This is something I genuinely don't understand. Toughen the parole requriements for non-violent offenders. Surely it makes sense to be stricter with the violent ones, or perhaps with all offenders? Why, except for political reasons, focus on non-violent offenders?
The Harper government wants to tighten parole for white-collar and other non-violent criminals, introducing a bill to keep such offenders behind bars longer.
Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan made the announcement in Montreal this morning and said the government will table legislation in the House of Commons this afternoon.
Non-violent offenders in crimes such as fraud or drug trafficking are eligible for day parole after completing one sixth of their time; they can access full parole after serving a third of their sentence.
They obtain the early release automatically, unless the National Parole Board objects.
“The status quo gives the National Parole Board no discretion in such cases,” Mr. Van Loan said. “This offends Canadians' sense of justice.”
The early parole rules were introduced in 1992 as a cost-saving measure, Mr. Van Loan said. The Tories' new reform, which it calls as “earned parole,” will cost taxpayers about $60 million a year.
14 comments:
Keep the electorate feared about people they shouldn't fear.
And hey, let's spend more money to keep them in prison. Cause we aren't running a big enough deficit now!
So, there's no money for employment insurance, no money for post-secondary students, no money for the poor, no money for crime-prevention initiatives and no money for health care, but there is money to keep non-violent criminals in jail?
There is no such thing as justice in Canada.
It could be that the Conservatives are serious about the other aims of the justice system, aims like denunciation and deterrence. The Liberals in the early 70's stepped away from those two goals, also for financial reasons, and concentrated on rehabilitation. Since then we have seen a massive increase in crime rates, rates that are still significantly higher than they were in 50's and 60's.
Justice cannot only be about protection from violent offenders. We have gone so far and so soft on criminals that we believe that serious, though non-violent crimes require no jail time. I disagree, especially when people are financially ruined by white collar criminals who get little time in jail because their crime didn't involve violence. Where is the justice in that? Where is the victim in your calculus?
And I am especially shocked by lawyers, like you James, who can argue that money in the form of legal fees should be no deterrence to justice but are happy to see lack of money deter justice when we talk about prisons. Increase legal aid on the one hand and refuse to protect, denounce, or deter on the other.
Total BS that crime rates are higher.
nothing mysterious here, James. Revenge based law and order and fundamentalists empowered.
And wait until they get at the judge thing...then we'll see a new order of things!
foottothefire
anon 3:51 .... you are most certainly correct..the crime rate is down.
Are crime rates up or down? It depends on when you start conting. If you say they're down you're measuring against the 90's. If you say they are up you are measuring against the 60's. The Liberal idea of rehabilitation rather than deterrence or denunciation coincided with a massive rise in crime rates that continued into the early 90's at which point they have declined modestly. Taking that longer view I am skeptical of claims that rehabilitation is working or that longer sentences will only make us unsafe. Don't believe me? Read this:
Lorrie Goldstein
Anyone with basic knowledge of criminology will tell you that deterrence is either a myth or a bald-faced lie.
When there was Capital punishment and they were put to death..that was NOT a deterrence.
A lawyer advocating a two-tiered justice system of ‘justice for the rich and the law for the poor’, while also moralizing on issues of violence vs. non-violence, is 'bourgeoisie' at its worst. If you are going to hang the little guys, we want to see the big guys swinging too!
The only people who advocate for maintaining the status quo for white-collar criminals are the ones who think they might find themselves there one day. The hell with you, no special privileges!! Do the crime do the time!
After all, we are a democracy...'equality' and all. :-)
mycdnprince: The issue here is that, on a structural level, the Canadian legal system is set up to allow crime to happen, sustain organized crime and gangs, increase poverty and breed contempt to prevent the middle class from demanding something better.
Tightening parole for white collar crime is just another part of a failed system. People will say "He's behind bars like he deserves" instead of "Why didn't the police catch him earlier?"
Wondering if they'll put in a loophole for former CON MPs and recently appointed CON senators...
Crime rates are down. They are generally driven far more by demographics than anything else. As boomers age, the rate will continue to fall.
Keeping people in prison when it is possible for them to live productive lives, under appropriate supervision, is so backward that it simply defies any logic at all.
Follow the money. Who wins if lots more prisons get built?
This has nothing to do with crime OR deterrence. And, it is BAD public policy.
"Crime rates are down. They are generally driven far more by demographics than anything else. As boomers age, the rate will continue to fall."
So rehabilitative policies haven't helped reduce the crime rates? Well, reduced them slightly from the high of the early 90's. How long will demographics take to reduce them to the levels seen in the 50's and 60's?
So, these criminals that can live productive lives, who are they? Are they the guys like Canada's version of Bernie Madoff? I mean, he didn't KILL anyone, why should he be in prison? Sure, thousands of people will be unable to retire, may be unable to afford to live in their homes, may be financially ruined, and some may even commit suicide, but you're right, none of that changes by putting that guy in prison. I guess it's just the neanderthal neocon in me that wants just a bit of "revenge". Of course, that used to be called "justice".
Post a Comment