Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to IamGimli
Re: [Serious] Scarborough block party turns violentsaid by IamGimli: Actually, mandatory minimum sentences actually help with rehabilitation
The American example, as I will now say for a third time, runs counter to this very example you cited here. If rehabilitation was so wonderful and successful there would be a net-benefit on crime levels when American statistics show there is none, particularly when one takes into account the costs and the fact that programs can be delivered in a community setting rather than through incarceration. As for the recent Canadian move toward mandatory minimums, you're in no more of a position to say it will work than someone who says it won't, because we haven't had MMSes long enough for anyone to determine their impact to any sort of statistically accurate level. As I said earlier, you own experiences with whatever rehabilitation is available in federal prisons is irrelevant when it comes to judging the long-term impact of such policies. It's opinion, nothing more. Considering that Canada, for all intents and purposes, is America Jr. culturally when compared to other countries on Earth, I tend to think the American experience is a good indicator of how things would go here and that it would be a colossal waste of time and money with no realistic impact on crime levels. I should note that this is my own educated opinion, and is no more or less valid than the one you hold yourself. Get back to us in 10-20 years, then we can have proper discussion on the topic of just how well they work. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON
1 recommendation |
i think IamGimli's point (which if i understand him correctly, i agree with), is 3 years in a Canadian jail for mandatory sentencing, where he can get rehab is far more effective than 10 years in a US prison where he rots in his cell. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 1:19 pm
said by dirtyjeffer0:i think IamGimli's point (which if i understand him correctly, i agree with), is 3 years in a Canadian jail for mandatory sentencing, where he can get rehab is far more effective than 10 years in a US prison where he rots in his cell Maybe, but we have no real way of knowing how effective a mandatory minimum would be versus judicial discretion, because many of these mandatory minimums haven't been in place long enough to realistically determine the impact they may or may not have had. All things considered, the American failure would most likely translate into something similar for Canada, at the very least the cost of delivering programs while incarcerated versus costs to deliver programs while under community supervision would be a sham considering that it most likely - based on the American example, anyway - translate into any reduction in crime. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
if someone is in prison, it ensures they can get the rehab...when left to their own demise, and let out early, it perpetuates the issues we see too often today...i have no problem with mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms...at the very least, it keeps them off the streets, which eliminates and chance of recidivism during that time...the phrases "known to police", "previous charges" and "out on bail/parole" are all too common nowadays. |
|
|
to Gone
said by Gone:The American example, as I will now say for a third time, runs counter to this very example you cited here. The American example, as I will also say for the third time, cannot be directly extrapolated to the Canadian environment due to the differences I mentioned previously. Care to go for a fourth round? said by Gone:If rehabilitation was so wonderful and successful there would be a net-benefit on crime levels when American statistics show there is none, particularly when one takes into account the costs and the fact that programs can be delivered in a community setting rather than through incarceration. Actually, rehabilitation does work to a certain degree, and the Canadian experience with rehabilitation is much more successful than the American experience with rehabilitation, due to many factors. Some of those factors are the longer periods Canadian offenders spend on parole vs. American offenders, the generally shorter sentences Canadian offenders are sentenced to vs. American offenders and the much greater availability of rehabilitation programs available to Canadian offenders, and their generally greater quality. A lot of American prisons are privately owned and run and it's not in the interest of the privately owned institution to release offenders early or to spend considerable amounts of money on rehabilitation programs. That doesn't exist in Canada. said by Gone:As for the recent Canadian move toward mandatory minimums, you're in no more of a position to say it will work than someone who says it won't, because we haven't had MMSes long enough for anyone to determine their impact to any sort of statistically accurate level. As I said earlier, you own experiences with whatever rehabilitation is available in federal prisons is irrelevant when it comes to judging the long-term impact of such policies. It's opinion, nothing more. I never said it was certain to be a good thing, only that my personal experience talking with people who do this for a living is that it will help. I take that knowledge to have a greater value to evaluate OUR system than your claim that the American experience, which has almost nothing in common with the Canadian environment, is a guaranty of failure. said by Gone:Considering that Canada, for all intents and purposes, is America Jr. culturally when compared to other countries on Earth, I tend to think the American experience is a good indicator of how things would go here and that it would be a colossal waste of time and money with no realistic impact on crime levels. I should note that this is my own educated opinion, and is no more or less valid than the one you hold yourself. Actually, that only shows that you have absolutely no clue how the Canadian correctional system works as it's absolutely nothing that can be compared to the American correctional system. As a matter of fact our correctional system is much closer to the system used in European countries, especially on the Scandinavian peninsula. That is in no small part due to Ole Ingstrup, a Danish-Canadian who was commissioner of Correctional Services Canada for nine years and chairman of the National Parole Board for two. said by Gone:Get back to us in 10-20 years, then we can have proper discussion on the topic of just how well they work. You do the same instead of just claiming it can't work because the American couldn't make it work. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 1:53 pm
And you have zero proof that mandatory minimum sentences would work just because Canadian prisons offer better inmate services. I never argued that rehabilitation doesn't work. I also quite clearly said that the American parallel is not a direct one, but it is the best example we have to look at versus your example of a Canadian practice so new that we have no way to base any figures on it, which is what your whole argument is based upon.
If you want to base your entire argument in favour of mandatory minimum sentences on a) unproven theories and b) things that were never said, I can't stop you. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1 to Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 3:52 pm
to Gone
said by Gone:
As for the recent Canadian move toward mandatory minimums, you're in no more of a position to say it will work than someone who says it won't, because we haven't had MMSes long enough for anyone to determine their impact to any sort of statistically accurate level.
And we never will. People who argue that statistics "prove" that mandatory minimum sentences aren't working where they have been implemented don't understand statistics, or experimental method. You have condition "A", the current state, as well as trends from the past. Condition "A" has known inputs and outcomes for the most part. But ascribing certain outcomes to certain inputs is utterly impossible. You can theorize all you like. There's no basis of comparison to truly judge or to separate variables. Which brings us to condition "B". In this case, the present as well as trends IF mandatory minimum sentences weren't put in in the US. ???? Have an alternate-universe-o-scope? Who the heck knows. Purely conjecture, for those advocating MMSs or those saying that they don't work. That said, serious crime in the US, where there are tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws is at a 48 year low. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 4:03 pm
said by Ian1:That said, serious crime in the US, where there are tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws is at a 48 year low. A citation would be nice. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 4:25 pm
said by Gone:said by Ian1:That said, serious crime in the US, where there are tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws is at a 48 year low. A citation would be nice. Google is your friend. But here's "A" source. » www.guardian.co.uk/world ··· plunging"America's serious crime rate is plunging, but why?" "Police investigate a crime scene in Washington DC. Serious crime across America has fallen to a 48-year low." "One of the most widely accepted explanations is also one of the most politically and socially sensitive that the imposition of sharply stiffer prison sentences since the early 1980s, which has resulted in the US having the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, has kept large numbers of criminals off the streets." But as I said, impossible to really "know" why things are the way that they are. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 4:36 pm
Well, crime is also down significantly in Canada over the same period without the same sentencing policy, so you're right - we'll never know for sure.
Still, when one looks at the cost vs. benefit of such policies, are they worth the money? It is worth putting yourself into debt for limited reductions in crime? I suppose that depends on who you ask, but it certainly isn't a very fiscally conservative way of looking at things. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 4:47 pm
said by Gone:Still, when one looks at the cost vs. benefit of such policies, are they worth the money? It is worth putting yourself into debt for limited reductions in crime? I suppose that depends on who you ask, but it certainly isn't a very fiscally conservative way of looking at things. Well? Do you want violent crime like Scarborough shootings to drop more, or not? I just think that things that actually might work, such as putting violent thugs behind bars, away from society, might actually help; whereas further restricting lawful handguns.....likely won't. |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna |
to Ian1
said by Ian1:"One of the most widely accepted explanations is also one of the most politically and socially sensitive that the imposition of sharply stiffer prison sentences since the early 1980s, which has resulted in the US having the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, has kept large numbers of criminals off the streets." But as I said, impossible to really "know" why things are the way that they are. Although slightly OT there is a competing theory here: » pricetheory.uchicago.edu ··· 2001.pdfquote: Far more interesting from our perspective is the possibility that abortion has a disproportionate effect on the births of those who are most at risk of engaging in criminal behavior. To the extent that abortion is more frequent among those parents who are least willing or able to provide a nurturing home environment, as a large and growing body of evidence suggests, the impact of legalized abortion on crimemight be far greater than its effect on fertility rates.
I'm *not* bringing this up to discuss abortion, but I am offering a counter point to "stiffer sentences are the only way to reduce crime". |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON 1 edit |
Gone to Ian1
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 5:50 pm
to Ian1
said by Ian1:Well? Do you want violent crime like Scarborough shootings to drop more, or not? I just think that things that actually might work, such as putting violent thugs behind bars, away from society, might actually help; whereas further restricting lawful handguns.....likely won't. 1) I have never disagreed that further restricting handguns would be a futile and useless way of trying to solve violent crime. Quite the opposite in fact, and I'm on the record saying such many times over. 2) There is no tangible proof, as you already outlined, that mandatory minimum sentences are directly responsible for the reduction in violent crime that the United States has experience over the last few decades. Considering that Canada has also experienced a similar declined without the implementation of such policies until very recently, that calls into question whether they had any impact at all. 3) If there was a reduction, how much of a reduction would you consider acceptable for the cost to be worthwhile? A 50% drop? 10% drop? 1%? Furthermore, if the cost is high (as incarceration always is), are you willing to accept a potentially significant fiscal impact (e.g. higher taxes) to pay for these sentencing policies? As I said earlier, mandatory minimum sentences are not a fiscally conservative way of dealing with the problem. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's throwing money at a problem when there are better approaches that cost far less money. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 5:58 pm
said by Gone:As I said earlier, mandatory minimum sentences is not a fiscally conservative way of dealing with the problem. Quite the opposite, in fact. Well...we're opening up a really complex set of issues. Yes, it's expensive to incarcerate someone. But does it really need to be as expensive as it is? One of the reasons why it is so expensive is the stranglehold powerful unions have on the industry. We're paying prison workers FAR more than similar jobs in the private sector. And how many more will be incarcerated, exactly? Nobody knows. But suppose I'm some gang-banger in Scarborough. If I know that if I'm caught with an illegal weapon at a party I will be sent to prison for a minimum of 10 years, rather than the current plea-bargained slap on the wrist, am I more, or less, likely to leave it at home? Hmm? I suppose the exceptionally stupid won't take that into account, but most would. And maybe, with tough sentencing laws, Jamaican gangs and such will look elsewhere to expand operations. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 6:07 pm
said by Ian1:Well...we're opening up a really complex set of issues. Yes, it's expensive to incarcerate someone. But does it really need to be as expensive as it is? One of the reasons why it is so expensive is the stranglehold powerful unions have on the industry. We're paying prison workers FAR more than similar jobs in the private sector. I will assume that you also believe police officers are overpaid, since they're paid far more than similar jobs in the private sector but serve a similar role in society as correction officers do, right? Is it your contention that we should turn prisons into a profit industry like in the United States? Perhaps we should also outsource law enforcement to private entities that pay employees $16/hour too? said by Ian1:And how many more will be incarcerated, exactly? Nobody knows. We already have the American example that we can look at, with the highest incarceration rate in the western world and, indeed, one of the highest in the entire world - period. So, indeed, we already have a pretty good idea of what it would be like if we went gung-ho with it the same way the Americans have done. said by Ian1:And maybe, with tough sentencing laws, Jamaican gangs and such will look elsewhere to expand operations. Considering that violent crime is still far worse in American cities than Canadian ones, and that they have much harsher sentencing than we do here, I'd say that you didn't think that comment through. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 6:23 pm
said by Gone:I will assume that you also believe police officers are overpaid, since they're paid far more than similar jobs in the private sector but serve a similar role in society as correction officers do, right? Is it your contention that we should turn prisons into a profit industry like in the United States? Perhaps we should also outsource law enforcement to private entities that pay employees $16/hour too? You seem to believe that I'm advocating extreme measures. I'm not. And yes, cops are wildly overpaid. Beat-cop constables with a high-school education in my city can (and do) pull in over $100K a year with a little overtime (which they pad to no end). But being more aggressive with prison unions and outsourcing certain activities would be at least a good start to contain costs. said by Gone:We already have the American example that we can look at, Canada is not the United States. said by Gone:Considering that violent crime is still far worse in American cities than Canadian ones, and that they have much harsher sentencing than we do here, I'd say that you didn't think that comment through. Not sure how it is in Fort Erie, but Jamaican gang crime is a huge problem in the GTA. American cities each have their own issues. And we could (and should) be helping to solve our unique problems with deportation and immigration solutions as well. |
|
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 6:52 pm
said by Ian1:You seem to believe that I'm advocating extreme measures. I'm not. And yes, cops are wildly overpaid. Beat-cop constables with a high-school education in my city can (and do) pull in over $100K a year with a little overtime (which they pad to no end). But being more aggressive with prison unions and outsourcing certain activities would be at least a good start to contain costs. Fair enough, I'll concede these points. Just remember that a well-paid police force is typically not a corrupt police force. One only need look at the Southern US and Mexico to see what happens when you pay someone in a position of authority what amounts to peanuts. The same applies to correction officers. said by Gone:Canada is not the United States. Right, we aren't, which is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around someone advocating what has always been an American solution with what are issues unique to Canada. Furthermore our crime rate has never been anywhere near the US and have continued to drop at the same pace as the Americans even without us implementing mandatory minimum sentences like they did, so I still fail to see how there can be any benefit at all, particularly when one realizes just how much it would cost to implement it in any sort of serious way. said by Gone:Not sure how it is in Fort Erie, but Jamaican gang crime is a huge problem in the GTA. American cities each have their own issues. And we could (and should) be helping to solve our unique problems with deportation and immigration solutions as well. Toronto does not have a "huge" crime problem of any sort. It still has the lowest crime rates of any major city in North America, and on a per-capita basis it was still far worse back in the 70s (just like it was in American cities) than it is today. What you're doing is advocating an American "solution" (and one that they are re-thinking) and the associated costs for something that is nowhere near the levels of the American problem on one hand, while crying "we aren't Americans" on the other and then expecting to be able to have it both ways. Furthermore, while I don't necessarily agree with IamGimli's assertion that mandatory minimums would work in Canada despite assertions that the quality of programs offered to inmates in our federal prisons would lead to better rehabilitation, your comments about cuts don't give me a lot of faith that you would keep such programs intact. Ultimately, demanding mandatory minimum sentences and then complaining about the costs of unionized correctional workers would lead any reasonable person to believe that you are advocating an exact replica of harsh American sentences combined with as-cheap-as-possible incarceration that offers little to rehabilitate inmates once they are they. There's no proof that this kind of setup worked there, and there's certainly nothing to instill confidence in me that something like that would work here. |
|
|
Stop debating with yourself |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to Ian1
said by Ian1: And yes, cops are wildly overpaid. Beat-cop constables with a high-school education in my city can (and do) pull in over $100K a year with a little overtime (which they pad to no end). There are few high school educated police officers these days. To be hired as a police officer in Ontario requires at the very least a diploma in Police Foundations (2 year) and many have 3 year university degrees. Those with high school education now would have years of experience, perhaps meriting a higher salary. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:Stop debating with yourself Haha. |
|
Gone |
Gone to DKS
Premium Member
2012-Jul-23 9:15 pm
to DKS
said by DKS:There are few high school educated police officers these days. To be hired as a police officer in Ontario requires at the very least a diploma in Police Foundations (2 year) and many have 3 year university degrees. The NRPS specifically shy against candidates who have taken any sort of college-level police prep course, as it causes them to have to re-teach a recruit everything all over again in the way that the NRPS prefers. This is right from the mouth of the recruiter, and I believe him when he says it. They value community service above anything else. If you can demonstrate long-standing volunteer activity in the community, they'll hire you with just an OSSD before they will anyone else who lacks that. |
|