Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

You really have no idea do you?

Despite the almost universal concensus that a program designed to jail more and more and more people is inherently a failure you have no idea the cost.

You bitch about the well articulated cost of Dions platform but Harpers plan includes little in the way of predicting the cost of his tough on justice program. Justices coats are a grave concern for a program we know will fail.

When it comes to crime the left screams gun bans while the right screams jail everybody. Both are doomed to failure but the cost for Harpers plan will make even the worst CPC hack take pause.

   

We could always ship them up north on that imaginary self sufficient rail line you were espousing about on another thread.

   

Does anyone have a proposal that would result in less youth crime? Does anyone have a proposal for dealing with young offenders that doesn't leave the victims of crime feeling raped by the courts?

Rather than bash Harper for his plan, why not offer up a reasonable alternative?

   

Because there's a fundamental dichotomy at place in the courts. Rehabilitation, the goal of ending recidivism, only occurs when you work with a convict to reform their behaviour so that they can be successfully reintegrated into society. Punishment, the act of societal retribution on behalf of the wronged victim, serves to marginalize and cast-out convicts from society.

Striking a balance is difficult. As you say, nobody wants to have victims feel like the system is slanted away from their need for retribution and they're left as casualties in the quest to "hug a thug". At the same time, grinding convicts in the judicial gears doesn't serve society well when the person who committed the crime is essentially unchanged upon release...but with a hatred for prison and those that put him there.

A good balance is then workfare prisons. Lock up convicts for good deals of time so you can serve the victims. Rehabilitate the convicts while in prison with job training, psychological services et cetera, so those convicts which CAN be reintegrated into society ARE reintegrated. Society benefits both ways. Reformed crooks that can hold a job.

Is the plan perfect? Nope. Eventually the system will waste its time on some little shit gangbanger that's just never going to reform. Or, some good kid that made a mistake is going to go to prison, in other words, the system will amputate his arm because he has an infected fingernail.

But, it IS that proposal you were looking for.

   

Their alternative is to give them a second chance. And then a third and then a fourth, 5th, 6th........

   

Everybody has an alternative. See Mustang's post for an explanation of how it works for those locked up. In addition to that, each of the non-conservative parties has real plans, based on past studies and backed up by what science there is on the subject, to keep kids from getting into crime in the first place.

Those plans don't fit well into eight second sound bites, but they are all much stronger proposals than that offered by Harper. I suggest you look them all up and se what the professionals (sociologists, criminologists etc.) are saying.

   

Under your proposal we would be jailing people for life because they stole a loaf of bread to feed their kids. Of course they stole that loaf because the tory justice plan was so expensive that tax rates for the poor went up to 75% forcing them to commit crimes just to get by thereby requiring the need for the tories to build more and more jails.

Face it. The conservative plan to reduce crime is a multi-billion dollar plan that will fail monumentally.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-toughcrime.htm

   

Harper has cut taxes so your rant is full of fallacies. Secondly, it would be for violent crimes. Unless you stole a loaf of bread carrying a shotgun you can be assured that you will still be within "liberal" law territory.

You should speak to some of the parents who have had their children brutally raped. I'm sure asking them to show compassion for the animal that has scarred them for life will go over well as the rapist walks out of the courtroom on probation or house arrest.

   

My proposal? I didn't give one. I asked for one.

I have seen the utter failure of the current system. I believe in a suitable punishment for crimes, but I know that just putting someone in a box isn't going to reform them into a model citizen either. Perhaps mandatory schooling and job training while incarcerated might help, but it would require big changes to our system. I just know that something needs to be done to curb the violent crime in our cities. It would be better if we could offer alternatives BEFORE the kids become gang bangers, but I'm not a scociologist. I can fix any machine you can name, but I don't understand kids at all...

   

Why are we, Canada and America, so into reforming criminals? The idea of Jail/Prison is to PUNISH the criminal. As a member of Society the criminals were tought what the rules are, the were shown by the law abiding citizens how to act within society and the criminals rejected it. They knowingly and willingly commited the crime and broke the law. In todays society a criminal is not punished for their crime so whats keeping them from commiting it.

Here's a term many criminals used in the Jail(s) I worked at. 3 hots and a cot. Prisons and Jails have turned from punishment for criminals to learning centers where they learn how to commit crimes better then when they first walked in. The other cons teach them how to pick locks better, what palces to go to get guns and tools needed. Its almost a finishing school for many of them.

   

We are into reforming criminals, Stratos, because in the late 19th century it became apparent that simply punishing people was not acting as a deterrent.

The reasons for crime were found to be deep-seated in society and complex. As the social sciences developed, it was found that rehabilitation lowered the rate of repeat offenders and a variety of social programs and initiatives helped to lower the overall crime rate.

In other words, the Conservative approach to the problem was found to be a failed strategy over a hundred years ago.

   

But it's small comfort to those who've had a loved one murdered that a rehabilitated murderer will be so much more able to hold down a job that their loved one never will.

There's more to crime and punishment than simple deterrence. Why focus solely on the outcome for the convict?

   

We don't. We also impose criminal sentences and, depending on the crime, monetary penalties. It's not a perfect system, and I believe it was you or Mustang who noted that it's difficult to find a balance, Dayseed.

   

I did say a balance was hard to strike. What I never commented on was whether or not the system should be slanted towards reform, or victim retribution. We're talking about murder in this thread, not drug-dealing or teens pulling off B&E's. Murder has a clear victim; just in Toronto today, a family was on the University courthouse steps lamenting that the killer of their son got 9 years (with time served) for murdering their son in a drive-thru.

The killer remained unmoved and even defiant to the family that lost their son.

Bending over backwards to help that killer get workplace training while the family goes home ruing Canada isn't justice. It fails the retributive test. Perhaps murder should be terribly slanted towards the victim; fuck the murderer. I don't care what societal influences caused him to murder somebody else.

Murder is a choice. Being murdered isn't. Publishing the name of teen murderers isn't the end of the world. It's a good first step in pushing the slant back towards the victims.

   

We aren't just talking about murder though, in fact the thread title names 14 year old car thieves.

Even within the realm of murder though, there's a huge range of variables, from manslaughter to premeditated murder, from vehicular homicide and criminal negligence causing death to killing an innocent bystander when you were trying to shoot somebody else.

Then there's motive. Self-defence is a pretty good justification, on the face of it. What if it's one gang member defending himself from another though? What if it's an ex-gang member defending a third party from being caught up in a gang?
Just saying, "We're talking about murder here," is a gross oversimplification.

That's why judges need leeway in sentencing. These things are complex.

Should some sentences be tougher? You bet, nobody is denying that. There should also be a lot more education and psychological treatment in prisons. It needs to be studied and determined by professionals though...not victims who are out for revenge, not the cheap sloganeering of the Conservative Party.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  Next