Longer sentences touted as deterrents
DerbyX @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:00 pm
romanP romanP:
I'm talking about people who have already committed their crime, and show no sign of being any better than when they went in. There is a process to determine these things, and it is the same process they use to determine whether or not parole is possible. The difference is that, instead of serving a third of your sentence for good behaviour, you serve another sentence for being dangerous.
You are talking about punishing people on the assumption they will commit more crimes.
Thats wrong no matter how you slice it. In addition it won't do anything for people defrauding it as they do the parole system so you are back to square one.
Who do you envision making the desicion as to who gets time added on? The same people who determine parole? The corrections officers? Judges?
How do you "prove" your case that time should be added on without simply ignoring the very foundation our justice system is founded upon?
romanP @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:52 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
romanP romanP:
I'm talking about people who have already committed their crime, and show no sign of being any better than when they went in. There is a process to determine these things, and it is the same process they use to determine whether or not parole is possible. The difference is that, instead of serving a third of your sentence for good behaviour, you serve another sentence for being dangerous.
You are talking about punishing people on the assumption they will commit more crimes.
An educated assumption, yes.
$1:
How do you "prove" your case that time should be added on without simply ignoring the very foundation our justice system is founded upon?
It's not difficult. If an inmate gets involved in more criminal behaviour while they're in prison, don't let them out of prison until they stop.
robmik43 @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:09 pm
Sentences are too short, especially for violent crimes.
Then, time served becomes one-third [or less] of the
too-short sentences for these crimes.
Photoshopping pictures of Stockwell Day adderesses the
problem adequately for some, not so much for me. 
DerbyX @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:10 pm
romanP romanP:
An educated assumption, yes.
Its still an assumption though and it goes against the entire founding principle of our justice system, innocent until proven guilty.
romanP romanP:
It's not difficult. If an inmate gets involved in more criminal behaviour while they're in prison, don't let them out of prison until they stop.
I think it would be far more difficult then you imagine. Something that has been repeatedly validated is that jails are often nothing more then schools for criminals and places where people are forced to do certain things just to survive.
The bottom line that I see is that your system even if working perfectly still punishes people for crimes they might commit. Thats just plain wrong.
romanP @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:45 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
I think it would be far more difficult then you imagine. Something that has been repeatedly validated is that jails are often nothing more then schools for criminals and places where people are forced to do certain things just to survive.
That is true, but what else should we do with violent criminals?
$1:
The bottom line that I see is that your system even if working perfectly still punishes people for crimes they might commit. Thats just plain wrong.
It punishes people crimes they've already committed after they've been sentenced.
Yogi @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:49 pm
The sentences don't necessarily need to be longer, but make the punishment swift, severe,and often. Corporal punishment. Get rid of 'Club Fed'! Turn prisons back into truly miserable places! ( ala Joe Arpaio) Somewhere absolutely no one wants to end up for any amount of time.
No more 'socializing'. No more weight training. No one leaves prison without a minumum of high school. Most would likely recidivism would plummet!
DerbyX @ Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:18 pm
romanP romanP:
DerbyX DerbyX:
I think it would be far more difficult then you imagine. Something that has been repeatedly validated is that jails are often nothing more then schools for criminals and places where people are forced to do certain things just to survive.
That is true, but what else should we do with violent criminals?
$1:
The bottom line that I see is that your system even if working perfectly still punishes people for crimes they might commit. Thats just plain wrong.
It punishes people crimes they've already committed after they've been sentenced.
I can't fault you for meaning well but I just don't think you have explored all the difficulties and potential for abuses of your proprosal.
1) Your system wouldn't be limited to just violent criminals but all criminals as sooner or later people would naturally extend it to robbery, DUI, drug offences, vandalism, etc. Imagine some poor 21 year old being held for what amounts to an indefinite sentence for serial vandalism or drug offences?
2) Your proposal does amount to somebody having to make the assumption that somebody will reoffend, something that must have to be shown as evident. That means the person should be allowed a trial to defend himself. A whole new trial and its related cost. The cost associated with every step of the justice system is already very high.
3) last but not least how will you "prove" somebody will reoffend. Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of our system. How is it fair or even possible to prove somebody will reoffend? What checks and balances will the system have?
Remember that parole is basically the same system tweaked. They are let out under strict conditions and if they reoffend then they get whisked straight back to prison.
The assumption of guilt rather then assumption of innocence is something our system avoids and with good reason.
Personally despite the problems of our system the crime rate is low and I believe that a certain level of crime is simply the price we pay for the freedoms we demand in our society.
CommanderSock @ Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:48 pm
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0553-e.htm
$1:
MMS IN THE UNITED STATES
In the late 1980s, the United States enacted MMS for certain federal drug offences. Traffickers became subject to MMS of five or ten years, depending on the quantity and nature of the prohibited substance. However, drug-related crime in the United States has generally been unaffected. This is because MMS tend to be given to first-time, low level drug dealers, who are easily replaced in the illicit market. High-level dealers are less likely to be caught and are more likely to avoid the MMS by providing information to police and prosecutors in order to convict others.(8)
There has been some evidence that MMS have been effective in the context of gun-related crime in the United States, although the results are mixed overall. For example, an evaluation published in 1992 found that mandatory additional imprisonment where particular offences are committed with a firearm deterred homicide, but not other violent crimes.(9)
In the late 1980s, the United States enacted MMS for certain federal drug offences. Traffickers became subject to MMS of five or ten years, depending on the quantity and nature of the prohibited substance. However, drug-related crime in the United States has generally been unaffected. This is because MMS tend to be given to first-time, low level drug dealers, who are easily replaced in the illicit market. High-level dealers are less likely to be caught and are more likely to avoid the MMS by providing information to police and prosecutors in order to convict others.(8)
There has been some evidence that MMS have been effective in the context of gun-related crime in the United States, although the results are mixed overall. For example, an evaluation published in 1992 found that mandatory additional imprisonment where particular offences are committed with a firearm deterred homicide, but not other violent crimes.(9)
This is why I will NEVER vote for a gov't that makes its pillar of reason to lock more and more people up.
snuggles61 @ Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:09 pm
Yogi Yogi:
The sentences don't necessarily need to be longer, but make the punishment swift, severe,and often. Corporal punishment. Get rid of 'Club Fed'! Turn prisons back into truly miserable places! ( ala Joe Arpaio) Somewhere absolutely no one wants to end up for any amount of time.
No more 'socializing'. No more weight training. No one leaves prison without a minumum of high school. Most would likely recidivism would plummet!
No more 'socializing'. No more weight training. No one leaves prison without a minumum of high school. Most would likely recidivism would plummet!
You're definitely onto something,if prison conditions are worst than our bleakest social conditions it provides a strong incentive for them to avoid prison.In a lot of cases criminals end up in prison because the conditions are more favorable than what they're accustomed to living in.And I totally agree with the removal of weight training.Every time I see someone all pumped with muscles the first two thoughts that come to mind is you're on steroids or you're on parole.
Stop_Veruca_Salt @ Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:14 pm
The department of corrections is one area that should be out sourced to China..Would save money and be a serious deterrent...They probably could bring the cost of having an inmate down to about a couple grand a year...
C.M. Burns @ Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:59 pm
robmik43 robmik43:
Sentences are too short, especially for violent crimes.
Then, time served becomes one-third [or less] of the
too-short sentences for these crimes.
Photoshopping pictures of Stockwell Day adderesses the
problem adequately for some, not so much for me.
Then, time served becomes one-third [or less] of the
too-short sentences for these crimes.
Photoshopping pictures of Stockwell Day adderesses the
problem adequately for some, not so much for me.
Photoshopping pictures of Stockwell Day was not an attempt at deterring crime.
It was, however, an attempt at preventing anyone from taking anything that idiot says seriously.
moron
cheryl08 @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:08 pm
I think there have been enough studies that show that longer prison sentences for repeated offenders and first time offenders do not work. And using incarceration as a prime method of deterring offenders is costly and will eventually result in overcrowding.
That's perfect, lets just keep all the criminals together and they can all share stories on how to break the law... studies actually show that offenders who were once already tried and convicted will continue to re-offend with more severe indictable offences.
Seriously i can see why people buy into that whole tough on crime BS, but it doesn't work, if it did then awesome the Tories did something right for once.
Clearly rehabilitation and education is the only way to deter criminals from recommitting because it is a way to assimilate them back into society and provide them with opportunity.