Tory Anti-Crime Measures

[Michael Hardner]

Although I respect the comments here from right-of-centre posters as being in touch with the general population, it also seems that none of them are willing to even acknowledge social and cultural factors in creating an environment for lawlessness to incubate.

Certainly these environments exist, and certainly there must be ways to address that side proactively. This is an area in which government can and should intervene if they can.

[Argus]

Although I respect the comments here from right-of-centre posters as being in touch with the general population, it also seems that none of them are willing to even acknowledge social and cultural factors in creating an environment for lawlessness to incubate.

Certainly these environments exist, and certainly there must be ways to address that side proactively. This is an area in which government can and should intervene if they can.

Crime is related to poverty, but not necessarily. You'll find far more crime in a low income area of Toronto then you will in the miserable, poverty-stricken villages of India or Botswana. There's a social construct which requires people abide by community rules which we have lost in certain areas. Where crime becomes so prevelant, where people are jumping in and out of prison, jail, reformatories, for brief stints again and again because of permissive laws and lax policing, crime tends to lose its forbidden nature. Where more and more people are doing that sort of thing crime loses its cultural seperateness, its community dissaproval. I mean, where almost everyone in a community has some relative who has been in prison for crimes commited, the social dissaproval factor ceases to have any real value. People don't shrink back in disgust from a known criminal because they're all around them. I'm not saying this well because it's been a long time since I read the book and I forget the correct phraseology, but you get the idea.

[KrustyKidd]

Hard to do that locked in a stone cell all day and night. And if people are too exhausted from breaking rocks all day they'll have less time to think about acting up. Draconian punishment works very well indeed in many, many countries today, not to mention throughout history. If you can't see anything but a downside to acting up then you won't act up. No?

No. It makes it so you have little to lose by acting up. Necessitating aditional guards for the enhanced danger of a general uprising. If you can afford the guards such as they have in counjtries where they pay in bannanas and pesos, then fine. But at forty grand a year to have twice as many guards, it is a bit cheaper to give a reward along with punishment.

BTW, you didn't get it when I said that people who have nothing but downside revolt? Russia, Iran, Al Queda, France. The list is almost endless. They are all results of when people have little or nothing to live for beyond changing the environment they exist in. Check out prison riots on google, the reasons are varied but mainly, they occur when people are fed up and have nowhere to go to adress the issues. Issues such as brutality, lack of treatment, visitng rights, food, bigotry and on and on. In fact, your vision of nirvanna is Alcatraz with which I agree however, it costs too dam much to put every inmate into such a facility.

And if people are too exhausted from breaking rocks all day they'll have less time to think about acting up

Really? I think the act of breaking rocks is manual labor and actually builds stamina, strength, confidence as well as makes a group more glued and loyal to each other. You know, like a team. A team of pissed off inmates with a lot of strength, group ideas to share and, as a ten year sentence begins to look like eternity after the first six months, you really wouldn't give a shit about much. Hope this rock quarry of yours has some very high paid guards as the normal ones wouldn't be able to put up with the stress of knowing that there is always something brewing within the group of stronger and cohesive men. Something that hates them as much as the system and, all of them don't care.

Bread and water? Now they really don't care and, spent the entire time in isolation figureing out how they are going to screw you. Lack of visitation? Wow, that's a winner, now they have nothing outside the walls to live for. So, what do you have left to take away? Not much, but you have the lives of your guards who are getting crap wages for having to go ten on one with these guys for forty grand a year. Every one of them willing to stick a knife in their back for the hell of it. What do you think it would take for a group of guys who have testosterone comming out of their ears, are pissed off, have nothing to live for and who have formed themselves - a group of say five hundred, into one unit, to just well ...... blow?

We're not talking about shoplifters. We're talking about gang-bangers, armed robbers, killers and rapists.

Oh. Sorry. So just for serious offenders. You didn't make a diferenciation, you just said anybody in prison.

As for coming out a 'very determined individual' what do you imagine their determination would be?

See above. I was speaking of a minor offender doing hard time and then just adopting a whole attitude of society hatred due to the processes you feel would work better. as for your more serious offenders, they will end up doing the time sooner or later when they reoffend. With increased prison time, they will be where they belong but, to take all positives away and only leave negative, you will need at least triple the guards you have now.

[Argus]

Hard to do that locked in a stone cell all day and night. And if people are too exhausted from breaking rocks all day they'll have less time to think about acting up. Draconian punishment works very well indeed in many, many countries today, not to mention throughout history. If you can't see anything but a downside to acting up then you won't act up. No?

No. It makes it so you have little to lose by acting up.

Sorry, but I just don't understand where you're coming from. You work hard, you have a cell, access to books, exercise, social interaction, you eat decent food, you get out of jail in 5 years. That's your story. So you've got nothing to lose? Well, you can lose your decent food, your interaction, your exercise and books, and have your sentence continually extended because of your acting up. This is called negative reinforcement, and it works rather well on that particular mindset.

BTW, you didn't get it when I said that people who have nothing but downside revolt? Russia, Iran, Al Queda, France. The list is almost endless.

North Korea, China, Iran, Russia - right, the endless list of people crushed under misreable oppression and taking it rather meekly. Most of the world today is opressed, and 99 percent of them do nothing about it but submit.

As for rioting - that's what guns are for.

[KrustyKidd]

Sorry, but I just don't understand where you're coming from. You work hard, you have a cell, access to books, exercise, social interaction, you eat decent food, you get out of jail in 5 years. That's your story. So you've got nothing to lose? Well, you can lose your decent food, your interaction, your exercise and books, and have your sentence continually extended because of your acting up. This is called negative reinforcement, and it works rather well on that particular mindset.

Not sure what is going on. A few posts ago you were talking about taking all that away and making them break rocks up in Inuvik. I see nothing wrong with the above so I suppose that unless you are going to reverse yourself again, we are in agreement on this aspect.

North Korea, China, Iran, Russia - right, the endless list of people crushed under misreable oppression and taking it rather meekly. Most of the world today is opressed, and 99 percent of them do nothing about it but submit.

North Korea a Stalinist police state with lots of guards. China - not that bad but also with lots of guards. Iran - much better since they got rid of the Savak and allowed people to speak somewhat freely within the bourdaries of islam. Russia - also a partial democracy. Very bad examples. As a matter of fact, all of them had their own revolution against true oppression to get where they are today and, with the exception of North korea the people are better off. Best example i could give would be Iraq under Saddam but, he was a master of Stalanist terroirsm. In fact, so good and so set up in his earlier years with the secret police under his control that had he been Russian, he could have controlled the entire nation better than Stalin. But, this means guards Argus. One of ten people were somehow on the government take in a form or another. You neighbor was an informent or somthing so, see, my point proved. You wish to subjegate people, you need lots of guards. In our society, in order to set forth draconian policies within any segment, you need lots of guards - and ours don't work for rubles, pesos, bannanas or tea. Forty grand a year min.

I can't afford a one on one guard/inmate ratio and neither can you so, since you agree that they should have the above unless they screw up then, we both agree right?

[Hicksey]

Although I respect the comments here from right-of-centre posters as being in touch with the general population, it also seems that none of them are willing to even acknowledge social and cultural factors in creating an environment for lawlessness to incubate.

Certainly these environments exist, and certainly there must be ways to address that side proactively. This is an area in which government can and should intervene if they can.

I don't buy that argument at all is why I don't place any credence in it.

If that was the case an abnormally high number of people from those neighborhoods would be in trouble constantly. The problem with that argument is that fully 85-90% of the people in those circumstances do not succumb to a life of crime.

IMHO criminal behavior is a cop out on life. Nobody ever has to resort to crime. They choose to. There's not one good reason you can list for it. In Canada specifically there is help there for anyone that wants it. You don't have to resort to crime. We'll help you get on your feet. We'll support you until you can find work and help you get a place with a community startup cheque. We'll even train you and give you a marketable skill. Having been at the bottom myself and seen the system first hand as far as I am concerned there's no excuse for criminal behavior. Every avenue is there for anyone to get out of these neighborhoods and make something of themselves. You just have to want it and work for it. That's it.

[Michael Hardner]

If that was the case an abnormally high number of people from those neighborhoods would be in trouble constantly. The problem with that argument is that fully 85-90% of the people in those circumstances do not succumb to a life of crime.

The fact that a higher number of people in that environment "succumb" isn't enough proof ?

If environmental factors have no effect, then, why the higher incarceration rates ? Is it genetic ?

[Argus]

Sorry, but I just don't understand where you're coming from. You work hard, you have a cell, access to books, exercise, social interaction, you eat decent food, you get out of jail in 5 years. That's your story. So you've got nothing to lose? Well, you can lose your decent food, your interaction, your exercise and books, and have your sentence continually extended because of your acting up. This is called negative reinforcement, and it works rather well on that particular mindset.

Not sure what is going on. A few posts ago you were talking about taking all that away and making them break rocks up in Inuvik. I see nothing wrong with the above so I suppose that unless you are going to reverse yourself again, we are in agreement on this aspect.

I don't think I ever said anything about conditions of prison, at least not on this thread. I would, however, like to institute hard labour, as they have in the UK, for violent and repeat offenders. I was speaking about parole, which is almost automatic now, when it should be reserved for those who have shown true remorse and made real efforts to rehabilitate themselves.

North Korea, China, Iran, Russia - right, the endless list of people crushed under misreable oppression and taking it rather meekly. Most of the world today is opressed, and 99 percent of them do nothing about it but submit.

North Korea a Stalinist police state with lots of guards. China - not that bad but also with lots of guards. Iran - much better since they got rid of the Savak and allowed people to speak somewhat freely within the bourdaries of islam. Russia - also a partial democracy. Very bad examples. As a matter of fact, all of them had their own revolution against true oppression to get where they are today and, with the exception of North korea the people are better off. Best example i could give would be Iraq under Saddam but, he was a master of Stalanist terroirsm. In fact, so good and so set up in his earlier years with the secret police under his control that had he been Russian, he could have controlled the entire nation better than Stalin. But, this means guards Argus. One of ten people were somehow on the government take in a form or another. You neighbor was an informent or somthing so, see, my point proved. You wish to subjegate people, you need lots of guards. In our society, in order to set forth draconian policies within any segment, you need lots of guards - and ours don't work for rubles, pesos, bannanas or tea. Forty grand a year min.

I can't afford a one on one guard/inmate ratio and neither can you so, since you agree that they should have the above unless they screw up then, we both agree right?

The list of brutal regimes is endless, now and throughout history. And they all managed to keep a clamp on their subjugated citizens with armies which were considerably smaller in number than "one to one". Were some of them overthrown? Sure. Democracies have also been overthrown. And, in fact, most of the time when regimes are overthrown it is because they haven't been brutal enough in putting down the revolution. Iran ad Russia could have blown the hell out of protestors and put things down quickly. As it is, both are still brutal dictatorships. Russia might be considered a "Partial democracy" this year, but it won't be within the next few years.

[Hicksey]

If that was the case an abnormally high number of people from those neighborhoods would be in trouble constantly. The problem with that argument is that fully 85-90% of the people in those circumstances do not succumb to a life of crime.

The fact that a higher number of people in that environment "succumb" isn't enough proof ?

If environmental factors have no effect, then, why the higher incarceration rates ? Is it genetic ?

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my previous comments.

I didn't mean to say that those ARE NOT factors, just that IMO they are not significant factors. I think the class warfare preached by the Liberals and NDP has done more damage to the people than anything. If they would not decry achievement and tell people that they're entitled to the same don't I think as many people would cop out on life.

[KrustyKidd]

The list of brutal regimes is endless, now and throughout history. And they all managed to keep a clamp on their subjugated citizens with armies which were considerably smaller in number than "one to one". Were some of them overthrown? Sure. Democracies have also been overthrown. And, in fact, most of the time when regimes are overthrown it is because they haven't been brutal enough in putting down the revolution. Iran ad Russia could have blown the hell out of protestors and put things down quickly. As it is, both are still brutal dictatorships. Russia might be considered a "Partial democracy" this year, but it won't be within the next few years.

Those regimes are subjgating citizens, you are trying to subjegate convicted criminals, murderers and the like. Most of them male, fit and in their twenties and thirties. Not women, children, old people and the odd fit male. Big difference.

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't mean to say that those ARE NOT factors, just that IMO they are not significant factors. I think the class warfare preached by the Liberals and NDP has done more damage to the people than anything. If they would not decry achievement and tell people that they're entitled to the same don't I think as many people would cop out on life.

Ok. Well, the Liberals and NDP record on solving these problems speaks for itself but I don't think they've caused these problems either.

In all likelihood, these problems are better solved with time.

[Hicksey]

I didn't mean to say that those ARE NOT factors, just that IMO they are not significant factors. I think the class warfare preached by the Liberals and NDP has done more damage to the people than anything. If they would not decry achievement and tell people that they're entitled to the same don't I think as many people would cop out on life.

Ok. Well, the Liberals and NDP record on solving these problems speaks for itself but I don't think they've caused these problems either.

In all likelihood, these problems are better solved with time.

The criminals should bear the lion's share of the blame no matter what. But the factors we have both mentioned to a limited extent explain -- but not excuse -- their actions. The problem is that the conservatives only want to punish and the Liberals/NDP only think new social programs are the answer. The real answer IMO lays with both. Not necessarily new programs, but putting these people in the programs we already have to get them moving toward a legal lifestyle. But this should not happen in jail. It should be a required part of the parole process. After your sentence, depending on your sentence, every convict should be required to go through a parole process designed with an eye toward both keeping watch on them and successful reintegration.

There's no need for new programs, but we do need to better manage how they are released back into society.

In short, Lib/NDP/CPC are all wrong on the issue to different extents.

[Michael Hardner]

The criminals should bear the lion's share of the blame no matter what. But the factors we have both mentioned to a limited extent explain -- but not excuse -- their actions. The problem is that the conservatives only want to punish and the Liberals/NDP only think new social programs are the answer. The real answer IMO lays with both. Not necessarily new programs, but putting these people in the programs we already have to get them moving toward a legal lifestyle. But this should not happen in jail. It should be a required part of the parole process. After your sentence, depending on your sentence, every convict should be required to go through a parole process designed with an eye toward both keeping watch on them and successful reintegration.

There's no need for new programs, but we do need to better manage how they are released back into society.

In short, Lib/NDP/CPC are all wrong on the issue to different extents.

Hicks:

I agree with your post. The politicians can jump on the podium and grandstand to make points, but we the public have to get smarter and demand results from them.

An aside:

George Forman, the boxer, got in trouble when he was a young person when he did some petty thieving. As an adult he explained that nobody ever told him it was wrong.

[Hicksey]

The criminals should bear the lion's share of the blame no matter what. But the factors we have both mentioned to a limited extent explain -- but not excuse -- their actions. The problem is that the conservatives only want to punish and the Liberals/NDP only think new social programs are the answer. The real answer IMO lays with both. Not necessarily new programs, but putting these people in the programs we already have to get them moving toward a legal lifestyle. But this should not happen in jail. It should be a required part of the parole process. After your sentence, depending on your sentence, every convict should be required to go through a parole process designed with an eye toward both keeping watch on them and successful reintegration.

There's no need for new programs, but we do need to better manage how they are released back into society.

In short, Lib/NDP/CPC are all wrong on the issue to different extents.

Hicks:

I agree with your post. The politicians can jump on the podium and grandstand to make points, but we the public have to get smarter and demand results from them.

An aside:

George Forman, the boxer, got in trouble when he was a young person when he did some petty thieving. As an adult he explained that nobody ever told him it was wrong.

Even though I voted for the CPC, I'll trust Harper only as far as I can throw him until he earns it. Who holds our political leaders accountable to their promises and righteousness if not their own followers? Nobody else wants your agenda, so you can't depend on the opposition.

On the aside:

No doubt a tragic account of a lack of parenting. But never has ignorance of law been an excuse. And anyone past 13 or 14 knows the difference between right and wrong. The example does however hilight the importance of good role models for youth.

[Argus]

The list of brutal regimes is endless, now and throughout history. And they all managed to keep a clamp on their subjugated citizens with armies which were considerably smaller in number than "one to one". Were some of them overthrown? Sure. Democracies have also been overthrown. And, in fact, most of the time when regimes are overthrown it is because they haven't been brutal enough in putting down the revolution. Iran ad Russia could have blown the hell out of protestors and put things down quickly. As it is, both are still brutal dictatorships. Russia might be considered a "Partial democracy" this year, but it won't be within the next few years.

Those regimes are subjgating citizens, you are trying to subjegate convicted criminals, murderers and the like. Most of them male, fit and in their twenties and thirties. Not women, children, old people and the odd fit male. Big difference.

Not when you've got the guns.

[KrustyKidd]

Not when you've got the guns.

Did you do the google on prison riots? Those guards all had guns too. Well, the ones on the outside anyhow as they don't allow them to have them on the inside. There, the guards are unarmed trusting that the inmates all have something to live for and wouldn't take advantage of the fact they outnumber the guards ten to one. Remove that and the number of guards has to go up (which I believe brings us back to square one).