And that's a fair comment -- I won't address the other issues raised by the reader here.
No matter how you slice it, broadly put, so long as criminals are separated from society they don't commit crimes in society.
My response is to agree -- but to note that if we just focus on separation then, whenever there is any material risk of re offending, we should have life imprisonment.
Now that's obviously extreme -- and since we aren't going to put wife abusers in jail forever (forget the cost issue) we better try to rehabilitate.
Broadly put we do better not sending them to jail, unless we send them to jail forever.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
7 comments:
Frankly, I am not sure why you give that anonymous commenter any credibility by responding to his/her comment with another post.
It is absolutely true, as verified through many criminologists and sociologists, that tough on crime policies have done nothing to deter crime, and more to the point, nothing to decrease crime rates.
What they do is cost us a lot of money, with no benefit to society by reducing crime. Prison is expensive.
That is what happnes when your policy is based on reacting to crime rather than to preventing it in the first place. Tough on crime policies only come into place after someone has been victimized.
Crime is a broad social problem with broad social causes. There is no one solution. You can find many success stories where the right attention to the correctly identified problem will produce the successful rehabilitation of an offender. Take a look at the recently introduced mental health court in Edmonton for an example of that.
Providing people with a means to address an addiction problem, and the underlying cause of that addiction problem, will do more to keep that person off the street and away from crime than any prison sentence.
What we need to do is be proactive rather than reactive - but that requires a total change in mindset. This notion that putting people in jail protects us is false. All our money goes to pay for the prisons while at the same time new criminals are being created.
Actually, that's incorrect. Rape and assault both occur in prison with some frequency. I imagine extortion is also quite common.
Gayle, with all due respect, your diatribe is a university taught lecture.
What you just wrote is what a left wing sociologist or psychologist would spew.
Which is nothing but lies.
There is no way in the world to deter crime. You know that. Again, common sense.
Putting people in jail is the only way to reduce crime. Again, common sense.
Try this theory out.
You say that harsh sentences doesn't deter crime.
Ok, well ask yourself this question.
Why do so many Asians feel the need to grow pot and sell dope here in Canada instead of their native Vietnam or Cambodia?
You know why?
Because people like Gayle and Morton allow it to happen with their sympathies and outright justifications for crime.Excuses, excuses, excuses.
But in Vietnam or Cambodia, you get the death penalty for drugs.
How many Canadians do you know that would go to Cambodia or Vietnam or China to sell drugs?
None, know why? Because of the harsh sentences.
Harsh sentences do two things. Keep criminals in jail so they cannot commit more crime. Keep the public safe so no-one gets hurt or victimized.
Other than jailing people to deter crime, a university taught theory does nothing for my family and I.
Again , it all comes down to accountability.
In the USA where officials are elected, you see accountability all day long.
In Canada, which has zero accountability, you see outrageous sentences and outright corruption.
It's time for the government of Canada to listen to its citizens and not university professors who have ZERO real world experience outside experience.'
We don't need theories or lectures right now. We need criminals in jail so they cannot victimize anyone else.
Canadians should be ashamed that we have left ourselves vulnerable top university lectures and theories instead of real world solutions that have proven effective over the last 5000 years.
Silly little anon:
I wonder if you have anything other than your "feelings" about this issue to support your opinion? Calling me names and otherwise insulting the people who have made it their business to study this issue and offer solutions is not a particularly persuasive argument.
Your argument falls apart right at the beginning - if the death penalty deters crime, why do people still commit capital crimes? How many people are sentenced to death every year in the US?
Try informing yourself rather than pretending you are basing your argument on "common sense" if you want to discuss this issue like an adult.
"Your argument falls apart right at the beginning - if the death penalty deters crime, why do people still commit capital crimes? How many people are sentenced to death every year in the US?"
Gayle, nothing deters crime. It's common sense.
Let's reverse your ideology.
Why have jails if they don't work?
Why have courts if the prison system is a waste?
The best one is this.
Why have laws if they don't deter crime?
If the death penalty doesn't deter crime, why have laws period?
If First Degree murder and the threat of 25 years doesn't deter crime, why have the law?
See what I mean Gayle. You use certain leftist statements to justify your illogical reasoning.
Nothing will deter crime, nothing, but we as a people can lock up criminals so they cannot commit more crime.
My position guarantees that serious criminals will be in jail and will not be able to victimize anyone else.
Your position guarantees that the criminals are on the streets to continue offending and making victims.
You take your postiion to bed and I'll take mine.
Goodnight.
If you do not think punishment deters crime, why did you say this?:
"How many Canadians do you know that would go to Cambodia or Vietnam or China to sell drugs?
None, know why? Because of the harsh sentences."
Your position is inconsistent, but that is what happens when you are uninformed. Again I have to point out that while some people are locked away, others are out there committing crimes.
That is what I mean when I say that there is no corrolation between tough on crime and reduced crime rate.
Crime prevention is a separate concept from deterrence. The first seeks a way to address the underlying causes of crime. The second suggests that consequences will prevent crime. Deterrence does not work. Prevention does.
No one is protected unless we become proactive rather than reactive.
I listened to some debates (CPAC)on the CPC crime bills, and what struck me was that all parties, except CPC, have evidence to support better alternatives to failed policies and believe in substantial investment in young people. Accessible daycare and properly funded community activities or prisons and half-way houses? The young people deserve a fighting chance. They need a voice. The CPC does not speak for them.
Post a Comment