Conservative jail plan

[uOttawaMan]

I have not seen this widely reported yet but according to an article in local media up to 23 prisons will need to be built because of proposed automatic jail terms and moves towards a U.S style of justice.

Criminologist Neil Boyd a professor at simon Fraser University says " There is no evidence it will make us a safer society. The Canadian plan will send Canada down the same road as the U.S. which has the highest incarnation rate in the Western world."

Is this guy for real or do you think the justice system and prisons have been ignored by the Liberals along with the associated immigration crime scenerio as seen in cities like Toronto and something must be done?

We definatly need to move our justice system more along the lines of US justice, we need to punish hardened criminals. Right now Canadian justice is a joke along the lines of this: A pedofile is let out after serving his term and the cops say there is a high chance of him re offending, what the hell, if so than lock him away! You don't see that kind of thing happaning in the US. We really should change.

Couldn't disagree more, US has highest incarceration rate, and its doing absolutley nothing to curb crime. It's like the death penalty, its used as symbol so that the general public is like "phew! look at all those baddies behind bars getting punished!"

After all my Crim studies, we need to maintain our current approach of rehabilitation first. There are always unfixable cases, but until we put in adequate funding , we are just locking people away, and not doing any good for society, because they will get out.

US crime rates are down substancially since the early nineties

US Crime Statistics

And so are ours.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...tats050721.html

I'm sure you will all scream bloody murder at the homicide rate. But people don't think about how long they are going to spend in jail when they kill someone. It's just not a deterrent. That homicide rate is greatly coming from urban areas like Winnipeg and Toronto, where we have to deal with the problem of guns.

Just because I'm not in favour of a "US style" utilitarian mandatory sentence system, doesnt mean I don't think there is a problem that needs to be addressed in a more serious manner.

Do you want the Criminal Justice system to be fair or equal. You can't have both.

[Leafless]

uOttawaMan

You wrote- " But people don't think how long there going to spend in jail when they kill someone. It's not just a deterrent."

Of course jail time or execution (in the U.S.) is a deterrent to many people but maybe not to some who are more prone to aggressive behavior. But regardless people are very well aware that these laws exist prior to committing the actual crime and should be ready to accept the penality. Or is it murderer one moment and coward the next?

Regardless you should very much be in favour of automatic jail time for hand gun offences as this will provide a real in jail deterrent to help make certain there is no second time.

You also wrote- " Do you want the Criminal Justice system to be fair or equal. You can't have both."

The justice system has never been fair and equal and favours the rich.

But automatic jail time for hand gun offences must be dealt in a different light than crime that is not out of control. Any areas of crime that are out of control must be dealt with harshly.

[Drea]

I agree that violent criminals need to be incarcerated for much longer periods of time. Our current revolving door policy just isn't working.

Harper said he'd reform the justice system and I am looking forward to that reform. Reform that means more than just opening 23 more prisons. Reform that keeps violent criminals off the streets for a much longer period of time. Reform that acknowledges that some people will never be rehabilitated. Reform that realizes the difference between selling a joint and selling crack. Reform that realizes the difference between a youngster that steals a car and a youngster who has stolen 50 cars.

It's simply ridiculous to think we can "ship" our criminals somewhere else.

[Wilber]

I have not seen this widely reported yet but according to an article in local media up to 23 prisons will need to be built because of proposed automatic jail terms and moves towards a U.S style of justice.

Criminologist Neil Boyd a professor at simon Fraser University says " There is no evidence it will make us a safer society. The Canadian plan will send Canada down the same road as the U.S. which has the highest incarnation rate in the Western world."

Is this guy for real or do you think the justice system and prisons have been ignored by the Liberals along with the associated immigration crime scenerio as seen in cities like Toronto and something must be done?

We definatly need to move our justice system more along the lines of US justice, we need to punish hardened criminals. Right now Canadian justice is a joke along the lines of this: A pedofile is let out after serving his term and the cops say there is a high chance of him re offending, what the hell, if so than lock him away! You don't see that kind of thing happaning in the US. We really should change.

Couldn't disagree more, US has highest incarceration rate, and its doing absolutley nothing to curb crime. It's like the death penalty, its used as symbol so that the general public is like "phew! look at all those baddies behind bars getting punished!"

After all my Crim studies, we need to maintain our current approach of rehabilitation first. There are always unfixable cases, but until we put in adequate funding , we are just locking people away, and not doing any good for society, because they will get out.

US crime rates are down substancially since the early nineties

US Crime Statistics

And so are ours.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...tats050721.html

I'm sure you will all scream bloody murder at the homicide rate. But people don't think about how long they are going to spend in jail when they kill someone. It's just not a deterrent. That homicide rate is greatly coming from urban areas like Winnipeg and Toronto, where we have to deal with the problem of guns.

Just because I'm not in favour of a "US style" utilitarian mandatory sentence system, doesnt mean I don't think there is a problem that needs to be addressed in a more serious manner.

Do you want the Criminal Justice system to be fair or equal. You can't have both.

It's hard to compare statistics from the different countries. For instance the US gives a number of 465.5 violent crimes per 100,000 population and Stats Can gives a number of 946 for Canada. Are we twice as bad? Probably not but pointing at the US system as a failure and ours as much superior is hard to back up.

I am in favour of mandatory sentences for certain crimes and repeat offenders after they reach a certain point, not the three strikes you're out system that some States use. Why are people who have 40+ convictions for vehicle theft and who have been involved in several police chases still on the street? Do we always have to wait until they kill someone and sometimes not even then?

Maybe people don't think about the length of sentence before they kill someone but longer sentences certainly prevent them from repeating.

William Abramenko

Was this fair or equal? Mr Abramenko's wife is suing the RCMP, Corrections Canada, the Parole Board and the John Howard Society. Lets hope she gets satisfaction from someone. Unfortunately she will have to get it through the same mechanism that has a vested interest in our revolving door "justice" system. Seems to me the only one treated fairly here was Eric Fish. More than fairly. Fair or equal? Neither.

Carley's Law

Whats the matter with this? Wettlaufer has had repeated convictions for driving drunk, had not shown up for counseling and was driving under suspension when he hit Carley. He took off, removed the plates from his car and had it towed away yet said he was not drunk or trying to cover up. Fair or equal? Neither.

What's the matter with making it clear that running over another human being and leaving them to die in a ditch is not acceptable in our society and that the penalty for leaving will always be more than for staying, no matter what lame excuse you give?

There is no conflict between fair and equal. Some things require a minimum amount of equality to be fair. Why should the law and criminal behavior be the only exceptions when it comes to a bottom line? An absolute minimum penalty that is acceptable when it comes to certain offenses.

[Wilber]

I see the links don't work for some reason but Google them and you will find lots.

[uOttawaMan]

uOttawaMan

You wrote- " But people don't think how long there going to spend in jail when they kill someone. It's not just a deterrent."

Of course jail time or execution (in the U.S.) is a deterrent to many people but maybe not to some who are more prone to aggressive behavior. But regardless people are very well aware that these laws exist prior to committing the actual crime and should be ready to accept the penality. Or is it murderer one moment and coward the next?

Regardless you should very much be in favour of automatic jail time for hand gun offences as this will provide a real in jail deterrent to help make certain there is no second time.

You also wrote- " Do you want the Criminal Justice system to be fair or equal. You can't have both."

The justice system has never been fair and equal and favours the rich.

But automatic jail time for hand gun offences must be dealt in a different light than crime that is not out of control. Any areas of crime that are out of control must be dealt with harshly.

I never said the justice system was fair AND equal. My point is, you can have judges interpret the law, weigh mitigating and aggravating factors, and attempting to pass a fair judgement. Thats the fair way. Or you can impose mandatory sentences and the judge just looks on his "punishment" table and finds the amount of jail time the crime deserves, regardless of what factors surround the crime. That means the first time offender and someone who commits a crime with violence get the same sentence. That's the equal way.

There is no possible way for both to exist in the same system to the appeasement of everyone.

[fixer1]

When it comes to violent crimes like murder and attempted murder, it should not matter if it was a first offence or not. We hope there is never a second offence for murder period. Now does that mean there can not be mitigating circumstances? Yes ther can be and that is why we have several levels of murder under the law. The trouble is the way the law runs now is you are always charged with the maximum they can think of, so you will plead bargain down to a lesser charge, and they hope it will then be the level it should be at. The trouble is, that is not always the case and not all people understand that the law is almost like bargaining for a car.

When it comes to people who are in authority over others and if they break the law, then the maximum should be the sentence. For people who have a record of violent crime the same thing. If someone has a history of shoplifting and then gets into a fight, it is diiferent but not cmpelling. If a person murdered or killed without thinking and was aggravated into it, and it was his first offence then Manslaughter would be best.

I guess the trouble with the law the way it is now, you need a lawyer, to navigate the system if you have any hope of justice. All too many people can not afford lawyers and the ones legal aid has are very much lacking. The system is not very good, but it is repairable. Just not many are trying to do the repairs.

[uOttawaMan]

When it comes to violent crimes like murder and attempted murder, it should not matter if it was a first offence or not. We hope there is never a second offence for murder period. Now does that mean there can not be mitigating circumstances? Yes ther can be and that is why we have several levels of murder under the law. The trouble is the way the law runs now is you are always charged with the maximum they can think of, so you will plead bargain down to a lesser charge, and they hope it will then be the level it should be at. The trouble is, that is not always the case and not all people understand that the law is almost like bargaining for a car.

When it comes to people who are in authority over others and if they break the law, then the maximum should be the sentence. For people who have a record of violent crime the same thing. If someone has a history of shoplifting and then gets into a fight, it is diiferent but not cmpelling. If a person murdered or killed without thinking and was aggravated into it, and it was his first offence then Manslaughter would be best.

I guess the trouble with the law the way it is now, you need a lawyer, to navigate the system if you have any hope of justice. All too many people can not afford lawyers and the ones legal aid has are very much lacking. The system is not very good, but it is repairable. Just not many are trying to do the repairs.

I agree with much of what you are saying, however I am a tad confused at this:

"When it comes to people who are in authority over others and if they break the law"

I assume you mean they are comitting crimes against the people they have authority over? Otherwise I don't think being in a position of authority changes the effect the law should have on you. Just like being poor doesn't mean the effect of law should change for you.

[Josh]

I hope the new jail plan gives those involved with the Sponsorship scandal a nice new cell to call home.

[tml12]

I hope the new jail plan gives those involved with the Sponsorship scandal a nice new cell to call home.

agreed...

[Leafless]

uOttawaMan

You wrote- " There is no possible way to exist in the same system to the appeasement of everyone."

I suppose the only way to identify you would be a socialistic cappuccino sucking Liberal tag.

Tough laws are needed for tough criminals.

[uOttawaMan]

uOttawaMan

You wrote- " There is no possible way to exist in the same system to the appeasement of everyone."

I suppose the only way to identify you would be a socialistic cappuccino sucking Liberal tag.

Tough laws are needed for tough criminals.

Lol.... and what makes them "tough" ? The crimes they committed, or their resistance to re-habilitative measures? What? Because if you start concentrating on strict retributivism, your gonna have a helluva lot of tough criminals, just waiting to get out of prison, the exact same way they went in.

[margrace]

uOttawaMan

You wrote- " There is no possible way to exist in the same system to the appeasement of everyone."

I suppose the only way to identify you would be a socialistic cappuccino sucking Liberal tag.

Tough laws are needed for tough criminals.

Lol.... and what makes them "tough" ? The crimes they committed, or their resistance to re-habilitative measures? What? Because if you start concentrating on strict retributivism, your gonna have a helluva lot of tough criminals, just waiting to get out of prison, the exact same way they went in.

You are so right, they shouldn't call it jail, is should be called the univercity of crime. They come out with letters behind their name and good training.

[geoffrey]

uOttawaMan

You wrote- " There is no possible way to exist in the same system to the appeasement of everyone."

I suppose the only way to identify you would be a socialistic cappuccino sucking Liberal tag.

Tough laws are needed for tough criminals.

Lol.... and what makes them "tough" ? The crimes they committed, or their resistance to re-habilitative measures? What? Because if you start concentrating on strict retributivism, your gonna have a helluva lot of tough criminals, just waiting to get out of prison, the exact same way they went in.

You are so right, they shouldn't call it jail, is should be called the univercity of crime. They come out with letters behind their name and good training.

So what do you purpose??

Personally I think hard-labour, Gulag style. Not many people re-offended after that, 16 hours a day of hard forced labour. Keep them barely alive, in brutal conditions, then for the last month recondition them for society. They won't want to come back. (For violent criminals)

I've also heard suggestions of military style prisions, where you have to earn your time. If you mouth off or cause trouble, that day doesn't count towards your sentance. Until your compliant with societies norms and accepted values, you stay there.

Three strikes your out also works. Three violent offenses and you never leave. Pretty good effect in my opinion.

[uOttawaMan]

uOttawaMan

You wrote- " There is no possible way to exist in the same system to the appeasement of everyone."

I suppose the only way to identify you would be a socialistic cappuccino sucking Liberal tag.

Tough laws are needed for tough criminals.

Lol.... and what makes them "tough" ? The crimes they committed, or their resistance to re-habilitative measures? What? Because if you start concentrating on strict retributivism, your gonna have a helluva lot of tough criminals, just waiting to get out of prison, the exact same way they went in.

You are so right, they shouldn't call it jail, is should be called the univercity of crime. They come out with letters behind their name and good training.

So what do you purpose??

Personally I think hard-labour, Gulag style. Not many people re-offended after that, 16 hours a day of hard forced labour. Keep them barely alive, in brutal conditions, then for the last month recondition them for society. They won't want to come back. (For violent criminals)

I've also heard suggestions of military style prisions, where you have to earn your time. If you mouth off or cause trouble, that day doesn't count towards your sentance. Until your compliant with societies norms and accepted values, you stay there.

Three strikes your out also works. Three violent offenses and you never leave. Pretty good effect in my opinion.

Only acceptable one of the three. The military one is feasable, but there is too much room for manipulation by correctional officials.

[Hicksey]

We, as a country versus our criminal element, are about where my wife is with my kids. We've been threatening to punish them for years and they've figured out that the threats are basically empty.

Now when I come home and start barking out orders, they do what I say because they know that I will not make an empty threat and that should the disobey me that the punishment will be swift and severe. Criminals need to have this view of our justice system, and they should get it first hand.

The only real differences between letting them back out into society early and and holding them for a significant period of time are that by holding them longer we keep society as a whole safer longer, and of course, where the inevitable welfare check goes to--the convict or the penal system.

[Spike22]

We, as a country versus our criminal element, are about where my wife is with my kids. We've been threatening to punish them for years and they've figured out that the threats are basically empty.

Now when I come home and start barking out orders, they do what I say because they know that I will not make an empty threat and that should the disobey me that the punishment will be swift and severe. Criminals need to have this view of our justice system, and they should get it first hand.

Yikes you are nutz right?

The only real differences between letting them back out into society early and and holding them for a significant period of time are that by holding them longer we keep society as a whole safer longer, and of course, where the inevitable welfare check goes to--the convict or the penal system.

[Argus]

I have not seen this widely reported yet but according to an article in local media up to 23 prisons will need to be built because of proposed automatic jail terms and moves towards a U.S style of justice.

Criminologist Neil Boyd a professor at simon Fraser University says " There is no evidence it will make us a safer society. The Canadian plan will send Canada down the same road as the U.S. which has the highest incarnation rate in the Western world."

Is this guy for real or do you think the justice system and prisons have been ignored by the Liberals along with the associated immigration crime scenerio as seen in cities like Toronto and something must be done?

I totally agree with him, I'm an Criminologist as well, and prisons have been shown not to provide any tangible deterrence for crime, they act more as reassurance for the general public.

If you are a criminologist then you ought to know that without fear of certain retribution a statistical number of people will always commit crimes. You will also know that a statistical number of people will not respond to all the love, affection, respect, caring and felatio you want to perform on them, but will continue to break the law, and to hurt people.

We have not built a new prison in some time. And while I agree with some effort to direct non-violent, non-repeating criminals into other means of punishment we still need prisons for repeat offenders, violent offenders, and those from whom the public needs to be protected.

As for building more prisons.. that is definetly not the answer.

We require enough prisons to hold that statistical number of people, esp violent offenders, for long periods of time. We should not be releasing people early simply for lack of space - as they do in the US. Nor should we be giving out light punishments to severe crimes because we have nowhere to put the prisoners.

[Argus]

We definatly need to move our justice system more along the lines of US justice, we need to punish hardened criminals. Right now Canadian justice is a joke along the lines of this: A pedofile is let out after serving his term and the cops say there is a high chance of him re offending, what the hell, if so than lock him away! You don't see that kind of thing happaning in the US. We really should change.

Couldn't disagree more, US has highest incarceration rate, and its doing absolutley nothing to curb crime. It's like the death penalty, its used as symbol so that the general public is like "phew! look at all those baddies behind bars getting punished!"

The US is not an example for us either way. Their crime rate is rootted in their inner city slums, the culture there, the massive number of single mothers, and the gang and drug violence which pervades them. Of course they have a high crime rate.

Our problem is in a justice system which does not mete out justice. We need to severely punish severe offenders. You shouldn't be able to kill someone and get out of prison a couple of years later. That is dangerous on a number of levels.

[Argus]

I'm sure you will all scream bloody murder at the homicide rate. But people don't think about how long they are going to spend in jail when they kill someone. It's just not a deterrent. That homicide rate is greatly coming from urban areas like Winnipeg and Toronto, where we have to deal with the problem of guns.

And how do we do that? By putting people in jail for a long time if they're caught smuggling, selling, buying, posessing, pointing, or using firearms!

Doh!

[Argus]

I never said the justice system was fair AND equal. My point is, you can have judges interpret the law, weigh mitigating and aggravating factors, and attempting to pass a fair judgement. Thats the fair way. Or you can impose mandatory sentences and the judge just looks on his "punishment" table and finds the amount of jail time the crime deserves, regardless of what factors surround the crime. That means the first time offender and someone who commits a crime with violence get the same sentence. That's the equal way.

That's not true. You can write into the law - as has been done with some - that first time and repeat offenders are treated differently.

One of the problems with the current crop of judges is their inability to pass severe sentences. Take any sliding scale available to Canadian judges, say from 1 - 10 years, and examine the sentences handed out over the past, and you'll find 90% of sentences in the bottom third of the sentencing scale. I don't know if they've been discouraged from handing out severe sentences due to lack of space, or they're just a bunch of bleeding heart liberals appointed because of their affiliation with the Liberal Party of Canada, but I do know that we hardly ever get severe sentenes from them, no matter the severity of the crimes.

[ritamd]

I never said the justice system was fair AND equal. My point is, you can have judges interpret the law, weigh mitigating and aggravating factors, and attempting to pass a fair judgement. Thats the fair way. Or you can impose mandatory sentences and the judge just looks on his "punishment" table and finds the amount of jail time the crime deserves, regardless of what factors surround the crime. That means the first time offender and someone who commits a crime with violence get the same sentence. That's the equal way.

That's not true. You can write into the law - as has been done with some - that first time and repeat offenders are treated differently.

One of the problems with the current crop of judges is their inability to pass severe sentences. Take any sliding scale available to Canadian judges, say from 1 - 10 years, and examine the sentences handed out over the past, and you'll find 90% of sentences in the bottom third of the sentencing scale. I don't know if they've been discouraged from handing out severe sentences due to lack of space, or they're just a bunch of bleeding heart liberals appointed because of their affiliation with the Liberal Party of Canada, but I do know that we hardly ever get severe sentenes from them, no matter the severity of the crimes.

Proof of all that rhetoric please.

[scribblet]

I never said the justice system was fair AND equal. My point is, you can have judges interpret the law, weigh mitigating and aggravating factors, and attempting to pass a fair judgement. Thats the fair way. Or you can impose mandatory sentences and the judge just looks on his "punishment" table and finds the amount of jail time the crime deserves, regardless of what factors surround the crime. That means the first time offender and someone who commits a crime with violence get the same sentence. That's the equal way.

That's not true. You can write into the law - as has been done with some - that first time and repeat offenders are treated differently.

One of the problems with the current crop of judges is their inability to pass severe sentences. Take any sliding scale available to Canadian judges, say from 1 - 10 years, and examine the sentences handed out over the past, and you'll find 90% of sentences in the bottom third of the sentencing scale. I don't know if they've been discouraged from handing out severe sentences due to lack of space, or they're just a bunch of bleeding heart liberals appointed because of their affiliation with the Liberal Party of Canada, but I do know that we hardly ever get severe sentenes from them, no matter the severity of the crimes.

Right on !!!!