Justin Trudeau & Red China

[guyser]

Technically you are right but it's ass backwards......they have to be let out unless there is a really strong case to keep them in. That's why it's referred to as statutory release. That's not the way parole is supposed to work - you're supposed to prove that you're worthy of parole.

But essentially they are proving worthy of release if they are violent or sexual convicts ...right?

[Human_Observer]

Crime drops for 40 years, Harper reckons we need more prisons, duh?

Maybe the money is not for more prisons, but instead replacing and upgrading the prisons we have now??

Both the prisoners and prison employees have bitched aboat the state of the prisons we have in Canada.

Buildings need to be maintained and yes that cost money.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's not maintenance or upgrades, it's new cells for the most part. A recent radio interview with an active Vancouver BC lawyer reckoned that the new MMS on pot possession would add roughly 4000 to the inmate population. During the same discussion a retired judge from the US talked about MMS and how unfair it was as he related two cases that he heard one after the other while he was still on the bench. Both simple possession of pot, one was a guy her saw regularly who was in trouble more than he was out. Six months. The next guy was a young man just graduating from high school with 2 scholarships. one academic, one for sport, never been in trouble in his life before. Judge had no choice, six months. If the kid wasn't a criminal going in, he might well be one coming out. I wonder why then do we have "judges"

[Keepitsimple]

It's not maintenance or upgrades, it's new cells for the most part. A recent radio interview with an active Vancouver BC lawyer reckoned that the new MMS on pot possession would add roughly 4000 to the inmate population. During the same discussion a retired judge from the US talked about MMS and how unfair it was as he related two cases that he heard one after the other while he was still on the bench. Both simple possession of pot, one was a guy her saw regularly who was in trouble more than he was out. Six months. The next guy was a young man just graduating from high school with 2 scholarships. one academic, one for sport, never been in trouble in his life before. Judge had no choice, six months. If the kid wasn't a criminal going in, he might well be one coming out. I wonder why then do we have "judges"

Refer to my previous post about each of the "tough on crime" measures`that have been implemented since 2006. Each time, the usual suspects shouted and`wrung their hands that the prisons would be filled - and each time, it never came to pass. After all this time, the per-capita incarceration rate is the same and the actual proson population has hardly moved. Like all the other apocolyptic predictions that have been proven as total BS, so too will your BC lawyers fanciful tale. As for the money - it IS a combination of maintenance and new prisons. Kingston penitentiary and at least one Federal prison in Montreal have closed down - others need to be upgraded.

[Keepitsimple]

But essentially they are proving worthy of release if they are violent or sexual convicts ...right?

Each case should stand on its own merit. Period.

[On Guard for Thee]

Refer to my previous post about each of the "tough on crime" measures`that have been implemented since 2006. Each time, the usual suspects shouted and`wrung their hands that the prisons would be filled - and each time, it never came to pass. After all this time, the per-capita incarceration rate is the same and the actual proson population has hardly moved. Like all the other apocolyptic predictions that have been proven as total BS, so too will your BC lawyers fanciful tale. As for the money - it IS a combination of maintenance and new prisons. Kingston penitentiary and at least one Federal prison in Montreal have closed down - others need to be upgraded.

Canadian prison population is at an all time high if you care to check.

[cybercoma]

The number of people being imprisoned is far outpacing the growth in population. This is a worrisome development, considering crime is at one of the lowest levels in history.

[Keepitsimple]

The number of people being imprisoned is far outpacing the growth in population. This is a worrisome development, considering crime is at one of the lowest levels in history.

I think you'll find clear evidence that when the economy is good, crime is low and when its bad, crime goes up. In 1995, the federal prison population was 14,100 - thanks in no small part to Bob Rae's disastrous handling of that era's recession. With the economy booming through the later 90's and 2000's, the prison population had fallen to 12,300 by 2005. We've been going through almost 5 years of tough times and the prison population is now - 8 years later, at about 15,100.......in line with the per-capita population of 1995........and about 7 times lower than the US. As they say, it's the economy, stupid.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

Harper's so called tough on crime bill is yet another sleazy way of sucking up a few votes from the folks who allow themselves to be led around by the nose and didnt bother to check the facts about the actual crime rate. Unfortunately a lot of the people who will bear the burden for this nonsense will be high school kids who like to smoke a joint and of course, the taxpayer.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper's so called tough on crime bill is yet another sleazy way of sucking up a few votes from the folks who allow themselves to be led around by the nose and didnt bother to check the facts about the actual crime rate. Unfortunately a lot of the people who will bear the burden for this nonsense will be high school kids who like to smoke a joint and of course, the taxpayer.

Your post shows an ideology that accepts that a certain level of crime is acceptable. Sorry, but that is unacceptable.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your post shows an ideology that accepts that a certain level of crime is acceptable. Sorry, but that is unacceptable.

It doesn't show that at all. I would be quite happy if there was never another crime committed. But it depends what you call a crime. I don't think smoking pot is a crime, but that's just a personal opinion. But to the bigger picture, when the crime rate is as low as it has been in 40 years, and the deficit is through the roof, spending a truckload more money to extend jail sentences just to garner a few votes seems rather transparent. There are huge numbers of studies which indicate that being "tough on crime" doesn't preclude crime. You may have heard the story about the man who installed the electric chair in the state of Florida later died on it. Apparently the death penalty didn't stop him from committing murder. How about spending a few bucks on the front end-even the state of Texas found out how well that worked.

[Icebound]

No, you are.

The tax credit for donors, like those that donate to charity, is a benefit for the donors of all political parties, not the parties themselves.

As to your suggestion that it skews party funding (for some unnamed nefarious purpose no doubt) in favour of those with large bank accounts is purely laughable……..Do you really think those donors that that contribute the max allowable amount (per elections Canada) jump up and down over receiving a “tax break” measured in the hundreds of dollars?

It is really too bad that I should have a life and not be able to stay here constantly and refute this drivel....

Let me try some basic math....

You send the CPC $1000 as a donation.

The government of canada (taxpayers) return to you approximately $450 of that as a tax credit.

You are out-of-pocket only $550.

YET, the CPC has received a total of $1000....

Since you are out-of-pocket only $550, then WHERE DID THAT OTHER $450 COME FROM????

It works the same for a charity... when you donate, and get a tax rebate on part of your donation, but that charity still gets the full amount.

NO, the government does not send it DIRECTLY to them.... they sent it to YOU, and you passed it on to THEM.

But it is still TAXPAYER money.

So what I am saying is:

You give the CPC $550.... You are out of pocket exactly the same as before.

... but they should get NOTHING MORE.... NOTHING from the taxpayer.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Icebound

[Guest Derek L]

It is really too bad that I should have a life and not be able to stay here constantly and refute this drivel....

Let me try some basic math....

You send the CPC $1000 as a donation.

The government of canada (taxpayers) return to you approximately $450 of that as a tax credit.

You are out-of-pocket only $550.

YET, the CPC has received a total of $1000....

Since you are out-of-pocket only $550, then WHERE DID THAT OTHER $450 COME FROM????

It works the same for a charity... when you donate, and get a tax rebate on part of your donation, but that charity still gets the full amount.

NO, the government does not send it DIRECTLY to them.... they sent it to YOU, and you passed it on to THEM.

But it is still TAXPAYER money.

I know how the tax credit works, but thanks…….As I said, and you outlined ever so clearly, the Party an individual contributes a donation to, doesn’t receive funds from the taxpayer, but the individual……..

[PIK]

It doesn't show that at all. I would be quite happy if there was never another crime committed. But it depends what you call a crime. I don't think smoking pot is a crime, but that's just a personal opinion. But to the bigger picture, when the crime rate is as low as it has been in 40 years, and the deficit is through the roof, spending a truckload more money to extend jail sentences just to garner a few votes seems rather transparent. There are huge numbers of studies which indicate that being "tough on crime" doesn't preclude crime. You may have heard the story about the man who installed the electric chair in the state of Florida later died on it. Apparently the death penalty didn't stop him from committing murder. How about spending a few bucks on the front end-even the state of Texas found out how well that worked.

It does big time. People in jail are not on the outside causing trouble. And in case you don't know, we do not have a death penalty.

[On Guard for Thee]

It does big time. People in jail are not on the outside causing trouble. And in case you don't know, we do not have a death penalty.

I never said WE have a death penalty, I said the state of Florida does.

[Keepitsimple]

It doesn't show that at all. I would be quite happy if there was never another crime committed. But it depends what you call a crime. I don't think smoking pot is a crime, but that's just a personal opinion. But to the bigger picture, when the crime rate is as low as it has been in 40 years, and the deficit is through the roof, spending a truckload more money to extend jail sentences just to garner a few votes seems rather transparent. There are huge numbers of studies which indicate that being "tough on crime" doesn't preclude crime. You may have heard the story about the man who installed the electric chair in the state of Florida later died on it. Apparently the death penalty didn't stop him from committing murder. How about spending a few bucks on the front end-even the state of Texas found out how well that worked.

Never mention Texas - or the US for that matter - when discussing crime. Completely different kettle of fish. Most states have incarceration rates that are 5 - 7 times more than Canada. Their pendulum swung so far it's outside of the clock. It's maddening - and disingenous - to hear the opposition and Leftist critcs say that "the US/Texas has learned that throwing people in jail doesn't work". What does that mean - that they should reduce their incarceration rate to only three times that of Canada? Would that make things OK? Anyway, I'm sure you can see how misleading it is to compare, right?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Guest Derek L]

Never mention Texas - or the US for that matter - when discussing crime. Completely different kettle of fish. Most states have incarceration rates that are 5 - 7 times more than Canada. Their pendulum swung so far it's outside of the clock.

Exactly, with Texas in particular, a great strain was also put on the State & County penal system by the Federal Government offloading illegal immigrants into Texas jails and prisons…….

to add cite:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/15/5249540/texas-spending-millions-to-jail.html?rh=1

Texas county jails spent more than $156.6 million housing more than 131,000 illegal immigrants with federal detainers between October 2011 and September 2013, according to state jail commission data.

“Those are staggering numbers,” said state Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, who authored the 2011 bill that required jails to begin tracking data about the cost of jailing illegal immigrants.

Under Williams’ legislation, Senate Bill 1698, the counties must report to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards each month how many illegal immigrants with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers are in their facilities. ICE files detainers on illegal immigrants who are subject to deportation when their sentences are completed. The law also requires jail officials to estimate the costs of housing those immigrants who face deportation. The goal was to establish the cost of jailing illegal immigrants and to pressure the federal government to reimburse local communities, just as the feds already pay state prisons.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/15/5249540/texas-spending-millions-to-jail.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Edited December 9, 2013 by Derek L

[On Guard for Thee]

Never mention Texas - or the US for that matter - when discussing crime. Completely different kettle of fish. Most states have incarceration rates that are 5 - 7 times more than Canada. Their pendulum swung so far it's outside of the clock. It's maddening - and disingenous - to hear the opposition and Leftist critcs say that "the US/Texas has learned that throwing people in jail doesn't work". What does that mean - that they should reduce their incarceration rate to only three times that of Canada? Would that make things OK? Anyway, I'm sure you can see how misleading it is to compare, right?

Agreed. The US apparently locks up more people than communist China. My reference to Texas was to do with an exercise, if I can call it that, that the state did were they took a portion of their budget they usually spend on jails and put it into crime prevention programs, many of them targeting young people to convince them to leave illicit drugs alone. I don't have the actual results at my fingertips at the moment but as I recall the returns on investment were significant. So, less people in jail, less cost to taxpayer. A win/win it seems to me. I;m certainly not suggesting we fashion our criminal system after any state, but I do believe that preventing crime where we can makes more sense than just building more cells to throw people in after the fact.

[Argus]

The number of people being imprisoned is far outpacing the growth in population. This is a worrisome development, considering crime is at one of the lowest levels in history.

No, it's not, actually.

[Icebound]

I know how the tax credit works, but thanks…….As I said, and you outlined ever so clearly, the Party an individual contributes a donation to, doesn’t receive funds from the taxpayer, but the individual……..

Please answer the question:

You are out-of-pocket $550.

Yet the CPC has received $1000.

Where did the other $450 come from?

[Guest Derek L]

Please answer the question:

You are out-of-pocket $550.

Yet the CPC has received $1000.

Where did the other $450 come from?

I take it Algebra wasn’t your strong suit…….correct your equation and I’ll play along.

[Bonam]

Derek, you're way off on this one. Icebound's got the right of it.

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, you're way off on this one. Icebound's got the right of it.

Please explain......I give money to the party of my choice.....I receive a tax credit.....How does that equate to said party receiving taxpayer funds when I’ve donated a portion of my (already) taxable income? Am I not receiving the “taxpayer funded” relief totalling ~$450.……

[Bonam]

Please explain......I give money to the party of my choice.....I receive a tax credit.....How does that equate to said party receiving taxpayer funds when I’ve donated a portion of my (already) taxable income? Am I not receiving the “taxpayer funded” relief totalling ~$450.……

Icebound already explained it adequately. You are playing semantic games. You pay $550, the party gets $1000. The $450 comes from other taxpayers.

[Keepitsimple]

Agreed. The US apparently locks up more people than communist China. My reference to Texas was to do with an exercise, if I can call it that, that the state did were they took a portion of their budget they usually spend on jails and put it into crime prevention programs, many of them targeting young people to convince them to leave illicit drugs alone. I don't have the actual results at my fingertips at the moment but as I recall the returns on investment were significant. So, less people in jail, less cost to taxpayer. A win/win it seems to me. I;m certainly not suggesting we fashion our criminal system after any state, but I do believe that preventing crime where we can makes more sense than just building more cells to throw people in after the fact.

And a decent exercise it is. Conservative opponents neglect to point out that Canada has plenty of "crime prevention" and early intervention programs on the go. These usually take place at the local level - where they should - could be community work, education, whatever. Why everything has to be bundled into a one-size fits all and funded by the Federal government is befuddling. The Feds should take care of rehabilitation programs once someone is locked up - and later on parole. The Provinces and Cities should work together to build crime-prevention and early-intervention programs. Without a clear deliniation of responsibilities - you just end up with one level of government fighting with another - blaming each other - and nothing getting done. Healthcare was a perfect example - but the feds have now funded Healthcare on a consistent go-forward basis and the deliver of healthcare services is clearly in the Provinces hands. No more squabbling about who does what (well, almost none).