Murders in Toronto
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Suggestion Poses Serious Problems
In my opinion, the suggestion of offering rewards for "turning in" people you know for having committed crimes needs serious re-consideration.
(a) This could lead to serious cases of fraud. People may commit crimes, frame those around them, and "turn them in" for the purpose of not only having successfully committed a crime in the first place, but for receiving an award for handing someone in and having them possibly wrongly convicted.
(b) People would become too paranoid. There would be chronic cases of neighbourhood suspicion, allegations, and generally I fear that neighbourhood and community cohesion could be compromised as a result of this suggestion ever being enacted.
(c) As mentioned by someone above, relocation services would need to be created; anyone convicted of a crime would end up suspecting their loved ones had turned them in; if the system is not anonymous, then this poses an extreme danger to those giving the information; if the system is in fact anonymous, then loved ones are at danger because, as I said, the accused may suspect them of having turned them in.
:!: Edit Added point (c), above.
In my opinion, the suggestion of offering rewards for "turning in" people you know for having committed crimes needs serious re-consideration.
(a) This could lead to serious cases of fraud. People may commit crimes, frame those around them, and "turn them in" for the purpose of not only having successfully committed a crime in the first place, but for receiving an award for handing someone in and having them possibly wrongly convicted.
(b) People would become too paranoid. There would be chronic cases of neighbourhood suspicion, allegations, and generally I fear that neighbourhood and community cohesion could be compromised as a result of this suggestion ever being enacted.
(c) As mentioned by someone above, relocation services would need to be created; anyone convicted of a crime would end up suspecting their loved ones had turned them in; if the system is not anonymous, then this poses an extreme danger to those giving the information; if the system is in fact anonymous, then loved ones are at danger because, as I said, the accused may suspect them of having turned them in.
:!: Edit Added point (c), above.
You want to live in a paranoid society, you go right ahead. But I am not going to watch over my back for someone to phone me in to police for a crime I didn't commit.
Did you?
A lot of people were blackballed for being communists when they were actually not. A society of fear leads to horrible things.
If you want to live in fear, fine by me, but your not dragging me with you.
Did you?
A lot of people were blackballed for being communists when they were actually not. A society of fear leads to horrible things.
If you want to live in fear, fine by me, but your not dragging me with you.
I lived in Toronto and in the GTA for four years. A friend of mine a security guard who reported a home invasion to police was gunned down outside his parents home several years ago.
So I know what is going on in Toronto.
And let me give you an example of what fear would cause.
Subject A
Subject B
Now Subject A gets into a heated argument with Subject B. Now Subject B fuming about what Subject A says, hears about a crime, lets say a robbery has taken place.
Knowing that Subject A has the same gun that was used in the robbery, he phones up the cops and Subject A is taken away by the cops.
Now Subject A couldn't have committed the crime because he was arguing with Subject B, but because of this great reporting on another neighbor system he is sent to prison or lock up.
See my point.
So I know what is going on in Toronto.
And let me give you an example of what fear would cause.
Subject A
Subject B
Now Subject A gets into a heated argument with Subject B. Now Subject B fuming about what Subject A says, hears about a crime, lets say a robbery has taken place.
Knowing that Subject A has the same gun that was used in the robbery, he phones up the cops and Subject A is taken away by the cops.
Now Subject A couldn't have committed the crime because he was arguing with Subject B, but because of this great reporting on another neighbor system he is sent to prison or lock up.
See my point.
Justified Paranoia
Review my post, please, Texas1, I believe I established why some people would "live in fear" even if they had done nothing wrong.
But to re-iterate a point, those desparate for cash my frame their loved ones (actually, upon closer examination, this could be far more likely when someone is involved in drugs), then frame their loved ones for the reward.
Review my post, please, Texas1, I believe I established why some people would "live in fear" even if they had done nothing wrong.
But to re-iterate a point, those desparate for cash my frame their loved ones (actually, upon closer examination, this could be far more likely when someone is involved in drugs), then frame their loved ones for the reward.
Texas1 said:
I can do that too.
You're wrong.
Because I said so.
I guess you're not the smartest.
Or something.
You know, I don't know why I bother with you. It is just completely pointless.
A person stuck in fear will always be a person stuck in fear.
I lived in Toronto and the GTA for the past four years before moving out west my simple friend.
So, when you say, have you lived in these areas, you completely bypassed the point that my friend was killed. Shows what kind of a person you are.
I have been in these areas yes, have you, have you lived in these areas?
I have several contacts in the area, some of them gang members some of them former gang members.
A person stuck in fear will always be a person stuck in fear.
I lived in Toronto and the GTA for the past four years before moving out west my simple friend.
So, when you say, have you lived in these areas, you completely bypassed the point that my friend was killed. Shows what kind of a person you are.
I have been in these areas yes, have you, have you lived in these areas?
I have several contacts in the area, some of them gang members some of them former gang members.
Texas1 said:
It seems that your logic measures itself against an outcast group. The right Americans (those who believe in civil liberties) are the right Americans because they're not like the wrong Americans (those who use your phrase above), who are not really Americans.
I am a soldier in the Canadian Army. I am here to protect the Canadian people
How dare you even think that I am a gang-banger.
I was never into gangs, just because some of my contacts were into gangs I tried to dissuade them out of gangs as humanly possible without trying to tick them off.
My friend who was killed was a security guard, what are you going to say, he was a gang banger too.
Please!
How dare you even think that I am a gang-banger.
I was never into gangs, just because some of my contacts were into gangs I tried to dissuade them out of gangs as humanly possible without trying to tick them off.
My friend who was killed was a security guard, what are you going to say, he was a gang banger too.
Please!
Re: RE: Murders in Toronto
Texas ... I've handled the last XReport about your for a while. Take a break. Go away for a while, and come back with a new attitude.
Cosmo
Texas1 said:
Texas ... I've handled the last XReport about your for a while. Take a break. Go away for a while, and come back with a new attitude.
Cosmo
People who are against rewards for catching criminals or preventing crimes have something to fear.
If a bureaucrat in a government department is giving away $30 Million dollars to his friends it is very unlikely that they can do it without his secretary or lower level employees seing something suspicious. What always happens in such routine cases, all of the subordinate employees look the other way because they have everything to loose by questioning or reporting the suspicions.
If the suspicions are reported, investisgated and nothing is found wrong, there is no harm done. If something is found wrong, then the government saved $30 Million dollars.
Why should the whisstle-blower not get 10% or $3.0 Million from the savings?
Same applies for large drug or gun deals. People will not report some guy with a gram of crack since the amount of reward at 10% is not worth the hassle. But if its a couple of kilos, its worth the effort and risk.
Again if someone reports a crime that did not happen, so what? Beter waste a cops time investigating leads and running around in circles and eating donuts looking for criminals in the dark without any leads.
If someone reports false crimes on purpose it can be treated the same as any false-alarm when people call firemen.
People who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear over being investigated.
This paranoia about being falsely accused is bullshit that shows people living in fear of all people generally, rather than being afraid of criminals, which is what people should fear. Honest people are not scary.
If a bureaucrat in a government department is giving away $30 Million dollars to his friends it is very unlikely that they can do it without his secretary or lower level employees seing something suspicious. What always happens in such routine cases, all of the subordinate employees look the other way because they have everything to loose by questioning or reporting the suspicions.
If the suspicions are reported, investisgated and nothing is found wrong, there is no harm done. If something is found wrong, then the government saved $30 Million dollars.
Why should the whisstle-blower not get 10% or $3.0 Million from the savings?
Same applies for large drug or gun deals. People will not report some guy with a gram of crack since the amount of reward at 10% is not worth the hassle. But if its a couple of kilos, its worth the effort and risk.
Again if someone reports a crime that did not happen, so what? Beter waste a cops time investigating leads and running around in circles and eating donuts looking for criminals in the dark without any leads.
If someone reports false crimes on purpose it can be treated the same as any false-alarm when people call firemen.
People who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear over being investigated.
This paranoia about being falsely accused is bullshit that shows people living in fear of all people generally, rather than being afraid of criminals, which is what people should fear. Honest people are not scary.
With the passage of Bill C-13, during the Third Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament, whistleblowers no longer need to worry about retaliation from their employers if they report any covert fraudulent or questionable activities.
The fact remains that this suggestion could, I would submit, bring cause for alarm for people with relatives or loved-ones with issues such as drug problems, or gang-related problems; if one was extremely desparate, then one might turn in the members of one's family for framed crimes in order to secure the rewarded funds.
This could be, in my opinion, a disaster-in-waiting if ever enacted.
The fact remains that this suggestion could, I would submit, bring cause for alarm for people with relatives or loved-ones with issues such as drug problems, or gang-related problems; if one was extremely desparate, then one might turn in the members of one's family for framed crimes in order to secure the rewarded funds.
This could be, in my opinion, a disaster-in-waiting if ever enacted.
Most of the illegal guns in Toronto are comming from police confiscated weapons that are getting back out in the underground. Not from the USA as they are saying.
Rewards would only come from the proceeds of crime found and if there are no proceeds then there is no reward. I doubt anyone has to worry about their mothers blowing whistles on their kids using drugs in their bedrooms.
A criminal should be made afraid of their own mothers. I have no problem with it and can't see how this can be a social problem generally for a lot of people.
Why should criminals be given sanctuary by their friends or family? Only if the crime was serious enough would there be people prepared to come forward for a significant reward.
The rewards, say $100,000 for every $1 Million crime stoped is less than the cost of year of a police salary. We could do with less police costs this way and crime would be self-controled by the people closest to the crime, such as the family members of blue collar criminals and the secretaries and clerks of the white collar ones.
The need for Whistle-blower protection laws is clear proof that blowing-whistles is risky. Simply protecting them from harm is not enough to get people to talk and expose themselves to harm.
You need to reward people for talking to off-set the risk they take because you cannot protect them forever from their families and in the white collar crimes you can't protect them from financial loss of job advancements or being shunned by other coworkers or being targetted to be fired at some future time indirectly for something nominal. People need to be enticed to take the risks for blowing whistles.
If there is a financial public benefit such as recoving $30 Million, then 10% ($3 Million) is not an unreasonable reward for a secretary so she can retire and not worry about needing protection.
Likewise if a company earns $30 Million dollars from an employees activity, they would not have trouble paying 10% bonus to them.
This is what whistle-blowing should become in our society. An opportunity to stop waste and crime and as a proper way for people to get a bonus for their risk taking, and even make someone rich in a legitimate way.
I would rather a whisstle-blower getting rich from stopping a crime than a criminal for getting away with a crime.
Rewards would only come from the proceeds of crime found and if there are no proceeds then there is no reward. I doubt anyone has to worry about their mothers blowing whistles on their kids using drugs in their bedrooms.
A criminal should be made afraid of their own mothers. I have no problem with it and can't see how this can be a social problem generally for a lot of people.
Why should criminals be given sanctuary by their friends or family? Only if the crime was serious enough would there be people prepared to come forward for a significant reward.
The rewards, say $100,000 for every $1 Million crime stoped is less than the cost of year of a police salary. We could do with less police costs this way and crime would be self-controled by the people closest to the crime, such as the family members of blue collar criminals and the secretaries and clerks of the white collar ones.
The need for Whistle-blower protection laws is clear proof that blowing-whistles is risky. Simply protecting them from harm is not enough to get people to talk and expose themselves to harm.
You need to reward people for talking to off-set the risk they take because you cannot protect them forever from their families and in the white collar crimes you can't protect them from financial loss of job advancements or being shunned by other coworkers or being targetted to be fired at some future time indirectly for something nominal. People need to be enticed to take the risks for blowing whistles.
If there is a financial public benefit such as recoving $30 Million, then 10% ($3 Million) is not an unreasonable reward for a secretary so she can retire and not worry about needing protection.
Likewise if a company earns $30 Million dollars from an employees activity, they would not have trouble paying 10% bonus to them.
This is what whistle-blowing should become in our society. An opportunity to stop waste and crime and as a proper way for people to get a bonus for their risk taking, and even make someone rich in a legitimate way.
I would rather a whisstle-blower getting rich from stopping a crime than a criminal for getting away with a crime.
This does sound like one part of what could become an earnst attempt at a solution. But, it definately needs refinement and more components.
Rewards & Deterrants
There are already rewards for reporting most criminal activity.It is definately fair to argue that the amount of these rewards are not substantive enough to encourage most wintnesses to come forward.
The question is how much would the rewards have to be increased, and if the amount of the reward is increased then how much information does the informant need to supply?
Tipping off the police about a possible murder is in ethical terms more valuable than tipping off police about a money laundering scheme, but under a proceeds of criminal activity theory, it would be more beneficial to the informant to tip off on the money laundering. (No, of course in realithy these activites do not take place in separate vacuums).
The other problem is that the judicial system has argued that rewards for tipping cannot be so high that informants are significantly deterred from giving testimony.
Many people see anonymous tip lines as a clear solution to crime problems. However the difficulty with anonymous tip lines is two fold.
1) In many cases witnesses are required for testimony, anonymous testimony is rarely upheld in court.
2) Many possible informants simply do not believe that anonymous testimony is a reality.... even if the police or judiciary does not disclose the identity of the informant, many informants believe that those they accuse would be able to trace back the tip.
Culture of Fear?
Creating a culture of fear such that people are overwhelmingly self-interested in reporting innocent people as criminals is, I think, a long way off and not particularly plausible in this situation.
To create an environment where people are willing to turn false tips on any significant scale so that it would be a problem you need to create and over incenting climate either monetary or by political force. In Germany, or the Stalist Russia it was mainly political self-interst and self-preservation that caused people to report against neighbours. We are hardly in that political climate, and I doubt increasing rewards would in itslef create a large problem.
That being said, we do have a problem of a culture of fear, where people are currently afraid to report crimes they have seen and do know of becuase they believe there is neither the political will nor the police ability to protect them if they do report the activity.
If people can be offered no assurity that they will be protected against violent retaliation from criminals they accuse (or the accused associates) then people will not report.
The arrests in September of almost 20 gang members and subsequent release of most of them within the next 48 hours did a lot to convince Toronto communitites that the gangs hold more power than the police, and that it is not in the best interest of people living in these communities to report the gang members in their area because there will be ample opportunity for those gang member to retaliate against the community.
Deterrance and Prevention
Deterrance and prevention are not the same thing. No matter the level of deterrance (higher jail time, more hostile condiditons in jail, toughter sentences, death sentences), deterrence itself does not prevent crime.
This does not mean that deterrence should not be part of the equation of a real solution.
If we concentrate only on root causes then we send a message that criminal behaviour will be tolerated because of social failings, and that message cannot be sent.
But, likewise if we only concentrate on deterrance we will never be able to maintain a basic democratic level of freedom and we will forever be increasing deterrance in response to people who see it as more valuable and viable to enter crime than to be responsible citizens.
Without excusing those who choose crime, we do need to seek to understand why it is more viable to enter crime when we see an increased trend towards crime in particular areas.
Example:
Both Parkdale and Melvurn were extremely violent areas in 1991 (which had a higher gun crime rate than 2005). One statement still echoed is that in these communities it was easier to get a gun than a job.
Community programs, youth centres, and job creation in these communities has improved them... yes, they still need work, but it is better.
Solutions require prevention in addition to deterrance. Neither one will work alone.
Rewards & Deterrants
There are already rewards for reporting most criminal activity.It is definately fair to argue that the amount of these rewards are not substantive enough to encourage most wintnesses to come forward.
The question is how much would the rewards have to be increased, and if the amount of the reward is increased then how much information does the informant need to supply?
Tipping off the police about a possible murder is in ethical terms more valuable than tipping off police about a money laundering scheme, but under a proceeds of criminal activity theory, it would be more beneficial to the informant to tip off on the money laundering. (No, of course in realithy these activites do not take place in separate vacuums).
The other problem is that the judicial system has argued that rewards for tipping cannot be so high that informants are significantly deterred from giving testimony.
Many people see anonymous tip lines as a clear solution to crime problems. However the difficulty with anonymous tip lines is two fold.
1) In many cases witnesses are required for testimony, anonymous testimony is rarely upheld in court.
2) Many possible informants simply do not believe that anonymous testimony is a reality.... even if the police or judiciary does not disclose the identity of the informant, many informants believe that those they accuse would be able to trace back the tip.
Culture of Fear?
Creating a culture of fear such that people are overwhelmingly self-interested in reporting innocent people as criminals is, I think, a long way off and not particularly plausible in this situation.
To create an environment where people are willing to turn false tips on any significant scale so that it would be a problem you need to create and over incenting climate either monetary or by political force. In Germany, or the Stalist Russia it was mainly political self-interst and self-preservation that caused people to report against neighbours. We are hardly in that political climate, and I doubt increasing rewards would in itslef create a large problem.
That being said, we do have a problem of a culture of fear, where people are currently afraid to report crimes they have seen and do know of becuase they believe there is neither the political will nor the police ability to protect them if they do report the activity.
If people can be offered no assurity that they will be protected against violent retaliation from criminals they accuse (or the accused associates) then people will not report.
The arrests in September of almost 20 gang members and subsequent release of most of them within the next 48 hours did a lot to convince Toronto communitites that the gangs hold more power than the police, and that it is not in the best interest of people living in these communities to report the gang members in their area because there will be ample opportunity for those gang member to retaliate against the community.
Deterrance and Prevention
Deterrance and prevention are not the same thing. No matter the level of deterrance (higher jail time, more hostile condiditons in jail, toughter sentences, death sentences), deterrence itself does not prevent crime.
This does not mean that deterrence should not be part of the equation of a real solution.
If we concentrate only on root causes then we send a message that criminal behaviour will be tolerated because of social failings, and that message cannot be sent.
But, likewise if we only concentrate on deterrance we will never be able to maintain a basic democratic level of freedom and we will forever be increasing deterrance in response to people who see it as more valuable and viable to enter crime than to be responsible citizens.
Without excusing those who choose crime, we do need to seek to understand why it is more viable to enter crime when we see an increased trend towards crime in particular areas.
Example:
Both Parkdale and Melvurn were extremely violent areas in 1991 (which had a higher gun crime rate than 2005). One statement still echoed is that in these communities it was easier to get a gun than a job.
Community programs, youth centres, and job creation in these communities has improved them... yes, they still need work, but it is better.
Solutions require prevention in addition to deterrance. Neither one will work alone.
I just watched CTV's Question Period, in which they interviewed a Toronto city councillor. He propsed raising the maximum TIPS reward from $2000 to $30,000 for information on murder. His point was that the chance of punishment is not a deterent, but the fact that you WILL be caught and you Will be punished is the best deterent.
And large rewards could help make punishment inevitable.
Makes sense.
TIPS is anonymous, but $2000 is hardly enough to encourage ANY risk. $30,000 is a whack o' cash.
I am NOT a fan of mandatory sentencing. I think it removes an important discretionary power of the court.
What we do need are some tougher judges, appointed for reasons other than political connections.
There needs to be intevention as well, a la the Boston model, where clergy, police, educators and social workers work together to help kids stay out of gangs. At risk kids are identified by teachers, or other members of the community, home visits by clergy, police, social workers are then made, mentors are assigned. Follow up is constant, and a high security safe house where kids can go to study, talk to mentors, or just relax is established.
And large rewards could help make punishment inevitable.
Makes sense.
TIPS is anonymous, but $2000 is hardly enough to encourage ANY risk. $30,000 is a whack o' cash.
I am NOT a fan of mandatory sentencing. I think it removes an important discretionary power of the court.
What we do need are some tougher judges, appointed for reasons other than political connections.
There needs to be intevention as well, a la the Boston model, where clergy, police, educators and social workers work together to help kids stay out of gangs. At risk kids are identified by teachers, or other members of the community, home visits by clergy, police, social workers are then made, mentors are assigned. Follow up is constant, and a high security safe house where kids can go to study, talk to mentors, or just relax is established.