Murders in Toronto

[poligeek]

I think the steps indicated in the Boston model are essential to the also necessary changes to the judicial system and the deterrant factors.

This must be a multilevel approach.

Mentoring accompanied by an investment in community infrastructure have gone a long way in most communities that have initiated them over the long term.

But a judical system that is perceived as too lenient accompanied by an almost disincentive to inform can easily undo the good work done by community activism.

For me the question is how to get the buy-in of the general public that will need to support these initiatives.

It seems to be easy to get buy-in to increase jail-time, implement manditory sentencing, and increased terms of parole. However once it comes to increasing assistance and options to at-risk youth.... we we talk about more community police officers people start talking about bloated social costs.

I will never understand how those who most strongly advocate a "strong law & order" stance, are the same people who most actively oppose any measures that work to prevent crime.

 

[iamcanadian]

A reward is both a deterent and a law enforcement vehicle.

People are paid to provide policing services to the public by a commission. Kind of like subcontracting the eyes and ears of police to every member of the public.

You see something suspicious you will report it to try and cash in on a potential reward.

A potential criminal will be detered by thinking that anyone around him can blow the whistles and not do the crime to begin with. Very few crimes are known only to the person who commited it.

As an example, if someone involved in government spending is seen buying a Million Dollar yatch when he has a $75K salary job; or is known to own a million dollar cottage while living in a modest home locally; someone tips off the police that this looks suspicious (even anonymously and confidentially). The police without intruding do some background checking to see where the guys money came from from. If he inherited money from a rich relative, end of story, no harm done. The case is closed without anyone ever knowing. Otherwise, this tip may lead to saving $30 Million of the public's money, and if so why should the tipster not get a three million dollar reward or commission?

All it requires is a proper set of rules and proceedures and a Crime Reward Review Board with a pannel to review what is fair within the rules of rewards proceedures that will be set.

It would be very easy to apply this in the area of Government Waste and Missmanagement economic abuses, but for non-economic crimes set values can be set-up.

$250K for murder, lower amount various violent crimes. When property is involved then a percentage of the value fo the property recovered comes in to play.

 

[FiveParadox]

Interesting Proposal

I have to admit, iamcanadian, that your arguments are making me warm up to the idea of "rewarding" those who would submit information pertaining to possible crimes to law enforcement agencies. However, we must be careful to strike the right sort of balance, so as to not create a dysfunctional and chronically-paranoid society.

I would submit that guidelines such as these should be adopted:

1. Any one who contributes critical information that could lead to a conviction of a criminal, to be styled a Submission, shall be entitled to be recognized by the Governor General for having served the common good of Canada.

2. Any one who contributes a Submission, pursuant to Section 1, shall be entitled to receive a monetary benefit for having done so, at the discretion of the Governor General on the advice of the Minister of Justice, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.

3. The amount to be granted to a citizen who makes a Submission, pursuant to Sections 2 and 3, shall be calculated as follows:

(a) Where the Submission is in relation to an offense of summary conviction where the convicted person would not have benefited financially, an amount of no less than five hundred dollars, but of no more than one thousand dollars, shall be appropriated;

(b) Where the Submission is in relation to an offense of summary conviction where the convicted person would have benefitted financially, an amount of no less than ten percent of the potential benefit, and of no more than twenty percent of that same benefit, shall be appropriated, and such an amount shall not be calculated to be less than five hundred dollars;

(c) Where the Submission is in relation to an indictable offense not resulting in bodily harm, an amount of no less than ten thousand dollars, but of no more than two hundred thousand dollars, shall be appropriated;

(d) Where the Submission is in relation to an indictable offense resulting in bodily harm, or in any offence resulting in the loss of life, an amount of no less than five hundred thousand dollars, but of no more than four million dollars, shall be appropriated.

4. Where the Submission is given pursuant to Subsection (d) of Section 3, the Governor General may, from time to time, recognize the service of a citizen as having contributed to the common good for Canada, and such a citizen may be styled "Honourable" for life, and may be granted the Governor General's Award for Social Justice [to be created for this purpose].

5. Notwithstanding any provision of this Act [proposal], if the Governor General determines through reasonable means that funds or rewards were misappropriated, due to wrongdoing on the part of the citizen who had contributed the Submission, then all such rewards are to be deemed null and void, and required to be returned, and such a citizen will have committed on offense pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada [an offense would be created for the knowingly wrongful contribution of a Submission].

What do you think?

 

[iamcanadian]

It looks great!

Something like this and serious crimes of most kinds would be very rare events.

 

[iamcanadian]

Qui tam actions have been used as far back as the 13th Century in England where they were popular as a way by private citizens to gain access to royal courts. In the U.S., qui tam actions have been around since 1776, although seldom used until 1986. In 1863, during the Civil War, Congressional hearings disclosed widespread instances of military contractor fraud that included defective products, substitution of inferior material, and illegal price gouging of the Union Army. At the urging of Abraham Lincoln, Congress enacted the Civil False Claims Act, including the qui tam provision, as a weapon to fight procurement fraud. This law has also been known as the "Lincoln Law" and the "Informer's Act."

The False Claims Act, as enacted in 1863, was designed to entice whistleblowers to come forward by offering them a share of the money recovered. Even though this Act was enacted to combat military contractor fraud, it was applicable to all government contractors, federal programs and any other instances involving the use of federal revenue.

Read more... http://www.quitam.com/quitam2.html


One main thing I like most about rewards for helping stop crime is that it can turn criminals (or potential criminals) into whistle-blowers to get other criminals. Criminals and gangmembers become part of the policing force; now imagine that?

You create opportunity for people that otherwise have no hope for getting out of the ruts that cause them to be part of the problem.

 

[Citizen]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

One main thing I like most about rewards for helping stop crime is that it can turn criminals (or potential criminals) into whistle-blowers to get other criminals. Criminals and gangmembers become part of the policing force; now imagine that?

Or depending on the size of the reward, whistleblower associates of criminals could start grow ops or other illegal operations.

The theory is pretty good, but increasing rewards to large amounts of cash probably would work out differently.

 

[poligeek]

I should say at the beginning of this post that I am not against the idea of offering rewards for whistleblowers, and I'm not against increasing the current rewards that are being offered.

That being said I think it is a reductionist solution to a very complex problem to advocate that reward-based incentives will in itself reduce crime significantly.

First there is the pragmatic problem of reward based incentives. Which level of government is responsible for paying the sums indicated in FiveParadox's proposal? Is there realistic public support for such vast sums (i.e. if this proposal resulted in 50% of Toronto's gun-deaths this year alone being reported that would at a minimum be pay-out of $13 Million in Toronto alone in one year).

We can recognize that most people will balance out the cost of being a whistleblower to the financial reward, and I don't think there are any comprehensive studies that I know of that detail what the fiscal balance would be.

Second there is the problem of generalizing all cimes as equal. Different crimes operate in different socio-economic paradigms. A potential whistleblower will see different personal dangers in different cases. For example, the person who has the potential to blow the whistle on the bureaurocrat who has siphoned public money towards private property purchases (i.e. yacht) may only be worried about the potential loss of a job (a serious worry), however a person who witnesses a murder may be worried about their own life and the lives of their family members.

Third, there is still the necessity to balance deterrance with prevention. Both deterrence and prevention are parts of the equation to stopping crime. Deterrence in itself is not preventative, and prevention does not necessairly deter. There is always a balance between the level of deterrence and the level of public freedom. Monetary incentive will only go so far (regardless of the sum of money) to deterring particular people. If the underlying reasons that crime is a viable and valuable option for people are not tackled deterrence alone will never produce long lasting solutions.

 

[iamcanadian]

I did not find any point made in your bald statement.

Can you explain what you are saying and why you feel the way you do?

All you have said is you don't agree with the idea after saying you are not against the idea. Which is it?

All crimes are equally criminal. As we saw in Enron executives getting 40 years in prison for taking money from the public, which was a bigger sentence than most murderers tend to get.

So a public wide white collar crime (taking money from a great many people) can be worse than a blue collar crime. Enron defrauded only investors, yet in government corruption cases millions of people are defrauded at one time.

It's up to Judges after they get caught. But its up to the public to catch them and there is no easier and better way than offering significantly large lucrative rewards, in line with the kind of money being stolen and then saved by it being stopped.

 

[poligeek]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

I did not find any point made in your bald statement.

I'm sorry that you found my statement bald. I find that on disucussion boards it is necessary to take small steps in debates otherwise generalizations and assumptions are too quickly made about a direction that an argument may not really be intending to go.

Can you explain what you are saying and why you feel the way you do?

I feel that reward based incentives are an important part of a solution aimed at varous crimes. However, I believe it is only one part and cannot be taken as a generalized solution.

I think it would be a mistake to summarily dismiss this option as part of a real solution. Likewise, I feel that it is reductionist to list one tactic as an entire strategy or an entire solution to what is a very complex and varied problem.

The reason I feel this way is because any basic study of criminology can tell us that crimes are committed for varoius reasons, likewise the solutions to crime must be varied. Just, as a solution that is focused solely on preventative solutions will not produce short term results and could in fact, if not balanced with adequate punitive tactics worsten crime levels in the short term; deterrence only solutions will not provide long term results and without preventative tactics and strategies may cause long term damage.

All you have said is you don't agree with the idea after saying you are not against the idea. Which is it?

Neither, I do not see this as an either / or choice. It's too reductionist to say which side of the fence are you on?

I believe this tactic has great potential to play a part in a wholistic solution.

All crimes are equally criminal.

This is circular logic.

All crimes are crimes because we as a society hold values that make them crimes.

That does not mean that all crimes have an equal impact on society, or that all crimes have the same motives and are committeed for the same reasons.

If all crimes do not have the same drivers then prevention of all crimes will not have the same definitive solutions. And it would be a drastic generalization to assume that all crimes can be solved in the same way.

Deterrants must be offered for all crimes that are equal to the crime, and preventative measure must be put in place so that it is less valuable and viable to commit crimes.

As we saw in Enron executives getting 40 years in prison for taking money from the public, which was a bigger sentence than most murderers tend to get.

I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of this passage is... is it that white collar crime should, or should not receive a sentence comprable to murder? Is it that the crime should have a sentence proportionate to the number of people affected? I think both of these are important issues, but generally could be settled in another discussion of comparative sentencing. Rather than solutions for, as this topic began, violent crime resolution.

So a public wide white collar crime (taking money from a great many people) can be worse than a blue collar crime.

I don't know how I would weigh "worse". Worse for whom? Worse because it is valued at a higher sentence? Or, worse because it impacted more people? Is investment fraud in and of itself worse than murder. I don't know, and I'm not really willing to weigh in on that type of moralistic debate.

Enron defrauded only investors, yet in government corruption cases millions of people are defrauded at one time.

Again I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Do I think the people that commit fraud in government should be punished similarly to the people in the Enron scandal? Probably. But I don't really see how the comparative sentencing bears on strategic solutions, other than to say that we evidently have a problem with our justice system and the level of sentencing deterrences offered for various offences.

It's up to Judges after they get caught.

I'd aruge that it is up to the Judges on a case-by-case basis, as I think you agreed that it should be.

However, the public should have some input through political discussion on policy and budgetary input.

But its up to the public to catch them and there is no easier and better way than offering significantly large lucrative rewards, in line with the kind of money being stolen and then saved by it being stopped.

Again, I am not arguing that offering financial rewards in an ineffective method of garnering public participation in reporting criminal behaviour.

What I am arguing is that there are certain elements of this solution that on a tactial level are not pragmatic, and that a full solution need other tactical supports. A solution also needs to take into account that there are differnt drivers for those who commit different types of crime and not all potential witnesses may have financial concerns as their primary motivator to report.

Offering financial incentives to criminal activity is not in itself a solution to the existance of criminal activity.

Tactical Problems

Offering financial based incentives to criminal behaviour assumes the capability to offer financial sums that are large enough to outweigh: the financial benefits of overlooking (or possibly participating in) a crime, the safety concerns with reporting a crime.

Not all people who witness a crime will be innocent by-standers. Offering financial incentives for these people assumes that the financial reward offered outweights their interest in participation.

Also, while the analyogy of a straight financial cost-benefit analysis works well when dealing with crimes like investment fraud it becomes a little more grey when we begin dealing with violent crime.

The concens voiced by people who have been brave enough to speak out against violent crime (and by people who refuse to speak out) are not financial, but personal safety. One could make an argument that if the reward were high enough then people may speak out, but the figure for jeapordizing one's own life and / or the life of one's family is very difficult to judge.

In both these cases we can assume that the sums needed on offer are substantial, and are not currently budgeted. Even if $30 Million of cocaine is confiscated, how does that street value translate into cash for a police force, municipality, or provincial government charged with dispursing rewards?

Realistically (and this is a question) how can a budget be portioned to account for the levels of rewards that would be needed to tackle a tactic like this in it's initial phases? Is there the political will? What area of the current budgets would suffer?

Finally giving public incentive to report crime creates a higher deterrant to committing a crime based on the assumption that with a higher reporting frequency more criminals would be caught.

Unfortunately for the public, crime, like business includes costs and benefits. If the benefits of committing the crime outweigh the costs then crime will continue. The high rate of reporting would become a criminal-cost-of-doing-business, unless the root causes of why the various crimes are being committed in the first place are tackled.

Deterrants alone have been ineffective in significantly reducing crime rates. This does not mean that we do not need increased deterrants, it simply means that prevention is a necessary part of deterrance. Increased reporting is not a preventative, it is a deterrant. Therefore it is one part of a whole solution, not a solution in and of itself.

 

[FiveParadox]

Public Input

I would agree that the general population should have input into the legislative measures that we would create as a framework for any sort of incentives program; however, the population should have no say, whatsoever, on a case-by-case basis; to do so would undermine the authority of our Justices, and would compromise the discretionary power of the Courts.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: Public Input

... however, the population should have no say, whatsoever, on a case-by-case basis; to do so would undermine the authority of our Justices, and would compromise the discretionary power of the Courts.

With Judges making decisions while not being elected; and lawyers getting elected; this makes Canada a country ruled by lawyers... a Dictatorship by a Profession (a profession that is not a benevolent one, I might add).

I don't think this is a very good system. If lawyers where to be prevented from seeking political possition by some ethical rules of conduct of the profession it might make some sense that way.

 

[FiveParadox]

Election of the Justices

I am entirely opposed to the concept of electing our Justices, particularly those who would serve on the Supreme Court of Canada; that, however may be a discussion more appropriate for another thread.

:arrow: Returning to the Topic...

If we can secure a method to appropriate the funds (since the Criminal Code of Canada is within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, perhaps then the funds required to provide "incentive" to those who would contribute information toward an investigation could be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada), then I would be in favour of providing such incentives.

To be clear, though, we must have safeguards in place to prevent the abuse of such incentives; the Minister of Justice, on the advice of law enforcement agencies, should have the right to set up Commissions of Inquery to look into issues where the program may have been abused; furthermore, as a "failsafe device," the executive authority to strip one of their incentive "gifts" should be vested in the Governor General (obviously, to be used more or less on the advice of the Cabinet).

 

[iamcanadian]

Gun snitch mom praised by cops

TORONTO (CP) - A Toronto mother's decision to turn her teen son over to police after finding an AK-47 assault rifle on his pillow drew praise from police and parent groups Thursday, who said the woman "has set a standard for others to follow."

The mother said she didn't think twice about calling police, even though it meant her son would likely spend considerable time in jail if convicted of weapons offences. The 17-year-old boy agreed to forgo bail on 13 charges, including possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine.

The Russian-made AK-47 can fire up to 600 rounds a minute, and has been used in conflicts around the world for more than 50 years.

"I may have saved somebody's life, either his or somebody else's, because you don't get a gun for no reason," the mother said.

Toronto police Chief Bill Blair said he hopes more parents will realize it was the right thing to do, despite the consequences their children could face.

"Her son is in a safer place today," Blair said. "I know he faces criminal sanctions for his conduct - and that's quite appropriate as well - but I think that mother has set a standard for others to follow."

But it's not something all mothers would be able to do easily, either because their guilt would be unbearable or out of fear they would lose their child forever, said Helen Thomas, spokeswoman for the Association of Parent Support Groups in Canada.

"They've heard all kinds of horror stories about what can happen in jail and how they'll be locked up and someone will throw away the key," Thomas said.

The association has helped hundreds of parents deal with varying degrees of teenage rebellion, which can start small but quickly escalate to destructive levels if left unchecked, Thomas said.

Calling police is definitely the right thing to do, but it's not an easy decision and is actually just the start of a long ordeal, she said.

"Telling the police about your son is not the end of the story," she said. "That parent still has to live with that child and whatever consequences, whatever anger that child might have toward that parent."

"And there's always fear that they'll be judged (by others) because their children are doing this in the first place. There's embarrassment, shame and a tremendous sense of grief."

Pastor Al Bowen of the Abundant Life Pentecostal Church said he's been to countless funerals for young men killed in Toronto, and has seen the struggles of mothers trying to deal with dead sons, or the suspicion their child may have been involved in violent crime.

Not saying anything at all seems like the only answer for many, especially single mothers who have grown to be extremely protective of their children, he said.

"She protects her kid; she often doesn't see the issues of right and wrong," Bowen said. "She only has the instinct to protect her kids, which is the survival mentality, which she's developed as a single mother."

But he said he tries to push the idea that the police are not the bad guys, and that they can help kids, even if there is some punishment involved.

"We have to show mothers they don't have to be the adversarial defendant of their child. They can co-operate with authorities, even police, and in the long run it's going to mean a better life for their children."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2006/01/05/1380719-cp.html

Russian-made AK-47 can fire up to 600 rounds a minute

This is a machine gun that shoots 600 bullets per minute. Can you imagine the death toll on boxing day if this was the hun used?

What is society doing for this mother who will pay a personal price for this good deed? We have people getting the Order of Canada that never saved anyone from harm when they had the chance, let alone many people's lives. Is all she gets is a thank you note?

 

[FiveParadox]

Difficult Choice

I would congratulate the mother for having upheld the laws of this country objectively, notwithstanding the present relationship. I would also commend her for having found the strength to make such a decision.

I doubt that anyone is going to argue that the ownership of assault rifles should be a "right" as protected under this country's present Charter.

 

[Colpy]

"

This is a machine gun that shoots 600 bullets per minute. Can you imagine the death toll on boxing day if this was the hun used? "

This is misleading in a couple of ways. 600 rounds a minute is the cyclic rate of the weapon, if it was actually fully automatic. But, as it is probably fed by a 30 round magazine, it would fire 30 rounds, and then stop to be reloaded, if spare magazines were available, which I doubt. Reloading a 30 round magazine would take a couple of minutes in itself.

By the way, possession of this weapon,and possession of 30 round magazines is already banned in Canada. Did a lot of good, didn't it?

NOT!

I actually doubt the weapon was full automatic, although that is possible.

 

[Citizen]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

"

By the way, possession of this weapon,and possession of 30 round magazines is already banned in Canada. Did a lot of good, didn't it?

NOT!

Banning anything won't totally eradicate it from our country, however, you surely can't argue that bans generally work to reduce the number of guns.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

"

By the way, possession of this weapon,and possession of 30 round magazines is already banned in Canada. Did a lot of good, didn't it?

NOT!

Banning anything won't totally eradicate it from our country, however, you surely can't argue that bans generally work to reduce the number of guns.

Of course they work to reduce the number of guns.....in the hands of legitimate owners.

One of the big problems with this sort of thing is that the number of weapons needed to arm every scumball in the country to the teeth is actually quite small.

It always amazes me that gun control advocates continually spout the nonsense that gun bans will keep guns out of the hands of dope dealers and criminals.

I submit that if you can import a steady supply of cocaine, you can import a gun or two.

The 17 year old with a Kalishnakov sorta proves my point.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: Difficult Choice

I would congratulate the mother for having upheld the laws of this country objectively, notwithstanding the present relationship. I would also commend her for having found the strength to make such a decision.

She will be paying for this decision for the rest of her life. Does society not owe her something for this important decision?

She most likely saved many lives and what's in it for her?

 

[missile]

At first thought,the reaction to the Boxing day shootings were thought to be racist in nature because,for the first time,a white blonde girl was killed there. But this is Toronto,where business rules.and I submit that it was the loss of sales that caused this over reaction. So,I'm cynical..so what!

 

[poligeek]

Re: Difficult Choice

I would congratulate the mother for having upheld the laws of this country objectively, notwithstanding the present relationship. I would also commend her for having found the strength to make such a decision.

She will be paying for this decision for the rest of her life. Does society not owe her something for this important decision?

She most likely saved many lives and what's in it for her?

First, we don't know that she is not being rewarded in some form, I would not be surprized to see her named in some form of citizen award considering the amount of media attention.

Second, there are still the issues I listed about about setting rewards (just to be clear I am not against the financial rewards I just think they need to be better defined).

Third, how exactly do you reward someone for something like this.

Fourth, I don't think the take away should be "how much is she getting for this", there has been a lot of really good media in Toronto about how hard a choice this would be for a parent to make, and also from the mother herself as to how she saw this as absolutely necessary to not only saving others lives, but also saving her own sons life. Looking at how we can get more parents positively involved in this way, and showing them as positive role models will go a long way to encourage other parents to act as responsibly and to begin tackling some of the root causes of why this violence is viable in Toronto.