[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

The liberals did it and so it's OK.

It has nothing to do with a party. It's the way our political system is set up. It works the same for all parties that win a parliamentary majority. Seems like you're the one being partisan here.

[herbie]

How about a Party philosophically intent on reducing the Public Service will need to hire 3,000 guards, all unionized federal public employees?
How about the massive expenditure to build new jails?
Inrease taxes or cut other programs? Or both?

I'm using right-wing arguments, not left.
The left arguments are all too common sense, like putting people in jail for longer hasn't reduced crime anywhere else it's been tried.

[Regina]

So if you do the crime you should not face any punishment? That's just stupid.

current-events-f59/medicine-hat-teen-killer-slated-for-release-t97795.html

[Regina]

Macguyver Macguyver:

All of it. You've got mentally ill people roaming the streets and the cops, who are supposed to be catching criminals, are babysitting them. Sorry, I don't think tougher sentences on drug dealers is going to get drugs off the street. It going to get cops killed, and bystanders.

That's a healthcare issue and has nothing to do with the crime bill.

[DrCaleb]

Regina Regina:

Macguyver Macguyver:

All of it. You've got mentally ill people roaming the streets and the cops, who are supposed to be catching criminals, are babysitting them. Sorry, I don't think tougher sentences on drug dealers is going to get drugs off the street. It going to get cops killed, and bystanders.

That's a healthcare issue and has nothing to do with the crime bill.

Yes, and no.

It's healthcare, because these people need help. But with the sad state of healthcare, many people's first sign of mental health problems usually involves a run in with police. In Edmonton, we have trained psycologists in police uniforms who partner up with cops to head off these kinds of calls.

It's sad, but the first responders to mental health issues tend to be cops, but that's the way the politicians wanted it. And we let them. So Harpers' answer is to criminalize more things, instead of dealing with the problem to begin with.

Much drug crime is also touted to come from poverty. In 2007 there was a figure I recall of $12 billion needed to address the problems associated with poverty (homelessness, child hunger etc.). Instead, we spent something like 4X that amount dealing with symptoms such as drug crime, extra policing and break ins (property crimes).

So he is right in that drugs, mental illness and poverty are related.

[fifeboy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

The liberals did it and so it's OK.

It has nothing to do with a party. It's the way our political system is set up. It works the same for all parties that win a parliamentary majority. Seems like you're the one being partisan here.

Right! So you would never complain, Now I understand.

[Lemmy]

Regina Regina:

So if you do the crime you should not face any punishment? That's just stupid.

Criminals should, of course, face punishment, but they should not face ARBITRARY punishment. This guy, for example, is facing punishment. He's going to pay restituion, do community service and serve a probation order. He's a first-time offender and has demonstrated (or least is demonstrating) that he's remourseful and appears to have turned the corner. Under Harper's new laws, this guy would do mandatory jail time. Is this the sort of person we want to toss in jail for a year? I don't think so. The judge got this one right. Harper's program is to cookie-cutter the whole process and remove the ability of judges to apply common sense.

[Robair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Regina Regina:

So if you do the crime you should not face any punishment? That's just stupid.

Criminals should, of course, face punishment, but they should not face ARBITRARY punishment. This guy, for example, is facing punishment. He's going to pay restituion, do community service and serve a probation order. He's a first-time offender and has demonstrated (or least is demonstrating) that he's remourseful and appears to have turned the corner. Under Harper's new laws, this guy would do mandatory jail time. Is this the sort of person we want to toss in jail for a year? I don't think so. The judge got this one right. Harper's program is to cookie-cutter the whole process and remove the ability of judges to apply common sense.

Good find, thanks.

[Regina]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yes, and no.

It's healthcare, because these people need help. But with the sad state of healthcare, many people's first sign of mental health problems usually involves a run in with police. In Edmonton, we have trained psycologists in police uniforms who partner up with cops to head off these kinds of calls.

It's sad, but the first responders to mental health issues tend to be cops, but that's the way the politicians wanted it. And we let them. So Harpers' answer is to criminalize more things, instead of dealing with the problem to begin with.

Much drug crime is also touted to come from poverty. In 2007 there was a figure I recall of $12 billion needed to address the problems associated with poverty (homelessness, child hunger etc.). Instead, we spent something like 4X that amount dealing with symptoms such as drug crime, extra policing and break ins (property crimes).

So he is right in that drugs, mental illness and poverty are related.

I agree with you but it's still a mental health issue that falls directly into healthcare and always has.

[Regina]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Regina Regina:

So if you do the crime you should not face any punishment? That's just stupid.

Criminals should, of course, face punishment, but they should not face ARBITRARY punishment. This guy, for example, is facing punishment. He's going to pay restituion, do community service and serve a probation order. He's a first-time offender and has demonstrated (or least is demonstrating) that he's remourseful and appears to have turned the corner. Under Harper's new laws, this guy would do mandatory jail time. Is this the sort of person we want to toss in jail for a year? I don't think so. The judge got this one right. Harper's program is to cookie-cutter the whole process and remove the ability of judges to apply common sense.

Unfortunately this story is one out of a million. That's not even close to the norm........although it would be nice.

The judge can still find him guilty of a lesser charge and deal with it as they see fit. How many times have we commented on stories here where the judge just lets them walk with a slap on the wrist?

[Lemmy]

Regina Regina:

Unfortunately this story is one out of a million. That's not even close to the norm........although it would be nice. The judge can still find him guilty of a lesser charge and deal with it as they see fit. How many times have we commented on stories here where the judge just lets them walk with a slap on the wrist?

But a slap on the wrist is what most offenders SHOULD get. Sure, we see cases every once in a while where a guy seems to have gotten off easy, but THOSE are the one-in-a-million cases. But those are also the ones that get all the media attention and get people's knickers all in a twist. How many criminal cases go before the courts every day in this country? THOUSANDS. The reality is that most offenders are: a) under 25; b) first offenders who do not re-offend; and c) non-violent offenders. To put mandatory jail terms on those people is insane. It's a colossal waste of money. If we're talking about violent offences, then, sure, I'm with you. Send 'em to prison and let 'em rot. But only habitual offenders ought to do prison time for non-violent offenses, IMHO.

[eureka]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Regina Regina:

Unfortunately this story is one out of a million. That's not even close to the norm........although it would be nice. The judge can still find him guilty of a lesser charge and deal with it as they see fit. How many times have we commented on stories here where the judge just lets them walk with a slap on the wrist?

But a slap on the wrist is what most offenders SHOULD get. Sure, we see cases every once in a while where a guy seems to have gotten off easy, but THOSE are the one-in-a-million cases. But those are also the ones that get all the media attention and get people's knickers all in a twist. How many criminal cases go before the courts every day in this country? THOUSANDS. The reality is that most offenders are: a) under 25; b) first offenders who do not re-offend; and c) non-violent offenders. To put mandatory jail terms on those people is insane. It's a colossal waste of money. If we're talking about violent offences, then, sure, I'm with you. Send 'em to prison and let 'em rot. But only habitual offenders ought to do prison time for non-violent offenses, IMHO.

I could not agree more. Anyone who has spent much time in Courts will know that the judges almost always get it right: fit the Punishment to the Crime.

With what we know now about the psychology of crime and about human behaviour in general, we ought to have abandoned all those reactionary ideas about revenge and retribution.