Canada's Crime Rate Hits 40 Year Low

[guyser]

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.

Well for starters, no one born after 1960 can say they didnt wait in an ER as a kid, much the same as we do now. Every year between six and fifteen I spent plenty of time in ER and or hospitals.

[bloodyminded]

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?

????

You cited a personal anecdote to support your position about crime and police response.

Shwa did the same.

Why hold him to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

[jacee]

Not to derail the derail but ...

Someone earlier stated that prisons have been overcrowded since the '80's, which would make sense considering the baby boom demographic. Perhaps Harper is addressing the overcrowding, but providing better conditions for inmates wouldn't be popular with his voters so he throws in some draconian elements that appeal to their punitive nature. Am I being too generous to Harper?

Of course, alleviating overcrowding is now becoming a non issue due to the aging babyboom and predictably falling crime rates. However :arper is addressing that with his ridiculous penalties for growing marijuana that will land a lot of aging boomers in jail.

[Wild Bill]

"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.

Now who submits circular arguments!

"In my opinion, your argument is absurd. How shall I prove this? I will poke fun at your position. This will show it's absurd."

That only hangs together if one accepts your opinion as an actual fact. It's easy to see how you define "opinion".

Again, if I ever needed an advocate I would appreciate your services. If I ever faced you as a judge whether guilty or innocent I would just hang myself beforehand to save time and effort.

[Shwa]

Now who submits circular arguments!

"In my opinion, your argument is absurd. How shall I prove this? I will poke fun at your position. This will show it's absurd."

Well to be fair, I am a fan of Monty Python. My apologies if that sentiment rubbed you the wrong way in my particular method of criticism. But you know, I just couldn't resist.

That only hangs together if one accepts your opinion as an actual fact. It's easy to see how you define "opinion".

Do your research. Nothing is stopping you Bill. Of course, it is much harder to do good research on anecdotes, or feelings and such. But a friend of mine said we should all feel so lucky.

Again, if I ever needed an advocate I would appreciate your services. If I ever faced you as a judge whether guilty or innocent I would just hang myself beforehand to save time and effort.

Gawd Bill, I think you are the first person who has ever played the victim-a-priori-victim card. That has to be a record or something.

[Wild Bill]

????

You cited a personal anecdote to support your position about crime and police response.

Shwa did the same.

Why hold him to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

Because he cited oranges to apples, that's why!

My model was used to support my point, which was that those old enough to be Boomers experienced a different situation with crime and police response today than when they were young. In effect, they lived through a decline and were thus holding a perception that the slope has been negative. I implied this was a widespread experience which might account for the attitudes towards the system "being soft on crime".

Shwa comes back and basically states "Well, things are great TODAY in MY neighbourhood! You must either live in a hole and should move or perhaps you and your neighbours are just too lazy to support programs like Neighbourhood Watch! You obviously don't appreciate the efforts of the police!"

Please note that I deliberately framed the above quote in what I view as Shwa's own style.

What the hell does that prove? Of course statistically there has to be some areas that have good police responses. Just because things are great in Shwa's neighbourhood how does that relate to any other neighbourhood in Canada?

Moreover, just because things are great there TODAY what has that to do with whether things are better or worse than 40 years ago? Are we being better served for our taxes today or worse?

Lastly, what has it to do with my point that this is a PERCEPTION among Boomers? I could have understood if Shwa had argued that my claim of such a perception was untrue, that Boomers do NOT believe this! I could have understood if Shwa had taken the position that Boomers as a group do NOT support efforts like Harpers to crack down on crime.

I didn't get any such response. All I got was "Things are great in my neighbourhood! You should move!"

Higher standards, indeed. He does this all the time. Instead of addressing the points he pokes fun at the model, sliding the issue into a different area in order to set his opponent up to look ridiculous, as an ad hominem attack on his argument. Like I said, it sounds exactly like what one might expect from a lawyer in court, where anything goes and who cares about the truth, especially if your client is guilty!

I'm convinced that if we were all in a lifeboat and someone said the boat had a bad leak Shwa would think that if he could ridicule and thus defeat the man's argument knowing how to swim would not only be unnecessary but irrelevant.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Wild Bill

[wyly]

Not to derail the derail but ...

Someone earlier stated that prisons have been overcrowded since the '80's, which would make sense considering the baby boom demographic. Perhaps Harper is addressing the overcrowding, but providing better conditions for inmates wouldn't be popular with his voters so he throws in some draconian elements that appeal to their punitive nature. Am I being too generous to Harper?

Of course, alleviating overcrowding is now becoming a non issue due to the aging babyboom and predictably falling crime rates. However :arper is addressing that with his ridiculous penalties for growing marijuana that will land a lot of aging boomers in jail.

you could be right, overcrowding is an acceptable reason to build a new prison, overcrowding causes stress not something that's beneficial if you intend to rehabilitate someone...

classifying pot smokers as criminals pads the crime stats with non criminals, 45% of canadians have admitted to smoking pot sometime in their lives, Harper will need to build a lot of prisons for those criminals...

[wyly]

Well for starters, no one born after 1960 can say they didnt wait in an ER as a kid, much the same as we do now. Every year between six and fifteen I spent plenty of time in ER and or hospitals.

and he claimed we expect to be seen in minutes which says does not happen today...and that's untrue every visit I've ever taken to ER back in the 60's or now, I or the person I was with saw a triage nurse within minutes of arrival... depending on the complaint you gain immediate help with an MD or are asked to wait while the more serious were attended to first...

from my experiences a nearly severed digit gains instant attention, as do open badly bleeding wounds, stroke symptoms, unresponsive children, children who have gotten into the medicine cabinet...complaints that you end up waiting for, I don't feel well, I'm sick(cough, cough), I think I have the flu(sniff), I have a stomach ache(barf)...

[dre]

you could be right, overcrowding is an acceptable reason to build a new prison, overcrowding causes stress not something that's beneficial if you intend to rehabilitate someone...

classifying pot smokers as criminals pads the crime stats with non criminals, 45% of canadians have admitted to smoking pot sometime in their lives, Harper will need to build a lot of prisons for those criminals...

The crazy thing is, that western governments are headed towards a time of austerity. The expansion of government being proposed here will cost us a lot of money on a permanent basis, and we are already running huge defecits. Now they want to introduce mandatory prison terms for people with 6 pot plants in their backyard or in their closet... something the bulk of Canadians dont even think is a crime. This could potentially crinimalize hundreds of thousands of people... people that will go from being tax payers to costing the taxpayers a shitload of money every year.

Heres some information from the US on what happened when politicians in the US tried to decide on sentences instead of judges and juries... without even hearing the facts of any cases.

Since mandatory minimum sentencing first began for drug offenders, the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ budget has increased by more than 2,100%, from $220 million in 1986 to about $4.4 billion in 2004.

Incarcerating a drug offender costs $22,000 annually. Because of mandatory minimum sentences, the number of drug offenders in federal prison grew from 25% of the total inmate population in 1981 to 60% in 2001.

The United States currently incarcerates more than 2.2 million inmates, at a rate of every one in 143 people (contrasted with approximately one in 1000 in England, Italy, France, and Germany).

US states are now trying to repeal all this bad legislation, because its flat out unaffordable.

Why on earth would you spend borrowed money on this at a time when crime rates are on their way down?

[bloodyminded]

Because he cited oranges to apples, that's why!

My model was used to support my point, which was that those old enough to be Boomers experienced a different situation with crime and police response today than when they were young. In effect, they lived through a decline and were thus holding a perception that the slope has been negative. I implied this was a widespread experience which might account for the attitudes towards the system "being soft on crime".

Shwa comes back and basically states "Well, things are great TODAY in MY neighbourhood!

His anecdote is 100% as valid as your own, whatever else he may have added to it.

What the hell does that prove? Of course statistically there has to be some areas that have good police responses. Just because things are great in Shwa's neighbourhood how does that relate to any other neighbourhood in Canada?

Of course statistically there will be areas with poor police responses.

You think this happened suddenly after the Golden Age of the 50's?

Lastly, what has it to do with my point that this is a PERCEPTION among Boomers? I could have understood if Shwa had argued that my claim of such a perception was untrue, that Boomers do NOT believe this! I could have understood if Shwa had taken the position that Boomers as a group do NOT support efforts like Harpers to crack down on crime.

First of all, perceptions can be mistaken, of course. Some people think the Transformers series are good movies.

Second, what is the percentage of boomers who agree with Harper's "tough on crime" notions versus those who disagree?

I'm convinced that if we were all in a lifeboat and someone said the boat had a bad leak Shwa would think that if he could ridicule and thus defeat the man's argument knowing how to swim would not only be unnecessary but irrelevant.

Or maybe he'd be pointing out that a little water had splashed in the boat, it wasn't a leak at all (despite the "perceptions"), and so we didn't have to take terribly drastic measures to fix a leak that isn't there.

Edited July 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[wyly]

Why on earth would you spend borrowed money on this at a time when crime rates are on their way down?

because it's a voter winner with uninformed yokels and boomers..."lets get those pot smoking bad guys"ör those criminals who commit those unreported crimes!...it's a political tactic even used in Nazi germany when they blamed all societies problems on Jews, socialists, gays, gypsies, none of it true of course but that didn't matter it focused attention on a scapegoat and was a guaranteed vote winning strategy...

[Shwa]

I'm convinced that if we were all in a lifeboat and someone said the boat had a bad leak Shwa would think that if he could ridicule and thus defeat the man's argument knowing how to swim would not only be unnecessary but irrelevant.

And I'm convinced that if you were in that lifeboat, you would jump overboard and drown "beforehand to save time and effort." You know, because someone said there was a bad leak in the lifeboat.

Making you an instant victim of said leak.

[dre]

I'm convinced that if we were all in a lifeboat and someone said the boat had a bad leak Shwa would think that if he could ridicule and thus defeat the man's argument knowing how to swim would not only be unnecessary but irrelevant.

Well the first thing I would do is verify whether the boat is in fact leaking Before I implemented any drastic and potentially costly/risky measures to mitigate the alledged leak, I would check to see if theres any water in the bilge.

Thats the part that seems to be missing here. We seem to be about to take drastic and costly action based on the "perception" that our criminal justice system doesnt work. But as soon as anyone suggests we actually take a look at some real evidence that we might be able to use to evaluate our system, people become outraged, and see it as an attack on their sensibilities.

This isnt even really a discussion about the criminal justice system anymore. Its about how policy should be formulated and whether or not it should be based on information or feelings.

Edited July 27, 2011 by dre

[bloodyminded]

My favourite part yet has been, "We can't trust Corrections Canada's data. Let's give them lots more money!"

[dre]

My favourite part yet has been, "We can't trust Corrections Canada's data. Let's give them lots more money!"

Yeah theres no shortage of irony in fact that the same crowd thats constantly crowing about how government cant be trusted to do anything right, and is too large and powerfull and expensive, suddenly wants to expand government, and make it more powerful if it suits their ideological perceptions.

In fairness this isnt a left/right, conservative/liberal thing. It seems like faith based policy is becoming more and more common, and liberals are perfectly happy ingoring or attacking information when it doesnt suit them as well.

Heres what Im expected to do when I solve a problem at work.

1. Assumption Validation - Is there really a problem? Collect data.

2. Review and Research the potential solutions, and subject them to a cost/benefit analysis. Is the solution likely to fix the problem? Does the problem warrant the cost of the solution? Is the solution likely to have unintended consequences?

3. Test the solution on a limited scale.

4. Implement the solution.

Even the manager at chuckies cheese wouldnt be allowed to make decisions the way our government does. Why are they held to such an incredibly low standard?

[Bob]

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."

Obviously it wasn't a real quote, it was a joking paraphrase. Like I said, I paraphrased what that paragraph was really saying. It's not problem you're taking my mocking quote seriously, although I did seriously intend to distil that paragraph to its fundamental message - which was along the lines of opposing increased incarceration of "non-violent" criminals because of concerns of them getting embittered and disengranchised upon release. That's a ridiculous position to hold, by any standard.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Bob

[noahbody]

Now they want to introduce mandatory prison terms for people with 6 pot plants in their backyard or in their closet...

Last I heard the bill allowed 199 plants in your backyard or closet, as long as it was for personal use. 200 and over would result in a mandatory sentence.

[dre]

Last I heard the bill allowed 199 plants in your backyard or closet, as long as it was for personal use. 200 and over would result in a mandatory sentence.

I keep reading 6 months for over 5... and 1 year for over 200... with the max penalty increased to 14 years in either case.

[Scotty]

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...

Your single experience is rather irrelevent in light of national standards and statistics which show the majority of waits at emergency rooms exceed 6hrs. Yes, if you have chest pains or something similar you are moved to the head of the line. But that doesn't help you if you've merely got, say, a broken wrist, and have to wait for ten hours to see a doctor.

[Scotty]

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.

That crime costs Canadians $57 billion a year is not an emotional story. Canadians want a system which adequately punishes criminals and protects the rest of us. And they don't care if it costs a little more.

[Scotty]

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.

The point she's making is stupid anyway. We're not equipped to punish people other than through prison. The idea of community service is actually something of a joke since it's not really enforced, and the people doing it do a lackadaisical, piss-poor job of whatever it is they're assigned. Maybe she'd feel better if we used Singapore's corporal punishment methods instead of sending people to 'con college'.

[Scotty]

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."

I'm all for treating addiction, but as far as I've ever seen those who break the law do it because it's easy/fun, and profitable, and because they don't estimate there's much risk or danger.

Increasing the risk/danger seems to me to be the most likely method for convincing them to do something else.

[Scotty]

Well for starters, no one born after 1960 can say they didnt wait in an ER as a kid, much the same as we do now. Every year between six and fifteen I spent plenty of time in ER and or hospitals.

I was born after 1960 and I don't remember spending any real time waiting in emergency rooms until sometime in the mid 80s.

[Scotty]

Yeah theres no shortage of irony in fact that the same crowd thats constantly crowing about how government cant be trusted to do anything right, and is too large and powerfull and expensive, suddenly wants to expand government, and make it more powerful if it suits their ideological perceptions.

One could also make the point that the same crowd which wants government to solve all our problems and insists that throwing more and more money at any and all problems is the best solution is oddly acting like penny pinching conservatives on the issue of crime. It's funny, how none of you ever shows much similar concerns about any other programs or departments - except perhaps the military. But suddenly you're all tight fisted people who don't trust government to do the job right. Odd, that.

In fairness this isnt a left/right, conservative/liberal thing.

Oh of course it is. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, and thus hold criminals at fault of their behaviour. You lot on the Left are all weepy over the fate of poor, misunderstood outcasts who clearly only need some therapy and understanding to see the error of their ways.

[eyeball]

However :arper is addressing that with his ridiculous penalties for growing marijuana that will land a lot of aging boomers in jail.

...by an aging boomer who sings, "Mm, I get high with a little help from my friends".

What a dink.