cybercoma Posted August 25, 2011 Report Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) An article in Maclean's asks if maybe there are too many cops. It would appear that the police are justifying their presence by ramping up the number of arrests that they make for things that many Canadians don't consider crimes: Cannabis arrests jumped 13 per cent in 2010 to 75,126. Of those, almost 57,000 were for simple possession, a 14 per cent jump from the year before. (The statistics reflect cases where the arrest was the most serious charge a person faced, not the thousands more where a pot charge was tacked onto a string of more serious crimes.) The cannabis arrest rate is an anomaly at a time when the overall crime rate in 2010 fell to its lowest level since the mid-1970s. ... Health Canada’s alcohol and drug monitoring survey showed marijuana use by Canadians 15 and older dropped to 10.7 per cent in 2010 from 14.1 per cent in 2004. It begs the question: are soaring pot arrests and traffic violations a manufactured crisis created by too many police chasing too little crime? Is this really making Canada safer? Edited August 25, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
segnosaur Posted August 25, 2011 Report Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) An article in Maclean's asks if maybe there are too many cops. It would appear that the police are justifying their presence by ramping up the number of arrests that they make for things that many Canadians don't consider crimes: 2 comments about the article.... - The article sounds more like a pro-drug legalization article than one dealing with public safety. - The article also claims we have a 'falling crime rate'. That may not necessarily be accurate. The reported crime rate may be decreasing, but there have been increases in unreported crimes (reported via surveys conducted by statistics Canada.) The article itself touches on part of the problem (for example, mentioning violent crime) without getting deep enough into the subject There probably is enough crime to keep the police more than busy enough, even if we did legalize drugs. Edited to add: While the article mentions increases in drug arrests, keep in mind that not all of those arrests are just for drug position. A person might have been arrested for (for example) petty theft (something that people should be arrested for, even if it is a minor crime), and the drugs were found following the arrest. Sadly, the article doesn't mention how many cases are made where drug possession is the only charge that is made. Edited August 25, 2011 by segnosaur Quote
dre Posted August 25, 2011 Report Posted August 25, 2011 An article in Maclean's asks if maybe there are too many cops. It would appear that the police are justifying their presence by ramping up the number of arrests that they make for things that many Canadians don't consider crimes: Is this really making Canada safer? No its making it much more dangerous. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
guyser Posted August 25, 2011 Report Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) 2 comments about the article.... - The article sounds more like a pro-drug legalization article than one dealing with public safety. - The article also claims we have a 'falling crime rate'. That may not necessarily be accurate. The reported crime rate may be decreasing, but there have been increases in unreported crimes (reported via surveys conducted by statistics Canada.) The article itself touches on part of the problem (for example, mentioning violent crime) without getting deep enough into the subject True , but statictically almost the same. Unreported went to 34% from 31%. the police more than busy enough, even if we did legalize drugs. Edited to add: While the article mentions increases in drug arrests, keep in mind that not all of those arrests are just for drug position. A person might have been arrested for (for example) petty theft (something that people should be arrested for, even if it is a minor crime), and the drugs were found following the arrest. Sadly, the article doesn't mention how many cases are made where drug possession is the only charge that is made. In a way it did. The statistics reflect cases where the arrest was the most serious charge a person faced, Edited August 25, 2011 by guyser Quote
cybercoma Posted August 25, 2011 Author Report Posted August 25, 2011 Edited to add: While the article mentions increases in drug arrests, keep in mind that not all of those arrests are just for drug position. A person might have been arrested for (for example) petty theft (something that people should be arrested for, even if it is a minor crime), and the drugs were found following the arrest. Sadly, the article doesn't mention how many cases are made where drug possession is the only charge that is made. It did mention that the drug possession was the most serious of the crimes in the cases they were talking about. However, I see your point, where petty theft might be considered a lesser crime. Quote
bjre Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) Is this really making Canada safer? Canada is not so safe a place. There are so many gun crime in Toronto that sound of gun can be heard almost every day. There are so many thieves. The problem is, most cops are not dealing with such kind of crime that make Canada un-safe. Most cops love to help CAS to bully single mothers and their kids. Most cops love to bully hard work people who try to drive away recoons from their house, tell them their dogs barks 10 minutes earlier then 9 o'clock. Most cops love to use their bully method to make wife and husbands more likely to divorce. Most cops love to give tickets to fine drivers so that the tickets number of each year is more than the population in Toronto. Cops love to encourage thief to give evidence to sue shopkeeper. Cops love to arrest kids that show their student ID too fast at a public school. Cops use their tasers to kill Robert the poor Polish guy at airport Cops arrest and strip search 1000 peaceful male and female protesters and let thugs go when they set fires on cars and smashing shops ... When you add more cops, more cops bully people. When you reduce cops, less cops dealing with murders. Cops is just like hospitals, which use tax dollars in pay high salary of management and let the waiting time longer and longer to ask for more money. They are all too greedy and make people suffer too much. Edited August 26, 2011 by bjre Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Michael Hardner Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 - The article also claims we have a 'falling crime rate'. That may not necessarily be accurate. The reported crime rate may be decreasing, but there have been increases in unreported crimes (reported via surveys conducted by statistics Canada.) The article itself touches on part of the problem (for example, mentioning violent crime) without getting deep enough into the subject How many cops are working on unreported cases ? That one made me scratch my head. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 The police state is very profitable. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) Always seems to me that the cops like to go after the 'soft' criminals. Pot heads are notoriously easy to arrest. One friend of mine who is a cop told me that they use pot head arrests to train rookies on how to do it, so they get to practice the procedures and get used to putting on the handcuffs. With a pot smoker, they almost never resist or give police much of a hard time. Perfect training material. Meanwhile, what really bothers me is they don't go after the real bad guys. Why? Because their DANGEROUS. They'll pull a gun and fight back, and try to kill the cops. Edited August 26, 2011 by Sir Bandelot Quote
cybercoma Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Posted August 26, 2011 I'm just looking at the current policies and it seems we're moving towards beefing up police, prisons and military. The crime rate is down, yet the number of people arrested for petty crimes is increasing. There seems to be a silent war against the underclass. Ship them overseas to die or put them in prison. Even if they make it, either way they're institutionalized and dehumanized, prison or military. All this money being dumped into these things when people can't find jobs, environmental degradation is being ignored, post-secondary education funding is being reduced and very little is being done about the looming pension crisis. It seems the priorities are out of whack and the system is failing. Unless, of course, the system is doing exactly what it is meant to do: continue funnelling wealth to those that have it and make it increasingly difficult for those that don't to get out of the hole. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 - The article also claims we have a 'falling crime rate'. That may not necessarily be accurate. The reported crime rate may be decreasing, but there have been increases in unreported crimes (reported via surveys conducted by statistics Canada.) The article itself touches on part of the problem (for example, mentioning violent crime) without getting deep enough into the subject True , but statictically almost the same. Unreported went to 34% from 31%. Not really sure if you can say that its "statistically" almost the same. Overall percentage increased by 3%, but it actually works out to a 10% increase from period to period. (Plus, those figures were from a few years ago... we don't know what they are now.) Edited to add: While the article mentions increases in drug arrests, keep in mind that not all of those arrests are just for drug position. A person might have been arrested for (for example) petty theft (something that people should be arrested for, even if it is a minor crime), and the drugs were found following the arrest. Sadly, the article doesn't mention how many cases are made where drug possession is the only charge that is made. In a way it did. The statistics reflect cases where the arrest was the most serious charge a person faced, Yes, I did notice that particular statement. That's why, when I was discussing the situation, I mentioned that a drug arrest might be part of an arrest for petty theft (as an example). The drug arrest would be considered the more serious charge, but the person would still have been arrested/charged anyways for the lesser crime if the drug law did not exist. (I'm going on the assumption that petty theft would be considered the 'lesser charge' here.) Quote
segnosaur Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 - The article also claims we have a 'falling crime rate'. That may not necessarily be accurate. The reported crime rate may be decreasing, but there have been increases in unreported crimes How many cops are working on unreported cases ? That one made me scratch my head. They aren't. But the fact that many crimes go unreported means that we may not necessarily be "safer". Added policing might create a deterrent effect. Or perhaps if the citizens affected by such crimes recognize that the cops might actually act on a crime they might be more willing to report it. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 I'm just looking at the current policies and it seems we're moving towards beefing up police, prisons and military. The crime rate is down, yet the number of people arrested for petty crimes is increasing. There seems to be a silent war against the underclass. Ship them overseas to die or put them in prison. Even if they make it, either way they're institutionalized and dehumanized, prison or military. All this money being dumped into these things when people can't find jobs, environmental degradation is being ignored, post-secondary education funding is being reduced and very little is being done about the looming pension crisis. It seems the priorities are out of whack and the system is failing. Unless, of course, the system is doing exactly what it is meant to do: continue funnelling wealth to those that have it and make it increasingly difficult for those that don't to get out of the hole. The police, military and prison system is keeping the “poor man down”? My household pays considerably more in taxes to support this triad than the average low income household………Aside from protecting the environment, I’d tend to think Government should have less input in “creating jobs”, subsidizing people’s post secondary education and ensuring the retirement of a small portion of Canadians. Again, all these roles should be more and more made again the responsibility of the individual, not the state...law enforcement, national defence and the environment should be the responsibility of government...If not, would you rather see a return to Feudalism, with the moneyed classes having their own private armies, dungeons and sheriffs? Quote
CPCFTW Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 I'm just looking at the current policies and it seems we're moving towards beefing up police, prisons and military. The crime rate is down, yet the number of people arrested for petty crimes is increasing. There seems to be a silent war against the underclass. Ship them overseas to die or put them in prison. Even if they make it, either way they're institutionalized and dehumanized, prison or military. All this money being dumped into these things when people can't find jobs, environmental degradation is being ignored, post-secondary education funding is being reduced and very little is being done about the looming pension crisis. It seems the priorities are out of whack and the system is failing. Unless, of course, the system is doing exactly what it is meant to do: continue funnelling wealth to those that have it and make it increasingly difficult for those that don't to get out of the hole. Haha come on.... Quote
segnosaur Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 The crime rate is down, yet the number of people arrested for petty crimes is increasing. A few points... - As I mentioned before, its actually the reported crime rate that is down. We don't actually know what the actual crime rate is at this point. - its possible for the crime rate to go down and still have more crimes committed/more people arrested, simply because of population growth - Even if "crime rate" is down, does that mean it is as low as it could be? Is there a reason people are assuming "We don't have any more crime so we're successful?" What if there's 100,000 murders one year and only 99,999 murders the next, should we say "hurray! killings are down"? Shouldn't we instead be saying "Umm... why do we keep having so many murders?" - Petty crime is still crime. Even if you ignore things like "victimless crime", even minor things like shoplifting, vandalism, etc. cost society. There seems to be a silent war against the underclass. Well, for better or worse, the "underclass" probably commits a greater proportion of the crimes. Not necessarily saying the wealthy never break the law (Bernie Madoff anyone?), but social and economic pressures may result in more crime by those with less income. All this money being dumped into these things when people can't find jobs , environmental degradation is being ignored, post-secondary education funding is being reduced and very little is being done about the looming pension crisis. It seems the priorities are out of whack and the system is failing. So, because someone can't find a job, I should put up with (for example) having people steal from my store? Yes there are other problems in society. But that doesn't mean policing should be ignored. Do you really think it will improve the economic and social situation of the lower classes if they live in an environment where they can steal (or get stolen from) with impunity? Quote
bjre Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) So, because someone can't find a job, I should put up with (for example) having people steal from my store? When someone can't find a job, what is the better way to deal with it? 1. You are a looser, but don't steal others even when you can not have any food to eat. 2. Send you to the jails, so that you can have enough to eat, middle class will pay for that. But why can't government make the salary lower so that more small business can afford to hire workers? Why can't government reduce requirement of various licenses, so that more people can become professionals such as doctors and nurses and others? Because various of interest groups will take less tax dollars when some competitors enter the business. That is the reason of all those laws. Edited August 26, 2011 by bjre Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Tilter Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) No its making it much more dangerous. . Edited August 26, 2011 by Tilter Quote
Tilter Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 An article in Maclean's asks if maybe there are too many cops. It would appear that the police are justifying their presence by ramping up the number of arrests that they make for things that many Canadians don't consider crimes: Is this really making Canada safer? Maclean's----The CBC in written journalism Quote
guyser Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Not really sure if you can say that its "statistically" almost the same. Overall percentage increased by 3%, but it actually works out to a 10% increase from period to period. (Plus, those figures were from a few years ago... we don't know what they are now.) You are correct it is up. My concern is that it is a telephone survey by Stats Can in determinig this figure. Fair enough.But what is going unreported? Was that rake really stolen or did I lose it? (facetiously said for the most part) But does anyone not report violent assaults (other than two guys agreeing to fight)theft of a car? Most criminal acts against a homeowner means they file a report since an occurence number is needed to file a claim. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 You are correct it is up. My concern is that it is a telephone survey by Stats Can in determinig this figure. Fair enough.But what is going unreported? Was that rake really stolen or did I lose it? (facetiously said for the most part) But does anyone not report violent assaults (other than two guys agreeing to fight)theft of a car? Most criminal acts against a homeowner means they file a report since an occurence number is needed to file a claim. Assuming of course that they would even bother filing a claim. With insurance deductables, filing a claim may not be worth it depending on the theft. In the past few decades I have: - Had one bicycle stolen (lock cut) - Tires slashed on another bike (petty vandalism) - Had a few small items (VHS tapes, etc) stolen by a former 'friend' I did not report any of these crimes to the police, because A: The police would be ineffective in solving the crime, and B: the value of the objects was low enough that it did not justify an insurance claim. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Assuming of course that they would even bother filing a claim. With insurance deductables, filing a claim may not be worth it depending on the theft. In the past few decades I have: - Had one bicycle stolen (lock cut) - Tires slashed on another bike (petty vandalism) - Had a few small items (VHS tapes, etc) stolen by a former 'friend' I did not report any of these crimes to the police, because A: The police would be ineffective in solving the crime, and B: the value of the objects was low enough that it did not justify an insurance claim. C: while not nice, they are petty crimes and a waste of time for cops, who should be dealing with serious crimes. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 In the past few decades I have:- Had one bicycle stolen (lock cut) - Tires slashed on another bike (petty vandalism) - Had a few small items (VHS tapes, etc) stolen by a former 'friend' I did not report any of these crimes to the police, because A: The police would be ineffective in solving the crime, and B: the value of the objects was low enough that it did not justify an insurance claim. C: while not nice, they are petty crimes and a waste of time for cops, who should be dealing with serious crimes. Ummm... why exactly are those types of crimes a "waste of time"? The bike, while it was relatively cheap, cost me over $100 at a department store (this was decades ago). Replacing the tires on the bike cost around $40 (plus my time and effort). I doubt very much anyone willing to steal or wreck a bike only stops at the one instance, so you basically have them costing society possibly thousands, perhaps even 10s of thousands of dollars. Then you also have the secondary benefits... an area where even such 'petty crimes' are rampant is going to be seen as an undesirable place to live. There's also the "broken windows" theory... the idea that criminals often start with petty crimes and "work up" to more serious crimes. If you intercede while the crimes are small (and ensure punishment is given), you provide better social conditions to keep crime from spreading. While the evidence is not completely conclusive, the concept has been applied to places like New York and the Netherlands. (Heck, if I remember correctly, New York actually saw the number of people in jail DROP when they started prosecuting more petty crimes, which is the opposite of what you'd expect.) Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Ummm... why exactly are those types of crimes a "waste of time"? The bike, while it was relatively cheap, cost me over $100 at a department store (this was decades ago). Replacing the tires on the bike cost around $40 (plus my time and effort). I doubt very much anyone willing to steal or wreck a bike only stops at the one instance, so you basically have them costing society possibly thousands, perhaps even 10s of thousands of dollars. Then you also have the secondary benefits... an area where even such 'petty crimes' are rampant is going to be seen as an undesirable place to live. There's also the "broken windows" theory... the idea that criminals often start with petty crimes and "work up" to more serious crimes. If you intercede while the crimes are small (and ensure punishment is given), you provide better social conditions to keep crime from spreading. While the evidence is not completely conclusive, the concept has been applied to places like New York and the Netherlands. (Heck, if I remember correctly, New York actually saw the number of people in jail DROP when they started prosecuting more petty crimes, which is the opposite of what you'd expect.) Alright, the bike, maybe. You did call the cops then, right? Slashed tire, you wrote it yourself. Petty vandalism. Your friend stole a few VHS tapes? Sounds like the gateway to hell, for sure. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Alright, the bike, maybe. You did call the cops then, right? Uhhh... no. If you remember, I specifically said the police would not have done anything, and I did not need it for insurance purposes, so why waste my time and effort. Slashed tire, you wrote it yourself. Petty vandalism. Vandalism that cost me time and money. You really think such actions should just be shrugged off? How many other acts do you think the people caused? Think they honestly would have stopped at just my bike? Quote
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.