The Crime Bills

[Argus]

It seems to me that the Liberals and NDP both vowed tougher laws, esp on firearms offences, during the election. So what is their problem now? These bills are actually much softer than I would have expected. Apparently the Tories eased up on some of the things they would have liked to put in due to their minority status. Nevertheless, it seems like it stands a good chance of being defeated.

I watched a Liberal rep on the news trying to explain why they were so opposed to the bill and came away with nothing other than they think that not all firearms uses should result in mandatory minimums. Huh? If they think opposition to these bills will appeal to their traditional wine and chease eating set they're probably right. If they think it's going to play well in the urban centres which are presently their strength, they're dead wrong.

The tories are probably hoping these bills get defeated. They'll use that defeat as a club to beat the Liberals and NDP with during the next election. And it will have a strong influence, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver. Voting down a law which would strengthen punishment for rapists and gun toting gang members? Yeah, that'll play well in downtown T.O.

I understand the NDPs traditional strong sympathy and support for criminals, and contempt for the idea of justice, but the Liberals are usually a little more sensitive to political realities. Do they have no one left who has any brains?

[lost&outofcontrol]

Do they have no one left who has any brains?

I guess we're just plain stupid to NOT believe a criminal would think twice before committing a crime because the minimum sentence for his crime goes from 4 to 5 years. I'm sure the person robbing the 7-11 goes through all the possible scenarios before going forward with it...

[scribblet]

I guess the liberals subscribe to the theory of rehabilitation rather than jail. Its my understanding that mandatory sentencing would only be for serious drug trafficking, weapons, violent offences, and ending house arrests for violent, sexual, and other serious offences. Sounds okay to me.

I don't think the liberals nor the NDP would like much of anything the CPC did, they would oppose it just to grandstand and get the attention. It may backfire on them.

[Michael Hardner]

The only major problem I would have with it is if they haven't planned for increased capacity for jails, if that's an issue. The press failed me again when I tried to get that information out of this morning's paper. "Critics" say that it will lead to overcrowding - that's all I got. Not enough.

And - a minor problem I have: while this plan takes steps to make people feel better about the justice system it could also be seen as muddying the waters as to the actual risk of violent crime these days.

[scribblet]

Heard on CTV news last night that they were allowing for building a couple more jails, don't know where.

[Argus]

Do they have no one left who has any brains?

I guess we're just plain stupid to NOT believe a criminal would think twice before committing a crime because the minimum sentence for his crime goes from 4 to 5 years. I'm sure the person robbing the 7-11 goes through all the possible scenarios before going forward with it...

I'm not speaking to whether or not this is the solution to violent crime. In itself it clearly is not. I'm speaking of the political repercusions in voting down this bill for a party which gets a huge amount of its support from urban centres, especially Toronto. There is enormous public support for stronger sentences for violent offenders, especially those involving firearms. The mealy mouthed reasons I've seen for voting against this bill aren't going to prevent the Tories from heavily capitalising on a defeat in the next election.

While it's true that this will result in more criminals spending more time in prison the public clearly wants it and is willing to pay for it. The Tories promised it, they're giving it. The Liberals promised it too, of course, as did the NDP. That will make the Tories TV ads next election all the more damaging if these bills are defeated.

[Nocrap]

I doubt that it will get voted down. I mean, what is it really? A bit more Harper grandstanding with 1950's rhetoric, like 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', or some other such silly notion.

After years of study have proven that punishment does not deter crime, Stevie has proven that he has obviously read more comic books than any in depth humanitarian studies; so he and Sticky Stocky' will don their capes and become the masked crusaders who will clean up the mean streets of Canada.

"Look. It's a bird...it's a plane...no, it's two old crows in a timemachine, set at 1954.'

Get a grip.

[Michael Hardner]

After years of study have proven that punishment does not deter crime,

Nocrap:

While I'd say it's a stretch to say there's no deterrent value in punishment, I think it's probably less than most people think.

But there are some other benefits:

1) It will keep dangerous criminals off the streets a little longer.

2) It might ... might ... make people feel better about the justice system. That benefit comes with the caveat I stated above: that in doing so, it's feeding myths about violent crime in Canada.

3) Voters should remember this campaign promise, and should also be pleased with the turnaround time for introducing legislation. The Liberals, on the other hand, were probably still planning to roll out some of the red book promises in Martin's second term.

[Nocrap]

After years of study have proven that punishment does not deter crime,

Nocrap:

While I'd say it's a stretch to say there's no deterrent value in punishment, I think it's probably less than most people think.

But there are some other benefits:

1) It will keep dangerous criminals off the streets a little longer.

2) It might ... might ... make people feel better about the justice system. That benefit comes with the caveat I stated above: that in doing so, it's feeding myths about violent crime in Canada.

3) Voters should remember this campaign promise, and should also be pleased with the turnaround time for introducing legislation. The Liberals, on the other hand, were probably still planning to roll out some of the red book promises in Martin's second term.

I guess I'm a cynical old bird myself, but have been around long enough to know that these measures will result in only slighlty more resounding slaps on the wrist. I've heard the jargon so many times that it is now just that.

If the CPC intention was to somehow lull Canadians into thinking they will now be safer, than I guess it's a sucess. If it will somehow (mis?)lead us into thinking that our justice system will work a little better, than I guess it's a success.

However, I think that Harper is trying so hard to have quick turnarounds on his campaign promises that he is not taking the time to think any of them through; including an Accountability Act that is a bureaucratic nightmare.

He proposed this new a 'wee bit tougher on the bad guys' legislation without providing Canadians with credible data on what the plan would cost, how he will manage to achieve his not so lofty goals, or whether he has done one shred of research to determine where the money would best be spent.

This was more about being quick than being prudent.

[fixer1]

I find all this talk of there being no real value in more punishment, quite laughable. Only people who never have to worry about this kind of thing say such stupid statements that no one really rethinks their crimes because of mandatory minimums. I have in the past stepped on the line of the law and even some times may have crossed it. I can assure you that knowing that I would have to serve time for sure does enter many minds, of those who have not gone so far as to be a total criminal. This is the vast majority of people by the way. If you only look at the hardened criminals, yes they will not change anything. But then again they are not going to be getting the first level sentence any way are they. They will get the 10 year plus terms and that will make them be gone for most of that time.

In terms of what I do not like about this is they have made this so wide that it encompasses things where I have made my errors in judgements. I have been charged with theft of telecommunications, and have already had a deal made etc. I have been fined heavily and have 18 months probabtion for my act, and no criminal prosecution. The trouble now would be that they are even considering computer crimes as one of the ones with mandatory minimums. That to me is really way out of order, but yes I can see that one day it being a much bigger problem. Where do we draw the line.

If I had of known that I risked 5 years for doing what I did, I would have definitely have not done it. But then again I never used a gun for my crime and there was no violence. I have seen the ugly under belly of the justice system, and I can tell you that there are more criminal on the justice side, then many would like to think. I am all for saying that gun crimes, violence, and Cild porn and sex offenders, should have mandatory minimums. But when you try to add other things it just gets to crazy. Under the new guide lines, to get to be a 3 time offender you will have spent 22 years minimum in jail, so that would preety much mean that any fourth time offenders would be of the geriactric kind. Also I would probably see that minimums not again be given afyter the first offence, so 4time offenders will nit be likely. I can and will support the kind of bill that would do that. I would like to think though that there must be some way to address the few that this should not apply to, so that there is a method in place to correct the oddities it will create.

[Temagami Scourge]

What do we do about the 12 year old that wiped out her family in Medicine Hat? If we put her in under the current rules, she'll be out sometime between her twenty-fifth and thirtieth birthday...or in other words, just in time to purchase a gun legally.

Keeping criminals off the street is a no-brainer, but I've yet to see a government of any stripe pick up the bull by the horns and work to prevent crime.

As my grandpa used to say, an ounce of prevention is worth spending $100K to keep a criminal behind bars for a year, or something like that.

[Argus]

After years of study have proven that punishment does not deter crime, Stevie has proven that he has obviously read more comic books than any in depth humanitarian studies; so he and Sticky Stocky' will don their capes and become the masked crusaders who will clean up the mean streets of Canada.

"Look. It's a bird...it's a plane...no, it's two old crows in a timemachine, set at 1954.'

Get a grip.

Of course, in 1954 you could walk down the streets without fear of being attacked. But that's neither here nor there. Your statement about punishment not deterring crime is ludicrous, and there are NO studies which prove this, nor will there ever be.

There is general agreement among criminologists (to greatly simplify) that the best thing to deter crime is the sure knowledge of swift, certain, and strong punishment.

Needless to say, we have NONE of that in our system. Even if apprehended in the commision of a felony with numerous witnesses and under closed circuit video monitoring an offender can expect to be out on bail for a year or more before for his trial, if he gets one, or the deal his public defender will be worked out with the Crown. Said deal depends on the experience and ability of the PD he gets and the Crown, and numerous other political and economic factors which relate to how much the Crown is cracking down on that type of offence lately. There is the uncertainty of some kind of legal break or technicality, what the judge might or might not do, and parole. This is leaving aside the fact that the majority of crimes are never solved (Canada has about the lowest number of police to citizens in the western world, likely not a coincidence).

What we really need is more police, stronger enforcement, fast trials, and certain, no-parole sentences in prison. That may be on the agenda for a Tory majority, but all we have at the moment is a small strengthening of the sentences. We need to make it impossible for judges to get around minimum sentences and need to force Crowns to press charges. Until that happens there won't be certain punishment.

[Argus]

Heard on CTV news last night that they were allowing for building a couple more jails, don't know where.

Wonder if they'll spring for private prisons. I'd like to see that. We spend far, far too much incarcerating these people.

[Black Dog]

There is general agreement among criminologists (to greatly simplify) that the best thing to deter crime is the sure knowledge of swift, certain, and strong punishment.

I don't believe you. Frankly, that conclusion rests on a assumption or ratonality on the part of the criminal that is unwarranted. Most studies on criminal law and behaviour that I've seen show that harsh punishment only works in situations where certain prerequisites are met on the part of the prospective criminal, prerequisites which are seldom met in any criminal justice system. Basically, no one stops before they commit a crime to think of the consequenses or, if they do, nothing short of the threat of summary execution is going to stop them. In most cases, the prospect of getting caught, not the prospect of punishment, is the greatest deterrent.

[Hicksey]

There is general agreement among criminologists (to greatly simplify) that the best thing to deter crime is the sure knowledge of swift, certain, and strong punishment.

I don't believe you. Frankly, that conclusion rests on a assumption or ratonality on the part of the criminal that is unwarranted. Most studies on criminal law and behaviour that I've seen show that harsh punishment only works in situations where certain prerequisites are met on the part of the prospective criminal, prerequisites which are seldom met in any criminal justice system. Basically, no one stops before they commit a crime to think of the consequenses or, if they do, nothing short of the threat of summary execution is going to stop them. In most cases, the prospect of getting caught, not the prospect of punishment, is the greatest deterrent.

There is no real deterrent.

Why do people keep beating this tired and false idea? Once they find out they can get away with it once they'll keep repeating the behavior until they finally do get caught. And unless jail is truly hell for them they will continue the behavior once released because they think they're not likely to be caught.

Jails are about the safety of the rest of us. And as long as these people are a threat to others they need to be put away as long as we can manage.

[Wilber]

The best description of the Canadian criminal justice system I have heard yet is the "Hug a Thug" theory of deterrent. They continue to commit crimes because we aren't nice enough to them.

[Hicksey]

The best description of the Canadian criminal justice system I have heard yet is the "Hug a Thug" theory of deterrent. They continue to commit crimes because we aren't nice enough to them.

That's great. Funny and accurate.

[geoffrey]

The mandatory mins aren't enough. If you commit a crime with a gun, you should be in prison for at least 10 years first time, 25 the second, and life for the third offense. I'd even extend this beyond gun crimes and to all violent crimes.

3 strikes and your out. By the time your 3rd offense comes around, you obviously have shown that you have no interest in being a respectable citizen. The deterence of life in prision, real life in prision, on the 3rd strike would be extremely effective.

[Hicksey]

The mandatory mins aren't enough. If you commit a crime with a gun, you should be in prison for at least 10 years first time, 25 the second, and life for the third offense. I'd even extend this beyond gun crimes and to all violent crimes.

3 strikes and your out. By the time your 3rd offense comes around, you obviously have shown that you have no interest in being a respectable citizen. The deterence of life in prision, real life in prision, on the 3rd strike would be extremely effective.

I agree 100%, but like you said in another thread because the idea originated in the USA it will be automatically dismissed.

[fixer1]

The mandatory mins aren't enough. If you commit a crime with a gun, you should be in prison for at least 10 years first time, 25 the second, and life for the third offense. I'd even extend this beyond gun crimes and to all violent crimes.

3 strikes and your out. By the time your 3rd offense comes around, you obviously have shown that you have no interest in being a respectable citizen. The deterence of life in prision, real life in prision, on the 3rd strike would be extremely effective.

Iknow this is a little upsetting to many but think about what you just said for the times. 10 years for the first, 25 for the second and life for the third. If you think about this if a person who is twenty does a violent crime he will get 10 for the first offence. So if he has never been granted national parole ( only once in a lifetime) he will be out in 3.4 years, but on parole for the next 6.6 years. If he reoffends again he will get the 6.6 plus the 25 for second offence ( assuming minimums) and wust serve 66% of time for provincial parole. So again after 21.4 years he will again get parole. He will now be 45 approx. If he again offends, but not of a violent crime, he will lose his parole of 11 years and now be 56. So at this point, what would you think is this guys chances of ever going straight? Hell even educated people have trouble finding new jobs at 56, what chance does this guy have. Any sentence this guy would get next is going to be a life sentence no matter what.

[geoffrey]

Three offenses, you think he would have got the message. Lock him up forever after 3.

There's a real deterent.

[Hicksey]

The mandatory mins aren't enough. If you commit a crime with a gun, you should be in prison for at least 10 years first time, 25 the second, and life for the third offense. I'd even extend this beyond gun crimes and to all violent crimes.

3 strikes and your out. By the time your 3rd offense comes around, you obviously have shown that you have no interest in being a respectable citizen. The deterence of life in prision, real life in prision, on the 3rd strike would be extremely effective.

Iknow this is a little upsetting to many but think about what you just said for the times. 10 years for the first, 25 for the second and life for the third. If you think about this if a person who is twenty does a violent crime he will get 10 for the first offence. So if he has never been granted national parole ( only once in a lifetime) he will be out in 3.4 years, but on parole for the next 6.6 years. If he reoffends again he will get the 6.6 plus the 25 for second offence ( assuming minimums) and wust serve 66% of time for provincial parole. So again after 21.4 years he will again get parole. He will now be 45 approx. If he again offends, but not of a violent crime, he will lose his parole of 11 years and now be 56. So at this point, what would you think is this guys chances of ever going straight? Hell even educated people have trouble finding new jobs at 56, what chance does this guy have. Any sentence this guy would get next is going to be a life sentence no matter what.

Seems we have a bleeding heart here.

[Argus]

There is general agreement among criminologists (to greatly simplify) that the best thing to deter crime is the sure knowledge of swift, certain, and strong punishment.

I don't believe you. Frankly, that conclusion rests on a assumption or ratonality on the part of the criminal that is unwarranted. Most studies on criminal law and behaviour that I've seen show that harsh punishment only works in situations where certain prerequisites are met on the part of the prospective criminal, prerequisites which are seldom met in any criminal justice system. Basically, no one stops before they commit a crime to think of the consequenses or, if they do, nothing short of the threat of summary execution is going to stop them. In most cases, the prospect of getting caught, not the prospect of punishment, is the greatest deterrent.

Oh come on. You must know this is not realistic. Criminals aren't insane - at least most of them. Everyone considers the consequences of their actions except in spur of the moment actions motivated by emotion. A guy looks at an old man walking along in a nice coat and thinks he might have a lot of money. What does he do? He looks around to see if anyone is around. Why? Because he doesn't want to get caught. Why, if he's not considering the possible consequences? Why don't people get mugged in brightly lit, crowded shopping malls if criminals don't consider the prospect of getting caught? Every time a criminal looks around to see if anyone is watching it's because of possible consequences.

Now I know it sounds almost like pet psychology, where you've got to punish the dog right away or he won't know why you're punishing him, but it's equally true on some level that you need the punishment to closely follow the crime. We've eliminated that. Whether it's through the complexity of the process or underfunding of courts it takes months and months even if they've been caught before a criminal needs to worry about facing punishment, and that punishment is very uncertain, depending on luck, the skills of his lawyer, the mood of the judge he gets, and then how soon he gets parole.

Now if we increase the number of cops to the degree most other nations have, had better success at solving crimes, and had a rapid system of justice which ensured real punishment a lot of criminals - not all, of course - but an awful lot, would forego their idea for a quick score because they'd believe they'd be caught and punished.

Now if I'm some hotshot, full of piss and vinegar punk looking to impress my buds by carrying a gun in my belt as I head off to the after hours club, and I knew that if I was found with it I would IMMEDIATELY be put in jail - no bail, no negotiations, no nothing, and be sent away for several years - well, I think I might strongly consider whether it was worth it to imrpess my buds.

[Michael Hardner]

3 strikes and your out.

The only benefit of that law is that it may make law abiding people believe in the justice system more. New York state's crime rate dropped by more than California's in that time, and they have no such law. Also, it's costly.

[Hicksey]

3 strikes and your out.

The only benefit of that law is that it may make law abiding people believe in the justice system more. New York state's crime rate dropped by more than California's in that time, and they have no such law. Also, it's costly.

If you're a three time offender, you're pathological. There are rules regarding participating in society. If you don't follow them you ought not be allowed to be a part of it.