Army Guy Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 Its not about any obligation, its about simple common sense. Why would you pay 100k+ per year to keep someone in prison if you believe they can be rehabilitated? You and some others seem to think that this is all about dollars and cents, forgetting that sentencing is part of the law and order process, but it is based on a gradient scale... the worse the crime, the longer the sentence. it is that way by design to give reasonable citizens pause, before they go off on some criminal spree....For every action their is a reaction, and you must then pay for your mistake in judgement.....So yes it is a punishment....with out it what would hold the entire law and order process in tact.....if there was no punishment what would deter people from re offending..... And while it does cost money to keep prisoners locked up....but there are plenty of examples of housing prisoners for a lot less, in fact in the US there is one prison in the south that generates a profit. and while its practices may or may not fit into Canadian law, it does prove that there are options that will reduce costs to housing and caring for prisoners..... The idea of letting criminals out of prison early to reduce costs is counter productive.....it undermines the entire sentence practices why sentence a man to a certain length of time only to let him go early because of funding issues......The law and order process does not take any funding issues into account....it has no effect on initial sentences....there fore sentences should not be shorten due to funding..... Other areas should be look at reducing costs.... There are others who posted here that say there is no connection of harsh sentences reducing crime at all, perhaps that has to do with conditions in todays prisons, and what it costs for all the luxuries provided.....wonder how much that prison in the article costs the tax payers....And I doubt you ll find those conditions in that prison in the south US. Maybe we have to look at the past and conditions prisons back then and how many convicted convicts re offended, due to these conditions.....I think there is a dramatic difference....and while we have progressed a few million lite years since then when it comes to human rights.....but maybe , just maybe we have gone to far.....I mean come on, tennis courts, camp fires by the ocean...day passes into the public....do you think perhaps we have gone to far.....why not servants, vale parking, massage centers.....I forgot it is all about dollars and cents ... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 Its not about any obligation, its about simple common sense. Why would you pay 100k+ per year to keep someone in prison if you believe they can be rehabilitated? You and some others seem to think that this is all about dollars and cents, forgetting that sentencing is part of the law and order process, but it is based on a gradient scale... the worse the crime, the longer the sentence. it is that way by design to give reasonable citizens pause, before they go off on some criminal spree....For every action their is a reaction, and you must then pay for your mistake in judgement.....So yes it is a punishment....with out it what would hold the entire law and order process in tact.....if there was no punishment what would deter people from re offending..... And while it does cost money to keep prisoners locked up....but there are plenty of examples of housing prisoners for a lot less, in fact in the US there is one prison in the south that generates a profit. and while its practices may or may not fit into Canadian law, it does prove that there are options that will reduce costs to housing and caring for prisoners..... The idea of letting criminals out of prison early to reduce costs is counter productive.....it undermines the entire sentence practices why sentence a man to a certain length of time only to let him go early because of funding issues......The law and order process does not take any funding issues into account....it has no effect on initial sentences....there fore sentences should not be shorten due to funding..... Other areas should be look at reducing costs.... There are others who posted here that say there is no connection of harsh sentences reducing crime at all, perhaps that has to do with conditions in todays prisons, and what it costs for all the luxuries provided.....wonder how much that prison in the article costs the tax payers....And I doubt you ll find those conditions in that prison in the south US. Maybe we have to look at the past and conditions prisons back then and how many convicted convicts re offended, due to these conditions.....I think there is a dramatic difference....and while we have progressed a few million lite years since then when it comes to human rights.....but maybe , just maybe we have gone to far.....I mean come on, tennis courts, camp fires by the ocean...day passes into the public....do you think perhaps we have gone to far.....why not servants, vale parking, massage centers.....I forgot it is all about dollars and cents ... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Argus Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Posted March 9, 2016 Yes there IS evidence. Here's an example and there's many more... This particular program was shown to reduce rates of recidivism by 83%. Nowhere did it say that this allowed inmates to be released early. It was a program they served while in prison. I have nothing against programs served while in prison. I have nothing against inmates learning a profession or getting an education, or getting treatment for addiction or psychological issues. I do object to them not being adequately punished for committing violent offenses. 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 March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 it is that way by design to give reasonable citizens pause, before they go off on some criminal spree... It doesn't though. There's no evidence that longer sentences provide any deterrent at all. Criminals don't plan on getting caught. The law and order process does not take any funding issues into account....it has no effect on initial sentences....there fore sentences should not be shorten due to funding Sure it does. There's only enough funding and enough prisons to house a certain number of inmates. For example... Roughly 6,000 federal inmates will be released in the coming weeks in an effort to ease prison crowding and lessen harsh penalties for non-violent offenders, US media report. The release is the biggest of its kind in US history, the Washington Post reported. .I mean come on, tennis courts, camp fires by the ocean...day passes into the public....do you think perhaps we have gone to far.....why not servants, vale parking, massage centers.....I forgot it is all about dollars and cents .. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 It doesn't though. There's no evidence that longer sentences provide any deterrent at all. Criminals don't plan on getting caught. My point is this, Our entire sentencing program is based on progressive sentencing, ie the worse the crime the longer the term. it has nothing to do with financing or budgets or funding at all. The judge does not ask the court clerk for a budget brief before sentencing, nor does he dismiss the case because there is no money to imprison a convicted felon. When we start releasing convicts because of budgetary reasons then we have a real serious issue, the very fabric of our criminal system will be threatened. While you say there is no real evidence on longer sentences on deterring crimes, What evidence is there that these criminals will not reoffend when released early....Shorter terms means less rehabilitation can be administered, and while budgets get tighter, these types of programs will be cut.....to the point there will be no readjustment programs at all..... Not to mention with the luxuries they have in prison today , does it deter anyone from the life of crime....take a trip back in time when prisons were just that prisons no tennis courts, no TV, no intra net, no programs at all,....and tell me the if the amount of convicts that re offended is smaller or larger.... No one wanted to return ever.....Now I get we as a nation have grown in the way we treat our prisoners, some one once said you could tell a great deal about a nation by the way the treat their prisoners... And yet the what has the corrections dept done about growing costs, have they looked into programs such as the one happening down south. here prisoners are responsible to grow all their own food, they sell the surplus and use the profits to fund their own rehabilitation programs, housing is kept to a minimum, because they are kept in tents....no tv, no tennis courts, no nothing they work all day ...That jail produces a positive cash flow. it cost the tax payers nothing.....inmates are taught valuable farming skills, machine maintenance skills, plus leadership skills running small teams of prison workers, and it has one of the lowest re offender rates in the US..... The question we have to ask ourselfs is this ...What is the purpose of prisons in the first place, is it to punish, or provide a rehab institute.....regardless of what anyone thinks Prison is a place where Criminals go to serve their time for breaking the law, to remove them from society and keep the rest of the citizens safe....Like sending your kid to their room... Why can't we use prisoners as a free source of labor, to lower the costs of housing and feeding them, and if our laws have changed to keep us from doing that then perhaps it is time we look at changing them back. Our prison systems should not be a free ride, where convicts go to just serve time....they should be going there to repay their debt to society.... Use that money we spend on re habilitation and spend it else where like dealing with the conditions that put them there in the first place.....spending it on the portions of society that have not broken the law yet....improve the conditions of our nations poor, give the kids in those groups programs that teach them crime does not pay..... Letting convicts out early because of lack of space or funding is not the way to go either.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Argus Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Posted March 9, 2016 It doesn't though. There's no evidence that longer sentences provide any deterrent at all. Criminals don't plan on getting caught. They can't commit crimes while they're still locked up. That alone lowers 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
overthere Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 They can't commit crimes while they're still locked up. That alone lowers crime. By the same token, the recidivism rate of executed murderers remains at a steady 0%. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Posted March 9, 2016 By the same token, the recidivism rate of executed murderers remains at a steady 0%. And if I trusted the legal system to never convict an innocent person I'd support the death penalty, but I don't. I would, however, support life without parole for certain kinds of murders. I would also support a re-write of the laws on murder and attempted murder. They're far too tight with regard to intent. As far as I'm concerned, for example, if you stab or shoot someone you intended to kill them. The law says otherwise, which is BS. 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 March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 And if I trusted the legal system to never convict an innocent person I'd support the death penalty, but I don't. Wrongful convictions is only one of the things that makes capital punishment extremely poor public policy. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bryan Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Wrongful convictions is only one of the things that makes capital punishment extremely poor public policy. They are two separate issues. Capital punishment for heinous crimes is GOOD policy. You also have to be much better at avoiding wrongful convictions. Edited March 11, 2016 by Bryan Quote
poochy Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 They can't commit crimes while they're still locked up. That alone lowers crime. no no, even though they have completely voided someones life they deserve to be given another opportunity to choose whether or not to do it again, don't you get it? The rate of recidivism is low, this is a chance we must take, for them, those good, well meaning, murderers. It's important that we return them to society just in case the other 8 billion of us can't manage without them, we NEED to take this risk. Frankly, jail time isn't a deterrent, why do we even bother? Quote
eyeball Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 But it is there to cater to the desire of the community for justice. If it fails at that, then it fails. If it's there to cater to the public's desire for vengeance then it's also failed. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 There is a punishment element to sentencing which society is not willing to forego simply because of the progressives emotional attachment to the theory of rehabilitation.Who said there wasn't or shouldn't be an element of punishment to justice?It's just a matter of how much or harsh it should be and there is clearly a point that progressives refuse to let outraged conservatives drag our society back to simply because they're outraged. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Sure, sure we have the law and order tough guys who suggest that those who suggest we change that behavior instead of punishing it are "softies", "love a thug" and worse - without providing an alternative. Certainly they've provided an alternative, the trouble is that progressives won't put up with it. Why is it our fault if our feelings are reinforced by the evidence of the secular evidence-based approach of experts and jurisprudence? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Argus Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Posted March 10, 2016 Nice looking 'cells' here. It seems of 173 inmates at this 'minimum security' prison, almost half are in for murder. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mp-vows-to-look-into-summer-camp-like-conditions-at-b-c-prison 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 March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Nice looking 'cells' here. It seems of 173 inmates at this 'minimum security' prison, almost half are in for murder. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mp-vows-to-look-into-summer-camp-like-conditions-at-b-c-prison All of our research shows a gradual, structured and controlled reintegration process into the community tends to produce the best results for public safety in the long run. Ultimately, that’s our goal Bingo. And yes... there is murderers in there serving out the latter parts of their sentences. But the alternative is you keep them in maximum security right up until their release, and that makes them more likely to re-offend. Edited March 10, 2016 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Posted March 10, 2016 And yes... there is murderers in there serving out the latter parts of their sentences. But the alternative is you keep them in maximum security right up until their release, and that makes them more likely to re-offend. I'm sorry, but their sentence is LIFE. How is it they're in the 'latter stages' when they haven't been granted parole? I guess it's just assumed that after they've served the absolute minimum the law allows they'll be kissed on the cheeks and sent on their way. Darn those pesky minimums! Probably most would have been on the streets again years ago save for that! 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
overthere Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 And if I trusted the legal system to never convict an innocent person I'd support the death penalty, but I don't. I would, however, support life without parole for certain kinds of murders. I would also support a re-write of the laws on murder and attempted murder. They're far too tight with regard to intent. As far as I'm concerned, for example, if you stab or shoot someone you intended to kill them. The law says otherwise, which is BS. It is true that the legal system sometimes makes mistakes, or that there is some small bit of doubt as to innicence. That is not a complete argument against complete abolition of the death penalty. The possibility of error does not preclude the possibility of certainty beyond reasonable doubt that somebody did the crime. Our legal system recognizes shades of grey. Mitigating factors are allowed to influence sentencing. Not every person who got into that bar fight meant to kill somebody. That assessment should extend to and include capital punishment. Some crimes are so horrific that they warrant the death penalty. Some crimes are also not in dispute. Does anybody seriously doubt that Olson, Bernardo, Picton were convicted in error? Hang 'em. Another factor is public safety. Our criminal justice system has the serious responsibility of protecting us from very bad people. Put them in jail, sure, but what about the people they encounter in jail? Prison guards, other prison staff, other inmates....... How are they protected from having a homicidal loon at large amongst them?. There is really no way to keep anybody completely separated for 30 or 40 years. Don't those people have a right to life too? If there is no penalty greater than the prison term already being served, what prevents a killer from continuing to kill? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
dre Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 It is true that the legal system sometimes makes mistakes, or that there is some small bit of doubt as to innicence. That is not a complete argument against complete abolition of the death penalty. The possibility of error does not preclude the possibility of certainty beyond reasonable doubt that somebody did the crime. Our legal system recognizes shades of grey. Mitigating factors are allowed to influence sentencing. Not every person who got into that bar fight meant to kill somebody. That assessment should extend to and include capital punishment. Some crimes are so horrific that they warrant the death penalty. Some crimes are also not in dispute. Does anybody seriously doubt that Olson, Bernardo, Picton were convicted in error? Hang 'em. Another factor is public safety. Our criminal justice system has the serious responsibility of protecting us from very bad people. Put them in jail, sure, but what about the people they encounter in jail? Prison guards, other prison staff, other inmates....... How are they protected from having a homicidal loon at large amongst them?. There is really no way to keep anybody completely separated for 30 or 40 years. Don't those people have a right to life too? If there is no penalty greater than the prison term already being served, what prevents a killer from continuing to kill? Its not a matter of whether some crimes warrant the death penalty. Its that the death penalty accomplishes nothing, and is extremely expensive. That's why its being abolished all over the world. Its terrible public policy. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I'm sorry, but their sentence is LIFE. How is it they're in the 'latter stages' when they haven't been granted parole?They've obviously cooperated and worked with instead of against the system and earned their minimum security. If they fight the system and refuse to get with the program it will keep them for life. That's what life means in the context of sentencing in Canada. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Our legal system recognizes shades of grey. Mitigating factors are allowed to influence sentencing... Does anybody seriously doubt that Olson, Bernardo, Picton were convicted in error? Hang em. The problem is that too many conservatives only see black white and red when it comes to justice. There is already little doubt conservatives support treating every person convicted of murder as if they were as bad as Olsen, Bernardo and Picton. Should they ever get their way, does anyone seriously doubt these same extremists wouldn't demand that every criminal be treated as if they were as bad as a murderer? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
overthere Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 They can't commit crimes while they're still locked up. That alone lowers crime. That is clearly not true. Rape, murder, countless drug crimes and serious assaults occur in prisons. Crimes that take place in prisons are still crimes. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
overthere Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 The problem is that too many conservatives only see black white and red when it comes to justice. There is already little doubt conservatives support treating every person convicted of murder as if they were as bad as Olsen, Bernardo and Picton. Should they ever get their way, does anyone seriously doubt these same extremists wouldn't demand that every criminal be treated as if they were as bad as a murderer? No, that is just more lies. It has nothing to do with your fevered perceptions of political stance. I did not suggest and do not suggest that every criminal desrves the same sentence. Duh. I mentioned front and center that there are mitigating factors. But there are also factors than should serve to condemn those that are undoubtedly guilty of heinous acts. I named those persons to distinguish them from your everyday, crime of passion killer. For those, a lenghty term is preferable, to give them a chance to rehabilitate. In the meantime, psycho bastards like the three I named are an ongoing threat inside prison. The government, meaning you and I, have a duty to keep other inmates and prison staff out of harms way, to make them as safe as is reasonable. Our society sanctions deadly force every day, for every officially armed person in Canada there are specific rules where they are not just permitted to kill, they are required to kill. Trudeau just sanctioned an icrease in Canadian killers in Iraq/Syria. There is no logical reason not to apply the death penalty in certain circumstances. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
eyeball Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 That is clearly not true. Rape, murder, countless drug crimes and serious assaults occur in prisons. Crimes that take place in prisons are still crimes. As far as I'm concerned crimes that take place in prison are as due to systemic negligence as anything. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
dre Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 There is no logical reason not to apply the death penalty in certain circumstances. Yes there is. People sentences to death still sit in prison for years and years while their appeals are exhausted. And a prisoner sentenced to death is the most dangerous kind because killing a guard or another inmate will not result in increased punishment. Like I said, the DP is terrible public policy and its just not going to happen in any case. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.