jacee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) There are better ways: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/compendium/2000/chap_9-eng.shtml Compelling evidence is offered which shows that controlling crime through education may be an effective and economical method of reducing recidivism rates. ... It is time that policy makers commit to combating crime by helping violators help themselves. ... To this end, educating offenders to become productive members of society without compromising custody in a short period of time may seem like an impossible task, yet, consider the alternatives. General Education Diploma for adults in Ontario 1-888-433-1211 The GED program should be made available to all inmates without a secondary diploma, and college/university/trades courses for those who do. Education should always be the first strategy for rehabilitation. Punishment may be useful for avoidance of crime ... or avoidance of being caught ... but it has to be accompanied by constructive strategies for self-support and improvement in quality of life. . . Edited April 16, 2015 by jacee Quote
Big Guy Posted April 16, 2015 Author Report Posted April 16, 2015 The question is what works as a better deterrent to crime; Incarceration and punishment or rehabilitation. The right seems to feel that punishment and long sentences deter crime while the left feels that changing criminal behaviour deters crime. I thought that research has proven the answer beyond a doubt. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
PIK Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 It is funny how they say crime is down , but in Ottawa with so many shooting, they are lucky they don't have 10 murders by now. Same as Vancouver. But yet go after the criminal and the left goes wild and yet they had no problem going after duck hunters.But it is time for the will of the people to reign, and question need to be asked about this personal feud bev has with harper. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 It is funny how they say crime is down , but in Ottawa with so many shooting, they are lucky they don't have 10 murders by now. Statistics don't lie. Quote
PIK Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 OK, but cy, if these people were better shots as I said the murder rate would be threw the roof. But did I hear the SC said no to prayers in council meeting , but yet say a muslim women can cover her face when say the oath. We need a major overhaul here. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 The judiciary is one branch of government. Checks and balances to protect democracy, you know. Can't have power hungry partisan politicians running amok. . What is the check or balance on the Supreme Court? 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 April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Isn't it odd that the 'law and order' Party despises the Court? . Not when the Court has a history of befriending the most violent and antisocial elements of society, and doing its best to sympathize and protect them from retribution. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 It is funny how they say crime is down , but in Ottawa with so many shooting, they are lucky they don't have 10 murders by now. Same as Vancouver. But yet go after the criminal and the left goes wild and yet they had no problem going after duck hunters.But it is time for the will of the people to reign, and question need to be asked about this personal feud bev has with harper. I dont think most of us find it funny that crime is down, encouraging would likely be more accurate. But no oe said it is yet, or likely ever will be zero. I suspect the feud arose because Harper is in another snit because his legislation keeps failing to meet the requirements of the constitution. Instead of getting silly, he should get better legal advice. Quote
Argus Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Having gun control laws is a completely separate issue from having MMS for people who might break those laws. So you feel we would be better served by having an expensive gun control bureaucracy instead of severely punishing violent criminals with illegal guns? 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 April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Statistics don't lie. They lie very smoothly and easily, in fact, and always have. 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 April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 The question is what works as a better deterrent to crime; Incarceration and punishment or rehabilitation. The right seems to feel that punishment and long sentences deter crime while the left feels that changing criminal behaviour deters crime. I thought that research has proven the answer beyond a doubt. Indeed. It proved the Left were moronic in their hug-a-thug approach, that it didn't work, and that it led to ever increasing amounts of violent crime. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 OK, but cy, if these people were better shots as I said the murder rate would be threw the roof. But did I hear the SC said no to prayers in council meeting , but yet say a muslim women can cover her face when say the oath. We need a major overhaul here. You seem to be confused in thinking the prayer issue and the head covering issue are at odds with each other. In fact they both come from the same concept that the state shall remain neutral with regard to religion. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 So you feel we would be better served by having an expensive gun control bureaucracy instead of severely punishing violent criminals with illegal guns? We are undoubtedly better served by tighter gun control than than we are by throwing people in after they have committed a crime. The US proves this for us quite regularly. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Indeed. It proved the Left were moronic in their hug-a-thug approach, that it didn't work, and that it led to ever increasing amounts of violent crime. Even people as far right as the state of Texas found out that the moronic idea that tough jail sentences were a deterrent to, especially violent crime, ad they even tried to tell Harper his so called tough on crime ideas didnt work for them. Quote
Argus Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 The justice system is really screwed up, not just the courts but the whole thing has faults. I do think that mandatory jail time is stupid. I tend to agree. Mandatory sentences, however, are a response to the public's perception of injustice in the way judges were handling violent offenders. The public wants violent offenders, particularly those who use firearms, harshly dealt with. Judges didn't seem to be doing that. That's why mandatory sentences came in. I think people making these laws need to go undercover in jail to see how much of a waste of tax payer dollars prison programs are. They appear as out of touch and strung along based upon sensationalism. Jail time is a horrible justice process that damages lives not rehabilitates. If you concentrate criminals you arnt removing criminal influences. I'm not sure what your alternatives are to 'concentrating criminals' or to the present programs in prison. You don't make that very clear. Criminals need social help or a new life. If you dont give them a chance to make a stable healthy life it will drag things down. This sort of thing has been the mantra of the Left for a very long time. It unfortunately revolves around the believe that all criminals can be talked into being upright members of society, that if we explain to them that beating people to death or raping them is bad, they'll stop doing it. Oh, do I exaggerate? Only in that I'm taking the opposite tone you are. You're not incorrect in that social intervention CAN have a major impact on the likelihood of some people resorting to or reverting to criminal behaviour. Where you're wrong is in assuming that's workable for all criminals. If we exclude sudden explosions of violence by crazy people or those driven to crazy violence by romances gone bad, The majority of the worst crimes in our society are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. These are the serial rapists, the drug dealers, the street gang members who beat, rob and intimidate those around them. These are the people who most need to be dealt with harshly, because you're sweet talking social worker is not going to have much impact on such hardened men. 95% of criminals are totally fine if they are provided a stable life. Hanging people up in jail is only adding to the barrier of integration. And how do you provide criminals with a stable life? None of the rest of us are guaranteed such a thing. You can try and get them to treat their addictions, for one, but many of them don't want them treated, and often enough the personalities which got them addicted in the first place are likely to make kicking that addiction successfully unlikely. There are also attitudes, the same attitudes which caused them to drop out of school, that got them to steal, that had them taking the easy way all their lives. You often can't reform those attitudes. 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 April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 We are undoubtedly better served by tighter gun control than than we are by throwing people in after they have committed a crime. The US proves this for us quite regularly. Well, hey, doesn't tight gun control require stiff punishment for those who violate the rules of that tight gun control? I mean, if you're going to make people jump through hoops to get a licence, and then make them store their guns in safes with the ammo in a separate room like they're nitro, don't you have to do something rather severe when some scumbag just goes over to the nearest cross-border reservation and picks up a glock to carry around with him? Because if you don't, then what the hell good is your tight gun control? 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 April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Even people as far right as the state of Texas found out that the moronic idea that tough jail sentences were a deterrent to, especially violent crime, ad they even tried to tell Harper his so called tough on crime ideas didnt work for them. Texas went overboard on everything, and still does. I agree that going overboard on something isn't a good idea. I don't think three years is overboard when we're talking about someone in possession of an illegal firearm, most particularly when that someone has a criminal history of violence. 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
dre Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Indeed. It proved the Left were moronic in their hug-a-thug approach, that it didn't work, and that it led to ever increasing amounts of violent crime. No mandatory minimums have tried and failed over and over again. They lead to uncontrolled costs and do nothing to decrease crime rates. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 No mandatory minimums have tried and failed over and over again. They lead to uncontrolled costs and do nothing to decrease crime rates. I think if we made it a rule that anyone caught carrying a loaded firearm on their person without a licence, particularly in an urban environment, would be shot on sight a lot fewer criminally inclined people would be carrying around loaded firearms. I think if we put people in jail for long periods of time for carrying any kind of concealed weapon there'd be fewer murders by thugs and street scum. Do you have a cite which says otherwise? 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Texas went overboard on everything, and still does. I agree that going overboard on something isn't a good idea. I don't think three years is overboard when we're talking about someone in possession of an illegal firearm, most particularly when that someone has a criminal history of violence. Texas decided to put a lot of bucks into crime prevention and they found that they recovered about 3 bucks for every one they spent on those various programs due to the reduction in crime and recidivism rates. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 I think if we made it a rule that anyone caught carrying a loaded firearm on their person without a licence, particularly in an urban environment, would be shot on sight a lot fewer criminally inclined people would be carrying around loaded firearms. I think if we put people in jail for long periods of time for carrying any kind of concealed weapon there'd be fewer murders by thugs and street scum. Do you have a cite which says otherwise? http://criminology.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DWG-GeneralDeterrenceHighlights14Feb2013.pdf While there may be justifications for mandatory sentencing requirements, the law in question appears to be purely punitive in nature. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 No mandatory minimums have tried and failed over and over again. They lead to uncontrolled costs and do nothing to decrease crime rates. Crime rates in most categories have been in decline for years now. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Texas went overboard on everything, and still does. I agree that going overboard on something isn't a good idea. I don't think three years is overboard when we're talking about someone in possession of an illegal firearm, most particularly when that someone has a criminal history of violence. Apparently the SC thinks its overboard when you can get 3 years for having the ammo too close to the weapon and frankly so do I. That is one of the hypos some are getting their hair on fire over, but the courts job is to look ahead and cover all the bases. So its back to the drawing board. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 I think if we made it a rule that anyone caught carrying a loaded firearm on their person without a licence, particularly in an urban environment, would be shot on sight a lot fewer criminally inclined people would be carrying around loaded firearms. I think if we put people in jail for long periods of time for carrying any kind of concealed weapon there'd be fewer murders by thugs and street scum. Do you have a cite which says otherwise? Now you are sinking into NRA mentality. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Texas decided to put a lot of bucks into crime prevention and they found that they recovered about 3 bucks for every one they spent on those various programs due to the reduction in crime and recidivism rates. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/texas-conservatives-reject-harper-s-crime-plan-1.1021017 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.