Street gangs

[YMS_1975]

21 minutes ago, cannuck said:

So, if careless parents can simply kill an unwanted child, why can't I simply kill any criminal I find inconvenient?

Rape victims are hardly "careless parents", but since you seem to be keen on labeling the would-be parents as "careless", let's discuss those parents who simply didn't plan for the child. But as a side note, it is rather telling that you only see this one side of the argument; that being pro-choice somehow only affects people who didn't think about the consequences of their actions.

So you have a couple who didn't abstain or use contraceptives, and now she's pregnant. Is it "careless" behaviour? Absolutely. So now that they were careless, they are now facing the very real possibility of raising an unwanted child. One that they might not be able to afford, or one that won't be accepted by (let's say) old school traditional religious parents. What are the options here?

• Raise the child & he/she eventually learns they were unwanted
• Raise the child in poverty if finances are an issue
• Give the child up for adoption (which is a gamble either way)

In the case of the "careless parents" here, if you stripped them of the right to abort that child you've essentially doomed that child to suffer the ill consequences of his/her parents recklessness. What about the effects of that burden on the child? Don't you think those children can very well end up growing warped? Don't you think it will affect their ability to function properly in a society? Imagine that kid being told everyday : "We never wanted you". Think about it. By your words, the parents were "careless". So....what if their carelessness spilled into their parenting skills? What if they were lousy parents? Is that so hard to believe? There are plenty of horrible parents out there! They were lousy at preventing the pregnancy, it's very possible they'd be lousy at being good parents as well.

Now ask yourself who truly carries the burden. Is it the "careless parents" who couldn't give a rats behind about the child, or do you think it'll be the teachers who struggle to teach that child? The parents are "careless" so they can't be bothered. So when that kid goes to school, he/she ends up a problem child for teachers to struggle with. Then that kid grows up to be a pain in the rear end for anybody who is unfortunate enough to meet him/her.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean you're irresponsible. It means you understand that not everybody is facing the same obstacles as you are, so a choice is available. You don't have to agree with abortion but for many, having the choice is the difference between being able to live their life in peace & being responsible for a chain of preventable horrible situations.

[cannuck]

There you go again - every inconvenient pregnancy to you must have been rape. .  Spare us the rest of the bullshit.   "abort" simply means murder.   Also you ASSUME that an "unwanted" child will in fact BE an unwanted child and that only children raised in some kind of Norman Rockwell painting deserve the chance to live.  Plenty of wanted and unwanted kids grew up in true shitholes and grew up to be fantastic people.   Plenty left the Norman Rockwell family to become career criminals.

The time to have all of these discussions is BEFORE you knock up the little broad next door, not when you have to murder another genetically distinct individual to accommodate your twisted ideals.

Edited November 17, 2018 by cannuck

[YMS_1975]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

There you go again - every inconvenient pregnancy to you must have been rape. .  Spare us the rest of the bullshit.   "abort" simply means murder.   Also you ASSUME that an "unwanted" child will in fact BE an unwanted child and that only children raised in some kind of Norman Rockwell painting deserve the chance to live.  Plenty of wanted and unwanted kids grew up in true shitholes and grew up to be fantastic people.   Plenty left the Norman Rockwell family to become career criminals.

The time to have all of these discussions is BEFORE you knock up the little broad next door, not when you have to murder another genetically distinct individual to accommodate your twisted ideals.

Clearly you're unable to have a rational discussion without having to resort to being belligerent.

On that note, have a wonderful day.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, cannuck said:

I am just pointing out some facts. 

I don't advocate killing every person who passes a counterfeit note or defrauds the taxman (in fact, the last one I would give a medal).   What I DO believe is that we need to make incarceration a genuine penalty for doing crime.   When you lock someone up they should have no contact with anyone except their jailer, their doctor and their priest/minister/rabi/imam/guru.  No parole, no association with other inmates, no colour TV,  no internet - just 100% time out to think about what they are going to do with their life when they get out.

This is kind of silly. You want to put people in solitary confinement for five or six or seven years and then.. .release them? What kind of people do you think they'll be when they get out? 

There used to be a system in place in the UK where inmates were classified as to their danger. Ie first time offenders, repeat offenders but without serious offenses, and then habitual offenders. Care was taken to ensure none of these groups intermingled. There is also a requirement, in some states, for a period of labour, normally working on a farm or something else. Keeps them busy and eases the cost somewhat.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, cannuck said:

There you go again - every inconvenient pregnancy to you must have been rape. .  Spare us the rest of the bullshit.   "abort" simply means murder.   Also you ASSUME that an "unwanted" child will in fact BE an unwanted child and that only children raised in some kind of Norman Rockwell painting deserve the chance to live.  Plenty of wanted and unwanted kids grew up in true shitholes and grew up to be fantastic people.   Plenty left the Norman Rockwell family to become career criminals.

The time to have all of these discussions is BEFORE you knock up the little broad next door, not when you have to murder another genetically distinct individual to accommodate your twisted ideals.

Can I suggest that you put all those who are forcing you to have abortions on a list and post it on here?  They must be legion!

Then we'll get them for you!

As for anyone else's abortion, well, I think you know what I would suggest.

[YMS_1975]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

This is kind of silly. You want to put people in solitary confinement for five or six or seven years and then.. .release them? What kind of people do you think they'll be when they get out? 

There used to be a system in place in the UK where inmates were classified as to their danger. Ie first time offenders, repeat offenders but without serious offenses, and then habitual offenders. Care was taken to ensure none of these groups intermingled. There is also a requirement, in some states, for a period of labour, normally working on a farm or something else. Keeps them busy and eases the cost somewhat.

I don't recall advocating sentences of six or seven years. I'm for strict sentences. Strict as in ten to fifteen years. Sentences in solitary confinement, where they won't see other inmates, no visitors, no luxuries, no nothing. Just lots of time to think about whether or not it was worth it. Lots of time to be off the streets.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, YMS_1975 said:

I don't recall advocating sentences of six or seven years. I'm for strict sentences. Strict as in ten to fifteen years. Sentences in solitary confinement, where they won't see other inmates, no visitors, no luxuries, no nothing. Just lots of time to think about whether or not it was worth it. Lots of time to be off the streets.

That extra seven years or so should make all the difference.

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, YMS_1975 said:

I don't recall advocating sentences of six or seven years. I'm for strict sentences. Strict as in ten to fifteen years. Sentences in solitary confinement, where they won't see other inmates, no visitors, no luxuries, no nothing. Just lots of time to think about whether or not it was worth it. Lots of time to be off the streets.

What, for all offenses? This is silly. If you put someone in solitary for 15 years you had best never let him out.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, YMS_1975 said:

I don't recall advocating sentences of six or seven years. I'm for strict sentences. Strict as in ten to fifteen years. Sentences in solitary confinement, where they won't see other inmates, no visitors, no luxuries, no nothing. Just lots of time to think about whether or not it was worth it. Lots of time to be off the streets.

What you fail to realize is that solitary confinement creates serious mental health issues in people.  The become more easily frustrated and angry, more prone to violence and less able to cope in the real world, regardless of how badly they want to do better or how much they regret their crime.

Consider that people who spend more than a couple of years in prison, even without solitary confinement, have difficulty adjusting.  Something as simple as shopping for food can become overwhelmingly difficult simply because there are so many choices.  Many people come out of prison with PTSD due to the innate violence of prisons.  

People are changed in prison, sometimes in significant ways and usually not for the better.  The lharsher the prison environment is, and the longer sentences are, the less successful the "rehabilitation" effect becomes.  People come out of prison and recieve little support to address any psycological issues, can have trouble finding a job, trouble establishing and maintaining relationships, and are subject to a lot of negative reaction when people find out they're an ex-con.

People who think more time, and more solitary confinement will make crime go away or create "better citizens" are clueless about the actual effects of prison on people.

[YMS_1975]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

What, for all offenses? This is silly. If you put someone in solitary for 15 years you had best never let him out.

That's the idea. You commit a heinous crime, and bye-bye freedom & sanity. Our hands are clean of any bloodshed & they're out of circulation.

 

Win-win.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Can I suggest that you put all those who are forcing you to have abortions on a list and post it on here?  They must be legion!

Then we'll get them for you!

As for anyone else's abortion, well, I think you know what I would suggest.

I am speaking for all of the aborted children past and present - because they obviously can't speak for themselves.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

What you fail to realize is that solitary confinement creates serious mental health issues in people.  The become more easily frustrated and angry, more prone to violence and less able to cope in the real world, regardless of how badly they want to do better or how much they regret their crime.

Consider that people who spend more than a couple of years in prison, even without solitary confinement, have difficulty adjusting.  Something as simple as shopping for food can become overwhelmingly difficult simply because there are so many choices.  Many people come out of prison with PTSD due to the innate violence of prisons.  

People are changed in prison, sometimes in significant ways and usually not for the better.  The lharsher the prison environment is, and the longer sentences are, the less successful the "rehabilitation" effect becomes.  People come out of prison and recieve little support to address any psycological issues, can have trouble finding a job, trouble establishing and maintaining relationships, and are subject to a lot of negative reaction when people find out they're an ex-con.

People who think more time, and more solitary confinement will make crime go away or create "better citizens" are clueless about the actual effects of prison on people.

I don't expect them to become "better citizens" but as it stands now, they become much better criminals from the experience.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I am speaking for all of the aborted children past and present - because they obviously can't speak for themselves.

No vocal cords?  When do they develop?

[cannuck]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

This is kind of silly. You want to put people in solitary confinement for five or six or seven years and then.. .release them? What kind of people do you think they'll be when they get out? 

There used to be a system in place in the UK where inmates were classified as to their danger. Ie first time offenders, repeat offenders but without serious offenses, and then habitual offenders. Care was taken to ensure none of these groups intermingled. There is also a requirement, in some states, for a period of labour, normally working on a farm or something else. Keeps them busy and eases the cost somewhat.

I have done a session of trying to train inmates for a specific task, and got to know my students quite well.   I also have a good friend who went from being an armed robber to owning several privately operated detention and rehab facilities.  From those long ago experiences, I came to believe there are 3 classes of people in jail:  those who didn't realize they were going to be there (most DUIs for instance), those who want to be there (they find the environment safe and stable) and those to whom the time is part of their chosen career path - and use it to further their skills and affiliations.  I can see seperation of the first two groups - as they have a far better chance of some kind of "reform", but the latter (much more prevalent in Fed pens than provincial gaols), but the latter are the ones that should NEVER be exposed to each other or other inmates.   Note: I did not say everyone, just other inmates.  They should be able to interface with caregivers, jailers, counselors, faith peddlers, etc., but NEVER other inmates.  THESE are the real source of the criminal problem - professional criminals.

[YMS_1975]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

What you fail to realize is that solitary confinement creates serious mental health issues in people.  The become more easily frustrated and angry, more prone to violence and less able to cope in the real world, regardless of how badly they want to do better or how much they regret their crime.

Consider that people who spend more than a couple of years in prison, even without solitary confinement, have difficulty adjusting.  Something as simple as shopping for food can become overwhelmingly difficult simply because there are so many choices.  Many people come out of prison with PTSD due to the innate violence of prisons.  

People are changed in prison, sometimes in significant ways and usually not for the better.  The lharsher the prison environment is, and the longer sentences are, the less successful the "rehabilitation" effect becomes.  People come out of prison and recieve little support to address any psycological issues, can have trouble finding a job, trouble establishing and maintaining relationships, and are subject to a lot of negative reaction when people find out they're an ex-con.

People who think more time, and more solitary confinement will make crime go away or create "better citizens" are clueless about the actual effects of prison on people.

I'm not concerned in the least bit about their mental wellbeing. If they're willing to risk doing jail time, they don't deserve to have their mental wellbeing taken into consideration.

Perpetrators of heinous crimes are not at Club Med. It's time to crack down on these parasites! Time to break their spirits, much as they have broken the spirits of their victims families & loved ones.

So much coddling of criminals. It's time for our government to take action! Look at that Marco Muzzo clown! Ten years, and he offed three kids & their grandpa. Ten years for that?!? Get outta here! 

If I had any say in his sentencing, he would spend the rest his natural life in solitary confinement with no chance of parole. No human interaction whatsoever. The only thing he'd have in his cell is his toilet & a camera (which is out of his reach). Then I'd cut a deal with cable & satellite providers to give him airtime as he descends into madness.

Sell it as PPV. The whole nine yards; the trial, the conviction, the sentencing, life in the bin, etc. If people watch Law & Order, CSI or Criminal Minds, there's obviously a market for it. People get entertained by shows about the legal system, both fictional and non-fictional documentary style. Ammend all high school, college & university law-related courses to include real, raw video footage of life in the bin. Teach students how prisoners are given such a sentence (offenses which led them there), solitary confinement life, financial costs to taxpayers vs betterment of society, etc.

I'd take the funds from the PPV & invest into the families that have been affected by the crimes. No death penalty, so no blood on my hands & one less monster on the streets.

Edited November 17, 2018 by YMS_1975

[Argus]

23 hours ago, YMS_1975 said:

I'm not concerned in the least bit about their mental wellbeing.

That's fine. For lifers who will never be paroled. The vast majority of prisoners WILL be released, however. I'd prefer if they weren't turned into crazed psychopaths in prison.

[YMS_1975]

Just now, Argus said:

That's fine. For lifers who will never be paroled. The vast majority of prisoners WILL be released, however. I'd prefer if they weren't turned into crazed psychopaths in prison.

And "lifers" should be rapists & murderers; of course they'd have to narrow that down to much more greater detail though.

Was it premeditated, self defense, etc. We can do it, but our government is too soft on crimes.

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, YMS_1975 said:

our government is too soft on crimes.

On crimes or criminals?

Do you have a recommendation for a criminal justice system that Canada should emulate to reduce crime here?

Here's a list of countries by "Intentional Homicide" per 100,000 people.

Here's a list of countries by 'rape' per 1,000,000 people.

A few countries score better than Canada, so maybe there is some takeaway for our politicians to consider.  What do you think?

 

[YMS_1975]

Just now, dialamah said:

On crimes or criminals?

Do you have a recommendation for a criminal justice system that Canada should emulate to reduce crime here?

Here's a list of countries by "Intentional Homicide" per 100,000 people.

Here's a list of countries by 'rape' per 1,000,000 people.

A few countries score better than Canada, so maybe there is some takeaway for our politicians to consider.  What do you think?

 

**Criminals

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, YMS_1975 said:

**Criminals

You didn't answer the other part.

The OP called for torture and dismemberment.  This person 'Hates Politicians' but trusts the government to find the right people to torture.  

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, YMS_1975 said:

**Criminals

So you have no ideas or opinion on what a better system looks like and just think bitching makes you look.smart.  Figures.  

BTW, Norway has the lowest crime rate of all countries, the fewest of its citizens in prison and the lowest recidivism rate.  They impose short sentences in comfortable surroundings and focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.  Seems to work; unfortunately, we in Canada are still barbaric enough to think thay treating people like animals and imposing harsh punishments will somehow inspire them to behave better.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

So you have no ideas or opinion on what a better system looks like and just think bitching makes you look.smart.  Figures.  

BTW, Norway has the lowest crime rate of all countries, the fewest of its citizens in prison and the lowest recidivism rate.  They impose short sentences in comfortable surroundings and focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.  Seems to work; unfortunately, we in Canada are still barbaric enough to think thay treating people like animals and imposing harsh punishments will somehow inspire them to behave better.

I wonder how the parents of the child who was raped and murdered are going to feel knowing the person who did it will be rehabilitated after a short stay in comfortable surroundings.

Edit>  Maybe they could find him and kill him once he gets out.  After all, it would only mean a short stay in comfortable surroundings for them.

Edited November 19, 2018 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I wonder how the parents of the child who was raped and murdered are going to feel knowing the person who did it will be rehabilitated after a short stay in comfortable surroundings.

Edit>  Maybe they could find him and kill him once he gets out.  After all, it would only mean a short stay in comfortable surroundings for them.

The article commented on the reaction of people to the 21 years Anders Brevik for killing 77 people, including many children, in 2011.  People in Norway, including the parents of the murdered kids, were satisfied justice has been done; people outside of Norway were critical.   Norway can extend his sentence in 5 year increments if, after 21 years, they think he is still a danger.  

When countries focus on actual rehabilitation, society is safer and costs are reduced.  Revenge may be sweet, but it's also costly.  

[cannuck]

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

So you have no ideas or opinion on what a better system looks like and just think bitching makes you look.smart.  Figures.  

BTW, Norway has the lowest crime rate of all countries, the fewest of its citizens in prison and the lowest recidivism rate.  They impose short sentences in comfortable surroundings and focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.  Seems to work; unfortunately, we in Canada are still barbaric enough to think thay treating people like animals and imposing harsh punishments will somehow inspire them to behave better.

Right.   Making the existing University of Crime into a five star resort is going to be a hell of a deterrent.

You seem to forget that Norway is a different country in so many ways.  You are cherry picking statistics to prove a supposition that suits your ideology.  Go spend some time with violent criminals and tell me you still think the same way. 

Economically preventing crime in the first place is a hell of a lot more cost effective than cheaper incarceration costs.  BTW: we already have a precedent for the mollycoddling model - healing lodges.   Seems the miracle of Norse gaols does not transfer well to that part of Canada.

Edited November 19, 2018 by cannuck

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The article commented on the reaction of people to the 21 years Anders Brevik for killing 77 people, including many children, in 2011.  People in Norway, including the parents of the murdered kids, were satisfied justice has been done; people outside of Norway were critical.   Norway can extend his sentence in 5 year increments if, after 21 years, they think he is still a danger.  

When countries focus on actual rehabilitation, society is safer and costs are reduced.  Revenge may be sweet, but it's also costly.  

So if anyone killed Brevik, there need not even be a trial.  Rehabilitation wouldn't be required.  It's not like they're going to kill anyone else.

To me, rehabilitation comes after public safety and victim satisfaction.  That said, if the Norwegians think 21 years in a resort is enough, I suppose that's up to them.  I wouldn't if it was my kid.