Crime

[Cartman]

Few leaders, except Harper, really spoke about crime at all in the last election. I do not think he was very convincing, but at least he raised the issue. What should be done to improve our security without risking our freedom?

[August1991]

You are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the following data:

US in 2001 by city

Canada in 2001 by city (go to the bottom).

2001 is an arbitrary year. Homicide stats, for obvious reasons, tend to be the most accurate.

For fun propaganda, read this from the government about firearms or rather read this from the CBC about urban crime.

In all of this, I found this quote the most intriguing:

The report also found that from 1976 to 1997, 85 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites and 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks.

What a strange species we are.

CNN report

[maplesyrup]

how does this relate?

Toronto police force dealt another blow

[DAC]

My approach to crim begins with a concept of justice.

Justice means that law-breakers should be punished in a way proportional to the seriousness of their offence, while the innocent should be guarded.

My first suggestion would be adoption of a law that all real evidence, however acquired, is to be considered. The fact that drugs were discovered during a search on a warrant issued to investigate a fraud case would not rule out a drug trafficking charge. DNA evidence gathered improperly would not be barred from use. I am not proposing throwing out normal, natural question marks about evidence. A confession obtained where there was reason to think some form of coercion was applied is suspect - how do you know it is real? But I think we need to put an end to people being acquitted when there is ample evidence to convict them, but the evidence was not gathered in the appropriate ways. If someone deliberately obtained that evidence illicitly, the remedy is to punish the evidence gatherer, not to acquit a criminal.

In the same line, when someone is charged with a crime, the police should always be free to gather physical evidence to identify that person, such as fingerprints and DNA. If the person charged is convicted, that identifying evidence should be retained as a means to identify participation in other crimes.

Second, we should set up our court system in such a way that normally those charged are brought to trial quickly, and any appeal process is similarly quick. If someone knows that in the worst case a sentence will not be applied for fifteen years, it’s not likely to be much of a deterrent. If he knows that in the best case for him, his sentence will be a applied within a year, that will be taken more seriously.

Third, we need to bring an end to light sentences for serious and violent crimes. At the same time, we should find a way to move away from imprisonment for property crimes. In fact restitution should be the norm, at three or four times the amount stolen or destroyed, to account for the times the offender may have gotten away from it. We want to make sure that crime does not pay.

[maplesyrup]

DAC....you raise interesting issues. I think I agree with you at least concerning punishment.

How about Svend?

How should he be dealt with as he actually returned the merchandise?

[August1991]

My first suggestion would be adoption of a law that all real evidence, however acquired, is to be considered.

Arbitrary arrest? Do you have any idea of the power of the State?

In the US, it is said that a "liberal" becomes a "conservative" once a victim of a mugging.

But a "conservative" becomes a "liberal" once accused of a mugging.

DAC, what would you do if the State accused you of child molesting? Who would provide support to you? Who would give you the benefit of the doubt?

[maplesyrup]

Does anyone remember the PQ cabinet minister Claude Charron who stole the sports jacket from Eatons. Was he charged? What happened there?

[Hawk]

How should he be dealt with as he actually returned the merchandise?

That man is the most horrendous politician in Canadian history, and if I had my way I would have him locked up for as long as humanly possible =p Does the end justify the means? Careful how you answer that one

In the US, it is said that a "liberal" becomes a "conservative" once a victim of a mugging.

But a "conservative" becomes a "liberal" once accused of a mugging.

Heh, and what about right and wrong? That saying lacks merit since it doesn't take into account innocence or guilt, is it a good thing for a Conservative who mugs someone to suddenly turn Liberal? What does that tell you? Hehe it seems criminals enjoy voting Liberal, that should tell you something =p

DAC, what would you do if the State accused you of child molesting? Who would provide support to you? Who would give you the benefit of the doubt?

If the state accused you of child molesting they wouldn't be able to press the charges without evidence, then the evidence would require processing. However keep in mind DNA testing in addition to friends/family who would be for you and its going to be bloody hard for such a case to proceed

[maplesyrup]

That man is the most horrendous politician in Canadian history, and if I had my way I would have him locked up for as long as humanly possible =p Does the end justify the means? Careful how you answer that one

Is anyone else getting tired of these unsubstantiated posts?

[August1991]

Hawk and DAC, it appears that you frequently use the the Internet. At the same time, the Internet is used to commit crimes. The police wants only to question you. Please co-operate. We all know you have done nothing wrong. You won't be afraid to show what you've done.

Maybe this will be a new world where everyone knows everything. If someone does bad, the punishment will be immediate. "Did she just buy a condom?" Her Visa card screen says yes.

[Hawk]

Is anyone else getting tired of these unsubstantiated posts? 

Ditto, and my post was not unsubstantial, just because you are unable to comprehend anything isn't my problem

Hawk and DAC, it appears that you frequently use the the Internet.  At the same time, the Internet is used to commit  crimes.  The police wants only to question you.  Please co-operate.  We all know you have done nothing wrong.

The only way to tack a computer crime on someone is to id every piece of information on it, a typical form is to use md5 encryption technologies and make a copy of their harddrive. Then when you go in and make the arrest you can prove his crimes, otherwise whose to keep the guy from simply holding a magnet next to his harddrive and destroying all the information?

[August1991]

Cartman started this thread by noting Crime. I offered stats showing that Crime was not serious in Canadian cities in comparison with US cities.

Please, go to the start of this thread (one click) and get through one argument about Canada. Am i wrong?

[playfullfellow]

I for one am getting pretty sick tired of all the bloody crime out there. In the past 4 months I have had my truck stolen and just this past Friday I was cleaned out of tools and could not work till I replace them. So with damages, lost wages and stolen property, the total has come to around 9,000 bucks in less than 4 months. That is a pile of money to eat just because some idiots don't feel they have to work for a living. Here are some options I would like to see implimented.

- theft below 5000: 1 year jail, a fine of equivalent value to theft (failure to do so, another year in jail), restitution in full (failure to do so, another year in jail) and 2 years probation (zero tolerance for any deviation). Jail time to be labout intensive.

- theft over 5000: 3 years in jail, a fine equivalent value of theft (failure to do so, 3 years in jail) restitution in full (failure to do so, 3 more years in jail) and 5 years probation (zero tolerance for any deviation). Jail time to be labour intensive.

- sexual assault: 10 years in jail and 5 years probation (zero tolerance for any deviation). Jail time to be labour intensive.

- sexual assault of a minor: 15 years in jail to be served with the general public and 5 years probation (zero tolerance for any deviation). Labour intensive jail time.

- any murder or manslaughter below first degree: 15 years in jail and 10 years probation (zero tolerance for any deviation). Jail time to be very labour intensive.

- murder in the first degree: life in jail of hard labour.

there are plenty of other violations that could be listed but these are the ones that have the greatest impact on our lives.

[August1991]

I was cleaned out of tools and could not work till I replace them.

Been there, done that.

I don't know what else to say and that bothers me. Why? I don't know what to explain to my grandfather in Bonavista Bay, Nfld.

You are right playfull, and my "Nfld Daddy" would say, "That's not the Canada we chose."

[playfullfellow]

As my words state, I am clearly pissed off at the utter disregard for other peoples property. If I ever stole growing up, I would have been on the receiving end of the biggest butt whooping ever and I knew it. The young offenders act needs to be tossed out first of all. All victims should have a say in sentecing but this will not happen. This would be in violation of some kind of human rights I am sure. What about my rights? What about the fact I have to tell my kids no camping trip this year because I have to work extra hours to make my losses? Where the hell is it going to end?

[playfullfellow]

How about Svend?

My other post reflects my opinion on how much time he should spend. I view svend as just any other person who stole a hugely expensive ring. Yes, he did return it, call that restitution. Now how about a fine and jail time.

[Cartman]

PFF, gotta feel for you esp. since it was your tools stolen. When I had my car window smashed (along with everyone else on my block that night) and a stereo stolen, I was extremely angry. As the police have other things to deal with, they did not really seem very concerned which made me even angrier. The window replacement came at a bad time too $$).

I wonder if stiffer penalties are the answer though. I am sick of crime too but do we need more police? Do police need to set different priorities?

I cannot disagree with your penalties if seemingly tough. I do think that work (which benefits society) may help especially if others see criminals doing it. Anybody disagree?

[playfullfellow]

I wonder if stiffer penalties are the answer though. I am sick of crime too but do we need more police? Do police need to set different priorities?

Good point. I think a larger police force is benefitial but maybe a different type of police force than we currently have.

- traffic violations: provincial or municipal police

- personal property theft: provincial police

- scams: RCMP

- violent crimes: RCMP

- sexual abuse: RCMP

- murder: RCMP

Lets take the RCMP off of traffic duty and get them fighting other crimes. The lure of huge fines in the coffers ( I know they do not get the money for their own coffers but rather provincial) is there.

[Boydfish]

A couple of issues that should be addressed:

Sentencing

The biggest reason that the justice system is held in contempt is that few understand how sentencing translates into time served, as well as parole and probation issues.

The judges get blamed for most of this, but the reality is that both the federal and provincial correction services tend to have more control over a prisoner's time behind bars than the judge themselves.

As well, I think that the sentencing portion of our justice system should be changed. I'd prefer fixed sentences for all crimes; no more 2-5 years type discretion on the part of a judge. If you're guilty of charge "A", then you do X amount of time. The logic is pretty compelling, in that a murder is murder, regardless of other factors. The reality is that the really major indictable crimes are already broken into different charges and the "mid-range" crimes are already dual procedure.

Policing

The first required change should be a massive pull out of the RCMP from contract policing. The RCMP was never designed to be much more than 5-10 man detachments; the severe problems in the large RCMP detachments reflect this. I'd say that when a community hits 30,000 people, the RCMP is withdrawn and the municipality gets it's own police force. As well, pull the RCMP out of the provincial policing contracts.

Next, use the same concept that gave BC it's excellent Sheriff's Service and get Police constables out of doing second tier priorities. What it boils down to is that a Sheriff takes 9 weeks to train at the JIBC v. a municipal constable takes over 2 years in both JIBC and field training. The cost difference is clear, but the level of responsibility is similar. Areas such as General Duty Policing, VIP security*, traffic and other areas are areas that should be examined.

*As well, I'd suggest expanding the BC Sheriff's to take over responsibility for security for all public infrastructure, not just court houses.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Few leaders, except Harper, really spoke about crime at all in the last election. I do not think he was very convincing, but at least he raised the issue. What should be done to improve our security without risking our freedom?

We should abolish victimless 'crimes'. Not only is there no need to enforce such laws, doing so costs moeny and time which could be better spent on real crimes. Furthermore, because such laws are inimical to freedom, the serve to undermine the relationship between citizens and their police.

[maplesyrup]

CEOs fight curbs despite Enron lesson

Of still broader importance, however, is the prospect of preventing more corporate scandals. Enron's name has come to evoke more than just one company; it is a sort of shorthand for the systemic problems in corporate America, from loopholes in accounting rules to conflicts of interest among the auditors who supposedly enforce those rules to the boards of directors that fail to hold managers accountable.

Mr. Lay's indictment will help deter fraudsters at other firms. But repairing the corporate governance and accounting rules that surround chief executives is key to avoiding scandals.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has seized the pro-reform climate to win new protections for investors, notably those who own shares in mutual funds. But the nation's corporate chieftains are beginning to mount a counterattack. They complain about the cost of this new regulation, not pausing to mention the cost of Enron-type scandals. And they are not ashamed to campaign against further regulatory improvements.

There are two issues on which this counterattack is especially blatant. The first concerns executive stock options, which regulators believe should be counted, like any other form of compensation, as an expense: A coalition of high-tech CEOs has lobbied Congress to overrule this common-sense determination, and the House may even pass a measure doing what the silicon lords have asked. The second concerns shareholders' rights to elect company directors: The SEC has proposed a rule that would allow shareholders to nominate their own candidates to serve on corporate boards in some limited circumstances. Again, chief executives have lobbied ferociously to prevent this modest change, and SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson appears to be wavering. Donaldson should summon the courage to fight back.

It will take more than the prosecution of Lay and his ilk to protect workers and investors from the abuse that tarnishes too many boardrooms