Harper Tough on Crime

[Doryman]

The Globe and Mail seems to forget to aid that Harper wants to increase the age of consent, but try 14 year old children as adults. A very American thing to do.[/quote]

A very logical thing to do. A 14 yr old is not a child, he is a young adult, and is intelligent enough to realize that murder, rape, theft and arson are no-no's. Anyone who believes a 14 year old isn't mentally competent enough to understand that gang-raping and executing their teacher is, not only extremely wrong, but will land them in a whole lot of trouble, is seriously out of touch with human development. Young men and women of that age may be angsty and emotional,, but they know what they are doing. Punish them the same as you would punish an adult.

And stop treating teen-agers like babies, anyway, that half the problem right there. Sheesh!

 

[the caracal kid]

what about a 12 year old then, dory?

societies once married off people at 12. So should we consider 12 year olds adults?

 

[Doryman]

Re: RE: Harper Tough on Crime

what about a 12 year old then, dory?

societies once married off people at 12. So should we consider 12 year olds adults?

I believe that they should be considered responsible for their actions, yes. If you are physically and mentally capable of pulling off something like murder ( especially on the scale of Columbine) then they should be held accountable for it.

 

[the caracal kid]

fair enough,

you are a "tough on crime" person, and think all people capable of thinking about their actions should be treated the same, correct?

then would it not be better to have laws that address the mental age and capabilites of the accused? Should we not address each case individually rather than trying to ram people into molds?

 

[nomore]

Re: RE: Harper Tough on Crime

while hands off sounds wonderful,

the nature of the human is to serve himself first,
and then when it benefits him to serve society.

this does not create a strong society,
it creates a framework of opportunism.

By applying social control, we are able to mold a more compassionate framework.
Humans take well to social programming.
In its correct utilization, we can encourage the growth of social conscience, of greater understanding.

Now this is a two edged sword.
I am not disguising the rather unpleasent potential of social control.
We have social engineering at play in any type of society though,
and we should use it to create a foundation the provides opportunity for happiness to all.
Of course, i have not really expressed what this better society is, although you have probably guessed by now i see it time to progress beyond a goods based economy and openly recognize the weaknesses inherent in capitalism as being the same weaknesses found in its two siblings.

The integrity of the people we can count on, in a free system is that of man vs man.
It is in Man vs Man we experience crime,
and thus to eliminate crime, we must provide positive avenues to all citizens and reduce the desires that fuel selfishness.

We have the tools and knowledge to make society whatever we want it to be.
We, should act on it in good social consciousness, not out of greed for power, privilage, wealth or other selfish desires.

It is not possible to get rid of the desires that fuel selfishness. It is unfortunatly human nature, and actually is part of nature in general. Every species in the world has the self preservation trait, which could also be considered selfish.

The type of society you are trying to describe has already been tried, and the things you talk about are actually very similar looking to comunism. Which obviously dosen't work, for the reason stated above...Human Nature. Comunism proved to fuel rampant corruption, most socialist countires have major problems with coruption. (sound familiar).

People need incentives, and need to know their hard work is rewarded. This is the fundamental priciple of a capitalist system. When people begin to see people living for free off the hard work of others, this creates animosity, and distain, for other human beings.
This is what creates the large divides, because regular people begin to resent people who use the system, and they get the attitude of "why should I help him, my taxes pay for him to sit on his a**"
As a result of this, the people using the system begin to beleive they are being singled out because they don't make enough money etc. and thus society splits.

These programs, as Jay pointed out, become something that people feel they are entitled to, rather than feeling the need they should be working for it. Hence why it is so much harder to get rid of social programs, than it is to just deny them in the first place.

 

[the caracal kid]

the weaknesses of socialism and capitalism are the same.

capitalism also causes that split in society.

agreed that communism does not work because it runs contrary to the nature of humans.

However, humans are maliable, and we can construct a more peaceful society with the correct social engineering. If we can't trust them to evolve on their own, we can program the miscreant behaviours out! Sounds rather sinsister perhaps, and the first question you should dutifully ask is who decides on the programming and who does it.

So long as man continues to live in a "cave dweller" society, the problems man has faced since those days will continue.

edit: before you answer the question on who should design the new social engineering, you should ask questions about who is doing it now. If you look at the great divide in the US, it is born of capitalism and those now "with the power" are engineering the US to best serve their selfish needs.

 

[Ten Packs]

"Raise the age of consent from 14"?

Someone here has a problem with that, pray-tell?

As it is, someone of my age (mid-fifties) can have sex with a 14-year-old-girl - if that's not enough to bring a big "EWWWW!" to you, please do us all a favour and never have children!!!

 

[Ten Packs]

A minimum 5 -10 year add-on for using a deadly gun in commission of a crime?

GREAT!!!

 

[Jersay]

Ten Packs I agree with you that the age of consent should be raised but who will be regulating it. If children around about fourteen can't have sex anymore they will just do it more secretly and wouldn't tell their parents.

Also I don't preceive the logic that you lock up a fourteen year old as an adult and you continue to revoke other rights like voting and drinking and drivin until a later age because they are childs.

Therefore, if you think a 14 year old should go to jail as an Adult, then you can allow them to have sex.

And back on the topic of sex and children, there should be a national registry, not the provincial and federal ones. There should be a registry that takes sex offenders and lump them all together.

Harper is wasting his time on these two aspects of his crime ideology.

 

[TenPenny]

Harper's missing something: personally, I think sexual abuse of children under 12 should be a capital offense; 12-16 should be life in prison with no parole. And no, I'm not kidding. I have nothing but contempt for people who commit crimes like this. Sick, yes, they are, but too bad. This is the one area where I believe in capital punishment. Sexual abuse of children cannot be treated too harshly in my view.

 

[nomore]

Re: RE: Harper Tough on Crime

the weaknesses of socialism and capitalism are the same.

capitalism also causes that split in society.

agreed that communism does not work because it runs contrary to the nature of humans.

However, humans are maliable, and we can construct a more peaceful society with the correct social engineering. If we can't trust them to evolve on their own, we can program the miscreant behaviours out! Sounds rather sinsister perhaps, and the first question you should dutifully ask is who decides on the programming and who does it.

So long as man continues to live in a "cave dweller" society, the problems man has faced since those days will continue.

edit: before you answer the question on who should design the new social engineering, you should ask questions about who is doing it now. If you look at the great divide in the US, it is born of capitalism and those now "with the power" are engineering the US to best serve their selfish needs.

I agree Capitalism has it faults as well, no system is perfect. However, IMO capitalism is more of a self regulating entity, rather than an "all for one, one for all" system.

And it's funny because you asked my question before I asked it, who does the programming? Since, in my view, it will never be regulated properly, no-one thinks the same on every topic (as illustrated in this forum ) It would be impossible to make a system like that work, because I don't think the majority of humans are maliable, they don't accept change very easily. (such as illustrated in this election). They are however easily influenced by propaganda, but once again, this proved devistating when it was attempted in the old soviet union.

what it come down to, is I just don't think one person's bad choice, should be made to be society's burden.

 

[nomore]

Ten Packs I agree with you that the age of consent should be raised but who will be regulating it. If children around about fourteen can't have sex anymore they will just do it more secretly and wouldn't tell their parents.

Also I don't preceive the logic that you lock up a fourteen year old as an adult and you continue to revoke other rights like voting and drinking and drivin until a later age because they are childs.

Therefore, if you think a 14 year old should go to jail as an Adult, then you can allow them to have sex.

And back on the topic of sex and children, there should be a national registry, not the provincial and federal ones. There should be a registry that takes sex offenders and lump them all together.

Harper is wasting his time on these two aspects of his crime ideology.

I think you are missing what exactly the age of consent means. by raising it, it dosen't mean they can't have sex with someone their age, it means they can't legally consent to sex with an adult when they are below the age of consent.

 

[the caracal kid]

nomore,

this is why a proper mix of socialism and capitalism (until there is a shift in what drives the economics of society) is the best solution.

the same is true of crime: we must address the root causes of the crimes, develop methods of re-integration into society for criminals, as well as ensure there is enough of a deterant without becoming to harsh (this requires a more flexable system so each convict is addressed as an individual and not a statistic - this is why i oppose maniditory sentencing).

 

[Jersay]

But why raise the age of consent, but a 14 year old can go to prison for a while and get a huge record and have a life ruined when they are a child so they go to prison but they have to wait till they are older to

drive, drink, vote, which are other Adult rights.

Do them all at the same age.

 

[Colpy]

But why raise the age of consent, but a 14 year old can go to prison for a while and get a huge record and have a life ruined when they are a child so they go to prison but they have to wait till they are older to

drive, drink, vote, which are other Adult rights.

Do them all at the same age.

Got to disagree here. These are wildly different things.

I'm not sure what the age of consent should be, 14 or 16. I lean towards 14, simply because when I was young I knew lots of 17 year old guys with 15 year old girlfriends.............

The age of criminal responsibility should be 16, IMHO. That is the way it was when I was a young hell-raiser, and I think it was just and sensible.

I would have no problem with the creation of some sort of middle ground for criminal responsibility, say from 14 to 18, with special separate holding facilities, educational and counselling opportunities. But we need to realize that young people can be VERY bad, and VERY dangerous, and take steps to intervene, and to get them off the street.

As for voting, I would leave it at 18. However, if forced to change the voting age, I would RAISE it.

At 17, I was a Marxist.

At 51, I am a hard-core conservative.

At 17, you know dick about life. That simple.

In ancient Greece the vote age was 30. :?

 

[Jersay]

Got to disagree here. These are wildly different things.

I'm not sure what the age of consent should be, 14 or 16. I lean towards 14, simply because when I was young I knew lots of 17 year old guys with 15 year old girlfriends.............

The age of criminal responsibility should be 16, IMHO. That is the way it was when I was a young hell-raiser, and I think it was just and sensible.

I would have no problem with the creation of some sort of middle ground for criminal responsibility, say from 14 to 18, with special separate holding facilities, educational and counselling opportunities. But we need to realize that young people can be VERY bad, and VERY dangerous, and take steps to intervene, and to get them off the street.

As for voting, I would leave it at 18. However, if forced to change the voting age, I would RAISE it.

At 17, I was a Marxist.

At 51, I am a hard-core conservative.

At 17, you know dick about life. That simple.

In ancient Greece the vote age was 30.

14 is a little too young though to try as an adult. What do you do then, send them to prisons with adults. Harper hasn't said this. I do agree that consent should be raised and I do agree 16 should be for prison but 14 is kind of steep.

 

[Citizen]

14 is a little too young though to try as an adult. What do you do then, send them to prisons with adults. Harper hasn't said this. I do agree that consent should be raised and I do agree 16 should be for prison but 14 is kind of steep.

I disagree. 14 year olds are old enough to be tried as adults. They can be sent to juvvie facilities until they're 18, then moved to adult prisons to serve the rest of their sentences.

 

[the caracal kid]

but the problem with reactionary "lock them up" thoughts is all you end up with is prisons filled with people and yet you still have the same problems "in the streets".

Its like saying, "i know every time i flush my toilet it will overflow, but i will just mop up the water rather than fixing the toilet".

 

[Citizen]

Re: RE: Harper Tough on Crime

but the problem with reactionary "lock them up" thoughts is all you end up with is prisons filled with people and yet you still have the same problems "in the streets".

Its like saying, "i know every time i flush my toilet it will overflow, but i will just mop up the water rather than fixing the toilet".

Initially, that's exactly what would happen. Do the crime, do the time and all that.

Our politicians need to put more responsibility on parents in this country. I'm sick and tired of being forced to hand over my hard earned money so politicians can funnel it into feel good programs for thugs that weren't parented properly!

 

[paulmartin]

Our politicians need to put more responsibility on parents in this country. I'm sick and tired of being forced to hand over my hard earned money so politicians can funnel it into feel good programs for thugs that weren't parented properly!

It's seems most want something done yet for thirteen years the liberals wouldn't do anything about it?


Art Hanger did present a bill on this:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-490/C-490_1/C-490_cover-E.html

We all know what happened.