said by vue666:
Don't you think Ian, Gone and others are already discussing mandatory sentencing to death and now you want to drag me into the foray?
However if you insist on a reply, I would say my opinion is quite close to Ian's on the matter...
It was my question to you that started the "foray", not dragged you into it, and you waited until others had answered to then simply point and say "yeah, what he said".
Ian1
pointed to an article that stated that crime is at a 48 year low in the US where mandatory minimum sentences exist, but at the same time it's been on a similar decline in Canada where we don't. There is thinking that it might work, but here is also equal thinking that it doesn't so the jury is still out on that one.
If you think that study on the reasons behind crime and drugs is the solution, and I happen to think that the sociological/psychological reasons behind them are key reasons too, what do you propose be done with the results of said studies. I put forward that the costs of implementing proposed solutions would large and would be social-program based like many other things that work with the usually-economically-depressed population in the country that tend to be those who commit crimes and do drugs (there are exceptions, to be sure, but as an overall blanket statement I think I'm correct).
Would you want the government to become involved in spending money on things like this, instead of building prisons, if the studies showed they would be more effective? And what would the burden of proof be to show that the info is correct instead of a "knee-jerk lib-left bleeding heart" reaction?