The Crime Bills

[August1991]

I'll respond here rather than have two threads on the same topic.

Do they really believe that an offender is going to pause and say 'wait a minute now...under the Liberal plan I was going to get a mandatory 4 year sentence, but that mean old Stockwell Day is going to give me five. I'm putting this weapon right in the trash'

Violent criminals don't care about the potential punishment before they offend. Their eyes are on the prize.

It's an absolute joke, but typical of backward thinking CPC dogma.

There are two key aspects to a penalty as a deterrent: the size of the penalty and the chance it will be imposed. There is little doubt that few people would commit a crime if there was a policeman standing beside them at the time. There is probably a trade-off between these two aspects, between the severity of sentence and chance of getting caught.

IOW, other than the insane or perhaps suicidal, criminals are as "rational" as anyone else, although they might judge the chance of getting caught differently from the rest of us.

So, IMV, increasing the degree of the penalty (longer prison sentences) is the dumb way to compensate for police catching fewer criminals.

The person who killed that young girl in Toronto at Christmas time last year is still at large and the Toronto police seem no more likely to catch the culprit. Worse, the culprit is likely bragging about this crime and impunity, and the Toronto police don't even know about the bragging.

Doubling or tripling a prison sentence for a gun crime will have no deterrent effect if the penalty is never imposed, because the criminal is never caught.

In a sense, this is a failure of government, and a serious one at that. Someone, obviously known to others, killed a person in broad daylight in a major city and the police can't find the culprit. Will longer prison sentences prevent such crimes in the future?

Dear August1991,

We must weigh the costs of prisons and so on against the benefits of reduced crime and fewer victims.

To borrow one of your phrases, August, 'typical of the' right, why do the "Scales of Justice" always weigh as 'injustices versus a pile of gold'?

Thelonious, I'm not certain that I understand your comment but I'll admit that my comment is cryptic too.

I meant to say that we should send criminals to prison as a deterrent to others who may think of possibly committing a crime. In doing so, we save many, many other potential victims tremendous grief. The cost of prisons should be compared against the benefit of this grief avoidance.

In many societies (Iceland comes to mind but small towns in the Maritimes also), crime is neglible to non-existent. People leave their doors wide-open in summer. Why? The minor cost of the occasional criminal getting caught and going to prison (and sending a signal to potential criminals) is small compared to the tremendous benefit of peace of mind to ordinary people.

----

Thelonious, I'll add the minor philosophical point that we humans created language and then mathematics originally as a formal method to compare such values.

[Argus]

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.

As long as we're not talking about minor offences.

[shoop]

Fair enough, but none of the Government's proposed changes apply to minor offences. So using the class of offences effected by the new sentencing guidlines could be a very good basis for creating the crimes eligibile for three striikes.

As long as we're not talking about minor offences.

[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.

As long as we're not talking about minor offences.

On that scale I think two minor offences make one major and the same applies otherwise.

[southerncomfort]

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.

LoL lets let em all out of prison and group hugs all the way round to send them on their merry criminal way

[uOttawaMan]

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 that general agreement, among classical criminologists.

Among the classical school's primary theories is that :

-Deterrence is based on a utilitarian idea that humans are rational beings, that weigh the costs and benefits of any action they undertake. (this school also denies that irrationality or unconscious motives or factors can cause a person to commit a crime.)

-People ultimately have the free will to choose how to act, law or not.

-and finally, to support Agrus, Classical criminologists hold the tenet that punishments if they are severe enough to outweigh the benefits of a crime can deter people from crime.

Certainly it is not a ultimate solution, but the general agreement in that school is that it WILL act as A deterrent, not THE deterrent, in capital letters.

The other major school of criminology, positivism, and recently, in specific social positivism holds a different perspective.

Positivist thought basically centers on the concept that biological , environmental, psychological or social factors make people more likely to commit crime.

At any rate, Durkheim the father of social positivism, along with the criminologists of his school, agree that:

-Social factors like poverty, low levels of education, and membership of subcultures (such as gangs) make people more likely to commit crimes.

So as you can see , the CPC and Liberals have traditionally favoured the "consensus" of classical criminologists, while the NDP and sometimes the Bloc favour the "consensus" of positivist criminology.

That is a large reason why these two sides can never come to an agreement.. even the academic field that studies crime ( which i am a part of yay! ) are split as well.

[KrustyKidd]

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

Hope in my neighborhood! If so, my house doubles in value and I'm going to be a corrections officer!

[geoffrey]

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.

As long as we're not talking about minor offences.

I would only have the three strikes applied to violent crimes, robbery, rape, murder. Stuff like that.

[KrustyKidd]

I would only have the three strikes applied to violent crimes, robbery, rape, murder. Stuff like that.

I disagree. The object is to recognize behavior, not have a victim count. - read on .........

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.

With jails being over run with inmates it is highly unlikely that a judge would award a two time mugger a life sentence for jaywalking. There is a bit common sense n the justice system. And, it is highly unliekely that a person on his or her third parking ticket offence will suddenly find themselves swinging a spike maul in a quarry somewhere in Utah until they are old and grey.

I would only have the three strikes applied to violent crimes, robbery, rape, murder. Stuff like that.

Or, how about a guy who mugged an old lady, then, beat a kid sensless, then, got stopped for drunk driving and a gun falls out of his pocket? See ya Tookie.

How about ............. guy who mugs an old lady in his teens for coin. Later, gets involved in a drug deal and caught. Then, in a gang round up, is required to testify but refuses? The parking ticket he go the month before turns the tables and he testifies.

What I'm getting at is that thes rules would be a weapon that may or may not have to be used but are available. We all know who is doing the crime, we all know who is and who is not a habitual. And, if we don't, the people who deal with them everyday know a loser from a hit man and would make their rulings accordingly. On the upside, every crook has a sentence over their heads. Is that bad?

[Hicksey]

I would only have the three strikes applied to violent crimes, robbery, rape, murder. Stuff like that.

I disagree. The object is to recognize behavior, not have a victim count. - read on .........

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.

With jails being over run with inmates it is highly unlikely that a judge would award a two time mugger a life sentence for jaywalking. There is a bit common sense n the justice system. And, it is highly unliekely that a person on his or her third parking ticket offence will suddenly find themselves swinging a spike maul in a quarry somewhere in Utah until they are old and grey.

I would only have the three strikes applied to violent crimes, robbery, rape, murder. Stuff like that.

Or, how about a guy who mugged an old lady, then, beat a kid sensless, then, got stopped for drunk driving and a gun falls out of his pocket? See ya Tookie.

How about ............. guy who mugs an old lady in his teens for coin. Later, gets involved in a drug deal and caught. Then, in a gang round up, is required to testify but refuses? The parking ticket he go the month before turns the tables and he testifies.

What I'm getting at is that thes rules would be a weapon that may or may not have to be used but are available. We all know who is doing the crime, we all know who is and who is not a habitual. And, if we don't, the people who deal with them everyday know a loser from a hit man and would make their rulings accordingly. On the upside, every crook has a sentence over their heads. Is that bad?

Your guy belongs out of society. Neither the elderly, the young, the police officer who stops him for DUI nor every person out there on the road with him can trust him to play by the rules like the rest of us do. He's obviously a loser. Believe it or not its not hard to make it through a day without comitting a crime that would land you in that circumstance. He doesn't need to mug an old lady. Ever heard of a job? or if our guy is that lazy how about welfare? Millions of us walk away from fights every day. Why can't your guy? I can't be self defense because he beat him senseless. If its self defense he'd just have hurt him enough to facilitate an escape. I'm not going to even speculate the reasons your guy is drinking, but there's none for drink and driving. And what's your guy doing with a firearm?

Your guy is a danger to society. He should be removed from it.

[Slavik44]

Hmm...what are the objections?

An approach to dealing with crime should never have only one prong, unfortunately the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, and probabley every other party in Canada tends to have a one pronged approach. I have an awfull hard time eating with two chop sticks let alone one. When it comes to crime, there should be two goals, there needs to be punishment, but there also needs to be rehabilitation, so more crimes are not commited.

Unfortunately the traditional Conservative solution of prisons and tougher sentences only fullfills one of those goals, but can also serve to compound one of the problems. The fact is if I find someone acting like a pig and throw him in a pig sty for 10 years, he is not going to come out acting more like a human, he is going to come out acting more like a pig, like an animal. My biggest concern with what the conservatives are doing is that it fails society when it comes to the re-integration of criminals.

I personally belive that after a person gets out of prison we cannot expect them to be reformed, we cannot expect them to be scared of commiting crimes. The fact is there needs to be more preparation inside prisons for prisoners heading out into the real world. And the integration of said criminals needs to be slow. If someone commits a crime worthy of ten years in Prison I would rather see that at the end of those ten years this person is ready to come back into society, wether it means he spends all ten years in jail cell or not, then to see this person come out an even bigger criminal, with even more criminal contacts and criminal friends then he did before entering.

Unfortunately the Conservaives are following the Liberals. They may be choosing the otherside of the coin, but it is still the same coin, made from the same material and it will be just as in-effective. The Liberals gave little punishment, and they also did little to re-integrate criminals into society, the Liberals followed their historical trend of doing a half assed job and failing. But we cannot simply do what the conservatives are doing and be satisfied with the belief that people are spending a lot of time in prison. There needs to be attention paid to the release of prisoners and the re-integration of prisoners. I would rather spend double the money and double the time, to ensure that there is lower recidivism, then merley doubling the time served after a person commits another offense.

Another part of me also worries about making sentincing guidlines more stringent and uniform, each crime has its own special circumstances and context, and I do belive that when sentencing such things should be taken into consideration. If some rich punk kid trying to be cool robs a gas station with a gun, I belive it is different then if a poor kid from a starving family robs a gas station with a gun. Both broke the law, and yes the poor kid should have chosen to get a job. That being said I belive at the root there is a difference between someone who does it for adrenaline and impressing his friends and someone, although mislead, does it to fullfill a present physical need. The sentence should be different, the approach taken to each individuals criminal behavoir should be different, and the methods chosen to re-integrate such people into society should also be different.

[Hicksey]

Hmm...what are the objections?

An approach to dealing with crime should never have only one prong, unfortunately the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, and probabley every other party in Canada tends to have a one pronged approach. I have an awfull hard time eating with two chop sticks let alone one. When it comes to crime, there should be two goals, there needs to be punishment, but there also needs to be rehabilitation, so more crimes are not commited.

Unfortunately the traditional Conservative solution of prisons and tougher sentences only fullfills one of those goals, but can also serve to compound one of the problems. The fact is if I find someone acting like a pig and throw him in a pig sty for 10 years, he is not going to come out acting more like a human, he is going to come out acting more like a pig, like an animal. My biggest concern with what the conservatives are doing is that it fails society when it comes to the re-integration of criminals.

I personally belive that after a person gets out of prison we cannot expect them to be reformed, we cannot expect them to be scared of commiting crimes. The fact is there needs to be more preparation inside prisons for prisoners heading out into the real world. And the integration of said criminals needs to be slow. If someone commits a crime worthy of ten years in Prison I would rather see that at the end of those ten years this person is ready to come back into society, wether it means he spends all ten years in jail cell or not, then to see this person come out an even bigger criminal, with even more criminal contacts and criminal friends then he did before entering.

Unfortunately the Conservaives are following the Liberals. They may be choosing the otherside of the coin, but it is still the same coin, made from the same material and it will be just as in-effective. The Liberals gave little punishment, and they also did little to re-integrate criminals into society, the Liberals followed their historical trend of doing a half assed job and failing. But we cannot simply do what the conservatives are doing and be satisfied with the belief that people are spending a lot of time in prison. There needs to be attention paid to the release of prisoners and the re-integration of prisoners. I would rather spend double the money and double the time, to ensure that there is lower recidivism, then merley doubling the time served after a person commits another offense.

Another part of me also worries about making sentincing guidlines more stringent and uniform, each crime has its own special circumstances and context, and I do belive that when sentencing such things should be taken into consideration. If some rich punk kid trying to be cool robs a gas station with a gun, I belive it is different then if a poor kid from a starving family robs a gas station with a gun. Both broke the law, and yes the poor kid should have chosen to get a job. That being said I belive at the root there is a difference between someone who does it for adrenaline and impressing his friends and someone, although mislead, does it to fullfill a present physical need. The sentence should be different, the approach taken to each individuals criminal behavoir should be different, and the methods chosen to re-integrate such people into society should also be different.

Just because my plan means more time, doesn't mean that I'm not advocating studying the criminals and determining the contributing factors to them being there and trying to solve some of the contributing factors. Though I discount that societal and economical factors are a significant part of why criminals commit crimes, I do believe it does play a small part. Most importantly we need to learn from the people we jail so we can do what is possible to prevent people from making the same bad choices as the people you're jailing today, tomorrow.

One thing hard time will necessitate is a very thorough parole system based on incremental integration back into society. Many times people are jailed and then let out into a new world they don't fully understand. In the leadup to their release we should be counselling them about this extensively.

Also, the social system exists in Canada that we can use to place these people in position to be properly housed and fed with oppotunities to learn a marketable skill they can use to earn an honest living right from their release. So why aren't we coordinatiing this more extensively or even making it mandatory?

[Slavik44]

One thing hard time will necessitate is a very thorough parole system based on incremental integration back into society. Many times people are jailed and then let out into a new world they don't fully understand. In the leadup to their release we should be counselling them about this extensively.

Also, the social system exists in Canada that we can use to place these people in position to be properly housed and fed with oppotunities to learn a marketable skill they can use to earn an honest living right from their release. So why aren't we coordinatiing this more extensively or even making it mandatory?

I think we are in agreement here, unfortunately I don't really seee these Ideas being implemented in a manner I would like, and I worry that by leaving them out we risk making the situation worse.

[Michael Hardner]

Just because my plan means more time, doesn't mean that I'm not advocating studying the criminals and determining the contributing factors to them being there and trying to solve some of the contributing factors. Though I discount that societal and economical factors are a significant part of why criminals commit crimes, I do believe it does play a small part. Most importantly we need to learn from the people we jail so we can do what is possible to prevent people from making the same bad choices as the people you're jailing today, tomorrow.

One thing hard time will necessitate is a very thorough parole system based on incremental integration back into society. Many times people are jailed and then let out into a new world they don't fully understand. In the leadup to their release we should be counselling them about this extensively.

Also, the social system exists in Canada that we can use to place these people in position to be properly housed and fed with oppotunities to learn a marketable skill they can use to earn an honest living right from their release. So why aren't we coordinatiing this more extensively or even making it mandatory?

What you're proposing is a new approach that is neither left nor right, but a bit of both. I would like to know why ideas like this aren't floated, let alone attempted more often. Is it that the debate is dominated by people with stale ideas ? Is the problem that the status quo has been institutionalized ?

[Hicksey]

Just because my plan means more time, doesn't mean that I'm not advocating studying the criminals and determining the contributing factors to them being there and trying to solve some of the contributing factors. Though I discount that societal and economical factors are a significant part of why criminals commit crimes, I do believe it does play a small part. Most importantly we need to learn from the people we jail so we can do what is possible to prevent people from making the same bad choices as the people you're jailing today, tomorrow.

One thing hard time will necessitate is a very thorough parole system based on incremental integration back into society. Many times people are jailed and then let out into a new world they don't fully understand. In the leadup to their release we should be counselling them about this extensively.

Also, the social system exists in Canada that we can use to place these people in position to be properly housed and fed with oppotunities to learn a marketable skill they can use to earn an honest living right from their release. So why aren't we coordinatiing this more extensively or even making it mandatory?

What you're proposing is a new approach that is neither left nor right, but a bit of both. I would like to know why ideas like this aren't floated, let alone attempted more often. Is it that the debate is dominated by people with stale ideas ? Is the problem that the status quo has been institutionalized ?

I think politics prevent such ideas from surfacing. In order for one side to place into effect such a program they would have to ultimately admit that the opposing viewpoint's argument had some merit. This country is fast bcoming as partisan as the USA is today and I think because of that each of the parties would rather be part right on their own to share the spotlight and be all right, collectively.