A crime debate without facts or arguments

[eyeball]

I bet even the Hell's Angles are buying stocks in the private prison industry.

[CitizenX]

Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson attempts (pathetically) to weasel-out of giving CTV journalist Seamus O'Regan the cost of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, the new Conservative omnibus crime bill.

Kim Pate from the Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies says the new Conservative 'Safe Streets and Communities Act' will not deter crime but will hurt Canadians.

Edited September 28, 2011 by CitizenX

[jacee]

The Conservatives have said the reporting of crime will increase once people see they are serious about cracking down and getting tough once criminals are arrested.

:lol:

[eyeball]

And then there was the one about not governing according to Statistics Canada, who they say Canadians shouldn't trust, notwithstanding their statistics on unreported crime. Those are pure gold apparently.

I think I need a drink.

Edited September 28, 2011 by eyeball

[jacee]

And then there was the one about not governing according to Statistics Canada, who they say Canadians shouldn't trust, notwithstanding their statistics on unreported crime. Those are pure gold apparently.

I think I need a drink.

Let's just recap ...

2010

Stockwell Day’s argument is based on a Statistics Canada survey, conducted like a large poll, which showed a slight rise in unreported crimes – though the ncrease was in property crimes and petty theft, not violent crimes. And the survey was conducted in 2004 – an ironic twist given that Mr. Day made his case only minutes after he maintained that the long-form census is not very reliable because it can be as much as five years out of date.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stockwell-day-cites-alarming-rise-in-unreported-crime-to-justify-new-prisons/article1661054/?service=mobile

Great comment on cbc site:

Can't we just pretend to lock up nonexistent enemies invented by hallucinating politicians in invisble jails funded by imaginary money? That'll save a few billion dollars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2010/08/03/canada-economy-stockwell-day.html

Makes as much sense as this omnicrime bill.

The jails are not for criminals. They're for protesters, formerly called citizens exercising freedom of speech.

Edited September 28, 2011 by jacee

[Topaz]

Well. here's another opinion of what the Tories have in mind with crime. If they are going the same route as the US then the provinces are not going to be able to afford to keep criminals in jail and so we'll be doing what the US is doing, letting them out early because there's no money. So if we end up in full circle, why are the Tories pushing so hard, just to keep a promise? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/harper-government-planning-harsher-rules-once-omnibus-crime-174438045.html

[Scotty]

Yet, the issue of crime is that it's at the lowest it has been in 40 years. So, the argument has been... "yeah, but people aren't reporting it, so criminals are not arrested."

No, the argument is, first, that while the statistical crime rate has fallen, it is still well above what it was before the justice and prison systems took on a decidedly liberal tilt. Second, if people are becoming less and less likely to report crime then of course, it stands to reason that crime rates which are based on police reporting are going to go down - even if actual crime doesn't.

If it continues to go unreported, all these new prisons and stiffer penalties will do nothing to put the unreported criminals in jail. So we're building more prisons for the stiffer penalties we're making then, I take it. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, don't you think?

We're building prisons because prisons are crowded, and because the government plans to make parole more difficult, to do away with mandatory supervision, and to increase sentences will result in a larger prison population.

[Scotty]

It would be a lot more fun debating you if you knew what you are talking about.

The first thing you should understand about the word "narcotic" is that it is used incorrectly more than it is used correctly. Marijuana, cocaine, and meth are not"narcotics". The word "narcotic" comes from the Greek word "narkos", meaning sleep. Therefore, "narcotics" are drugs that induce sleep. Specifically, that means the opiates such as heroin, morphine and related drugs.

Cocaine and meth are not "narcotics". They are "stimulants", the exact opposite of a "narcotic". They cause people to be more awake and more active, not sleepy. Marijuana and alcohol may even have a tendency to induce sleep at times. However, calling them "narcotics" simply shows a lack of understanding of the different effects.

You sould call marijuana a psychoactive drug.

None of which really matters a damn.

[Scotty]

According to this bill, if you rape a baby, you get 10 years. Grow some marijuana plants, you get 14 years.

This is what they meant by *scary* *scary*.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/conservatives-force-early-vote-on-massive-crime-bill-opposition-cries-foul-130634648.html

So don't rape babies or grow marijuana plants.

[BubberMiley]

So don't rape babies or grow marijuana plants.

So you agree with Harper that raping babies is, on the scale, a more admirable pursuit than growing marijuana?

Edited September 29, 2011 by BubberMiley

[Michael Hardner]

According to this bill, if you rape a baby, you get 10 years. Grow some marijuana plants, you get 14 years.

Isn't there some other crime we can use in this comparison ? Gawd...

[Shwa]

No, the argument is, first, that while the statistical crime rate has fallen, it is still well above what it was before the justice and prison systems took on a decidedly liberal tilt.

So it's a political argument now, not economic or social, which are liberal tilts, and now that there has been a politicization of the justice and prison systems - even though the crime rate is falling. Interestingly enough, the crime rate peaked during the tenure of the Mulroney Progressive Conservative majority governments in the late 80's, early 90's. Nothwithstanding that, ironically, the last time the crime rate was this low was during the Trudeau era.

Oh, but here is the familiar refrain - the Progressive Conservatives of the 80's were actually liberals. Welcome to Bizarro World.

Second, if people are becoming less and less likely to report crime then of course, it stands to reason that crime rates which are based on police reporting are going to go down - even if actual crime doesn't.

"If" - argument over.

We're building prisons because prisons are crowded, and because the government plans to make parole more difficult, to do away with mandatory supervision, and to increase sentences will result in a larger prison population.

Really? Man, you are behind in your cracker talk Polly:

Plenty of room remains in Canada's prisons

Federal bureaucrats vastly overestimated how many jail cells would be required for the Conservative government's law-and-order agenda, according to new data obtained by QMI Agency.

Maybe QMI and the Sun chain are actually liberals too?

Toews said Canada's prison has a surplus capacity although many prison facilities do need upgrades and repairs.

What is this? The guy in charge admitting that the prisons aren't crowded, but need upgrades and repairs? You know, so less people can go to better prisons because the crime rate is falling...

[BubberMiley]

Isn't there some other crime we can use in this comparison ? Gawd...

But the retch factor is what makes the point.

[Scotty]

So it's a political argument now, not economic or social, which are liberal tilts, and now that there has been a politicization of the justice and prison systems - even though the crime rate is falling.

The political argument took place in the sixties, which was when the prison and justice system were liberalized -- and when crime skyrocketed.

"If" - argument over.

Stats Canada says that it is. Do you have some evidence they're wrong?

Really? Man, you are behind in your cracker talk Polly:

Plenty of room remains in Canada's prisons

An interesting cite, but I wonder just what argument you think you're making. It seems to be that you and the other Lefties screaming about how Harper's crackdown on crime was going to send masses of people into jails and cost us billions of dollars was completely and absolutely wrong. Because that's what your cite says.

What is this? The guy in charge admitting that the prisons aren't crowded, but need upgrades and repairs? You know, so less people can go to better prisons because the crime rate is falling...

You don't think prisons should ever be repaired or upgraded?

And crime may or may not be falling. But there's still too damned much of it.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Scotty

[noahbody]

According to this bill, if you rape a baby, you get 10 years. Grow some marijuana plants, you get 14 years.

Actually, the bill says you can grow 499 plants for personal use without prison. Secondly, the comparison is meaningless because it's talking about maximum, not minimum sentences.

[Oleg Bach]

I bet even the Hell's Angles are buying stocks in the private prison industry.

Clean of the tatoos - shave them up - put on some nice suits and you would not be able to tell the Hell's Angels apart from the senior Bay Street boys.

[CitizenX]

Clean of the tatoos - shave them up - put on some nice suits and you would not be able to tell the Hell's Angels apart from the senior Bay Street boys.

Great Tune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXdk_XCEoCo&feature=player_embedded#!

[yarg]

Ah yes, the law is the law is the law isn't it? I recall you once said if they outlawed tomatoes or some such thing tomorrow, you'd toe that line with a real spring to your step. No doubt you'd love to experiment with allowing them back but in the meantime you'd probably be calling TIPS every chance you got.

I have to say to say that this sort of sycophantic toadying to authority is what really pisses me off the most about contemporary right wing conservatism these days. Facts and arguments don't have a freakin' chance with you people.

The same sort of non arguments and non facts you have been using to promote the gun registry all of these years? I don't like the governments efforts to increase sentencing for pot users, in fact I think it should be legalized, perhaps all drugs should be, but I can see the sense in not allowing violent offenders another chance to offend, seems to me there are lots of people around and if known violent people stayed behing bars society would go on. But for some on the left it's all about fixing people, helping people, rehabilitating people, so that a large portion of them will still reoffend but hey look at how good we made ourselves feel about trying to help them.. So sorry, but I don't give a shit about how much help they needed, or how tough their lives were, newsflash, most people who grew up in bad situations don't become violent offenders, most perservere to some extent.

So it really is amusing to see the left twist itself in knots over this, always claiming the moral high groud, always worrying about the disadvantaged, when at least as far as pot is concerned there is a lot discussion amongst the right about the practicality of these new laws, but were all the same.. But hey when you are blindly supporting a gun registry that is so easily proven useless or very, very nearly so, you are just another insightful liberal trying to make the world a better place by supporting laws which do nothing but annoy hunters and worrying about the rights of violent people...sure.

You're a hero in a world full of evil people who think violent criminals should spend more time in prison, hoorah and Canada is so lucky to have you.

[Moonlight Graham]

There is a little more ignorant than putting ideology before facts and stats. Maybe the CPC MP's should all go see the movie 'Moneyball'?