Argus Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 I knew that's what you meant, and I don't disagree for the most part. Certainly Harper's overreach should, and was, rolled back by the court. However, your statement wasn't very nuanced and some of the right wingers on the forum were about to pounce on you as a soft-on-crime liberal. All liberals are soft on crime. That's a given. 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
?Impact Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) All liberals are soft on crime. That's a given. Perhaps, but stupid on crime is far worse as it leads to increased crime. Liberals are generally evidence based decision makers, and Conservatives are emotional decision makers. Edited April 19, 2016 by ?Impact Quote
PIK Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 How about 15 months for burning a little girl 27 times on her face, arms and genitals, because his grandparents were in the residential schools? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) Perhaps, but stupid on crime is far worse as it leads to increased crime. Liberals are generally evidence based decision makers, and Conservatives are emotional decision makers. Sputum. It's conservatives who impose strict sentences on behaviour which is dangerous to public safety and order and liberals who cry tears of sorrow and sympathy whenever a rapist is sent to prison. Conservatives make a strict, logical determination on how to discourage behaviour on the whole, but progressives don't care about the whole, don't care about the big picture. All they can see is their sympathy for the poor dear being charged with murder or manslaughter or whatever. He had a bad childhood! He was unemployed! He's a minority! Waaaah! Conservatives believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. Liberals believe in NO personal responsibility, but instead that your mommy and daddy, or the school, or the state is ultimately at fault for your unhappy life. Edited April 19, 2016 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
?Impact Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 Sputum. Hey, let's not get into a pissing contest here. I was really just trying to point out the "All liberals are..." that I was replying to is meaningless rhetoric, just like the meaningless rhetoric I used to respond to it with. Still trying to figure out this forum (note "Junior member" badge), but hoping we can have more elevated discussions here than the usual tripe that fills the Internet. Quote
Argus Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) Hey, let's not get into a pissing contest here. I was really just trying to point out the "All liberals are..." that I was replying to is meaningless rhetoric, just like the meaningless rhetoric I used to respond to it with. Still trying to figure out this forum (note "Junior member" badge), but hoping we can have more elevated discussions here than the usual tripe that fills the Internet. Very well. You are correct. It was scattergun rhetoric on both sides. Nevertheless, the left side of the spectrum tends to be the one which operates on emotions. That the right doesn't is generally why the left refers to them as uncaring about the plight of whatever. "You don't care about the poor! You don't care about the downtrodden! You don't care about syrians! You don't care about the environment! You don't care about the plight of... whatever. Those are common refrains. Caring is, I'm sure you'll agree, an emotion. Edited April 19, 2016 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
square Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 What makes you think the opinion of judges as to what constitutes a fair and just sentence would approximate that of ordinary people? They are hardly a representative group of people. Judges have the inherent jurisdiction and competence something that ordinary people don't. Judges are trained in the law and are best to make thoughts decisions in the circumstances in that case. This is what Judges do and this is what Judges do well; making decisions that are best for the public and best for the circumstances before the offense. Quote
The_Squid Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 Crime is a great example of how emotions steer the opinions of right wingers... Clearly crime is down... all stats point to this. Particularly violent crimes. Right wingers feel the need to "do something" because they feel that crime is rampant. Statistics and evidence to the contrary be damned. Perhaps both "left and right" are steered by emotion in some manner... I can concede that to some degree... Progressives really do "care" about the plight of *insert group here*... but oftentimes there is an economic/societal component to it... e.g. if we take care of the drug addicted in a medical way, rather than as a criminal issue, societal health indicators get better (crime, poverty, etc, etc) and the person gets effective help. This is an evidence-based approach, not an emotional one as it was portrayed. Contrast that to the "right wing's" approach to crime... not based on evidence. Or not wanting to help druggies, cuz they don't deserve help... or free drugs... or a clean place to inject their drugs. That's enabling. They should be arrested. This approach has been shown to not work, but it feels good to the "right winger". Quote
Guest Posted April 19, 2016 Report Posted April 19, 2016 Nevertheless, the left side of the spectrum tends to be the one which operates on emotions. That the right doesn't is generally why the left refers to them as uncaring about the plight of whatever. " It seems to me that, at least in this part of the world, that the right tends to be the side ignoring data and evidence in favour of a preferred ideology. Is that emotion or just un-reason? Quote
Argus Posted April 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 Judges have the inherent jurisdiction and competence something that ordinary people don't. Judges are trained in the law and are best to make thoughts decisions in the circumstances in that case. This is what Judges do and this is what Judges do well; making decisions that are best for the public and best for the circumstances before the offense. Judges are trained in interpreting law. Okay. How does that help them to decide what is a fair sentence over and above what anyone else would decide? Is this something which comes in a box along with their robes? It's not like judges are selected because they're particularly wise. 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 April 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Someone send these to Argus: Purpose and Principles of Sentencinghttps://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Sentencing/Purpose_and_Principles_of_Sentencing Factors of Sentencing https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Sentencing/Factors_of_Sentencing Edited April 20, 2016 by cybercoma Quote
jacee Posted April 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) It seems to me that, at least in this part of the world, that the right tends to be the side ignoring data and evidence in favour of a preferred ideology. Is that emotion or just un-reason?I think it's emotion, anxiety about something that might be threatening, or something different, an 'unknown'.Unfortunately the response is often some form of 'hit em now and hit em hard' ... instead of looking for information about what response is most effective for the individual and society, immediate release of the anxious tension is the self-serving reactionary reaction. ... perhaps? . Edited April 20, 2016 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted April 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 Judges are trained in interpreting law. Okay. How does that help them to decide what is a fair sentence over and above what anyone else would decide? Is this something which comes in a box along with their robes? It's not like judges are selected because they're particularly wise. They do reference existing case law. I think they do have pretty good sources of info. More than Joe Public. . Quote
Argus Posted April 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Clearly crime is down... all stats point to this. No. Police-reported crime is down. You 'evidence lovers' all seem determined to ignore the long, complex study of victims Stats Canada does every five years, which, every five years, shows people are becoming less and less likely to report crime. Every new study shows the % of crime being reported less than it was in the previous study. Right wingers feel the need to "do something" because they feel that crime is rampant. Wrong. Crime is not rampant. See? I said it. What bothers me is injustice. What bothers me is someone causing other people untold misery and pain, and then getting a slap on the wrist. And the overall amount of that particular crime is unimportant in that context. A crime should be punished appropriately, fairly, without regard to how often that crime is committed. Telling me the crime is not being committed as often as it used to is irrelevant to me, even if it's true. Progressives really do "care" about the plight of *insert group here*... but oftentimes there is an economic/societal component to it... e.g. if we take care of the drug addicted in a medical way, rather than as a criminal issue, societal health indicators get better (crime, poverty, etc, etc) and the person gets effective help. This is an evidence-based approach, not an emotional one as it was portrayed. Your analogy, though, breaks down in your assumption right wingers are against treatment for addiction. I'm all for treatment of addiction, even forced treatment. On the other hand, I'm all for personal responsibility. I don't absolve addicts of responsibility for BEING addicts. Hey, nobody made you stick that needle in your arm, bro. No one forced you to snort that coke. And if you rob and steal and hurt people because you're an addict don't expect me to overlook that. As for places where addicts can go and shoot up heroin 'safely', no, I'm not in favour. I'd grab such people and force them into treatment. I certainly wouldn't make it easier to be an addict. Because yes, that is indeed enabling. Edited April 20, 2016 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
Argus Posted April 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 It seems to me that, at least in this part of the world, that the right tends to be the side ignoring data and evidence in favour of a preferred ideology. Is that emotion or just un-reason? That's your opinion as a left winger. 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 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) They do reference existing case law. I think they do have pretty good sources of info. More than Joe Public. . You fail to understand. Deciding on what is a 'just' punishment for a crime is not something which is learned in a book. It's an inherent ability, a sense of, no pun intended, good judgement. I'm not saying that there are not guidelines drawn from precedents, but I am saying that you need wisdom to judge such things properly. And wisdom does not come with a black robe or with a law degree. You either have it or you don't. Edited April 20, 2016 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
jacee Posted April 20, 2016 Report Posted April 20, 2016 You fail to understand. Deciding on what is a 'just' punishment for a crime is not something which is learned in a book. It's an inherent ability, a sense of, no pun intended, good judgement. I'm not saying that there are not guidelines drawn from precedents, but I am saying that you need wisdom to judge such things properly. And wisdom does not come with a black robe or with a law degree. You either have it or you don't. And you are the judge? . Quote
PIK Posted April 27, 2016 Report Posted April 27, 2016 So a 20 yr old gets caught again for selling drugs to school kids. He got caught because he sold cocaine to a cop. And 2 yrs in jail is cruel and unusual punishment??? And then have a close look at sentencing for perverts. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted April 27, 2016 Report Posted April 27, 2016 So a 20 yr old gets caught again for selling drugs to school kids. He got caught because he sold cocaine to a cop. And 2 yrs in jail is cruel and unusual punishment??? And then have a close look at sentencing for perverts. how can you expect any response to such a non-specific anecdotal description... notwithstanding its incoherent and disjointed makeup? . 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.