No tolerance toward violent crime.

[lost&outofcontrol]

You've attributed that quote to the wrong person. I didn't say that.

Sorry about that, the quote was from speaker.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I agree. Furthermore, I believe the worst thing that happened to the youth of Canada, was the "Young Offenders Act". Young people these days are well aware that crime "DOES PAY", when it comes to them.

I can only speak for myself but I've mused (jokingly) about robbing a bank. Why havn't I? Because it's morally deprived but also because the prospect of spending 15-25 in Stoney Mountain Penn. is not my idea of fun. Consequences are a deterent and anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves. The basis for the YOA was flawed to begin with: "young people are fundimentaly good people and should not pay heavily for mistakes". Well, my way thinking reads: fundementaly good, youg people won't commit crimes when they know that they will be punished severly!

Read my reply to speaker. The severity of sentences has little to no effect on the possibility of a crime being committed. What does have a impact is the swiftness and certainty of capture and punishment. If the chances of being caught are near 100% then the crime rate will fall to near zero.

Why use up precious resources by locking up criminals for overly long periods of time (more time in prison so they learn from other inmates how to be better criminals) when you could be using the same resources to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms.

[Wilber]

I agree. Furthermore, I believe the worst thing that happened to the youth of Canada, was the "Young Offenders Act". Young people these days are well aware that crime "DOES PAY", when it comes to them.

I can only speak for myself but I've mused (jokingly) about robbing a bank. Why havn't I? Because it's morally deprived but also because the prospect of spending 15-25 in Stoney Mountain Penn. is not my idea of fun. Consequences are a deterent and anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves. The basis for the YOA was flawed to begin with: "young people are fundimentaly good people and should not pay heavily for mistakes". Well, my way thinking reads: fundementaly good, youg people won't commit crimes when they know that they will be punished severly!

Read my reply to speaker. The severity of sentences has little to no effect on the possibility of a crime being committed. What does have a impact is the swiftness and certainty of capture and punishment. If the chances of being caught are near 100% then the crime rate will fall to near zero.

Why use up precious resources by locking up criminals for overly long periods of time (more time in prison so they learn from other inmates how to be better criminals) when you could be using the same resources to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms.

How do you prevent crime if you keep turning the criminals loose to commit more crimes? 80% of crimes are commited by about 5% of the population.

[JMH]

I agree. Furthermore, I believe the worst thing that happened to the youth of Canada, was the "Young Offenders Act". Young people these days are well aware that crime "DOES PAY", when it comes to them.

I can only speak for myself but I've mused (jokingly) about robbing a bank. Why havn't I? Because it's morally deprived but also because the prospect of spending 15-25 in Stoney Mountain Penn. is not my idea of fun. Consequences are a deterent and anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves. The basis for the YOA was flawed to begin with: "young people are fundimentaly good people and should not pay heavily for mistakes". Well, my way thinking reads: fundementaly good, youg people won't commit crimes when they know that they will be punished severly!

Read my reply to speaker. The severity of sentences has little to no effect on the possibility of a crime being committed. What does have a impact is the swiftness and certainty of capture and punishment. If the chances of being caught are near 100% then the crime rate will fall to near zero.

Why use up precious resources by locking up criminals for overly long periods of time (more time in prison so they learn from other inmates how to be better criminals) when you could be using the same resources to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms.

To begin, my post suggests that a crime wouldn't occur in the first place in many cases today if it weren't for the YOA.

Your "capture and punishment" theory does nothing to prevent the crime and also contradicts the second portion of your post, which is a lack of resources in the prison system. So I'm lost on that one too.

There is NO lack of resources available in Canada concerning the penal system. There is only a lack of desire (by the political folks) to make the changes for this to happen.

What you are essentially saying is that criminals should be permitted lieniency based upon the percieved lack of prison space and the costs associated within that framework. I don't agree whatsoever.

Violent criminals belong in prison. Thats why we have them, and the government has been derelict in its resposability to build more. Our population grows, and crime grows with it.

Public safety is paramount, period.

Whether a violent perp is a young offender or an adult, they belong in a prison enviroment or (in too many cases today), deported immediatly with no questions asked.

I agree with you entirely that more resources should be put forth to prevent crime . We have the money for that too. The abolishment of the YOA would be a great start.

[lost&outofcontrol]

How do you prevent crime if you keep turning the criminals loose to commit more crimes? 80% of crimes are commited by about 5% of the population.

I hate having to quote myself...

Studies have shown that the severity of a sentence has little to no effect on the probability of a crime being committed. What is important is the probabilities of being caught. 47% of deviants (people who are caught and convicted of a crime) will have no subsequent record. Another 35% will stop after the second crime and a further 29% will stop after the third. Thereafter, less than 5% will continue committing crimes. If you want deterrence, you should cut the length of sentences for first offense and better use the resources to catch criminals.

In the late 19th century, most convicted criminals weren't sent to prisons, they were sentenced to repay their debt to society by working for the city/government/victims. Prisons were never created to be the only tool to punish criminals. I urge everyone to read up on the Classical thinking theory of criminal punishment from Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.

The best deterrent to crime is guaranteeing criminals will be caught. (**rant** or increasing the standard of living for all)

[geoffrey]

The best deterrent to crime is guaranteeing criminals will be caught.

This I agree with. But if you only get 2 years for murder, or 3 lectures at McGill for fraud, I really couldn't care less if I was caught right?

Minimums and good policing are whats needed.

[Wilber]

How do you prevent crime if you keep turning the criminals loose to commit more crimes? 80% of crimes are commited by about 5% of the population.

I hate having to quote myself...

Studies have shown that the severity of a sentence has little to no effect on the probability of a crime being committed. What is important is the probabilities of being caught. 47% of deviants (people who are caught and convicted of a crime) will have no subsequent record. Another 35% will stop after the second crime and a further 29% will stop after the third. Thereafter, less than 5% will continue committing crimes. If you want deterrence, you should cut the length of sentences for first offense and better use the resources to catch criminals.

In the late 19th century, most convicted criminals weren't sent to prisons, they were sentenced to repay their debt to society by working for the city/government/victims. Prisons were never created to be the only tool to punish criminals. I urge everyone to read up on the Classical thinking theory of criminal punishment from Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.

The best deterrent to crime is guaranteeing criminals will be caught. (**rant** or increasing the standard of living for all)

The police keep catching the 5% but we don't do anything with them. That's what "known to the police" means.

[Minimus Maximus]

Regardless of whether or not incarceration is a deterrent it does take criminals off of the streets. Is this not the prime directive of our justice system, to keep the public safe?

About 15 years ago I witnessed a couple of young punks trying to break into a store, long story short I ended up being a witness for the prosecution a few months later. I then found out that these kids had been arrested 9 separate times for B&E in the previous year. Less than 2 weeks later I saw the same punks trying to sell some stolen electronics in my neigbourhood pub.

Catch and release is great for your fave fishing hole, but it makes for a lousy justice system.

[geoffrey]

Regardless of whether or not incarceration is a deterrent it does take criminals off of the streets. Is this not the prime directive of our justice system, to keep the public safe?

About 15 years ago I witnessed a couple of young punks trying to break into a store, long story short I ended up being a witness for the prosecution a few months later. I then found out that these kids had been arrested 9 separate times for B&E in the previous year. Less than 2 weeks later I saw the same punks trying to sell some stolen electronics in my neigbourhood pub.

Catch and release is great for your fave fishing hole, but it makes for a lousy justice system.

What would you suggest then, we can't surely lock B&E people up for life?

I'm in agreement with you but I don't see how this will improve things when they get out. We need to change the structure of punishment and rehab in Canada.

[JMH]

I agree. Furthermore, I believe the worst thing that happened to the youth of Canada, was the "Young Offenders Act". Young people these days are well aware that crime "DOES PAY", when it comes to them.

I can only speak for myself but I've mused (jokingly) about robbing a bank. Why havn't I? Because it's morally deprived but also because the prospect of spending 15-25 in Stoney Mountain Penn. is not my idea of fun. Consequences are a deterent and anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves. The basis for the YOA was flawed to begin with: "young people are fundimentaly good people and should not pay heavily for mistakes". Well, my way thinking reads: fundementaly good, youg people won't commit crimes when they know that they will be punished severly!

Read my reply to speaker. The severity of sentences has little to no effect on the possibility of a crime being committed. What does have a impact is the swiftness and certainty of capture and punishment. If the chances of being caught are near 100% then the crime rate will fall to near zero.

Why use up precious resources by locking up criminals for overly long periods of time (more time in prison so they learn from other inmates how to be better criminals) when you could be using the same resources to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms.

To begin, my post suggests that a crime wouldn't occur in the first place in many cases today if it weren't for the YOA.

Your "capture and punishment" theory does nothing to prevent the crime and also contradicts the second portion of your post, which is a lack of resources in the prison system. So I'm lost on that one too.

There is NO lack of resources available in Canada concerning the penal system. There is only a lack of desire (by the political folks) to make the changes for this to happen.

What you are essentially saying is that criminals should be permitted lieniency based upon the percieved lack of prison space and the costs associated within that framework. I don't agree whatsoever.

Violent criminals belong in prison. Thats why we have them, and the government has been derelict in its resposability to build more. Our population grows, and crime grows with it.

Public safety is paramount, period.

Whether a violent perp is a young offender or an adult, they belong in a prison enviroment or (in too many cases today), deported immediatly with no questions asked.

I agree with you entirely that more resources should be put forth to prevent crime . We have the money for that too. The abolishment of the YOA would be a great start.

[Minimus Maximus]

Regardless of whether or not incarceration is a deterrent it does take criminals off of the streets. Is this not the prime directive of our justice system, to keep the public safe?

About 15 years ago I witnessed a couple of young punks trying to break into a store, long story short I ended up being a witness for the prosecution a few months later. I then found out that these kids had been arrested 9 separate times for B&E in the previous year. Less than 2 weeks later I saw the same punks trying to sell some stolen electronics in my neigbourhood pub.

Catch and release is great for your fave fishing hole, but it makes for a lousy justice system.

What would you suggest then, we can't surely lock B&E people up for life?

I'm in agreement with you but I don't see how this will improve things when they get out. We need to change the structure of punishment and rehab in Canada.

I hear ya geoff.

I agree that we can't lock people up for life for offences like B&E but longer jail terms for repeat offenders would keep them off of the streets...and keep them from commiting more crimes. Habitual/career criminals don't care about deterrents, it's civil society that cares about deterrents (...and we are civil after all).

Maybe some kind of three strikes law?

[Hicksey]

Regardless of whether or not incarceration is a deterrent it does take criminals off of the streets. Is this not the prime directive of our justice system, to keep the public safe?

About 15 years ago I witnessed a couple of young punks trying to break into a store, long story short I ended up being a witness for the prosecution a few months later. I then found out that these kids had been arrested 9 separate times for B&E in the previous year. Less than 2 weeks later I saw the same punks trying to sell some stolen electronics in my neigbourhood pub.

Catch and release is great for your fave fishing hole, but it makes for a lousy justice system.

What would you suggest then, we can't surely lock B&E people up for life?

I'm in agreement with you but I don't see how this will improve things when they get out. We need to change the structure of punishment and rehab in Canada.

I hear ya geoff.

I agree that we can't lock people up for life for offences like B&E but longer jail terms for repeat offenders would keep them off of the streets...and keep them from commiting more crimes. Habitual/career criminals don't care about deterrents, it's civil society that cares about deterrents (...and we are civil after all).

Maybe some kind of three strikes law?

Very good idea. Once someone has not just committed, but been caught 3 times their behavior is obviously pathological. At that point I think that letting them back out into society is no longer an option.

[geoffrey]

I hear ya geoff.

I agree that we can't lock people up for life for offences like B&E but longer jail terms for repeat offenders would keep them off of the streets...and keep them from commiting more crimes. Habitual/career criminals don't care about deterrents, it's civil society that cares about deterrents (...and we are civil after all).

Maybe some kind of three strikes law?

Very good idea. Once someone has not just committed, but been caught 3 times their behavior is obviously pathological. At that point I think that letting them back out into society is no longer an option.

I completely support the three strikes law. Very good idea.