Fiorello La Guardia, the mayor of New York in the 1930s and '40s, said, "There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the streets." La Guardia made a profound point in a simple way. Some things are not political. There is a right and a wrong way to keep streets clean; the same can be said for criminal justice.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/744712#article
7 comments:
Really? In the 30's and 40's I'm sure the streets were kept clean by guys with brooms and push carts. Today we use trucks with water nozzles and rotary brushes. But that's just the start of the differences time makes. The garbage changes, too. The garbage in the 30s and 40s, how much of it was dangerous to the cleaner? Today we deal with needles and condoms, and an assortment of other disease infected items. The difference in garbage clean up is real and it requires change. There is a right way and a wrong way and politics can be very much involved. Should we clean up the garbage and put it away permanently or should we try to prevent garbage in the first place? Will the people tossing garbage really be influenced by signs telling them not to????
I agree Rat -- my point isnt that we don't change and I don't think politics is irrelevant -- my point is we should focus on what works and not what sounds good.
About three months ago, my girlfriend's father and older brother called 911 to report their youngest son's/brother's abnormal behaviour.
An all around good kid but known to police, the young man has been acting unlike himself lately so when the family got together and asked him that they take him to a Doctor to get some help, he lost it and became all violent towards his brother and father (remember, the kid loves his dad and under any normal circumstance this would NEVER happen...)
That is when the 911 call went out. Police came and he was no different towards them...assaulted the police officers, kicked the police car door and caused some damage. That is three more charges to the many outstanding charges - most of which he has failed to tend.
The family was finally content to see him restrained now that he can be taken to a hospital where he can get some help. But no, he was sent right to the prison system. The was no regard to his obvious condition or the families plea. Almost every week from the time of his arrest, someone from the family attended a court date and told the duty counsel or a judge that he is not fit and how he should be in a hospital.
A month into his arrest, he was send to a mental health court and was asked a few "sanity" question like "do you know what a judge is?", "do you know what a lawyer does?", "do you know why you are here?"
Pass. Pass. Pass.
Now I sit here reading the star. I read your article and I couldn't help but think how on point your opinion is.
At the same time I am worried because on Page A3 of the same paper (top-left corner) it says, "Police investigate death of inmate at Don Jail"
I hope it is not him. Two weeks ago, we hired a private psychiatrist (around 3000 dollars to visit, evaluate and give the court a report on his findings...)
May I assume that your criticism of Harper's "tough on crime" policies will not based on the often repeated, highly misleading selective use of statistics mantra: "crime is down." Anyone who uses 1992, the peak year for crime in Canada as a base to demonstrate that "crime is declining" is obviously trying to make a political case. This is what we typically see in the press.
In fact, the violent crime rate in Canada today (meaning 2008, the latest available figures) is 321% above what it was in 1962, when comparable figures first started being recorded by Statistics Canada.
Violent crime rate down roughly 21% in the last fourteen years
Violent crime rate up roughly 115% in the previous fourteen years and up 436% in the previous thirty.
In 1962, there were 221 violent crimes reported to police per 100,000 population. Today the comparable figure is 932 per 100,000, more than a tripling of the rate in under 50 years.
For property crime, the rate is 62% higher (3,079 crimes per 100,000 population in 2008, compared to 1,891 in 1962).
The overall crime rate is 137% higher (6,589 crimes per 100,000 population last year compared to 2,771 in 1962).
But hey, I'm sure you already knew that! Right?
James, I would think you of all people would know that for law to exist there must be consequences to those who fail to obey it. Without consequences a law is nothing more than a 'guideline' that can be ignored without any fear. The reason why most polls have Canadians firmly in support of tougher sentences is since they read far too many cases where the convicted person is given no jailtime and then goes to commit another crime. How can one suggest that jail was responsible for the crimes when the convicted person was only fined, given house arrest, or asked to sign a peace bond?
There is nothing that angers the public more than seeing someone who breaks the law not held accountable for their actions.
I hate to invoke Star Trek, but I can't help but remember the episode of The Next Generation where the Enterprise crew landed on a planet that had a perfect society with no crime. Their secret? Only one punishment (death) for any crime, no matter how small. While it may seem extreme to execute someone for jaywalking, with such a punishment no one would risk breaking the law.
While I certainly don't advocate such, I don't think it is unreasonable for the punishment to fit the crime. I also don't think it is unreasonable for certain crimes to be considered more serious than others. (like those involving guns) However, before anyone decries the current judical methods, it would be best if they could offer some alternative.
In an elected democracy, the public will dictate how they want the laws to be enforced. Political parties need to listen to the public, and understand their concerns, before attempting to weaken the justice system.
The problem with "tough on crime" is that they rely on laws and laws have little to no power. You need to find a suspect, get enough evidence for a prosecution to be worth and then get a successful conviction, and there's always a chance that the wrong person was convicted, wich also means that the criminal walked away free. Aside from that, the law enforcement oriented approaches to crime prevention have no power at all because laws do not act until AFTER a crime has been committed and thus, according to the laws of cause and effect, cannot stop a crime from happening. A society that relies on laws to protect itself can never protect its citizens from being victimized in the first place.
Sexual abuse and homelessness are well-documented causes of drug use. The Conservative's approach to drugs is more jail time, which
1- Misrepresents the problem of drug addiction as a problem that spontaneously occurs on its own.
2- Fails to address the actual causes of drug use, such as sexual abuse and homelessnes.
3- Stigmatizes and marginalises drug users, which makes them less likely to seek help and generally makes their problems worse.
4- Further victimizes victims of sexual abuse and homeless people.
Instead of fighting drug addiction by fighting sexual abuse and homelessness, which are problems all on their own, the Canadian government is using our taxes to make Canada's drug problem even worse and to send victims of sexual abuse and homelessness to jail.
Post a Comment