. Have I got that right? Yep. Once he gets out in 25 years or never. Dangerous Offender legislation shows promise. It's not that, it's just that I'm smarter than you. I don't take much pride in that, however. I think most people could make the same claim. Well anyone with your level of superpowers would, naturally, have the superpower of humility and insight. Too bad it doesn't transfer over to your wit. Quote
guyser Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Yeah---- ANYONE who reads the papers & watches TV news can immediately how the crime rate is going down. [Still stuck on stupid huh? read the papers from about May--- do your own research, I'm not your bitch You still want to perpetrate a falshood sonnie? By all means, keep it up. Quote
eyeball Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 I didn't advocate execution for drug dealers. I said, actually, if you go back and read, that a war doesn't work if there are half measures. If you're going to win a war, you go all out, and in light of that, yes, executing drug dealers and smugglers would be a very good idea - nor would I really cry over that given the nature of what kind of people we're speaking of. Well that's odd given they're the exact same type of people who service the needs of people who do alcohol. I didn't actually say I was in favour of the 'war on drugs'. Your ambivalence towards it being waged despite this is actually even more disturbing. For the most part, my philosophy is that it's your own responsibility if you get addicted to something. I don't blame beer commercials because someone became an alcoholic any more than I blame McDonalds for someone getting fat. I blame the individual himself. Most people can drink responsibly without ever being poorly influenced. How many people can snort crack responsibly without their lives being turned to shit? I'm more worried about how governments manage to turn society into shit when trying to manage people's substance use. I blame the utter moral ambivalence of people like you for that. At what point do you take responsibility for the influence this has on the state's behaviour? Absolutely none I suspect. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 Either way, your OP displays a lack of ability to think lucidly. Your implication is clear - crime is down, so why are we building more prisons? It's a stupid position, you might as well admit it. Sure. That's a stupid position. Except I never said we don't need to build more prisons. Obviously as the population increases, we will need more prisons. What doesn't make sense is increasing spending on prisons dramatically when crime has been declining. Of course, not a hell of a lot that this government does makes much sense anyway, unless you look at their decisions through the lens of ideology. Quote
Wilber Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 I think there must be another way and would gladly pay for research to find it. Wouldn't you? That would depend a lot on who did it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bob Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Sure. That's a stupid position. Except I never said we don't need to build more prisons. Obviously as the population increases, we will need more prisons. What doesn't make sense is increasing spending on prisons dramatically when crime has been declining. Of course, not a hell of a lot that this government does makes much sense anyway, unless you look at their decisions through the lens of ideology. The implication in your OP is clear, and now you're backtracking. Assuming there is a big shortage of prison space available for the existing need to house criminals, then this political endeavour is worthwhile. Michael Hardner's link suggests that this is the case, and I'm sure those of us who actually consume a lot of Canadian media have come across articles discussing the shortage of prison availability, leading to overcrowding and poor-sentencing resulting from lack of supply of prison openings. Your position was stupid, and it remains stupid, and it's a transparent partisan attack because you have resentment towards Harper and/or the CPC. Grow up. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
dre Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) The implication in your OP is clear, and now you're backtracking. Assuming there is a big shortage of prison space available for the existing need to house criminals, then this political endeavour is worthwhile. Michael Hardner's link suggests that this is the case, and I'm sure those of us who actually consume a lot of Canadian media have come across articles discussing the shortage of prison availability, leading to overcrowding and poor-sentencing resulting from lack of supply of prison openings. Your position was stupid, and it remains stupid, and it's a transparent partisan attack because you have resentment towards Harper and/or the CPC. Grow up. 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. Edited July 25, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Shwa Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 That would depend a lot on who did it. Please explain... who would you like to see in charge of such a review? Royal Commission perhaps? Quote
Jack Weber Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 You can assume I don't believe there is such a thing as government rehabilitation. What does it consist of? Have you ever seen it in action? People steal because it's easier to steal than to get an education. It's easier to steal than to learn a trade or look for a job. It's easier to defraud people than do an honest day's work. It's easier to rape someone than to get their consent. It's easier to kill someone than to work out your problems. Crime is easy. People who do it aren't going to be 'rehabilitated' as long as they see their criminal behavior as viable. And the only way I know of to teach them it's NOT is long prison terms. But maybe you think that if you hold their hands, and talk gently to them, and inform them of all the harm they cause others they'll get an attack of conscience and go get a job. Fine, you try that with the next criminal we house next door to you. 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... Unless you simply want to lock 'em up and throw away the key? In which case,my earlier premise about the conservative version of "justice" stands... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
dre Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 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... Unless you simply want to lock 'em up and throw away the key? In which case,my earlier premise about the conservative version of "justice" stands... 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. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wild Bill Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 I didn't advocate execution for drug dealers. I said, actually, if you go back and read, that a war doesn't work if there are half measures. If you're going to win a war, you go all out, and in light of that, yes, executing drug dealers and smugglers would be a very good idea - nor would I really cry over that given the nature of what kind of people we're speaking of. I didn't actually say I was in favour of the 'war on drugs'. For the most part, my philosophy is that it's your own responsibility if you get addicted to something. I don't blame beer commercials because someone became an alcoholic any more than I blame McDonalds for someone getting fat. I blame the individual himself. Most people can drink responsibly without ever being poorly influenced. How many people can snort crack responsibly without their lives being turned to shit? I don't know about crack but I do know that the vast majority of cocaine snorters can take it or leave it! I believe there are actually very few drugs that are seriously physically addicting, like heroin or morphine. It's just that there is a certain small percentage of people that have something wrong inside them. These people will ALWAYS find something to get screwed up with! If its not legal drugs then it will be illegal ones but they'll do it! It's the same personality problem that leads to compulsive gambling and other such disorders. I smoked a pipe almost every waking hour from when I was 16 until I was nearly 50. I stopped cold turkey, with almost no problems at all. I had a precipitous drop in the income I was bringing into the family so I just decided that I could no longer afford it. No withdrawal cravings - none of the claims that "it's harder to quit smoking than heroin!" That's all crap! You either really want to quit or you don't. Anything else is just playing mental games or excuses. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
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.