[andyt]

When they have higher minimum sentences for pot dealers than child molesters, you know they didn't think things thru. What they should have done is get rid of the community sentencing for violent crimes.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

While I don't agree that they should be allowed to 'opt out', so to speak, he does make some good points.

$1:

Jean-Marc Fournier, testifying at the House of Commons justice and human rights committee, said Bill C-10 will wind up causing more crime, not less, because it is an unbalanced piece of legislation that doesn't focus enough on the rehabilitation of criminals, particularly young offenders.

He said the legislation is meant to put more people in jail and that will result in higher recidivism rates unless more is done to get at the root causes of criminality and to successfully reintegrate offenders into society so they can go on to lead productive lives.

Sounds like Fournier prefers the "hug a thug" approach.

The thing is, is that the rest of us, don't like the "revolving door" justice system that has resulted from that particular way of doing things.

[Strutz]

NL appears to also be opposed.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111102/newfoundland-feds-crime-bill-111102/

[Proculation]

bootlegga bootlegga:

While I don't agree that they should be allowed to 'opt out', so to speak, he does make some good points.

$1:

Jean-Marc Fournier, testifying at the House of Commons justice and human rights committee, said Bill C-10 will wind up causing more crime, not less, because it is an unbalanced piece of legislation that doesn't focus enough on the rehabilitation of criminals, particularly young offenders.

Those particular young offenders that we should "rehabilitate" are the murderers. Less than 3% of the crimes commited by young offenders. The 97% other cases are untouched.

$1:

He said the legislation is meant to put more people in jail and that will result in higher recidivism rates unless more is done to get at the root causes of criminality and to successfully reintegrate offenders into society so they can go on to lead productive lives.

Well, Fournier can say all he wants but the real facts are that in Quebec, like he says, we are the province which uses the most those "rehabilitations". What are the numbers ? Twice more recidivists in Quebec: criminals go back to jail about 4 times during their lifetime in all Canada while it's 8 times in Quebec.

A good rule of thumb for other canadian provinces should be: if Quebec does it, don't do it.

[Proculation]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

While I don't agree that they should be allowed to 'opt out', so to speak, he does make some good points.

$1:

Jean-Marc Fournier, testifying at the House of Commons justice and human rights committee, said Bill C-10 will wind up causing more crime, not less, because it is an unbalanced piece of legislation that doesn't focus enough on the rehabilitation of criminals, particularly young offenders.

He said the legislation is meant to put more people in jail and that will result in higher recidivism rates unless more is done to get at the root causes of criminality and to successfully reintegrate offenders into society so they can go on to lead productive lives.

Sounds like Fournier prefers the "hug a thug" approach.

The thing is, is that the rest of us, don't like the "revolving door" justice system that has resulted from that particular way of doing things.

We don't want it in Quebec either. A recent poll shows that 77% of Quebecers want a more harsh justice system with longer jail time.

But, when you open the TV or read newspapers, 99% of what you hear/read here is that Harper is a demon copying the evil USA who wants to put babies in jail. It's outrageous.

[saturn_656]

Here is something worth reading.

$1:

Monique Lyle ended an escalating argument with a man she had just met in the Jane St. subway station by stabbing him in the back and head. The mother of one is unrepentant.

A loaded 9mm pistol tucked in his waistband and crack cocaine in pockets, drug dealer Bennett McCreedy struggled with police officers trying to arrest him in a public building. A behemoth, Bennett would not look out of place on a professional football field.

Tristan Rice drove a pickup truck around Toronto, slowing down to look for targets and laughing while he fired an assault weapon-style paintball gun at homeless people.

Newton Walters terrorized the east side, a cloth covering his face and knife in hand, robbing six convenience store owners of cash and cigarettes. He committed some of the robberies after consuming his third ecstasy tab of the day — what he called a “triple smack.”

Unreformed and unmoved by the damage caused by his first sexual assault, Cole Gilbert committed a second, this time in a high school bathroom.

After time spent behind bars waiting for the conclusion of their cases, the total amount of jail time these five criminals were sentenced to by a judge:

Sixty days.

Why?

Because they are kids.

Read on:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... nders?bn=1

[Strutz]

That was a sad article to read...

Un-freaking-real.

[MacDonaill]

It always has to go to Quebec-bashing. Well, you're ethnic bretheren in Ontario and Newfoundland don't want to pay for the bill either, and why should they? Why should the Federal government be passing legislation it can't pay for?

Give your demagogic instincts a rest for a second and think about it. When you decide to buy something, you pay for it. Not your neighbour; you!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

It always has to go to Quebec-bashing. Well, you're ethnic bretheren in Ontario and Newfoundland don't want to pay for the bill either, and why should they? Why should the Federal government be passing legislation it can't pay for?

Give your demagogic instincts a rest for a second and think about it. When you decide to buy something, you pay for it. Not your neighbour; you!

Uhhhhhh.....yeah. While I agree with your sentiment your reasoning is seriously flawed. The fact is, Quebec would have to separate in order to become a neighbour. As it is, Quebec is still a member of the household.

[Proculation]

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

It always has to go to Quebec-bashing. Well, you're ethnic bretheren in Ontario and Newfoundland don't want to pay for the bill either, and why should they? Why should the Federal government be passing legislation it can't pay for?

Give your demagogic instincts a rest for a second and think about it. When you decide to buy something, you pay for it. Not your neighbour; you!

While I agree that the federal should pay a part for the cost of those legislations, provinces also have to contribute. We have a division in the judicial system in Canada where the penitenciaries are federal and the prisons are provincial.

But, let's get clear here: Fournier is not against the bill because of the content. He is against because we are permanent deficit and we have to borrow a lot of money every year to run the nanny government. He doesn't want the added cost.

That's what is frustrating. The protection of the citizens and their rights is the number one reason of having a government. Money to justice should be the priority before everything else. If it costs 100 millions more, it costs 100 millions more and you have to cut the candies instead. Now, they don't want to pay the cost of the justice to preserve the candies. That's unacceptable. It's like saying to a mother that she needs to pass more time with her child to take care of him but she doesn't want because she will miss bingo.

[MacDonaill]

I realise that the provincial prisons which house criminals convicted for under two years are the constitutional responsibility of the Province. But you know it's a sneaky move for the feds to advance their crime bill, flaunt the ostensibly low cost when in fact they're just footing the bill to the provinces.

Provinces also set up their own criminal courts, but those courts hearing criminal cases (which are of federal jurisdiction) are presided over by judges appointed and paid by the federal government. That makes perfect sense. So why wasn't that logic followed for prison funding? Who knows.

[Curtman]

Unknown Unknown:

Fighting crime by building more prisons is like fighting cancer by building more cemeteries.

[uwish]

yes and no. I don't believe many first time offenders should be rotting in jail for ever, but lets be honest here, even the police are complaining that a guy they arrest and has been convicted of previous offenses is back on the street within days.

That revolving door isn't working either.

[Proculation]

uwish uwish:

yes and no. I don't believe many first time offenders should be rotting in jail for ever, but lets be honest here, even the police are complaining that a guy they arrest and has been convicted of previous offenses is back on the street within days.

That revolving door isn't working either.

Let's not forget the moral aspect. You commit a crime, you have to pay something to the society. If we had the programs they have in the States where the criminals do public work like cleaning roads, etc. I would have no problem with less punitive sentences. But here, we can't do that because of felons' "rights". All we have left is a longer sentence out of the society. Rehabilitation comes after that. Damn the constructivist views of 'lologists'. A crime is a crime.

[PluggyRug]

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

It always has to go to Quebec-bashing. Well, you're ethnic bretheren in Ontario and Newfoundland don't want to pay for the bill either, and why should they? Why should the Federal government be passing legislation it can't pay for?

Er not quite.

Thats just Mr Holier Than Thou Mcguinty speaking, he certainly does not speak for all Ontarians.