A crime debate without facts or arguments

[cybercoma]

Prostitution can be handled in the same way. You control and regulate the trade, and you take the abusive element out of the equation. At the same time you provide access to information, counseling, and a way out for these women. Money well spent. It worked for gambling. The government takes over and the criminal element disappears or at least is minimized.

I recommend checking out Chester Brown's graphic novel Paying For It about his decision to be a John for the rest of his life.

He makes a very persuasive argument for decriminalizing prostitution and not regulating or controlling the trade. Brown believes that the ultimate goal should be a system where prostitutes have the same recourse for safety as everyone else in society does. Prostitution needs to be normalized in his view. However, regulation and control of the industry puts beaucrats into people's bedrooms. What he argues would happen is that born and raised Canadian prostitutes will go underground to remain anonymous and avoid having prying eyes into their sex life. This will only serve to perpetuate a black market for thsoe who want to remain discrete about their business. Moreover, he doesn't believe it should be taxed. The Church does not pay taxes because it is seen as a sacred. Likewise, Brown holds that sex is also sacred and what goes on in the bedroom is no business of the people at the CRA who would need to know everything about the prostitutes' sex lives. Again, most people don't go around advertising the details of their sex life, so requiring prostitutes to do so will just force them into situations where they would not have to. Forcing them underground perpetuates the unsafe situation that they are currently in. Brown, obviously an activist for prostitution, believes that adults should be able to choose to have sex with others for whatever reason they see fit, whether that be in exchange for money or because you see someone at the bar and want to take them home. There is no moral difference between casually picking a stranger up at a club and paying for sex.

[cybercoma]

There's a bifurcation in rightwing ideology that wants to see the role of the state (taxation, services, etc) reduced, yet they advocate for an increased presence in other aspects of people's lives (morality, policing, etc).

[Guest Derek L]

There's a bifurcation in rightwing ideology that wants to see the role of the state (taxation, services, etc) reduced, yet they advocate for an increased presence in other aspects of people's lives (morality, policing, etc).

That’s painting with a rather wide brush don’t you think? I’d think that would be justified if referring to social Conservatives...

[cybercoma]

That’s painting with a rather wide brush don’t you think? I’d think that would be justified if referring to social Conservatives...

Well, yeah. That goes without saying. There's wide variation even within any given political party. We could sit here all day outlining the various gradations within the political spectrum, but I think it's a rather fair characterization of the Right in general. We could find Conservatives that have more in common with the Liberals and vice versa, but those obviously aren't the ones I'm talking about.

Edited September 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

Well, yeah. That goes without saying. There's wide variation even within any given political party. We could sit here all day outlining the various gradations within the political spectrum, but I think it's a rather fair characterization of the Right in general. We could find Conservatives that have more in common with the Liberals and vice versa, but those obviously aren't the ones I'm talking about.

Fair enough……Small c Conservatives with a bent towards classic liberalism would be more apt

Edited September 25, 2011 by Derek L

[Scotty]

People don't commit crimes expecting to be caught and there are serious social consequences to locking people up for life and creating "mandatory minimums" that take away judicial discretion.

True enough. But there are no win-win choices with respect to most decisions. They generally involve some good and some bad. If you've made the right choice, the good outweighs the bad. In this case, the good of society vs the bad of over-sentencing for certain individuals. On the other hand, individuals who like to carry hand guns around are probably the people we ought to be over-sentencing anyway.

I know many people think that we should adopt a crime and punishment agenda, but there are many that would argue that the Criminal Justice System needs to be more comprehensive in addressing the needs of the victims and the families of offenders.

The last forty years has been all about trying to be more offender oriented, about trying to rehabilitate, about understanding their unique circumstances and trying to teach them skills and to avoid violence and crime. We've made parole far easier, and sentences have dropped since the sixties. We've made prisons far more liveable and humane, with far more programs. Well, it's all failed miserably. While our 'official' police-reported crime rate (as accurate or inaccurate as it is) has dropped over the past ten or fifteen years it's still far higher than it was before we started the kinder and gentler approach, and our approach to recidivism has failed even more. I'm not saying three strikes and you're out. I'm not a baseball fan. But there has to be a point at which the system realizes that the only time an offender isn't in prison is when he hasn't yet been caught for the crimes he's currently committing, stop screwing around, and put him or her away permanently.

I mean, how many times does a guy have to be caught burglarizing houses or shops, or selling drugs, before we decide that society's protection outweighs concerns for the criminal's well-being?

[Scotty]

Tougher sentencing isn't going to eliminate the presence of guns though.

I think that a lot of these clowns will think twice about sticking a gun in their belts, and if not, well, then we're all better off with them in prison.

[Scotty]

There's a bifurcation in rightwing ideology that wants to see the role of the state (taxation, services, etc) reduced, yet they advocate for an increased presence in other aspects of people's lives (morality, policing, etc).

Sure, and Left wing ideology isn't all about rules and regulations and reigning in freedoms, beliefs, and behaviours the left doesn't like...

The only real difference is that left and right want to outlaw different things.

Except for porn. They're both against it, but for different reasons; the right because it's 'immoral' and the left because it 'exploits women'.

For what it's worth, I'd love to experiment with legalizing both soft drugs and prostitution. I just don't think it's going to happen any time soon. That being the case, I don't oppose most of what's in the Tory crime bill. I don't like a few things, I'm ambivalent about a few more, and I support others.

[CitizenX]

That’s painting with a rather wide brush don’t you think? I’d think that would be justified if referring to social Conservatives...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Harper Government is Socially Conservative as apposed to fiscally Conservative.

[CitizenX]

The only real difference is that left and right want to outlaw different things.

Except for porn. They're both against it, but for different reasons; the right because it's 'immoral' and the left because it 'exploits women'.

If this is the case what makes more sense? Outlaw something because a spaghetti monster in the sky may or may not be against it, or because it might protect a real person?

[Scotty]

If this is the case what makes more sense? Outlaw something because a spaghetti monster in the sky may or may not be against it, or because it might protect a real person?

Some of our laws protect people. Some of our laws are simply political, designed to make the government of the day look good, and some are moral judgements on what society does not approve of people doing - like prostitution.

[CitizenX]

Some of our laws protect people. Some of our laws are simply political, designed to make the government of the day look good, and some are moral judgements on what society does not approve of people doing - like prostitution.

No some are moral judgments of a religious base and social engineering.

[cybercoma]

The last forty years has been all about trying to be more offender oriented

Indeed, it has, but I'm talking about moving beyond just being offender oriented. I'm talking about a Criminal Justice System that is not just oriented towards the offenders, but also the victims and families. In the specialized courts that deal with domestic violence, this means providing services for the victims and their children. It means considering their needs and what a successful handling of their cases means. That doesn't always mean putting someone in jail, especially if she's a stay at home mom and he pays all the bills or if it would mean her losing her kids. No matter, that's just an example. I think this type of thinking should be carried into the rest of the criminal justice system. We need to consider offender accountability amongst a host of other things, such as the victims' needs.

[cybercoma]

Some of our laws protect people. Some of our laws are simply political, designed to make the government of the day look good

And the discussion comes full-circle to the opening post. This government has taken it upon itself to make decisions based solely on political whims. It's horrible governance, regardless of the party doing it.

[CitizenX]

Indeed, it has, but I'm talking about moving beyond just being offender oriented. I'm talking about a Criminal Justice System that is not just oriented towards the offenders, but also the victims and families. In the specialized courts that deal with domestic violence, this means providing services for the victims and their children. It means considering their needs and what a successful handling of their cases means. That doesn't always mean putting someone in jail, especially if she's a stay at home mom and he pays all the bills or if it would mean her losing her kids. No matter, that's just an example. I think this type of thinking should be carried into the rest of the criminal justice system. We need to consider offender accountability amongst a host of other things, such as the victims' needs.

Restorative justice

Edited September 25, 2011 by CitizenX

[WWWTT]

Only to some extent. The actual cost of damaged, lost and stolen material, the actual cost of medical treatment and lost wages, the money spent on bars for windows, security guards, alarm systems, those are very real. It is the intangibles which are more complicated. However, if you checked out a number of them you should have seen that most say their estimates, whether 50 or 100 billion, are actually conservative, and probably understating the real cost.

Ya I checked out those sites again and I can still not find a time frame duration for those costs.Is those costs per year,two years,five or ten?

Aswell is the cost of keeping an entire judicial system afloat calculated as an expence of crime?

Adding the cost for security,security systems and so on is a liberal addition to the cost of crime.Do you have any evidence that these measures have reduced crime?

WWWTT

[eyeball]

Some of our laws protect people. Some of our laws are simply political, designed to make the government of the day look good, and some are moral judgements on what society does not approve of people doing - like prostitution.

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.

Edited September 26, 2011 by eyeball

[Battletoads]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Harper Government is Socially Conservative as apposed to fiscally Conservative.

They'd like to think they were fiscally conservatives, but if you look at the country, the fiscal situation here has deteriorated since the moment they took office. Even before the recession hit they'd already spent us into deficit. (Keep in mind Paul Martin left them with a 9.1 billion dollar surplus)

Edited September 26, 2011 by Battletoads

[capricorn]

They'd like to think they were fiscally conservatives, but if you look at the country, the fiscal situation here has deteriorated since the moment they took office.

I'm sure the fact we're in a better financial position today that other G8 countries is cold comfort to Canadians who are feeling the pinch.

Even before the recession hit they'd already spent us into deficit.

Given all the facts as we know them, I would not deny that they were caught flat footed on the direction of the global economy. The question is, had the Liberals remained in power would they have been more astute?

(Keep in mind Paul Martin left them with a 9.1 billion dollar surplus)

What did the Liberals intend to do with all that rainy day money? In my view, a government surplus implies that maybe they collected too many taxes from Canadians in relation to the funds required to run their administration.

[BubberMiley]

Except for porn. They're both against it, but for different reasons; the right because it's 'immoral' and the left because it 'exploits women'.

Not me. I'm 100% in favour of it.

[lukin]

Not me. I'm 100% in favour of it.

Unless it involves your daughter.

[cybercoma]

What did the Liberals intend to do with all that rainy day money? In my view, a government surplus implies that maybe they collected too many taxes from Canadians in relation to the funds required to run their administration.

It rained in 2008.

[capricorn]

It rained in 2008.

Then you should have invested in umbrellas.

[CitizenX]

Edited September 26, 2011 by CitizenX

[cybercoma]

Then you should have invested in umbrellas.

How does someone invest in umbrellas, when all of their money is invested in food, clothing and shelter?