punked Posted July 30, 2012 Report Posted July 30, 2012 Tear it all down, the system sucks. 1. Hire thousands more police officers and convert prison security and correctional officers into police officers. 2. Place gps tracking implants in all non-violent offenders (with serious crimes) and release them all them under house arrest with extreme supervision (all phones and internet connections tapped and monitored, video cameras installed in house to monitor susicious activity). Wages are garnished to pay a settlement to victims, and offenders have no rights to social assistance. 3. Non-violent offenders of less serious crimes simply have no access to social assistance and have wages garnished to pay for any damages to victims or as a penalty. 4. Construct factories in rural areas with on-site housing, libraries, etc. Fence the facility in and have guards stationed around the proximity and within. Sort of like a mini city that is fenced in. Keep all violent offenders into the prison city to manufacture goods. The offenders will be paid a very low wage and have their wages garnished to pay victims. The produced goods will be sold at a competitive price in world markets (even if at a loss), to pay some of the costs of the correctional system. 5. Rent out our now empty prisons to the US for extra revenues. You do know with such a system there is motivation to find people guilty of crimes if they committed them or they didn't. This is because you get free slave labour the more people you put in prison. Seems like a bad idea to me. Quote
bleeding heart Posted July 30, 2012 Report Posted July 30, 2012 In any case ridiculous examples seem apropos in a thread with a ridiculous premise, that all that's wrong with our prison system is that it's not hard enough on criminals. Yes, a view that can never be properly satisfied. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
cybercoma Posted July 30, 2012 Report Posted July 30, 2012 You do know with such a system there is motivation to find people guilty of crimes if they committed them or they didn't. This is because you get free slave labour the more people you put in prison. Seems like a bad idea to me. Also surgically implanting things in people that commit crimes is horribly unethical. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 30, 2012 Report Posted July 30, 2012 Also surgically implanting things in people that commit crimes is horribly unethical. Isn't committing a crime horribly unethical? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
punked Posted July 30, 2012 Report Posted July 30, 2012 Isn't committing a crime horribly unethical? An eye for an eye makes us all blind. If our system is there to make it so there less and less crime so someday we have no crime then that is a bad idea. However if our system is only there to punish then yep it is a great idea. I play the long game. I know Conservatives (judging from most things they do) want to play the short game. That is fine our lives are finite so why start something that will only truly benefit people in 100 years right? Quote
madmax Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 Sexual offenders, I think, should be chemically castrated (I'm not adverse to the real thing either in some cases). Instead of putting some serial rapist in prison for twenty years at enormous expense, what's wrong with castrating them? I bet a lot of them would even prefer it. Presto. They're no longer a danger to the public. This wouldn't prevent the rapist that I am aware of whom used Knitting Needles on his victims.... nor would it prevent a rape. Quote
blueblood Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 An eye for an eye makes us all blind. If our system is there to make it so there less and less crime so someday we have no crime then that is a bad idea. However if our system is only there to punish then yep it is a great idea. I play the long game. I know Conservatives (judging from most things they do) want to play the short game. That is fine our lives are finite so why start something that will only truly benefit people in 100 years right? You do know thay were dealing with a small percent of the population who commit crimes and a percentage of that who are write offs. Some can be helped, some are best kept out of society. Its like AA, the first step is admitting they have a problem, but how does treatment work when a percentage of offenders don't think they truly have a problem? The problem that conservatives have is with repeat offenders who are write offs that think they don't have a problem and will never admit to it. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
bleeding heart Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 The problem that conservatives have is with repeat offenders who are write offs that think they don't have a problem and will never admit to it. I can't recall ever hearing an argument about it this nuanced from the "tough on crime" advocates. If anything, they tend to simplify by acting as if there's something called "crime," in which the perpetrators are roughly all the same beast. Hence mandatory minimums...and hence the monumental problem with the idea. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
madmax Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 I can't recall ever hearing an argument about it this nuanced from the "tough on crime" advocates. If anything, they tend to simplify by acting as if there's something called "crime," in which the perpetrators are roughly all the same beast. Hence mandatory minimums...and hence the monumental problem with the idea. Infact I concur with BlueBlood Point, however, I disagree with his analysis of the Conservative Reasoning for their tough on crime agenda. It has bugger all to do with repeat offenders. This is about building and filling new prisons, expanding the catchment area of "What actions are criminal" and of course the infamous "UNREPORTED CRIME" by stockwell day that is going to justify more prisons. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stockwell-day-cites-alarming-rise-in-unreported-crime-to-justify-new-prisons/article1375836/ sorry, I can only laugh at tke Keystone Cons and their corporate prison agenda. Quote
madmax Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) I've never been a fan of warehousing people, either on welfare or in prison. It doesn't solve the original problem which put them in the warehouse, and it's damned costly. Obviously some people have to be locked away to protect the community, but most don't fall into that category. Minor offenders: We need to see a lot more fines, and heavier fines for those who can come up with the money. I think much more community service work needs to be done, including routine things like picking up garbage along shores and cutting weeds along highways. I wouldn't mind seeing Singapore type canings either. And this could also be helpful in enforcing prison rules and regulations. How do you punish someone in prison for life anyway? More time? Caning would be a better deterrent. Sexual offenders, I think, should be chemically castrated (I'm not adverse to the real thing either in some cases). Instead of putting some serial rapist in prison for twenty years at enormous expense, what's wrong with castrating them? I bet a lot of them would even prefer it. Presto. They're no longer a danger to the public. Violent offenders: Clearly these individuals have a lot of energy. One of the components our prison system lacks is hard labour, as they have in the UK and some other jurisdictions. The labour doesn't have to be of any value. They could simply be set to digging ditches or breaking rocks. Every day. This would be of particular use for street gang members who don't see prison as much of a deterrent. Life in prison isn't that much different for them than life on the streets. They still hang out with their gang members, deal and do drugs, and commit various criminal acts. And, of course, they get regular visits from the whores who seem attracted to such men. Hard labour would be a first for most of them, and would prove to be much more of a deterrent. Parole: Parole needs to be restricted to those individuals who have made a serious effort at reforming their attitudes and obtaining skills and education. For the rest. You serve your full sentence. Prisoners all need to work a lot more in order to help offset the costs of their incarceration. Every prisoner should spend ten hours a day either learning a skill, getting an education, or working hard at something which will earn the prison system some money. As you are good for Canings.... I notice you completely ignore corporate criminals. Did you ever think of investigating Saudi Arabia for punishment. Imagine people like those convicted of Corporate Fraud, like the Enron/WorldCom and Maddof characters all doing business missing one hand. Edited July 31, 2012 by madmax Quote
bleeding heart Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 Infact I concur with BlueBlood Point, I do too, which I think is at least implied in my use of the word "nuanced." I only think that blueblood makes a mistake in believing the Conservative Party policymakers and ideologues share his relatively sane vision. Hell, I voted NDP last time around...and I think they're about half as moral and intelligent as I am...and I put myself at about average! (And yes, certainly I think the Conservatives and Liberals are worse than the NDP....) Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
blueblood Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 Infact I concur with BlueBlood Point, however, I disagree with his analysis of the Conservative Reasoning for their tough on crime agenda. It has bugger all to do with repeat offenders. This is about building and filling new prisons, expanding the catchment area of "What actions are criminal" and of course the infamous "UNREPORTED CRIME" by stockwell day that is going to justify more prisons. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stockwell-day-cites-alarming-rise-in-unreported-crime-to-justify-new-prisons/article1375836/ sorry, I can only laugh at tke Keystone Cons and their corporate prison agenda. The prisons we have are not designed to accomodate the large numbers we have in them today. Why do we have overcrowding yet crime is reported going down? Simple, compare the population of canada in the 70's to today. There's just a bigger pool to draw from and the prison system hasn't adjusted to that. The criminal code is quite specific on what's criminal and hasn't had too much change since inception. If the code were followed to the letter, a large portion of the country would be behind bars. As for unreported crime, there is the question of "what do you want done with the person who did this to you?" I had it asked when the police caught a kid who tried stealing. How many people do you think say want nothing done? How about officer's discretion when they don't have enough to go on for an investigation. So there's that aspect, its not as much but its some. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 Also surgically implanting things in people that commit crimes is horribly unethical. Why? They're criminals. Plant a GPS bug so we know where they are at all times. Then if a crime occurs we can check back and see 'ah ha!" it was you! Sounds good to me. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) This wouldn't prevent the rapist that I am aware of whom used Knitting Needles on his victims.... nor would it prevent a rape. I'm not a doctor but I believe that castration doesn't just remove the equipment, it removes the desire. Edited July 31, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 Why? They're criminals. Plant a GPS bug so we know where they are at all times. Then if a crime occurs we can check back and see 'ah ha!" it was you! Sounds good to me. Do I need to tell you how regressive and dangerous the policy of "once a criminal, always a criminal" is? Do you know what it does to a society when one can never fully pay their debts to it? Quote
cybercoma Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 I'm not a doctor but I believe that castration doesn't just remove the equipment, it removes the desire. You would be wrong. In any case, it's against s. 7 of the Charter of Rights anyway, as it infringes upon the security of the person. Quote
Rick Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 Why? They're criminals. Plant a GPS bug so we know where they are at all times. Then if a crime occurs we can check back and see 'ah ha!" it was you! Sounds good to me. You know, I'm fairly certain you and the late Dr. Josef Mengele would have been close friends with your shared views... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Guest Manny Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 I'm not a doctor but I believe that castration doesn't just remove the equipment, it removes the desire. Rape isn't about sexual desire, apparently. Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 Rape isn't about sexual desire, apparently. I don't believe that for a second. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 You know, I'm fairly certain you and the late Dr. Josef Mengele would have been close friends with your shared views... There was an orangutang on TV last night because it was shocking visitors by picking its nose and throwing excrement at them. I'm fairly sure you and he would be close friends except that his intellect would likely be far superior to yours so he'd have to dumb things down to communicate with you. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 I don't believe that for a second.Psychologists disagree with you and I think most will take their testable, methodical research over your beliefs. Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 You would be wrong. In any case, it's against s. 7 of the Charter of Rights anyway, as it infringes upon the security of the person. And you know I have soooo much respect for the Charter. :-P As I said, I bet a lot of people facing a long prison sentence would volunteer for it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 Do I need to tell you how regressive and dangerous the policy of "once a criminal, always a criminal" is? Do you know what it does to a society when one can never fully pay their debts to it? Heck, if you didn't tell them it was there they wouldn't even know. So what's the problem? Besides, whenever a crime of a similar type is committed anywhere them they're automatically a suspect to police. Such a device would let the police check, find out they weren't anywhere near that place at that type, and would save them the embarrassment and problems of having police pick them up and interview them and then check out their alibi. So this would actually help the ex-con. As long as they didn't break any further laws, of course. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 As I said, I bet a lot of people facing a long prison sentence would volunteer for it. Of course they would and it would be completely unethical to do that. We did this to "mental defectives" in Alberta and British Columbia from 1920-70. In BC they had to volunteer. Of course, when you're facing the rest of your life institutionalized, you'll do some crazy things for your freedom.You got pissed at another poster for comparing your views to the Nazis, but you suggest government policies that allow them to violate your body and you completely disregard the Charter of Rights. Sorry, but in this instance, if the shoe fits... Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 Of course they would and it would be completely unethical to do that. We did this to "mental defectives" in Alberta and British Columbia from 1920-70. In BC they had to volunteer. Of course, when you're facing the rest of your life institutionalized, you'll do some crazy things for your freedom. What you seem to be forgetting in your zeal to protect the rights of serial rapists, is that 'mental defectives' were innocent of any wrongdoing. They didn't hurt people. Threatening to institutionalize someone because they don't measure up to your standards for intelligent is not comparable to the same threat because they're violent, repeat criminals. You got pissed at another poster for comparing your views to the Nazis, but you suggest government policies that allow them to violate your body and you completely disregard the Charter of Rights. Sorry, but in this instance, if the shoe fits... Pissed off? Give me a break. The person you mention has so little respect on this board that no one takes anything he says seriously anyway, including me. But hey. If you want to put it into black and white: I'm interested in protecting women from violent sexual predators. And you're more interested in protecting the rights of violent sexual predators. I can live with myself pretty easily on that basis. Can you? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.