Harper Pledges to Scrap Young Offenders Act:

[Tonington]

So pre-1974 or so when the names of young offenders where still published, anyone underthe age of 18 (or 16?) was ensured to become a carreer criminal???

No. Calling them criminals makes them more likely to act like criminals. That's what labeling does with teenagers. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't necessarily mean they all become career criminals.

By publishing/releasing their names, perhaps their parrents, family, and peers
can help shame them onto the straight and narrow path.

Why? You think they can't do that right now? You think parents and friends don't know what happens? You think they need to read it in a newspaper to find out?

These issues have been studied by criminologists. They don't deter crime at all. The public feels good about them, but that doesn't mean they work.

 

[Risus]

No. Calling them criminals makes them more likely to act like criminals. That's what labeling does with teenagers. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't necessarily mean they all become career criminals.

Why? You think they can't do that right now? You think parents and friends don't know what happens? You think they need to read it in a newspaper to find out?

These issues have been studied by criminologists. They don't deter crime at all. The public feels good about them, but that doesn't mean they work.

Some parents don't have a clue what their kids have been up to.

 

[Ron in Regina]

This subject was actually the subject of a radio call in show that I'm listening to when
I'm not on the phone or otherwise occupied. Some of the callers where social workers
and a guidance councilor, and others that deal with youth, and almost all are in favor
of publishing/releasing young offenders names. I'd provide a link but that won't be
available until later in the day. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thankfully this is an
issue that we can vote on. Less than a month and we'll know what direction to take on
this hot potato.

 

[Praxius]

But printing the names could VERY well be a double-edged sword

I am all for harsh justice for heinous crimes, but to print the names of these little bastards might well lend a sense of accomplishment- if your life is so messed up that you will kill someone over property, territory or status at say 15, I doubt printing your name would be a deterrent in any way and would possibly even embolden folks who want SOME kind of recognition or "fame", even if it's as a monster

Having your name in 20 point font on the cover of the T.O. Sun would beat the hell out of spraying some crappy-looking little "symbol" on a mailbox after all

I disagree.

from the countless cases and situations here just in Halifax alone, with the skyrocketing rates of crimes commited by youths, many students in high school have been interviewed and they say that the majority of these crimes are commited because they know it won't stick with them for the rest of their lives. They commit these crimes, the crime gets into the newspaper, they tell their buddies that was them, tell them the details of the crime that wern't released to the public in the reports, and that's all that is needed.

Then if and when they do get caught, they go through the system, faceless and unknown by the public, except to their friends..... they are found guilty, got their street rep, thrown back onto the street and back into school, learn nothing, and then when they hit 18..... everything is wiped clean as if everything they did never happened.... .washing their hands completely from their actions and responsibilities.

They know they won't get famous directly for their crimes, but their crimes will.... that way, they can continue their lives as if nothing ever happened..... not accepting that there are real consequences for their actions.

Make them aware that the entire public is going to know who they are and what they did like every other criminal out there can and will be a deterant.

Will it prevent all youths from commiting crimes? Nothing is absolute.... but I know it will deter many, thereby reducing the crime overall.

And for those it doesn't deter, well..... it's not going to matter, because their asses will be in jail for a number of years, preventing them from commiting additional crimes and keeping the public safe.

 

[Praxius]

Hey that's interesting! So umm, what do we do not to rehabilitate young offenders?

What do we do to not rehabilitate young offenders?

Keep things the way they are now.

 

[Unforgiven]

What do we do to not rehabilitate young offenders?

Keep things the way they are now.

Maybe.

I wonder what works. Capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent. I think that has been proven quite clearly. So what do what want to do to prevent youth from getting into these serious problems like murder, assault with a weapon and sexual assault? Is it of any benefit to examine the mechanisms that make the choice to kill someone, seem to be the best choice at the moment.

Or are these guys simply a lost cause and best segregated from society for the rest of their lives so that society will be a little safer from them?

Also what about the factor that comes into play when someone knows their goose is cooked and they might as well go down as hard as possible. If you kill one person and you are going down for life, does it matter how many people you kill at that point?

 

[Zzarchov]

Colpy: If you want to lower the age of legal responsibility to 16, does that mean you want to lower the voting age to 16 to?

Privelage and Responsibility to go hand in hand, both ways.

Either they are adults and able to make rational decisions about the consequences of their actions or they aren't.

If they aren't then it makes no sense to try them in court as if they are. If they are rational then they can vote.

The need to "Get harsh" on kids is rather stupid. Half of the crimes they do is because their brain is stoked on so many hormones that if they were prescribed by a doctor you wouldn't let them operate heavy machinery or probably even drive home. Their brains are still growing.

If they are seriously messed up rehabilitation may not ever be possible. But naming them will only 1.) Give them a sense of fame, 2.) expose their younger siblings and family to systematic abuse.

Quite frankly, no one is going to remember their names when they get out of lock up anyways.

 

[Praxius]

Releasing names = labeling. That means self-fulfilling prophecy for youngsters. So nothing gained by doing that.

Depends on how you look at it.... you see it as youths acting as criminals to get attention..... I see it as youths acting as criminals because they know they can get away with it for the rest of their lives and that their childhood is a get out of jail free card.

If they wanted attention and having their names in the paper, then the youth justice act of course doesn't do that for them..... and yet.... they're still commiting the crimes, which begs the question on whether or not they want their entire communities to know who they are and what they did.

Sure it might impress their thug friends, but I imagine their thug friends won't be there to cover their ass when the entire community comes to shat all over their heads.

Tougher sentences. Great, more time in crime school.

You can take it two ways.... either you take that time to better yourself, figure out what you did wrong, and correct your ways.... or you can be a punk and therefore you can keep coming back to your favorite school.... eventually you won't be coming back out.

Either way, it works for me. They're the one's who commited the crimes, not us.... they can deal with the consequences of their actions (Something most now a days seem to forget exists)

Deterrence only works for rational people. Teenagers aren't generally rational, and those committing the violent crimes are definitely not rational. Deterrence doesn't work for them.

I've known plenty of people who commited a crime, went to jail, learned from their mistakes and never went back, let alone commited another crime. If you want to generalize every person who goes through the system as not rational and that deterrence don't work for them, then I feel that reasoning is flawed.

If they're not good deterrence, then what do you suggest they do? Clearly the current system isn't working, or else there wouldn't be such a nation-wide outcry to change it.

Then, three years down the road we'll look at the still climbing crime rate amongst youth and wonder what went wrong...

We shall see won't we?

 

[Ron in Regina]

If you don't pay your power bill, your power gets cut off. It's a consequence to your action...not if
you don't pay your power bill, you negotiate and might pay a portion and get to keep enjoying the
privilege of electrical power and the record is clean and the balance is forgiven, etc...

There have to be real consequences to your actions, or there's no real incentive to change for the
better. Right now, the current Youth Criminal Justice Act just isn't working. Not releasing the names
of the offenders doesn't seem to be making things better. Light or nonexistent sentences doesn't seem
to be the answer. Keeping things as they are doesn't seem to be the answer. So what now?

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually, for alot of bills you don't pay, then you can negotiate and keep enjoying the privelage with a forgiven balance etc.

Because if they just cut the power they lose all of the money you owe them.

If they negotiate they might still get half. And in the end, its about being paid, not setting an example to those who would skip payments.

 

[Praxius]

Maybe.

I wonder what works. Capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent. I think that has been proven quite clearly. So what do what want to do to prevent youth from getting into these serious problems like murder, assault with a weapon and sexual assault? Is it of any benefit to examine the mechanisms that make the choice to kill someone, seem to be the best choice at the moment.

Or are these guys simply a lost cause and best segregated from society for the rest of their lives so that society will be a little safer from them?

Also what about the factor that comes into play when someone knows their goose is cooked and they might as well go down as hard as possible. If you kill one person and you are going down for life, does it matter how many people you kill at that point?

Well then they best make it a good one, because they'll never see the light of day again..... either that or the police shoot their asses, they're dead, case closed.... the cost of one or two bullets compared to a life in jail.... either works for me.

 

[lone wolf]

Harris had one idea I really liked ... but he chickened out. It's been lightly touched in here: Boot camp! Discipline is what a lot of them are lacking at home. Whether that's because the parents don't care as long as the cheque comes in; the parents can't believe that anything they popped from their loins couldn't be as perfect as them; the parents haven't a clue about which of too many conflicting rules, regulations or laws they'd be breaking by giving the li'll bugger the spanking it deserves, or sending kid off to a room that's home to a TV, computer, Gameboy, telephone (that's punishment?) kids know their rights. At boot camp, they have none.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

:angryfire:According to Harper a 14 year old involved in murder will spend the rest of his or her life in Prison…………
The Conservative ideology about how to rehabilitate youth is absurd non intellectual and down and out mean…………..
Harper is prolife and this is what the scum thinks of a 14 year old misguided kid… PUT HIM OR HER IN JAIL UNTIL THEY DROP DEAD…………….
Build more jails for young offenders and destroy a life of a misguided kid, is what the Cons are all about…………………….
Revenge and punishment are not substitutes for rehabilitation
That is what the Cons are all about phony love for life, intolerant elitist f morons……………..:angryfire:

 

[Praxius]

Colpy: If you want to lower the age of legal responsibility to 16, does that mean you want to lower the voting age to 16 to?

Privelage and Responsibility to go hand in hand, both ways.

Either they are adults and able to make rational decisions about the consequences of their actions or they aren't.

If they aren't then it makes no sense to try them in court as if they are. If they are rational then they can vote.

The need to "Get harsh" on kids is rather stupid. Half of the crimes they do is because their brain is stoked on so many hormones that if they were prescribed by a doctor you wouldn't let them operate heavy machinery or probably even drive home. Their brains are still growing.

That's no excuse. You, I and everybody else was young at one time or another, I imagine the majority of us never stepped foot in a police station, let alone charged for a crime..... their hormones are a poor excuse for their actions and is no different then using "I was drunk" as an excuse.

If they are seriously messed up rehabilitation may not ever be possible. But naming them will only 1.) Give them a sense of fame, 2.) expose their younger siblings and family to systematic abuse.

1. - Their fame won't be a positive one, and won't do them any good behind bars.

2. - Those who abuse or harass their family should be charged with their own offenses, respectively.

Quite frankly, no one is going to remember their names when they get out of lock up anyways.

Nope, but it'll be hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives when the apply for a job or try and make a life for themselves, and thus make things much harder for them. If they think their lives are hard now, expect it to get much worse if they endanger those around them in society. And if that doesn't deter them from commiting crimes, then lock them away for good.

If they don't want to correct their ways, if they're not going to give a crap about everybody else's safety and security, and if they're just going to continue commiting crimes at all of our expenses, then why the hell should we and their direct victims have to take the brunt of the situation and pay for their own mistakes?

What does this teach other youths planning to commit crimes?

It teaches them that they can lash out, attack, kill, rape, etc. those they hate or treated them in a way they might not have liked, and while they might get a month or two under house arrest, it's small potatos to them compared to the people they wanted to make suffer and who have to live with their actions for the rest of their lives..... all the while they laugh it up and continuing on with their lives as if nothing ever happened.

That's straight out bullsh*t if you ask me, and the victims and community shouldn't have to suffer more in order to protect their sorry asses.

But that's just me.

 

[no color]

In my opinion, this is exactly what is needed....

That is good news. The government appears to be serious in regards to cracking down on youth crime. In the past, priority was placed on rehabilitating the young criminal, with no thought about the victim or in the case of murder, the victim's family members. Now with lengthy prison time being proposed for serious youth related crimes such as murder, family members of murder victims will feel a sense of justice. I hope this is a trend of things to come. As our justice system stands now, it is catered to favor the criminal over the victim in many cases.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

That is good news. The government appears to be serious in regards to cracking down on youth crime. In the past, priority was placed on rehabilitating the young criminal, with no thought about the victim or in the case of murder, the victim's family members. Now with lengthy prison time being proposed for serious youth related crimes such as murder, family members of murder victims will feel a sense of justice. I hope this is a trend of things to come. As our justice system stands now, it is catered to favor the criminal over the victim in many cases.

:roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[Tonington]

Some parents don't have a clue what their kids have been up to.

I'm pretty sure it's SOP for police officers to return kids to their guardians when they've been arrested.

Depends on how you look at it.... you see it as youths acting as criminals to get attention.....

I don't see it that way at all. Quit telling me things I never said Praxius, it's getting annoying. And then you go off on those rants with your faulty assertions...it's a waste of space.

You can take it two ways.... either you take that time to better yourself, figure out what you did wrong, and correct your ways.... or you can be a punk and therefore you can keep coming back to your favorite school.... eventually you won't be coming back out.

Yes, very good. You're doing quite well at stating the obvious. How in the hell does that address the rising youth crime rate, which is the entire impetus for Harper's move to change the YOA?

I've known plenty of people who commited a crime, went to jail, learned from their mistakes and never went back, let alone commited another crime. If you want to generalize every person who goes through the system as not rational and that deterrence don't work for them, then I feel that reasoning is flawed.

Well, if deterrence really worked, your formerly criminal associates never would have been criminals, now would they? They were rehabilitated and that's great, but that doesn't mean they were thinking rationally when they committed their crimes now does it? If they were thinking rationally, they probably would have thought:

"Gee, it's probably best that I don't stab that guy, even though it would feel pretty good. I think I'd rather stay on the free to roam side of society"...

If they're not good deterrence, then what do you suggest they do?

Umm, move away from the standard Becker-Ehrlich deterrence models and focus on incorporating more of the root causes of crime. This isn't brain surgery. Relative income levels are positively correlated with crime, the relative being opportunities for legal income. Not all poor people are criminals, but the odds are better they will be.

It's a change of incentives. The deterrence models all operate on negative incentives to committ crimes. They don't really work that well. Positive incentives work much better, which is why the economic approach to crime has been more popular in recent years. For instance, the delinquincy rates tend to increase with age until the late teens, when they begin to decline again. Legal wages are a representation of opportunity costs for committing crimes.

Other areas of improvement are integration of the various programs addressing crime in youth, and helping rehabilitate young criminals. They're often set-up in isolation. Most of the successfull inner-city programs around North America involve this approach. Using role models, reformed criminals, employment building work shops, and team building exercises like sports for example.

Clearly the current system isn't working, or else there wouldn't be such a nation-wide outcry to change it.

Obviously. So why would we just change it towards more of the same?

 

[Tonington]

Not releasing the names of the offenders doesn't seem to be making things better.

True. But releasing the names doesn't a priori mean it will make things better either.

 

[Zzarchov]

Im not saying excuse their hormones for blatantly wrong things.

But what about an out of control fist fight that turns for the worse?
Drug Use?
Driving under the influence?

None of these are tolerable, but I have met people who did these things, never got caught "luckily", and who smartened up and became normal middle class family men and women.

Rehabilitation is either possible or its not. Sometimes waiting for people to smarten up would be enough in the long run,

Sometimes people are such sociopaths that they should go to a looney bin and stay there.

Do you wanna mix Charles Manson Jr and Johnny McDrunkenFight in the same cell? Is it fair to get one stupid kid who can be saved killed by putting him next to a sociopath?

If someone can't be rehabilitated there is something wrong with them, physically wrong in their brains. Seperate them from society permanently. It doesn't even need to be punishment, you can make them a nice little home far up north out of reach of civilization and get them a job that telecommutes.

But either someone can be helped or they can't, and if they can't you don't "lock them up longer and shame them", you remove them from society for ever.

 

[lone wolf]

:angryfire:According to Harper a 14 year old involved in murder will spend the rest of his or her life in Prison…………
The Conservative ideology about how to rehabilitate youth is absurd non intellectual and down and out mean…………..
Harper is prolife and this is what the scum thinks of a 14 year old misguided kid… PUT HIM OR HER IN JAIL UNTIL THEY DROP DEAD…………….
Build more jails for young offenders and destroy a life of a misguided kid, is what the Cons are all about…………………….
Revenge and punishment are not substitutes for rehabilitation
That is what the Cons are all about phony love for life, intolerant elitist f morons……………..:angryfire:

A 14 year old would spend no more time in prison for murder than a 30 year old. Do you think up these policies when you're doing the morning dump?