Gangs and street shootings

[Argus]

Blubber,

You obviously  don't have a 15 year old child.I do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you feel about the young offender's act (and whatever they call the act that replaced it)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that the major failing of the act is it does not differentiate between an ordinary kid who gets in trouble with the law, and hardened criminals. It treats them the same. As far as I'm concerned street gang members should be treated as adults. As should any kid who has multiple convictions. It obviously will no longer do any good to treat them with kid gloves (so to speak).

[Argus]

Regarding BHS' tale, damn straight. When I was a kid, if accusations were brought against us by a neighbouring adult, we were presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Spankings were meted out as needed.

Now you can't raise a hand to your kid or you risk being charged with assault, or abuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a certain truth to this the lefties will snear at. When I was a kid every adult was your boss. If an adult told you to do something, you did it. You didn't act up around adults just because your parents or teachers were not among them. And if you did act up an adult would grab you by the scruff of the neck and take you to your home where your father would punish you, not make excuses for your misbehaviour. This produced a certain mindset of respect, and a certain attitude which required you act properly around others. Now you see ten year olds cursing and sneering at adults, delighted because they know nothing can be done to punish them. And even if their parents are called (divorced, as often as not) they'll usually defend the little brat.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

There is a certain truth to this the lefties will snear at. When I was a kid every adult was your boss.

The state recently upheld the 'spanking law', and as well they should have. One of my signatures used to be "Corporal Punishment is better than General Mayhem", and I believe it.

So, no, not all 'lefties' will sneer at it. I believe it to be a major factor regarding the degradation of society.

However, both 'right' and 'left' have recently championed 'individual rights' without giving a single thought to 'individual responsibility', and think that if they do something stupid, they can either blame someone/something else, or sue the victim and possibly win.

[Argus]

So what do we do?

There is no single solution.

LAW

Harsh laws have to be put in place and stringently enforced against the smuggling, sale, purchase, posession of illegal weapons. No bail, no parole. Slap them in jail and keep them there for a full year on a first offence, 5 on a second. Longer mandatory sentences should be put in place for carrying concealed weapons, and for pointing, and for using them. No bail, no parole, certain, immediate punishment. That is what criminologists say deters crime. If you're caught with a gun now you're on bail within a few hours. A year or so later your attorney makes a deal with the Crown and you plea to a lesser charge. You'll get a slap on the wrist, and even if you do get jail time you'll be out on parole after 1/6th of the sentence has been served. No, hammer anyone who is caught with an illegal weapon, hammer them more if they use it. And I don't care if they're 16 years old. Especially if they're street gang members or repeat offenders. Give a teenager one or two non-violent chances. That's it. After that the full weight of the law comes down on your head.

PRISON

And how harsh is prison to criminals? I mean, to you or I it would be a terrible, frightening place. But to gang members? Their lives on the inside are not all that different from their lives on the outside. They're not alone there. They meet up with their homies in the prison gangs and hang out together, do drugs, play cards, watch cable, relax, get into fights with other gangs, etc. Big deal. How about hard labour? The UK has it. Why don't we have it for specific offenses related to violence, related to repeat offenders, related to street gangs? Let them dig ditches and pound rocks for 10 hours a day. See how they like that. No TV, just hard work. They won't want to go back.

PAROLE

Remove it as an automatic entitlement. You serve your full sentence unless you have demonstrated a real effort at reforming yourself.

JUDGES

Mandatory minimums are unfortunately necessary because Canadian judges have demonstrated a near total lack of concern for the deterrent value of stiff sentences. Take any violent offense with a scale of punishment and 90% of the sentence handed down will be in the lowest third of that scale.

IMMIGRATION

Reform our refugee laws. We are the biggest saps in the western world. We accept almost any idiotic claim, letting in far and away the highest percentage of claimants in the world. Refugees do not have to meet any kind of skills or education test, and tens of thousands are given immigration cards every year.

We need to focus immigration only on skilled immigrants who can speak the language and have applicable education and job skills. Some family reunification, yes, but it should be the exception, depending on circumstances. The fact one family member got here due to their skills should not give all the rest a free ticket to get into Canada. I would also make it much easier to expell anyone who came here illegally (and severely punish those who are deported and return), or who commits a crime while here, or who goes on welfare within a couple of years of arrival. And if that means bringing in the notwithstanding clause so we can deport criminals without 5 or 6 years of appeals then I'd do it in an instant. I would also push back the length of time it takes to become a Canadian citizen to 7 years, as it once was. It takes too little time to become a citizen now, and once they're citizens we can't get rid of them. We should not be required to keep failed immigrants here. Our public housing projects should not be stuffed to the brim with immigrants. If an immigrant fails we should send them back home with our regrets. Hey, sorry, but it didn't work out. Buh bye.

[Argus]

However, both 'right' and 'left' have recently championed 'individual rights' without giving a single thought to 'individual responsibility', and think that if they do something stupid, they can either blame someone/something else, or sue the victim and possibly win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am a fan of indivual rights, but not where they cause demonstrated harm to society. For example, I approve of the way the British have smothered their major streets with closed circuit cameras. I think we should do the same. In Quebec, a court found this was an invasion of privacy if the cameras actually recorded anything. They can be monitored, but not recorded, which is idiotic. Screw privacy rights where safety is concerned.

We have taken individual rights to such an extent that all our collective rights are infringed upon. The cops know who the violent criminals are in every city. They know almost every member of every street gang, they know the repeat offender, they know the habitual criminals. They've all been arrested and put through the system many times. But their individual rights keeps them free to harm the rest of us. What about our rights? Don't we have the right to be free to go shopping downtown with scumbags shooting us? These guys should all be in jail. They should have all been in jail before they even met and got into that shootout. I doubt there's one of them who isn't "known to police" as the saying goes. We, as a society, should be able to lock up these people permanently. I'm not in favour of the kind of three strike laws they have in the US, because I think they carry things to ridiculous levels, where a guy stealing a pizza gets a third strike and winds up in prison for life. But how about a three strike law for muggers, for armed robbers, for rapists, for those caught commiting other violent offenses? Is that so terrible to contemplate?

And yes, I realize that all these ideas would cost more money, would require more prisons and more courts. That's okay. I don't like taxes more than anyone else, but I don't mind them so much when they're being spent properly, on that which is necessary for the safety and welfare of society.

If you didn't read the cite august posted the other day on one of these threads you ought to. It so perfectly demonstrates the arrogance and violence of these little punks, that they'd attack and try to kill people for no better reason then showing what tough "gangsta niggers" they are.

[crazymf]

I think we should build a max prison for these types on Hans Island. That would kill two birds with one stone. Isolation and sovereignity.

[cybercoma]

Glad to see no one is going on a witch hunt for a reason to youth violence.

Immigrants! They are the problem! 

It has nothing to do with the fact a 15yr old kid can make as much money selling crack, as an architect or engineer. It would be nice to blame it on the immigrants but I know too many white homegrown sociopaths to believe it is mainly their fault.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because crack is something new....?

[cybercoma]

What we did was to allow into Canada, massive numbers of young people who were already alienated from their mothers, from cultures in which there usually were no fathers. This happened thirty years ago, after we started letting the black maids, housekeepers and nannies we imported from the Carribean become citizens and then sponsor their families, mainly children,for the rate of unwed motherhood in Carribean countries is immense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you explain a similar type of problem in the lower mainland of British Columbia (Surrey, Van, etc)? The gangs there are of East Indian and Asian descent. Their parents are anything but poor single mothers. Most of them come from privileged backgrounds – either middle class or wealthy families having both parents and even extended families.

This problem arises from popular culture that glorifies gang membership and all the cheap thrills and unearned money that accompany it. I’m sure we’ve all heard the gansta rappers talk about their bling and hos and whatnot. There is an entire subculture that most of us cannot even begin to understand.

This gangsta culture arose about twenty years ago in the United States. It is a direct result of Ronald Regan’s so called war on drugs. It was really a war on the American people. More specifically it was a war on Black Americans – which is what it was all about.

So many Black Americans were arrested or incarcerated that incarceration itself lost its stigma – in fact it became a rite of passage. The incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders has had a devastating effect on the social fabric of Black America. Prison is the perfect place to make better criminals.

This American-inspired culture has been transmitted by popular media to much of the Western world and beyond – Canada is no exception. Add to that a free-flow of guns over the US-Can border and we have arrived at where we are now.

This problem was created by conservative policies not by liberal policies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem is not the "entertainment" industry, it's the laws that offer no threat to criminals.

[Black Dog]

Argus makes some good suggestions a few posts back (though I would disagree with mandatory minimum sentences), but stronger laws and enforcement won't stop kids from getting into gangs and shooting each other. I mean, when you are willing to shoot or be shot for something as minor as defending your rep, prison isn't much of a threat or deterrent. Anyone taking a pure law and order approach to the issue is missing half of the equation, the social/environmental factors.

Oh and it's worth noting that T.O's crime rate is pretty low by North American standards and that there have been far fewer murders there this year than in any of the past four.

[Argus]

Argus makes some good suggestions a few posts back (though I would disagree with mandatory minimum sentences), but stronger laws and enforcement won't stop kids from getting into gangs and shooting each other. I mean, when you are willing to shoot or be shot for something as minor as defending your rep, prison isn't much of a threat or deterrent.

I don't personally like mandatory minimums. If I were a judge I would purely hate them. But if I were a judge I would be able to tell the difference between the sentence I should hand out to a first offender, and the sentence a hardened criminal should receive. I would also not shrink from handing down the more severe sentences allowed by law for severe crimes, especially when commited by career criminals. For example, examine the following law.

244. Every person who, with intent

(a) to wound, maim or disfigure any person,

{b} to endanger the life of any person, or

© to prevent the arrest or detention of any person,

discharges a firearm at any person, whether or not that person is the person mentioned in paragraph (a), {b} or [c], is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

The law seems clear. If you shoot at someone you are liable to up to 14 years in prison. Anyone EVER read a case where some scumbag shooting at anyone, be they cop, clerk, guard or another scumbag, got a sentence this severe? Ever? If it happens at all it's very, very rare. In fact, the charge itself must be pretty rare, because it carries a minimum of 4 years, and I read in the paper every day of guys who shoot at others and get off with two or three years. So why are people not being charged under this law? For the same reason they're not being charged under the laws against firearms posession which carry mandator minimums. That is their defence will refuse to plea unless those charges are dropped in favour of lessor charges which can be negotiated downward. And Crowns are required to plead most cases because we don 't have enough courts or judges or court workers for more than a fraction of such people to have trials. Bearing in mind, of course, that trials are now somewhat ridiculously complex and time consuming even for relatively straightforward charges.

Using a firearm in the commision of an indictable offence can likewise carry up to fourteen years in prison. Has anyone EVER heard of such a sentence, or anything which begins to approach that kind of sentence? Ever? Anywhere?

Posession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Maximum ten years in prison. Anywhere ever read or hear of anyone getting this, or anything remotely near this for this crime?

Examine some of the laws on firearms and the possible punishment in the following section of the criminal code:

2) Subject to subsection (4) and section 98, every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

Punishment

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;

{b} in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and

© in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

Stiff laws. Anyone ever see anyone punished this severely for posession of a firearm?

This is why we need not just minimum sentences, we need to do something about the system which forces Crowns to discard these charges entirely in favour of lesser charges that can be plea bargained. The Criminal Code is full of severe punishments. But these charges are either not laid, or withdrawn, or sentences are pled down, or judges ignore the higher end of the punishment scale.

I know people are conditioned to think plea bargains are due to the Crown's case not being very good, but in almost all cases it's because there simply isn't enough court space for all those trials. People get far less severe punishments than they should because of slack, limp-wristed judges, but also in large part because of our lack of courts.

Anyone taking a pure law and order approach to the issue is missing half of the equation, the social/environmental factors.

And how do we address those, bearing in mind we already provide free education? More basketball courts? Do we have to hold their hands, drag them into schools, force them to learn, then take them by the hand out to look for work?

Oh and it's worth noting that T.O's crime rate is pretty low by North American standards and that there have been far fewer murders there this year than in any of the past four.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's worth noting that our violent crime rate is much higher than Europe's, and far higher than it used to be, and much higher than it would be if we rounded up every member of every street gang and shipped them off to a prison in the high arctic.

[The Honest Politician]

Glad to see no one is going on a witch hunt for a reason to youth violence.

Immigrants! They are the problem! 

It has nothing to do with the fact a 15yr old kid can make as much money selling crack, as an architect or engineer. It would be nice to blame it on the immigrants but I know too many white homegrown sociopaths to believe it is mainly their fault.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because crack is something new....?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When compared to other abused substances, like opiates, methamphetamines, alcohol and even regular cocainne, Crack is something new. It arrived in America in the 1980s from Jamaica. Under the leadership of a former gang leader Jim Brown, who happened to support and provide protection to the eventual winner during an election. Service, which eventually gave him a Govt. position where was effectively one of the most politically powerful men in the country. Brown was able to have false passports and supporting documentation, made by the legitimate Govt. agencies, on command. He used these documents to freely come and go from the U.S.A..

Before the Jamaican election there where several large violent gangs all competing for power. Jim Brown's good fortunes forced most of the gangs to leave the country for the States. Less suffer retribution from Brown and his new political powers. Brown exploited his old rivals, by using them and their distribution networks in American cities, to funnel crack onto the streets. It has been estimated that if you did crack on the Eastern Seaboard, in the 1980s, there was a 99% chance it came through Jim Brown's network. A network that started with the cartels in Columbia, and ended on the streets of America.

The whole idea behind crack is that for $2 you can get high. The flip side is, it isn't hard to do $250 worth a night either. Since the drug keeps people awake and craving more, customers keep coming back until there is no more drugs or money. It is a lucrative business, and is defended with violence. It is only a matter of time before guns follow the drugs and the money. I feel that what we are witnessing in Toronto is just the beginning of local gangs, fighting for more control over the drug trade.

Makes me wonder what the violent crime rate in Amsterdam is?

And why are we spending so much money busting Marijuana when Crack, coke, Heroin, Extascy and Crystal Meth are all far more dangerous to the individual, and the community at large?

[Black Dog]

And how do we address those, bearing in mind we already provide free education? More basketball courts? Do we have to hold their hands, drag them into schools, force them to learn, then take them by the hand out to look for work?

Sneer if you want, but social and educational programs have been cut down drastically over the past couple of decades. Hell, the criminologist cited in the article you linked to said:

Much of the poverty experienced by black gang members in Toronto is a direct result of former Ontario premier Mike Harris’s social cutbacks from 1995 to 2003 that saw the decimation of education and recreation programs, Wortley says.

“Many criminologists would forecast that by doing that you’re going to create the conditions to produce crime among the poorer segments of society. So rather than preventing crime, you are going to spend your money to deal with the criminals once they’re produced,” he said.

"Law and order" arguments are easy because they are simple and quantifiable (ho wmany people did we lock up?), but there's no evidence that stiffer penalties or mandatory minimum sentences reduce crime. You can lock 'em up, you can deport 'em, you can throw them in work gangs, but if your only solution to the very real social and economic factors that lead to crime is to sneer, then you won't accomplish squat.

It's worth noting that our violent crime rate is much higher than Europe's, and far higher than it used to be,

I dunno about Europe, but I do know the second part of your statement is false.

In total, about 300,000 violent crimes were reported to police in 2004, the majority of which were common assault. The violent crime rate fell 2%, continuing a general decline since 1992. The violent crime rate was 10% lower than a decade earlier, but 35% higher than 20 years ago.

Canada's homicide rate rose 12% in 2004 after hitting a 36-year low the year before. Police reported 622 victims of homicide, 73 more than last year. Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec accounted for most of this increase. The rate of 1.9 homicides for every 100,000 population was 5% lower than it was 10 years earlier.

Link.

[Montgomery Burns]

My sister used to live in Toronto and she told me that the overwhelming amount of these shootings are done by people from the Caribbean (mostly Jamaicans) and Sri Lanka. It's just that the Liberals have implemented so much Political Correctness (censorship) in society that people are reluctant to say this, lest they be called a racist.

[BubberMiley]

So what's your point?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

The Criminal Code is full of severe punishments. But these charges are either not laid, or withdrawn, or sentences are pled down, or judges ignore the higher end of the punishment scale.

It is all about the political will to set precedent. Incarceration rates have fallen largely due to the fact that money is the primary concern for society. The gov't denies that they have a 'revolving door policy', but the numbers bear out :'1 in, 1 out'...I have heard that there hasn't been a new maximum security prison built in this country for 25 years. Fenbrook is the newest 'medium security one from 1998...

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/facilit/inst...enbrook_e.shtml

Note the incarceration rates, very similar over the last few years. I am sure that the population has grown, crime stays about the same per population, but the prisons aren't growing...

So, the judges will continue to have the revolving door policy until they are told to set new precedents upward, but it will cost money if the same setup is followed. I think a major overhaul of the prison system is in order...

[crazymf]

This country sucks. What about live by the sword, die by the sword?

We'll spend more money on politics like usual and then do NOTHING in the end anyway.

That IS the typical Canadian way to do things isn't it?

Shoot at a cop? Firing squad, end of story.

Kill someone with a gun? Same thing.

$0.25 solution.

I don't understand all the bubbling back and forth about this topic. Here's a reality check: People MUST know that it's plain wrong to pick up a gun and threaten someones life with it or actually shoot someone. Make them acountable. Advertise on TV that if you are convicted of a gun crime, you are executed by firing squad. The message is to put the gun down and leave it alone. Or else.

Instead there's all this talk of laws, incarceration, revamping prisons etc, etc, blah, blah.

Address the subject Ottawa.

[Lost2]

And how do we address those, bearing in mind we already provide free education? More basketball courts? Do we have to hold their hands, drag them into schools, force them to learn, then take them by the hand out to look for work?

I find that the "free" education in B.C. isn't all that free. If a family cannot afford all the extra fees for certain subjects it's just tough luck. As far as extra curricular activities are concerned the average store clerk cannot afford to send their kids to these. Also looking around the community nearly everything is geared to the adults with extra money to blow. Therefore I am actually surprised that the only problems we have with kids here is the odd fire or graffty. They (the kids) have far too much time on their hands with nothing to do. Maybe it's time that councils start worrying about kids instead of fancy new city halls.

[Black Dog]

I don't understand all the bubbling back and forth about this topic. Here's a reality check: People MUST know that it's plain wrong to pick up a gun and threaten someones life with it or actually shoot someone. Make them acountable. Advertise on TV that if you are convicted of a gun crime, you are executed by firing squad. The message is to put the gun down and leave it alone. Or else.

Uh...how is the threat of death by firing squad going to deter someone who leads a lifestyle in which they can probably expect to get shot over a dimebag or a pair of shoes?

[Argus]

Apparently the two men arrested the other day in a subway are now thought to have been involved. There are two disturbing aspects to the information about them so far. One is that the one with the gun has been charged with discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm. According to the media, his gun is being tested to see if it actually killed the girl, Jane Creben. What is irritating about this that (unless my memory is quite incorrect) Canada used to have the same law with regard to felonies and murder as exists in other countries. That is, if you engage in a felony and any one dies, it's murder, and you''re guilty. Even if it was your partner who shot someone, even if it was a cop who shot your partner, even if a little old lady has a heart attack, you're responsible, becuase if you hadn't engaged in a felony it wouldn't have happened. The Supreme Court said, several years back, that this was unfair to criminals, and that they should only be charged with what they personally do. So the only one who can be charged with murder is whichever of those 15 odd punks actually shot the girl.

The second disturbing aspect is that the older one was on probation "after serving 30 days for a convenience store robbery."

30 days? Sigh.

One thing I would like to add to what I'd like to see the tories do; reinstate the rules that puts responsibility for any death on everyone involved in a felony. If you go to rob a bank and your partner shoots anyone, that's your fault and you should be charged with murder. Everyone of those punks involved in the shoot-out should be charged with murder. The Supreme Court doesn't like it? Screw the supreme court. Use the notwithstanding clause.

[Riverwind]

If you go to rob a bank and your partner shoots anyone, that's your fault and you should be charged with murder.

I remember a case on one of those crime dramas which I thought was too silly to be true: two identical twins conspire to commit a murder. All of the DNA, finger print and even camera evidence is inconclusive because it is impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt which twin actually committed the murder. The result was both got off scott free. In such a situation a felony murder conviction is the only fair way to go.

[Argus]

I don't understand all the bubbling back and forth about this topic. Here's a reality check: People MUST know that it's plain wrong to pick up a gun and threaten someones life with it or actually shoot someone. Make them acountable. Advertise on TV that if you are convicted of a gun crime, you are executed by firing squad. The message is to put the gun down and leave it alone. Or else.

Uh...how is the threat of death by firing squad going to deter someone who leads a lifestyle in which they can probably expect to get shot over a dimebag or a pair of shoes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps not, but putting a bullet in their heads makes it very unlikely they will do it again.

[Black Dog]

Perhaps not, but putting a bullet in their heads makes it very unlikely they will do it again.

Dark ages solutions to 21st Century problems.

[Argus]

Perhaps not, but putting a bullet in their heads makes it very unlikely they will do it again.

Dark ages solutions to 21st Century problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the contrary, the problem is not the least bit new.

How do these "gangsta niggas" as they like to call themselves, differ in mentality from the mongols which swept through cities killing, raping and burning everything in sight? Except, perhaps, that they have less honour than the Mongols, and less purpose. Remove the "thin blue line" and they would be out killing, raping and burning every day, and thoroughly enjoying themselves while doing it.

[ralph4231]

What is all this bulshit about what caused the problem?

Isn't it about time that we focused on PUNISHMENT instead of rehabilitation?

How can you rehabilitate a 14 year old sociopath who has never made up his mind about what he is doing?

Let's make it uncomfortable to be in prison.

Boot camps & hard labour is what we need.

Crown prosecutors who are more interested in protecting the public instead of being afraid of clogging up the courts is what we need.

Judges who are more interested in imposing deterrent sentences than in following sentencing precedents is what we need.

Mandatory sentences for illegal weapons is what we need.

Amending the Young Offenders Act is what we need.

IT'S GOT TO STOP SOMEWHERE.

Once it's stopped, then maybe we can figure out how to rehabilitate the criminals.

[cybercoma]

I love the hard labour idea. Honestly, I disagree with the death penalty because our legal system is not perfect, but I think it would be a great idea to put these scumbags to work. Don't want to be a productive member of society, too f'ing bad...you have no choice but to give back to the community, here's a shovel and a pick axe.