No tolerance toward violent crime.

[Hicksey]

I have watched the front pages peppered with the devastation from gun crime for a long time now. It should have happened a long time ago, but since it hasn't we should do it now.

I'm calling for:

No Bail for Violent Criminals

No Bleeding Hearts for Violent Criminals no matter how young or old.

No Parole.

No Exceptions.

Our laws need to be changed to take these sub-human creatures from society and pen them up like the dogs they are. The time for compassion for these people has come and passed. They prove every day they cannot function within our society. It's time to respect the right of the rest of us to live in a safe society.

I read the front page of the Toronto Sun today and I discovered that Jane Creba died because someone knocked someone else's hat off, that someone opened fire on the 18th floor of an apartment building and nearly shot a 5 year old girl, that someone dropped a piece of concrete off an overpass that severely disfigured her face and nearly killed a bride to be on her way back from trying on her wedding dress.

This behavior simply cannot continue to be underpunished. We need to send a message to people that there will no longer be a slap on the wrist for such offenses. We need to make the punishments for such crimes so severe that people would not consider committing them in the first place.

[Riverwind]

that someone dropped a piece of concrete off an overpass that severely disfigured her face and nearly killed a bride to be on her way back from trying on her wedding dress.

Perhaps the most sick thing about our justice system is the guy who drop the cement block will likely never see the inside of a jail because the woman did not die and therefore he can only be charged with assault with a weapon. I think we need to change the law that so if you commit a crime that results in the permanent injury of another person then it should be treated the same a murder - the fact that death did not occur is irrelevant.

We also need to have a new crime called 'murder by mob' which carries serious penalties. The police should not have to figure out which individual in mob actually landed a the killing blow (a near impossible task). All the police should need to prove is an individual was a willing participant in a mob attack to get a conviction.

[geoffrey]

that someone dropped a piece of concrete off an overpass that severely disfigured her face and nearly killed a bride to be on her way back from trying on her wedding dress.

Perhaps the most sick thing about our justice system is the guy who drop the cement block will likely never see the inside of a jail because the woman did not die and therefore he can only be charged with assault with a weapon. I think we need to change the law that so if you commit a crime that results in the permanent injury of another person then it should be treated the same a murder - the fact that death did not occur is irrelevant.

We also need to have a new crime called 'murder by mob' which carries serious penalties. The police should not have to figure out which individual in mob actually landed a the killing blow (a near impossible task). All the police should need to prove is an individual was a willing participant in a mob attack to get a conviction.

Good call on both suggestions Sparhawk.

I think most Canadians are done with their compassion to criminals stage.

[speaker]

I don't know about most people but I think compassion for people of all sorts whether victim or culprit is a good policy. I think that increasing jail sentences for offenders does nothing but fill up the jails and force the construction of more. Not the major consideration here but worth bearing in mind when we consider the costs. I do support the idea of mandatory rehabilitation and a strict requirement for it's success before any parole is allowed.

The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

[Hicksey]

I don't know about most people but I think compassion for people of all sorts whether victim or culprit is a good policy. I think that increasing jail sentences for offenders does nothing but fill up the jails and force the construction of more. Not the major consideration here but worth bearing in mind when we consider the costs. I do support the idea of mandatory rehabilitation and a strict requirement for it's success before any parole is allowed.

The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

The only reason the argument of deterrence doesn't carry weight is because the penalties have become an absolute joke. I repeat, a punishment for a violent crime that is so severe that people would not consider committing the crime would work. Jails should not work on a revolving door. If you commit a violent/sex crime we'll throw you in and lose the key for no less than ten years. If at that point you've been rehabilitated in the opinion of the parole board, then you may leave. If not every two years after, you'll be re-evaluated up until the end of the twenty years. If you kill another prisoner or are involved in a violent crime while in jail you never get parole.

If we don't get serious with these people they'll just keep laughing at the criminal justice system.

[Argus]

I don't know about most people but I think compassion for people of all sorts whether victim or culprit is a good policy.

I'll accept this only if we settle all the most violent offenders in a halfway house which we'll construct next door to you.

[BubberMiley]

We could start with compassion for potential future victims, and keep them locked up.

[Wilber]

We could start with compassion for potential future victims, and keep them locked up.

You got it. The part about the justice system protecting society from dangerous people got lost somewhere in this country. Time to bring it back.

[geoffrey]

We could start with compassion for potential future victims, and keep them locked up.

Or, we can just zap 'em. Though hanging in a central square gives more public confidence in the system. Yup lets hang 'em.

Crucifiction? Or is that too "inhumane".

[BubberMiley]

I think Thomas Sophonow and David Milgaard would probably be opposed to capital punishment.

[geoffrey]

I think Thomas Sophonow and David Milgaard would probably be opposed to capital punishment.

Probably would be opposed yes.

But the time you spend on death row is like years and years, all of appeals. If all your appeals run out, chances are more than likely, you did it.

Russel up a possie we're going criminal huntin'!

[Slavik44]

We could start with compassion for potential future victims, and keep them locked up.

Or, we can just zap 'em. Though hanging in a central square gives more public confidence in the system. Yup lets hang 'em.

Crucifiction? Or is that too "inhumane".

Isn't it somewhat ironic that the most notorius case of capital punishment, was one where an innocent man was killed?

I think society today is much like a person who jumps in a cold shower only to throw the tap over to hot and burn their skin, in the end niether situation was the correct one. But such a knee-jerk reaction resulted in a flawed solution that hurt more than it helped. Generally when we get tough on crime we go about it wrong, Geting tough on anyone from harmless squege kids to the biggest mass murderers. Much of the arguement for detterence hinges on the assumption that criminals are cold and calculating, as if they are as mechanized as your computer. However the majority of, even serious, crimes are not done in such a cold calculated manner, normally in a fit of rage, an emotionally based act. Not a guy who sat down with a sheet of paper and wrote down the pros and cons of his actions.

[geoffrey]

We could start with compassion for potential future victims, and keep them locked up.

Or, we can just zap 'em. Though hanging in a central square gives more public confidence in the system. Yup lets hang 'em.

Crucifiction? Or is that too "inhumane".

Isn't it somewhat ironic that the most notorius case of capital punishment, was one where an innocent man was killed?

I think society today is much like a person who jumps in a cold shower only to throw the tap over to hot and burn their skin, in the end niether situation was the correct one. But such a knee-jerk reaction resulted in a flawed solution that hurt more than it helped. Generally when we get tough on crime we go about it wrong, Geting tough on anyone from harmless squege kids to the biggest mass murderers. Much of the arguement for detterence hinges on the assumption that criminals are cold and calculating, as if they are as mechanized as your computer. However the majority of, even serious, crimes are not done in such a cold calculated manner, normally in a fit of rage, an emotionally based act. Not a guy who sat down with a sheet of paper and wrote down the pros and cons of his actions.

Capital punishment isn't a knee-jerk reaction, removing it was. Last time I checked, it was the status quo for a few thousand years before that idea died out.

Not every murderer should get the chair, or noose I agree. But some people are so beyond worth fixing up and are so guilty of their crimes that its beyond any and all reasonable doubt. Robert Pickton in BC could be one example. Why bother keeping this guy around at a huge cost to our system and society? We could hire a few police officers to stop this from happening again instead of paying for his room and board for the rest of his life.

Bernardo would be another great case for capital punishment.

[BubberMiley]

I never quite understood why conservatives, who advocate less government control over our lives, are often the first to advocate giving government the power to kill us.

[fixer1]

What we need is to put prisons on the high artic islands, and make prisoners the ones responsible for working together to survive situation. This would be for the violent and repeat offenders. It would not cost much and anyone escaping would have one hell of a long walk to get anywhere near civilization. We would only drop food and clothing and materials for them to build their shelters. They would have to learn to hunt and fish, and also to get along together, as survival is not really a one man thing. Plus it would help Canada prove sovergnty of our artic.

[Concerned]

I don't know about most people but I think compassion for people of all sorts whether victim or culprit is a good policy. I think that increasing jail sentences for offenders does nothing but fill up the jails and force the construction of more. Not the major consideration here but worth bearing in mind when we consider the costs. I do support the idea of mandatory rehabilitation and a strict requirement for it's success before any parole is allowed.

The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

The only reason the argument of deterrence doesn't carry weight is because the penalties have become an absolute joke. I repeat, a punishment for a violent crime that is so severe that people would not consider committing the crime would work. Jails should not work on a revolving door. If you commit a violent/sex crime we'll throw you in and lose the key for no less than ten years. If at that point you've been rehabilitated in the opinion of the parole board, then you may leave. If not every two years after, you'll be re-evaluated up until the end of the twenty years. If you kill another prisoner or are involved in a violent crime while in jail you never get parole.

If we don't get serious with these people they'll just keep laughing at the criminal justice system.

I do believe that deterence in the country is not sufficient, an is no longer carrying weight, however compassion is required for a humane justice system. Not to the point however that the rights of the criminal are often above the rights of the victom and future victoms.

To improve our society we must study our criminals and what caused their behaviour, and try to get to the bottom of it through social programs that can keep the crime off the streets in the first place. Many of these types of social programs have been wiped out, including adequate social programs for children living in disturbed home care situations. It all starts with our children, and so many of them live under poverty and abuse (example 5 year old Jeffrey Baldwin died at the hands of a previous child molestor who managed to win custody of 4 children). Mothers who abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy create kids that cannot function properly in our society. As a mother, I think that is a greater crime than throwing a brick at a bride to be. Rehabilitation for youths of non-violent crime should also be a high priority, to keep them from stepping to that next level of violence.

Perhaps stricter penalties towards violent criminals today should be coupled with some kind of community service work: make these criminals work for their food, shelter, instead of being supplied by the public. The money saved from having to jail, house, feed, medicate, police and otherwise take care of criminals in city jails could be put towards better social programs for children, youths, and non-violent criminals, and towards the study of violent crime to help prevent it in the first place.

[Wilber]

I never quite understood why conservatives, who advocate less government control over our lives, are often the first to advocate giving government the power to kill us.

This is one conservative who doesn't believe in capital punishment, not because I particularly care if some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that condones institutional killing. I don't believe that just because a government sanctions killing someone, it is morally OK. On the other hand, people have a right to expect their government to put their safety ahead of the rights of predators who have continually demonstrated they cannot be trusted in society.

[tml12]

I don't know about most people but I think compassion for people of all sorts whether victim or culprit is a good policy. I think that increasing jail sentences for offenders does nothing but fill up the jails and force the construction of more. Not the major consideration here but worth bearing in mind when we consider the costs. I do support the idea of mandatory rehabilitation and a strict requirement for it's success before any parole is allowed.

The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

The only reason the argument of deterrence doesn't carry weight is because the penalties have become an absolute joke. I repeat, a punishment for a violent crime that is so severe that people would not consider committing the crime would work. Jails should not work on a revolving door. If you commit a violent/sex crime we'll throw you in and lose the key for no less than ten years. If at that point you've been rehabilitated in the opinion of the parole board, then you may leave. If not every two years after, you'll be re-evaluated up until the end of the twenty years. If you kill another prisoner or are involved in a violent crime while in jail you never get parole.

If we don't get serious with these people they'll just keep laughing at the criminal justice system.

I do believe that deterence in the country is not sufficient, an is no longer carrying weight, however compassion is required for a humane justice system. Not to the point however that the rights of the criminal are often above the rights of the victom and future victoms.

To improve our society we must study our criminals and what caused their behaviour, and try to get to the bottom of it through social programs that can keep the crime off the streets in the first place. Many of these types of social programs have been wiped out, including adequate social programs for children living in disturbed home care situations. It all starts with our children, and so many of them live under poverty and abuse (example 5 year old Jeffrey Baldwin died at the hands of a previous child molestor who managed to win custody of 4 children). Mothers who abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy create kids that cannot function properly in our society. As a mother, I think that is a greater crime than throwing a brick at a bride to be. Rehabilitation for youths of non-violent crime should also be a high priority, to keep them from stepping to that next level of violence.

Perhaps stricter penalties towards violent criminals today should be coupled with some kind of community service work: make these criminals work for their food, shelter, instead of being supplied by the public. The money saved from having to jail, house, feed, medicate, police and otherwise take care of criminals in city jails could be put towards better social programs for children, youths, and non-violent criminals, and towards the study of violent crime to help prevent it in the first place.

Concerned,

I think you make a lot of good points.

Rehabilitation has always been a key to achieving a healthy criminal justice system. Although a conservative, I don't believe in simply executing every criminal or person who is convicted of a crime. Rehabiliating a criminal should always be the first part of every civilized society.

Community service should play a part, as should stricter penalties, in dealing with violent criminals.

[Hicksey]

I don't know about most people but I think compassion for people of all sorts whether victim or culprit is a good policy. I think that increasing jail sentences for offenders does nothing but fill up the jails and force the construction of more. Not the major consideration here but worth bearing in mind when we consider the costs. I do support the idea of mandatory rehabilitation and a strict requirement for it's success before any parole is allowed.

The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

The only reason the argument of deterrence doesn't carry weight is because the penalties have become an absolute joke. I repeat, a punishment for a violent crime that is so severe that people would not consider committing the crime would work. Jails should not work on a revolving door. If you commit a violent/sex crime we'll throw you in and lose the key for no less than ten years. If at that point you've been rehabilitated in the opinion of the parole board, then you may leave. If not every two years after, you'll be re-evaluated up until the end of the twenty years. If you kill another prisoner or are involved in a violent crime while in jail you never get parole.

If we don't get serious with these people they'll just keep laughing at the criminal justice system.

I do believe that deterence in the country is not sufficient, an is no longer carrying weight, however compassion is required for a humane justice system. Not to the point however that the rights of the criminal are often above the rights of the victom and future victoms.

To improve our society we must study our criminals and what caused their behaviour, and try to get to the bottom of it through social programs that can keep the crime off the streets in the first place. Many of these types of social programs have been wiped out, including adequate social programs for children living in disturbed home care situations. It all starts with our children, and so many of them live under poverty and abuse (example 5 year old Jeffrey Baldwin died at the hands of a previous child molestor who managed to win custody of 4 children). Mothers who abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy create kids that cannot function properly in our society. As a mother, I think that is a greater crime than throwing a brick at a bride to be. Rehabilitation for youths of non-violent crime should also be a high priority, to keep them from stepping to that next level of violence.

Perhaps stricter penalties towards violent criminals today should be coupled with some kind of community service work: make these criminals work for their food, shelter, instead of being supplied by the public. The money saved from having to jail, house, feed, medicate, police and otherwise take care of criminals in city jails could be put towards better social programs for children, youths, and non-violent criminals, and towards the study of violent crime to help prevent it in the first place.

Concerned,

I think you make a lot of good points.

Rehabilitation has always been a key to achieving a healthy criminal justice system. Although a conservative, I don't believe in simply executing every criminal or person who is convicted of a crime. Rehabiliating a criminal should always be the first part of every civilized society.

Community service should play a part, as should stricter penalties, in dealing with violent criminals.

I'll agree that along with a strong and severe punishment system, we do need to spend time developing systemic solutions to the causes of crime, whatever their cause. But we cannot continue to overlook the safety of the rest of society because there's bunch of bleeding hearts out there that feel for these criminals. The reality is that if people get to the point where they would be affected by what I propose, they're already lost. That's a fight we'll never win. We need to study them from within the jails to learn what kind of changes we can make on the outside to prevent the next generation of 'lost' souls. There comes a point where you have to realize that we cannot save everyone and the time comes to just start making changes that will affect our future.

[geoffrey]

I never quite understood why conservatives, who advocate less government control over our lives, are often the first to advocate giving government the power to kill us.

This is one conservative who doesn't believe in capital punishment, not because I particularly care if some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that condones institutional killing. I don't believe that just because a government sanctions killing someone, it is morally OK. On the other hand, people have a right to expect their government to put their safety ahead of the rights of predators who have continually demonstrated they cannot be trusted in society.

Well by the same token, abortion and euthanasia are institutionalised killing. Then again, you could be against those as well...

I'm not completely pro-capital punishment, but what is happening now obviously isn't working and is too lax.

[Wilber]

I never quite understood why conservatives, who advocate less government control over our lives, are often the first to advocate giving government the power to kill us.

This is one conservative who doesn't believe in capital punishment, not because I particularly care if some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that condones institutional killing. I don't believe that just because a government sanctions killing someone, it is morally OK. On the other hand, people have a right to expect their government to put their safety ahead of the rights of predators who have continually demonstrated they cannot be trusted in society.

Well by the same token, abortion and euthanasia are institutionalised killing. Then again, you could be against those as well...

I'm not completely pro-capital punishment, but what is happening now obviously isn't working and is too lax.

Actually they are not in this country. There is no law at all concerning abortion and euthenasia is illegal. But you are right, I could be.

[FTA Lawyer]

This is a bit lengthy, but here is what the unanimous SCC said about prison as punishment in its 2000 decision called R. v. Proulx (interpreting the 1996 amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code):

14 In September 1996, Bill C-41 came into effect. It substantially reformed Part XXIII of the Code, and introduced, inter alia, an express statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing, provisions for alternative measures for adult offenders and a new type of sanction, the conditional sentence of imprisonment.

15 As my colleagues Cory and Iacobucci JJ. explained in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, at para. 39, "[t]he enactment of the new Part XXIII was a watershed, marking the first codification and significant reform of sentencing principles in the history of Canadian criminal law". They noted two of Parliament's principal objectives in enacting this new legislation: (i) reducing the use of prison as a sanction, and (ii) expanding the use of restorative justice principles in sentencing (at para. 48).

(1) Reducing the Use of Prison as a Sanction

16 Bill C-41 is in large part a response to the problem of overincarceration in Canada. It was noted in Gladue, at para. 52, that Canada's incarceration rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest among industrialized democracies. In their reasons, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. reviewed numerous studies that uniformly concluded that incarceration is costly, frequently unduly harsh and "ineffective, not only in relation to its purported rehabilitative goals, but also in relation to its broader public goals" (para. 54). See also Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969); Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (1987), at pp. xxiii-xxiv; Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Taking Responsibility (1988), at p. 75. Prison has been characterized by some as a finishing school for criminals and as ill-preparing them for reintegration into society: see generally Canadian Committee on Corrections, supra, at p. 314; Correctional Service of Canada, A Summary of Analysis of Some Major Inquiries on Corrections -- 1938 to 1977 (1982), at p. iv. In Gladue, at para. 57, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. held:

Thus, it may be seen that although imprisonment is intended to serve the traditional sentencing goals of separation, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, there is widespread consensus that imprisonment has not been successful in achieving some of these goals. Overincarceration is a long-standing problem that has been many times publicly acknowledged but never addressed in a systematic manner by Parliament. In recent years, compared to other countries, sentences of imprisonment in Canada have increased at an alarming rate. The 1996 sentencing reforms embodied in Part XXIII, and s. 718.2(e) in particular, must be understood as a reaction to the overuse of prison as a sanction, and must accordingly be given appropriate force as remedial provisions. [Emphasis added.]

17 Parliament has sought to give increased prominence to the principle of restraint in the use of prison as a sanction through the enactment of s. 718.2(d) and (e). Section 718.2(d) provides that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances", while s. 718.2(e) provides that "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders". Further evidence of Parliament's desire to lower the rate of incarceration comes from other provisions of Bill C-41: s. 718© qualifies the sentencing objective of separating offenders from society with the words "where necessary", thereby indicating that caution be exercised in sentencing offenders to prison; s. 734(2) imposes a duty on judges to undertake a means inquiry before imposing a fine, so as to decrease the number of offenders who are incarcerated for defaulting on payment of their fines; and of course, s. 742.1, which introduces the conditional sentence. In Gladue, at para. 40, the Court held that "[t]he creation of the conditional sentence suggests, on its face, a desire to lessen the use of incarceration".

(2) Expanding the Use of Restorative Justice Principles in Sentencing

18 Restorative justice is concerned with the restoration of the parties that are affected by the commission of an offence. Crime generally affects at least three parties: the victim, the community, and the offender. A restorative justice approach seeks to remedy the adverse effects of crime in a manner that addresses the needs of all parties involved. This is accomplished, in part, through the rehabilitation of the offender, reparations to the victim and to the community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

19 Canadian sentencing jurisprudence has traditionally focussed on the aims of denunciation, deterrence, separation, and rehabilitation, with rehabilitation a relative late-comer to the sentencing analysis: see Gladue, at para. 42. With the introduction of Bill C-41, however, Parliament has placed new emphasis upon the goals of restorative justice. Section 718 sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing, as well as the various sentencing objectives that should be vindicated when sanctions are imposed. In Gladue, supra, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. stated (at para. 43):

Clearly, s. 718 is, in part, a restatement of the basic sentencing aims, which are listed in paras. (a) through (d). What are new, though, are paras. (e) and (f), which along with para. (d) focus upon the restorative goals of repairing the harms suffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the harm caused on the part of the offender, and attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender. The concept of restorative justice which underpins paras. (d), (e), and (f) is briefly discussed below, but as a general matter restorative justice involves some form of restitution and reintegration into the community. The need for offenders to take responsibility for their actions is central to the sentencing process. . . . Restorative sentencing goals do not usually correlate with the use of prison as a sanction. In our view, Parliament's choice to include (e) and (f) alongside the traditional sentencing goals must be understood as evidencing an intention to expand the parameters of the sentencing analysis for all offenders. [Emphasis added; citation omitted.]

20 Parliament has mandated that expanded use be made of restorative principles in sentencing as a result of the general failure of incarceration to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into society. By placing a new emphasis on restorative principles, Parliament expects both to reduce the rate of incarceration and improve the effectiveness of sentencing. During the second reading of Bill C-41 on September 20, 1994 (House of Commons Debates, vol. IV, 1st Sess., 35th Parl., at p. 5873), Minister of Justice Allan Rock made the following statements:

A general principle that runs throughout Bill C-41 is that jails should be reserved for those who should be there. Alternatives should be put in place for those who commits offences but who do not need or merit incarceration.

. . .

Jails and prisons will be there for those who need them, for those who should be punished in that way or separated from society. . . . [T]his bill creates an environment which encourages community sanctions and the rehabilitation of offenders together with reparation to victims and promoting in criminals a sense of accountability for what they have done.

It is not simply by being more harsh that we will achieve more effective criminal justice. We must use our scarce resources wisely.

I'd be all for the lock 'em up and throw away the key approach...if it worked...BUT our own experience and the majority of available science says it doesn't.

FTA

[Riverwind]

I'd be all for the lock 'em up and throw away the key approach...if it worked...BUT our own experience and the majority of available science says it doesn't.

Sentencing is supposed to be about the three things: deterrent, rehabilitation and retribution. Although, I can agree that the lock them up and throw away the key approach may not be that effective in terms of deterrant or rehabilitation - I certainly feel that we have forgotten about the need for retribution. A strong retribution component is essential to maintaining the faith in the system and respect for the law in general among people who would never likely commit a crime. People feel like they are getting screwed by the system if they see people commiting serious crimes and getting no meaningful punishment. The most recent example was Coffin of Gomery fame. I don't care that if the facts and legal precendents suggest that Coffin's sentance was 'fair' - the reality is the overwhelming majority of people do not think it is fair and that is a problem no matter what the legal experts say.

[tml12]

I'd be all for the lock 'em up and throw away the key approach...if it worked...BUT our own experience and the majority of available science says it doesn't.

Sentencing is supposed to be about the three things: deterrent, rehabilitation and retribution. Although, I can agree that the lock them up and throw away the key approach may not be that effective in terms of deterrant or rehabilitation - I certainly feel that we have forgotten about the need for retribution. A strong retribution component is essential to maintaining the faith in the system and respect for the law in general among people who would never likely commit a crime. People feel like they are getting screwed by the system if they see people commiting serious crimes and getting no meaningful punishment. The most recent example was Coffin of Gomery fame. I don't care that if the facts and legal precendents suggest that Coffin's sentance was 'fair' - the reality is the overwhelming majority of people do not think it is fair and that is a problem no matter what the legal experts say.

I am a conservative so I have to stick this in:

Rehabilitation is the #1 priority. But if they can't be rehabilitated, then death penalty should be an option.

[Concerned]

TML12:

Concerned,

I think you make a lot of good points.

Rehabilitation has always been a key to achieving a healthy criminal justice system. Although a conservative, I don't believe in simply executing every criminal or person who is convicted of a crime. Rehabiliating a criminal should always be the first part of every civilized society.

Community service should play a part, as should stricter penalties, in dealing with violent criminals.

Ha TML, I how is it I almost fall off my chair everytime we agree with something.

I do think though that rehabilitation is not going far enough. I think the route of the problem is often at the family level and particularly in families of low incomes, more support and community assistance is needed to keep the kids and youths on track. Education is paramount and we need to make sure these kids are in healthy family environments so they stay on school and become productive members of society. Particularly with new immigrant groups, I think many of them are struggling financially and the kids turn to the gangs for the support they are not getting at home. Two working parents who do not speak english, and makes for a family that can have trouble integrating into Canadian society.

These are all problems that we see at the root level of crime and I hope that any stricter enforcement of crime in our country (which I support), is coupled with programs that can help people stay out of jail in the first place.