Harper Tough on Crime
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
I dislike how this issue is being handled by CBC, and CTV. Far too much emphasis is being placed on deterrance and rehabilitation. Deterrance, and rehabilitations, is nice where possible, but the chief goal of the criminal justice system is simple threat elimination.
The right is looking at this too much with an eye to paying back the criminal for his crime, and making sure the justice system seems tough in the eyes of potential criminals (and hence, in theory, acts as an effective deterrant)
The left is looking at this too much with an eye to rehabilitation, and focus' far too much on the well-being of the criminal over and above the well-being of the victim/society at large.
The problem is we have made this issue far too emotional by putting into place a punishment/forgiveness dichotomy. The degree of malice, and/or the degree of comfort, we show to criminals is not the issue here. Indeed, I would favour taking as cool, calm, and lacking in emotion, approach to criminals as possible. Not the passionate seeking of retribution, but nor the bleeding heart of mercy.
The principle goal of the justice system should simply be to keep the law-abiding public as safe as reasonably possible. It's goal should be the day-to-day continuation of smooth societal functioning where one doesn't need to worry about running into violent criminals.
Deterrance is a part of this. Rehabilitation is a part of this. However, deterrance and rehabilitation aren't always possible. For example, child rapists are almost impossible to rehabilitate - they have a simply horrendous recidivism rate. On the other hand, those on the left are right when they say that criminals usually don't think about what sentence they might have to serve before they commit their crimes. Most of them simply think they'll get away with the crime anyway.
The strictness of the sentencing isn't going to have much of a deterrance, one way or the other, on such people. On the other hand, rehabilitation attempts aren't going to have much affect on the vast majority of child rapists, for example.
We need to stop thinking about this issue emotionally, and ideologically, and more logically.
The Conservatives' policy on crime is, pretty much by default, the best one. Their focus is wrong, as is the focus of the NDP and the Liberals (and the media as well). However, their policy, if put into effect, does result in known threats - i.e. convicted criminals - staying safely behind bars for longer periods of time.
Now, some crimes - like using marijuana - shouldn't see you go to jail at all. It's a terrible waste of tax payer money to put a marijuana user/seller into jail. Anybody who engages in crimes that are not harming others and/or causing society to function much less smoothly shouldn't serve jail time. However, people like child rapists, serial killers, gangsters, repeat offenders in every other violent crime category, should be locked behind bars as long as possible, simply to keep our communities and streets as safe as possible.
The US violent crime rate has gone down NOT because people are terribly afraid to commit crimes (i.e. being deterred), but because a large percentage of the absolute number of the people in the US capable of/likely to commit violent crimes are behind bars... and staying there for long periods of time. It's not threat prevention, it's simply threat elimination. We have a known threat. We put him/her in jail where s/he simply can't hurt law-abiding citizens. If we're VERY confidant that s/he's been rehabilitated, we let him/her free. If we're not, s/he should stay there. The Conservatives - once again by no virture of their own thinking - come the closest to this viewpoint which I hold.
The right is looking at this too much with an eye to paying back the criminal for his crime, and making sure the justice system seems tough in the eyes of potential criminals (and hence, in theory, acts as an effective deterrant)
The left is looking at this too much with an eye to rehabilitation, and focus' far too much on the well-being of the criminal over and above the well-being of the victim/society at large.
The problem is we have made this issue far too emotional by putting into place a punishment/forgiveness dichotomy. The degree of malice, and/or the degree of comfort, we show to criminals is not the issue here. Indeed, I would favour taking as cool, calm, and lacking in emotion, approach to criminals as possible. Not the passionate seeking of retribution, but nor the bleeding heart of mercy.
The principle goal of the justice system should simply be to keep the law-abiding public as safe as reasonably possible. It's goal should be the day-to-day continuation of smooth societal functioning where one doesn't need to worry about running into violent criminals.
Deterrance is a part of this. Rehabilitation is a part of this. However, deterrance and rehabilitation aren't always possible. For example, child rapists are almost impossible to rehabilitate - they have a simply horrendous recidivism rate. On the other hand, those on the left are right when they say that criminals usually don't think about what sentence they might have to serve before they commit their crimes. Most of them simply think they'll get away with the crime anyway.
The strictness of the sentencing isn't going to have much of a deterrance, one way or the other, on such people. On the other hand, rehabilitation attempts aren't going to have much affect on the vast majority of child rapists, for example.
We need to stop thinking about this issue emotionally, and ideologically, and more logically.
The Conservatives' policy on crime is, pretty much by default, the best one. Their focus is wrong, as is the focus of the NDP and the Liberals (and the media as well). However, their policy, if put into effect, does result in known threats - i.e. convicted criminals - staying safely behind bars for longer periods of time.
Now, some crimes - like using marijuana - shouldn't see you go to jail at all. It's a terrible waste of tax payer money to put a marijuana user/seller into jail. Anybody who engages in crimes that are not harming others and/or causing society to function much less smoothly shouldn't serve jail time. However, people like child rapists, serial killers, gangsters, repeat offenders in every other violent crime category, should be locked behind bars as long as possible, simply to keep our communities and streets as safe as possible.
The US violent crime rate has gone down NOT because people are terribly afraid to commit crimes (i.e. being deterred), but because a large percentage of the absolute number of the people in the US capable of/likely to commit violent crimes are behind bars... and staying there for long periods of time. It's not threat prevention, it's simply threat elimination. We have a known threat. We put him/her in jail where s/he simply can't hurt law-abiding citizens. If we're VERY confidant that s/he's been rehabilitated, we let him/her free. If we're not, s/he should stay there. The Conservatives - once again by no virture of their own thinking - come the closest to this viewpoint which I hold.
A New Suggestion
:arrow: Introduction
I have a suggestion.
Imprisonment is meant more to protect society from an offender than it is to punish the offender, which is rightly so, in my opinion. So long as the sentence can assure public safety and security are in tact, then such a sentence is indeed adequate. Whether or not the offender feels "punished" is, à mon avis, entirely secondary.
Sometimes, imprisonment is not an appropriate sentence for the crime. I take the incarceration of Ms. Martha Stewart in the United States — her imprisonment was not for the purpose of protecting the public good, but rather to "punish" her, which is entirely irrelevent. I would propose that crimes that have not posed a threat of harm to society be not sentenced with the conventions that we use now.
I would recommend that we change the sentences of non-violent crimes to be less oriented on punishment, and more oriented on undoing the crime and compensating the public for any losses that it may have incurred as a result of the offense.
:arrow: The Proposal
Summary
Persons who do not pose a risk to society, in terms of causing society to incur some sort of permanent harm or damage, should not be sentenced to unreasonable terms of imprisonment or other unconstructive options. Rather, they should be required to undo whatever crime they had been convicted of doing, supervised for a time to ensure that there is not a re-offense, and then the matter should be deemed to have been closed.
A Proposal to decrease undue imprisonment and to promote constructive sentencing in Canada
1. Any one who commits a crime in Canada, but who is not convicted of high treason, treason, or murder, or of any crime that would cause physical harm or undue emotional distress to a person, or persons:
(a) shall be sentenced to pay for any damages that may have been incurred as a result of the offense, as calculated by a committee of three persons to be appointed by the Justice responsible for ordering the sentence of the offender;
(b) shall be required, as determined by the Justice responsible for ordering the sentence of the offender, to take all reasonable steps necessary, through whatever means the Court may deem appropriate, to endeavour to restore the state of society to that as it had been before the offense had been done;
(c) shall have restrictions placed on their person, so long as such restrictions are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, for the purpose of preventing an offense from being committed again, for a period of time to be no longer than one year, the length of which to be determined by the Justice responsible for ordering the sentence of the offender.
2. (a) If an offender violates any restrictions placed on their person pursuant to Subsection (b) of Section 1 of this Proposal, and such a violation is construed in and of itself as an offense under the Criminal Code of Canada, then such an offender shall be arrested and detained for having done so.
(b) If an offender violates and restrictions placed on their person pursuant to Subsection (b) of Section 1 of this Proposal, and such a violation is not construed in and of itself as an offense under the Criminal Code of Canada, then such an offender shall be fined an amount to be determined by an Act of Parliament or, in the absence of such an Act, by the Minister of Justice.
3. For greater certainty, this Proposal does not apply to an offense that causes physical injury or death, or that causes undue emotional stress, or that is treason or high treason.
:!: Amendment Added a Subsection after Subsection (a) of Section 1, and amended Subsection (c) of the same, and renumbered the Subsections as warranted to restore an orderly format.
:arrow: Introduction
I have a suggestion.
Imprisonment is meant more to protect society from an offender than it is to punish the offender, which is rightly so, in my opinion. So long as the sentence can assure public safety and security are in tact, then such a sentence is indeed adequate. Whether or not the offender feels "punished" is, à mon avis, entirely secondary.
Sometimes, imprisonment is not an appropriate sentence for the crime. I take the incarceration of Ms. Martha Stewart in the United States — her imprisonment was not for the purpose of protecting the public good, but rather to "punish" her, which is entirely irrelevent. I would propose that crimes that have not posed a threat of harm to society be not sentenced with the conventions that we use now.
I would recommend that we change the sentences of non-violent crimes to be less oriented on punishment, and more oriented on undoing the crime and compensating the public for any losses that it may have incurred as a result of the offense.
:arrow: The Proposal
Summary
Persons who do not pose a risk to society, in terms of causing society to incur some sort of permanent harm or damage, should not be sentenced to unreasonable terms of imprisonment or other unconstructive options. Rather, they should be required to undo whatever crime they had been convicted of doing, supervised for a time to ensure that there is not a re-offense, and then the matter should be deemed to have been closed.
A Proposal to decrease undue imprisonment and to promote constructive sentencing in Canada
1. Any one who commits a crime in Canada, but who is not convicted of high treason, treason, or murder, or of any crime that would cause physical harm or undue emotional distress to a person, or persons:
(a) shall be sentenced to pay for any damages that may have been incurred as a result of the offense, as calculated by a committee of three persons to be appointed by the Justice responsible for ordering the sentence of the offender;
(b) shall be required, as determined by the Justice responsible for ordering the sentence of the offender, to take all reasonable steps necessary, through whatever means the Court may deem appropriate, to endeavour to restore the state of society to that as it had been before the offense had been done;
(c) shall have restrictions placed on their person, so long as such restrictions are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, for the purpose of preventing an offense from being committed again, for a period of time to be no longer than one year, the length of which to be determined by the Justice responsible for ordering the sentence of the offender.
2. (a) If an offender violates any restrictions placed on their person pursuant to Subsection (b) of Section 1 of this Proposal, and such a violation is construed in and of itself as an offense under the Criminal Code of Canada, then such an offender shall be arrested and detained for having done so.
(b) If an offender violates and restrictions placed on their person pursuant to Subsection (b) of Section 1 of this Proposal, and such a violation is not construed in and of itself as an offense under the Criminal Code of Canada, then such an offender shall be fined an amount to be determined by an Act of Parliament or, in the absence of such an Act, by the Minister of Justice.
3. For greater certainty, this Proposal does not apply to an offense that causes physical injury or death, or that causes undue emotional stress, or that is treason or high treason.
:!: Amendment Added a Subsection after Subsection (a) of Section 1, and amended Subsection (c) of the same, and renumbered the Subsections as warranted to restore an orderly format.
FiveParadox - I largely agree with that. Well, in actual fact, I probably entirely agree with that... it's just that I'm focusing primarily on genuine threats, while you're focusing on "criminals" who aren't threats.
Imprisoning Marth Stewart was dumb, from a purely pragmatic perspective. It would be much more productive to simply fine her for a high cash settlement which the US government could then turn around and use for some beneficial cause (paying down its debt, putting more money into education, etc...).
Imprisoning Marth Stewart was dumb, from a purely pragmatic perspective. It would be much more productive to simply fine her for a high cash settlement which the US government could then turn around and use for some beneficial cause (paying down its debt, putting more money into education, etc...).
Benefit of My Proposal
See, if we used a proposal such as mine, then Canada would save tons of money on unnecessary imprisonment — funds that could be diverted to whatever measures we may deem at a later date to be appopriate in order to curb more serious, violent crimes.
See, if we used a proposal such as mine, then Canada would save tons of money on unnecessary imprisonment — funds that could be diverted to whatever measures we may deem at a later date to be appopriate in order to curb more serious, violent crimes.
Re: A New Suggestion
Imprisonment is also societal revenge for the heinous acts criminals. It's a feel good solution to those of us who are law abiding citizens.
I have to ask here - how do you propose that non-violent poor criminals pay for damages and/or restore the state of society to that as it had been before the offense had been done?
FiveParadox said:
Imprisonment is also societal revenge for the heinous acts criminals. It's a feel good solution to those of us who are law abiding citizens.
I have to ask here - how do you propose that non-violent poor criminals pay for damages and/or restore the state of society to that as it had been before the offense had been done?
Entertaining Debate
In such a case, where one is unable to pay for damages, then one should be required, in my opinion, the Government would obviously end up paying the damages on their behalf — however, this does not mean that the offender gets off scott-free! They should, in my opinion, be required to perform an amount of community service equal to no less than the value of the damages; we could equate the damage to an amount of hours, for example.
My point is, there's no point in locking someone up who isn't dangerous.
In such a case, where one is unable to pay for damages, then one should be required, in my opinion, the Government would obviously end up paying the damages on their behalf — however, this does not mean that the offender gets off scott-free! They should, in my opinion, be required to perform an amount of community service equal to no less than the value of the damages; we could equate the damage to an amount of hours, for example.
My point is, there's no point in locking someone up who isn't dangerous.
Re: Entertaining Debate
Interesting.
The government (us) would end up paying damages. In my view, I would prefer my tax dollars be put towards the cost of incarceration.
I disagree with your assertion that there's no point in locking someone up who isn't dangerous. We have sentencing guidelines that ensure a non-violent criminal doesn't get 25 years in a federal prison. I see nothing wrong with that.
"Persons who do not pose a risk to society,"
Under your proposal, who would determine whether someone is a risk to society or not?
FiveParadox said:
Interesting.
The government (us) would end up paying damages. In my view, I would prefer my tax dollars be put towards the cost of incarceration.
I disagree with your assertion that there's no point in locking someone up who isn't dangerous. We have sentencing guidelines that ensure a non-violent criminal doesn't get 25 years in a federal prison. I see nothing wrong with that.
"Persons who do not pose a risk to society,"
Under your proposal, who would determine whether someone is a risk to society or not?
Risk to Society
In being literal, anyone is a risk to society, whether they have committed a crime, intend to commit a crime, or neither of these.
I am not sure; it's a loose proposal that I wrote up, it needs some tweaking and reconsideration, obviously. Consider it to be "passed at first reading" — now we debate the principle of the bill, make amendments, and then pass it at second, eh?
In being literal, anyone is a risk to society, whether they have committed a crime, intend to commit a crime, or neither of these.
I am not sure; it's a loose proposal that I wrote up, it needs some tweaking and reconsideration, obviously. Consider it to be "passed at first reading" — now we debate the principle of the bill, make amendments, and then pass it at second, eh?
Alright, but let's "tweak" it abit before it goes for first reading.
How it will be determined who poses a risk to society or not? I should think that would be included in this section.
I disagree that the Justice hearing the case should also be the individual charged with appointing your three committee persons. That sounds like a conflict, no?
Can't improve on that one - you break it, you fix it!
What sort of restrictions?
How it will be determined who poses a risk to society or not? I should think that would be included in this section.
I disagree that the Justice hearing the case should also be the individual charged with appointing your three committee persons. That sounds like a conflict, no?
Can't improve on that one - you break it, you fix it!
What sort of restrictions?
Well, Five Paradox, if you manage to get this passed, I am immediate going to drive off with one of my companies armoured trucks, with several million on board. 
Your original theses is faulty;
Punishment MUST be a part of the legal system, as only the absolute knowledge that punishment is forthcoming is a deterent.
Your original theses is faulty;
Punishment MUST be a part of the legal system, as only the absolute knowledge that punishment is forthcoming is a deterent.
Citizen said:
You can't convince a real sociopath that he WILL be punished.....he thinks he is far too smart for that.
Debate at First Reading
Persons who commit crimes such as tax evasion, or fraud, or insader trading, only serve to tie up the prison system with persons who really have no reason to be there. They don't need to be isolated from the people of Canada — so rather than throw them into prison, we should subject them to some kind of constructive sentence.
Therefore, I would suggest that perhaps a Commission be established, to be styled the Commission on Offense Risk Review, that could make such determinations where the law would perhaps be "gray," or "unclear" — the Commissioner could be appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister (as is the case with each and every other Commissioner of Parliament), and his or her deputies and assistants could be appointed on the advice of the Commissioner himself.
The Summary can be thought of as a preamble; it carries no weight as to the technical provisions of what I proposed. However, to be clear, by a "risk" I refer to the risk of injury to someone, or an offense that would be deemed "serious" and "violent" — for example, high treason, or treason, or murder, or manslaughter, or assault, or terrorism, or similar offenses. Such would make someone "dangerous," in my opinion, so as to make this Proposal not apply to them — such persons should, in my opinion, be imprisoned for their offenses.Citizen said:
Persons who commit crimes such as tax evasion, or fraud, or insader trading, only serve to tie up the prison system with persons who really have no reason to be there. They don't need to be isolated from the people of Canada — so rather than throw them into prison, we should subject them to some kind of constructive sentence.
On further review, I agree with your assertion.Citizen said:
Therefore, I would suggest that perhaps a Commission be established, to be styled the Commission on Offense Risk Review, that could make such determinations where the law would perhaps be "gray," or "unclear" — the Commissioner could be appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister (as is the case with each and every other Commissioner of Parliament), and his or her deputies and assistants could be appointed on the advice of the Commissioner himself.
For example, if a citizen had been convicted of fraud, then such a citizen could be restricted from conducting business with a particular person, or persons, for a period of time, or from working for a specific company for a period of time, or in a field of work; depending on the offense, perhaps a Commission could come up with the "creative" restrictions that would be necessary for each and every unique case.Citizen said:
Re: Debate at First Reading
I suggest to you that many, if not most, of the invidivuals you mention are white collar sociopaths. Many are repeat offenders who have never been charged, convicted and sentenced before and medical literature is quite clear that there's no cure for sociopathy.
In other words, constructive sentencing would be anything but. They would simply be affirmed as untouchable.
I agree with your revision.
I think there would be a Charter challenge to such a provision, although I certainly agree with what you've proposed.
For example, if a person robs the TD Bank, would that mean they could no longer be a client of any bank?
FiveParadox said:
I suggest to you that many, if not most, of the invidivuals you mention are white collar sociopaths. Many are repeat offenders who have never been charged, convicted and sentenced before and medical literature is quite clear that there's no cure for sociopathy.
In other words, constructive sentencing would be anything but. They would simply be affirmed as untouchable.
I agree with your revision.
I think there would be a Charter challenge to such a provision, although I certainly agree with what you've proposed.
For example, if a person robs the TD Bank, would that mean they could no longer be a client of any bank?
Bank Patronage
Well, I'm sure that TD Bank would be more than happy to see him go, lol.
I'd love to keep talking about this, but I have school tomorrow, so I'm off to bed. 'Night, everybody.
Well, I'm sure that TD Bank would be more than happy to see him go, lol.
I'd love to keep talking about this, but I have school tomorrow, so I'm off to bed. 'Night, everybody.