Tory Anti-Crime Measures

[August1991]

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day guessed the imposition of tougher mandatory minimum sentences for gun-and gang-related crimes would increase prison populations by only 300 to 400 inmates a year. "It's not exact; it's not scientific," he admitted.

Day then said it could cost $220 million to $240 million to increase federal prison capacity. The federal budget Tuesday set aside an unspecified amount of money for at least one medium security penitentiary and one maximum security prison.

But Day predicted those costs would be "offset" by a significant deterrent effect on crime. Hours later, his officials scrambled to explain where Day got his numbers, saying he came up with them on his own. "It's just him saying this. It's just from the top of his mind," said Mélisa Leclerc, Day's communications director.

Toronto Star

I realize the Toronto Star is giving this a negative twist, but Day has the right perspective on this issue. We must weigh the costs of prisons and so on against the benefits of reduced crime and fewer victims.

[Nocrap]

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day guessed the imposition of tougher mandatory minimum sentences for gun-and gang-related crimes would increase prison populations by only 300 to 400 inmates a year. "It's not exact; it's not scientific," he admitted.

Day then said it could cost $220 million to $240 million to increase federal prison capacity. The federal budget Tuesday set aside an unspecified amount of money for at least one medium security penitentiary and one maximum security prison.

But Day predicted those costs would be "offset" by a significant deterrent effect on crime. Hours later, his officials scrambled to explain where Day got his numbers, saying he came up with them on his own. "It's just him saying this. It's just from the top of his mind," said Mélisa Leclerc, Day's communications director.

Toronto Star

I realize the Toronto Star is giving this a negative twist, but Day has the right perspective on this issue. We must weigh the costs of prisons and so on against the benefits of reduced crime and fewer victims.

I found the whole thing a little odd. I know they are trying to stick to their five priorities so that they don't have to do anything else, but raising minimum sentences will not deter criminals.

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.

[theloniusfleabag]

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'?

[Hicksey]

I found the whole thing a little odd. I know they are trying to stick to their five priorities so that they don't have to do anything else, but raising minimum sentences will not deter criminals.

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.

First, unlike Martin, Harper is mindful that he's got a minority government and that under it he won't be able to move the moon or stars. So, smartly he set 5 priorities that he wanted to achieve.

And secondly, I don't think that anyone with half a brain thinks that the brand of jail or capital punishment offered in this country is anywhere close to a deterrent -- Day's changes included. But that is no reason to lower sentences, and rather a good reason for significant increases. Because the crimes committed by these people are in fact not just crimes against our citizenry, but also society itself, I think the punishments ought to be a lot steeper to protect us from these thugs. I really don't care if it deters them or not. And if it doesn't, like a lot of Liberals and NDP followers believe, I think that's an even better argument to keep them behind bars as long as possible because they're likely to get out and victimize someone else because they're not afraid to go back.

[geoffrey]

3-strikes worked extremely well in California, why can't it work here?

Oh right, its American so it must be wrong before even looking at it.

[Michael Hardner]

3-strikes worked extremely well in California, why can't it work here?

That's quite an arguable statement. California keeps watering the legislation down, faced with the reality that paying $31,000/year to keep pizza thieves behind bars might not be such a great idea.

Christian Science Monitor

[Hicksey]

3-strikes worked extremely well in California, why can't it work here?

That's quite an arguable statement. California keeps watering the legislation down, faced with the reality that paying $31,000/year to keep pizza thieves behind bars might not be such a great idea.

Christian Science Monitor

Personally, I'd rather pay for that than the welfare cheque.

[shoop]

Hmmm, taking a look at your article doesn't really call the efficacy of three strikes, as it would apply to the Government's tough on crime legislation.

The only problem your article calls into question is when three strikes is used in cases where the offender hasn't committed violent crimes. I think three violent crime strikes and you're out is perfectly reasonable.

That's quite an arguable statement. California keeps watering the legislation down, faced with the reality that paying $31,000/year to keep pizza thieves behind bars might not be such a great idea.

Christian Science Monitor

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry about that, Shoop. I meant to post this one:

American Bar Association Article

[shoop]

Power to you for reading through that.

That was some heavy tough to read stuff. I did notice that the author said

Empirical studies suggest that California would have experienced virtually all of its decline in crime without "three strikes."

without actually providing any references to the studies.

Seemed to me a large part of his argument was the US Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment. Is there an equivalent clause in either Constitution Act?

Sorry about that, Shoop. I meant to post this one:

American Bar Association Article

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't see a date on the article. A case did go to the Supreme Court, and they reaffirmed 'three strikes' laws. As far as whether they work or not, it seems enough to their supporters that punishment is stiffer whether there's a real deterrent there or not.

[shoop]

It is a very tough question to "actionize". i.e. It's very difficult to prove what acts as a deterrent. How would you go about proving that, interview everybody who didn't commit a violent crime after a particular law was instituted to see their thought process?

I haven't seen any study that could honestly deal with that issue.

So it gets down to gut feelings on the issue, with plenty of studies to support beliefs on either side.

I didn't see a date on the article. A case did go to the Supreme Court, and they reaffirmed 'three strikes' laws. As far as whether they work or not, it seems enough to their supporters that punishment is stiffer whether there's a real deterrent there or not.

[margrace]

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day guessed the imposition of tougher mandatory minimum sentences for gun-and gang-related crimes would increase prison populations by only 300 to 400 inmates a year. "It's not exact; it's not scientific," he admitted.

Day then said it could cost $220 million to $240 million to increase federal prison capacity. The federal budget Tuesday set aside an unspecified amount of money for at least one medium security penitentiary and one maximum security prison.

But Day predicted those costs would be "offset" by a significant deterrent effect on crime. Hours later, his officials scrambled to explain where Day got his numbers, saying he came up with them on his own. "It's just him saying this. It's just from the top of his mind," said Mélisa Leclerc, Day's communications director.

Toronto Star

I realize the Toronto Star is giving this a negative twist, but Day has the right perspective on this issue. We must weigh the costs of prisons and so on against the benefits of reduced crime and fewer victims.

I found the whole thing a little odd. I know they are trying to stick to their five priorities so that they don't have to do anything else, but raising minimum sentences will not deter criminals.

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.

Yep made a lot of difference in Windsor yesterday didn't it, those killers really thought about an extended sentence didn't they?

[scribblet]

3-strikes worked extremely well in California, why can't it work here?

Oh right, its American so it must be wrong before even looking at it.

At first 3 strikes sounds great, until you realize what it could do to someone who only committed 3 very minor crimes.

Toronto is looking at another year of the gun, and obviously the current laws are not working including the registry. Actually, these measures are less than what I expected, but they are a start,

[Argus]

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'?

All governments consider costs in policy terms, or rather, the reverse. We have extremely lax parole because it saves money. There is no other reason. It is not a measure of a criminal having rehabilitated his or herself, nor that they are no longer a danger to the community. It's strictly a cost saving measure. As August said in another thread, two components of crime prevention are punishment, and the likelihood of punishment, ie, getting caught. Canada has fewer police per person than most other nations. We have about 1/3 as many cops per person as France, for example. Thus the likelihood of being caught is lower, and this again is a cost saving measure by government. Cops are expensive. We negotiate sentences for most criminals, again as a cost saving measure, to avoid the expense of trials. Most felons are never even charged with firearms offences because it often precludes a negotiated deal due to the existing minimum sentences. This again is a cost saving measure.

These are all phoney cost saving measures, of course. They save government, but the expense to the community is far higher. We just don't measure it. What is the added cost of all those locks, those alarm systems, and heavy duty doors, and bars, those security guards, all those insurance policies, the loss of stolen goods, the loss of work and medical costs due to injuries people suffer when attacked.... All of this adds up to more than the savings of being slack and lazy in regard to criminals. But since it's not measured government generally escapes blame, so long as crime is kept to a "manageable" level.

But it results in a criminal feeling he can get away with his life of crime. He might be caught, but probably not unless he's unlucky. If he is caught anything can happen. Maybe his government appointed lawyer will get him off on a technicality, or he'll get to serve his term at home (giggle) , or serve a brief time and then be out again. Someone mentioned the Christmas eve killing of that teenager in toronto. Recall that a man was arrested in the subway nearby with a gun. That man was out free and clear just six weeks after being sentenced for armed robbery. A few weeks - for armed robbery - and out on the street again. This is not a punishment these guys are going to fear. And I doubt the Torys' bills will do much about that, to be honest. They are too soft, and don't seem to take into account that increasing the minimums on crimes which Crowns routinely refuse to charge anyway isn't going to help. The person above, for example, should have gotten a minimum 1 year by those laws, but he was never charged with a firearms offence because of a plea bargain.

The Tories are introducing these bills because they will help slightly, and because they'll make political hay out of them. They are the start of what would be a much more concerted effort if the Tories get a majority in the next election. Then I think you'll see parole eligibility tightened - and THAT will be expensive, special courts (also expensive) and other measures to make it easier to lock career criminals (responsible for most street crime) up indefinitely.

Personally, if you want to increase time spent in prison just remove parole eligibility, or make them prove they deserve it, especially for violent or firearms offenses. That would double or triple most criminals' time served right there. Then bring in privately run prisons - which operate at half what we presently pay - to offset your increased costs. Then hire more cops. Police protection in most urban areas, never mind rural, is threadbare most of the time. And police are too busy zooming from one call to another to get to know the people on their beat - which used to be one of the surest ways to solving crimes. The local cop knew everyone on his beat, and could point detectives in the right direction for most street crimes. Now police are left looking around for absent witnesses and scratching their heads.

[Argus]

Yep made a lot of difference in Windsor yesterday didn't it, those killers really thought about an extended sentence didn't they?

Harsh laws rarely impact spur-of-the-moment crimes. However, suppose there was a rigid, well-known law in place that anyone found carrying an illegal firearm was going to go to jail for 5 years - IMMEDIATELY - with no parole and no negotiation, even on a first offence. Would that punk still have had a gun in his pocket? Suppose that there were special undercover police squads making the rounds of all the local bars and watering holes trying to buy guns illegally, and the sellers knew that if they were caught they'd got to jail for five years IMMEDIATELY - with no parole even on a first offence (10 on the second). Would they have been so quick to sell a firearm cheaply to some punk? Suppose there were harsh laws against smuggling firearms into Canada, and we had better (or at least SOME) border enforcement scoping out border straddling native reservations, for example, watching for people crossing the border with firearms. Would the natives be so quick to smuggle guns across if they faced a minimum 5 year term, no parole, if caught?

And does anyone think these guys were first time offenders? Maybe if they'd gotten hammered the first time they were found commiting crimes they'd have smartened up, or still be in jail.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Excellent post.

These are all phoney cost saving measures, of course. They save government, but the expense to the community is far higher. We just don't measure it. What is the added cost of all those locks, those alarm systems, and heavy duty doors, and bars, those security guards, all those insurance policies, the loss of stolen goods, the loss of work and medical costs due to injuries people suffer when attacked....

All of these things are good for the economy (and Mammon), no?

I agree with everything you say here, and feel the prison/ justice system is most need of reform. No more free rides, make them work for their daily bread, no TV, etc, and make prisons an undesirable alternative. Turn them over to the military. No nonsense, no luxuries, and the military could use the extra funding (and practice).

[Hicksey]

Yep made a lot of difference in Windsor yesterday didn't it, those killers really thought about an extended sentence didn't they?

Harsh laws rarely impact spur-of-the-moment crimes. However, suppose there was a rigid, well-known law in place that anyone found carrying an illegal firearm was going to go to jail for 5 years - IMMEDIATELY - with no parole and no negotiation, even on a first offence. Would that punk still have had a gun in his pocket? Suppose that there were special undercover police squads making the rounds of all the local bars and watering holes trying to buy guns illegally, and the sellers knew that if they were caught they'd got to jail for five years IMMEDIATELY - with no parole even on a first offence (10 on the second). Would they have been so quick to sell a firearm cheaply to some punk? Suppose there were harsh laws against smuggling firearms into Canada, and we had better (or at least SOME) border enforcement scoping out border straddling native reservations, for example, watching for people crossing the border with firearms. Would the natives be so quick to smuggle guns across if they faced a minimum 5 year term, no parole, if caught?

And does anyone think these guys were first time offenders? Maybe if they'd gotten hammered the first time they were found commiting crimes they'd have smartened up, or still be in jail.

Great idea, but it will never happen in this country. Too many bleeding hearts.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

I agree with everything you say here, and feel the prison/ justice system is most need of reform. No more free rides, make them work for their daily bread, no TV, etc, and make prisons an undesirable alternative. Turn them over to the military. No nonsense, no luxuries, and the military could use the extra funding (and practice).

I don't believe the military make very good prison wardens. However, I do believe prisons have become too easy and too luxurious - oh not for guys like me and you. We'd be horrified at the prospect of prison. But for the career criminal, particularly the low rent gang bangers, I don't think prison is as much a deterrent as it should be. They go in for months or so at a time, hang out with their buds, just like on the outside, have gang fights, intimidate people, do drugs, have sex with their girlfriends, watch movies - how is this such a terrible fate? What we need is something more punitive - the term "hard labour" comes to mind.

There's no way the conservatives would ever be able to institute something like that, however, with a minority.

The NDP and BQ are very soft on crime and punishment, and the the NDP and Liberals would howl that Harper is trying to create Texas chain gangs and the like, ignoring the fact the British have "hard labour" punishments.

But let them get a majority, and who knows.

[fixer1]

I would love to see the lash come back in to the prision system. Every violent offender would be required to have so many lashes over his or her sentence, and the only way to get by without out these would be total rehabilitation on the first offence only and if you break your parole you then get them all. Any second and third time offender woul not have this option even if rehab. This would go for violent and sexual offenders. Child sex offenders would not be given any way to get out of these even on first offence.

Prison would not be like taking a holiday if this was again brought about. I would also bet that it would deterr any who are on the fence about committting any offences as well. There would be no high five greetings upon arrival to the prison either. The law says we can not force the prisoners to work, but we can make it so those who do not work only get minimum use of things like TV, Snack bar access, and visitation. It would instill in then a action /award type responce that would be more helpful when they are out.

[KrustyKidd]

Yep made a lot of difference in Windsor yesterday didn't it, those killers really thought about an extended sentence didn't they?

You get caught with a gun in your car or jacket, you get soap watch for ten years automatic. Those kids would never have been carrying if that was in effect. Hence, would never have been having to make that on the spot deicison to be movie stars or victims of the law.

[Hicksey]

Yep made a lot of difference in Windsor yesterday didn't it, those killers really thought about an extended sentence didn't they?

You get caught with a gun in your car or jacket, you get soap watch for ten years automatic. Those kids would never have been carrying if that was in effect. Hence, would never have been having to make that on the spot deicison to be movie stars or victims of the law.

I disagree. I think the whole notion about tougher sentences being about deterrence is a fallacy. And it really doesn't bother me that sentences don't deter criminals.

I think that the real function of a sentence is to protect society from their wrath. And the longer they stay behind bars the longer we're safe. I think it's money well spent. I highly doubt this country would ever come close to supporting, let alone placing into effect a punitive system with any real deterrence so I am happy to pay for longer sentences.

Time sentenced should mean time served for all crimes. On at least all violent and sexual crimes, probation should start after that and last for life. Criminals of lesser offenses should be required prove to us through their actions that they're going to play by the rules of society. Until that time they should remain on probation. If they screw that up and the probation ends up lasting to their dying day, its nobody's fault but their own no matter how many liberals want to line up and hand out excuses.

Time served should be hard time. No conjugal visits. No television. No free education. No vote. You're no longer a member of society in good standing so all the rights of one should be taken from you and not returned until your debt to society is paid. Unlike the nonsense that is bandied about from liberals, these people aren't in jail because we weren't nice enough to them, or because of exclusionary policies, or because we failed them. None of those reasons are valid let alone true. They are there because they failed the rest of us. And the resulting debt owed to us is collected by taking away freedoms. The message being sent is: play by the rules like the rest of us and enjoy the freedoms that come with it, or risk losing them for the rest of your life.

[KrustyKidd]

Ten years with an illegal firearm is too lenient? I think with the word out on that one that nobody in their right mind would be very non chalant about carrying to the bar or store in the first palce. not to mention be willing to cross a border smuggling it, not to mention trading a glock for a bag of cke etc. therefore, the item would be soon rare on the street save for those who intend on commiting an actual crime with it.

Time served should be hard time. No conjugal visits. No television. No free education. No vote. You're no longer a member of society in good standing so all the rights of one should be taken from you and not returned until your debt to society is paid.

Sorry to say but you can't do that. If you simply throw all people into the pit until their sentence is over with no priviliges, you get a bunch of people who have no reason to be managable. A very difficult situation to administrate when you consider that inmates outnumber guards four to one. Before the ratio gets to one for one, I, as a taxpayer would much rather see that the number of inmates goes down through detterence.

[Hicksey]

Ten years with an illegal firearm is too lenient? I think with the word out on that one that nobody in their right mind would be very non chalant about carrying to the bar or store in the first palce. not to mention be willing to cross a border smuggling it, not to mention trading a glock for a bag of cke etc. therefore, the item would be soon rare on the street save for those who intend on commiting an actual crime with it.

Time served should be hard time. No conjugal visits. No television. No free education. No vote. You're no longer a member of society in good standing so all the rights of one should be taken from you and not returned until your debt to society is paid.

Sorry to say but you can't do that. If you simply throw all people into the pit until their sentence is over with no priviliges, you get a bunch of people who have no reason to be managable. A very difficult situation to administrate when you consider that inmates outnumber guards four to one. Before the ratio gets to one for one, I, as a taxpayer would much rather see that the number of inmates goes down through detterence.

So hire more guards. Money well spent IMHO.

[KrustyKidd]

So hire more guards. Money well spent IMHO.

I said it before, just make them prisons in my town. We can always use property values going up and this porn star gig I have going is getting old hat. Need a new job that pays good.