[EyeBrock]

Lemmy Lemmy:

leewgrant leewgrant:

I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water here. Unfortunately as a debate in the larger society it has fast degenerated into an ideological debate with the law 'n order Tories versus the bleeding heart liberals.

Let's see what van Loan will have in his bill. The proposal to eliminate mandatory release to be replaced with a credit system that can be applied to parole might well have some merit.

I don't see abandoning the two-for-one amounting to anything. As you say the judges know what the rules are now. If it becomes a mandatory one-for-one instead of the discretionary system we have now judges might just give shorter sentences.

That's why I suggested, earlier, that 2-for-1 is smoke and mirrors. There's, practically, no difference between sentencing someone to 3 years and keeping them in jail for 3 or sentencing them to 6 years, giving them 2-for-1 for a year served and letting them out in 2 years. If the government gets rid of 2-for-1 credit, judges'll just alter their sentences accordingly, exactly as you suggest.

The change would be only one of political perception.

It's not smoke an mirrors Lemmy, 2 for 1 is undermining the sentences that the Courts are giving out.

I spoke about this on another thread but here's a pretty good link that explains the whole parole, time served stuff rather well.

http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/rev2 ... &Itemid=51

[Lemmy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's not smoke an mirrors Lemmy, 2 for 1 is undermining the sentences that the Courts are giving out.

I spoke about this on another thread but here's a pretty good link that explains the whole parole, time served stuff rather well.

Nice read, thanks, but I'm not buying the 'undermining' argument. The courts know what the jailtime is going to be with 2 for 1. It's not a secret. If 2 for 1 is eliminated, they'll just hand out shorter sentences. The same would be true if they eliminated statutory release. The judges aren't being undermined. They know exactly what they're handing out.

[EyeBrock]

No, the problem is that the Corrections Canada ratios kick in way quicker with the 2 for 1.

It used to be 1.5 for 1 and some judges in Toronto started doing 2 for 1 with inmates from the Don and it spread. Time to stop it and get realistic. I'm all for this Tory plan, I'm not so keen on the 'zero tolerance' for drug offenders though.

[Lemmy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

No, the problem is that the Corrections Canada ratios kick in way quicker with the 2 for 1.

It used to be 1.5 for 1 and some judges in Toronto started doing 2 for 1 with inmates from the Don and it spread. Time to stop it and get realistic. I'm all for this Tory plan, I'm not so keen on the 'zero tolerance' for drug offenders though.

There were even some 3 for 1s with the Don, as I recall, 8 or 10 years back. I'm in favour of stricter sentences for certain offenses too. But this Tory plan is lipservice. Addressing the root of peoples' concerns will only come with Criminal Code reforms on sentencing.

[EyeBrock]

Lemmy Lemmy:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

No, the problem is that the Corrections Canada ratios kick in way quicker with the 2 for 1.

It used to be 1.5 for 1 and some judges in Toronto started doing 2 for 1 with inmates from the Don and it spread. Time to stop it and get realistic. I'm all for this Tory plan, I'm not so keen on the 'zero tolerance' for drug offenders though.

There were even some 3 for 1s with the Don, as I recall, 8 or 10 years back. I'm in favour of stricter sentences for certain offenses too. But this Tory plan is lipservice. Addressing the root of peoples' concerns will only come with Criminal Code reforms on sentencing.

I agree. I don't think the Tories can really do too much on sentencing with a minority.

I'd hate to limit judges by imposing mandatory sentencing but something needs to change with violent offenders.

Non violent, do we really need to jail them?

[leewgrant]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Lemmy Lemmy:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

No, the problem is that the Corrections Canada ratios kick in way quicker with the 2 for 1.

It used to be 1.5 for 1 and some judges in Toronto started doing 2 for 1 with inmates from the Don and it spread. Time to stop it and get realistic. I'm all for this Tory plan, I'm not so keen on the 'zero tolerance' for drug offenders though.

There were even some 3 for 1s with the Don, as I recall, 8 or 10 years back. I'm in favour of stricter sentences for certain offenses too. But this Tory plan is lipservice. Addressing the root of peoples' concerns will only come with Criminal Code reforms on sentencing.

I agree. I don't think the Tories can really do too much on sentencing with a minority.

I'd hate to limit judges by imposing mandatory sentencing but something needs to change with violent offenders.

Non violent, do we really need to jail them?

At the moment the best we can do is see how abolishing 2-for-1 will affect sentences. Personally I think a lot of the public don't really know about 2-for-1; all they see is a guy who, after sentencing for something like rape or pedophilia, will be out on parole in, say, 18 months. That's what needs to change or, at least, the perception does.

After Enron the US cracked down on financial crime while we still hand out mickey mouse sentences. If van Loan wants support for his bill this would be one way to get it.

[EyeBrock]

I dunno about white collar crime. I think community sentences give us better value for money with these guys.

I see jail as a big dustbin to keep the really bad guys from hurting more civvies.
Rehabilitation is utter bollocks. Keep the violent pieces of crap in jail for a very long time.

I see no point in keeping Conrad Black in jail for 6 years.

Strip these fraud guys of all their assets, make them do menial work in the community to work off their sentences, slap parole orders on the, ban them from ever working in the finance industry and aggressively seize whatever assets they have left.

Jail is a waste of our money for these guys. We can punish them in better ways.

[ridenrain]

The problem is parole needs to actually mean somthing. That has the added problem of requiring more parole officers to monitor those people.

[leewgrant]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I dunno about white collar crime. I think community sentences give us better value for money with these guys.

You mean like the guy in Montreal, Earl Jones, who defrauded his clients out of $100million.

We put bank robbers in prison for a lot less than that.

It must also be remembered that over and above rehabilitation there is a punishment component to the sentence.

[Lemmy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I dunno about white collar crime. I think community sentences give us better value for money with these guys.

I see jail as a big dustbin to keep the really bad guys from hurting more civvies.
Rehabilitation is utter bollocks. Keep the violent pieces of crap in jail for a very long time.

Did you ever see the CTV special "Inside Canada's Prisons" from, maybe 5 or 6 years ago? I think it was Peter Mansbridge that hosted it. Anyway, it showed a guy, convicted on possession of stolen property for running a chop shop in London, ON. It showed him going to Millhaven for his security classification, which is the starting point for everyone serving a Federal sentence in Ontario. It showed the fear and the value, in terms of specific deterence, of sending non-violent offenders to prison. I think scaring the shit out of property offenders with a 6-12 month tour at Millhaven is GREAT value for the dollar.

Beyond this, I agree, mate, there isn't much gained from the incarceration of non-violent offenders. I call MY system "Two Strikes, Three Strikes" (2 strikes for violence, 3 strikes for non-violent offences). In MY system, there'd be deep sentences for any violence, and automatic life, no parole for a second offense. Then, anyone in jail serving life that commits a violent crime in prison gets death. For non-violent offenders, they get their 'guided tour' of Millhaven for a year and then parole. Second offense, they get sentenced as 1st-time violent offenders. Third offense, life.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I see no point in keeping Conrad Black in jail for 6 years.

Strip these fraud guys of all their assets, make them do menial work in the community to work off their sentences, slap parole orders on the, ban them from ever working in the finance industry and aggressively seize whatever assets they have left.

Jail is a waste of our money for these guys. We can punish them in better ways.

I agree, though I think they should at least get to practise keeping their mouths shut and their backs to the wall for a year, as punishment and deterent.

[PluggyRug]

Violent offenders should be sent to a penal colony on the moon with just enough fuel to get there. The colony should also have a leaky dome.

[leewgrant]

No surprise here.

$1:

Canadians see Harper as better suited than Ignatieff to tackle the economy (33 per cent to 23 per cent), health care (23 to 16) and crime (38 to 12).
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/701421