- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
TCBF said:
I can get them some lovely Essex County Ash trees really cheap.
Mandatory Minimum Sentances Do not Work
- Thread starter Pike
- Start date
I can get them some lovely Essex County Ash trees really cheap.
You have it all wrong - it is not to scare them away, it is to warehouse them longer to save society from the damage they do when they are loose. Their thinking process is irrelevant. catch them and lock them up. keep them locked up. We will save on health care, insurance and policing costs.
Tom
Tom
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,523
- Points
- 1,040
From the linked article:
"In the United States and Australia, mandatory minimum sentences have been utilized for much of the past few decades. Many states are now revisiting them, recognizing that mandatory minimum sentences do not protect society, they do not rehabilitate individuals, and they do not generally contribute to the well-being of others. They do, however, vastly increase the cost of the criminal-justice system."
>mandatory minimum sentences do not protect society,
>they do not generally contribute to the well-being of others
False, by definition of incarceration. Specific deterrence (isolating the criminal from society) protects the innocent.
>they do not rehabilitate individuals,
Perhaps not, but the flawed assumption is that the individuals can be rehabilitated irrespective of sentence. If not, there are two options:
1) Permit them to prey on others.
2) Isolate them.
>vastly increase the cost of the criminal-justice system
Either we pay to incarcerate, or we pay insurance premiums and risk being victims. I'll go along with the socialists on this: I pay taxes for government to solve the problem so that I don't have to deal with it.
General deterrence works on honest people; the spectre of embarrassment and punishment is the help an honest man sometimes needs to stay honest. It should not be expected to have any effect on the criminally minded.
Rehabilitation is possible for honest people and non-habitual criminals - people who suffered a moment of weakness sufficient to overcome general deterrence. It should not be expected to have any effect on the criminally minded.
For the criminally minded, there is only specific deterrence.
In summary: whether mandatory minimums provide general deterrence or rehabilitation is irrelevant. They meet the third objective, specific deterrence, which is sufficient. The only demonstrable flaw of mandatory minimums is that people who can generally be deterred or can be rehabilitated (in other words, basically honest people) can be swept up in the net. To mitigate that, we can distinguish between first and subsequent offences.
"In the United States and Australia, mandatory minimum sentences have been utilized for much of the past few decades. Many states are now revisiting them, recognizing that mandatory minimum sentences do not protect society, they do not rehabilitate individuals, and they do not generally contribute to the well-being of others. They do, however, vastly increase the cost of the criminal-justice system."
>mandatory minimum sentences do not protect society,
>they do not generally contribute to the well-being of others
False, by definition of incarceration. Specific deterrence (isolating the criminal from society) protects the innocent.
>they do not rehabilitate individuals,
Perhaps not, but the flawed assumption is that the individuals can be rehabilitated irrespective of sentence. If not, there are two options:
1) Permit them to prey on others.
2) Isolate them.
>vastly increase the cost of the criminal-justice system
Either we pay to incarcerate, or we pay insurance premiums and risk being victims. I'll go along with the socialists on this: I pay taxes for government to solve the problem so that I don't have to deal with it.
General deterrence works on honest people; the spectre of embarrassment and punishment is the help an honest man sometimes needs to stay honest. It should not be expected to have any effect on the criminally minded.
Rehabilitation is possible for honest people and non-habitual criminals - people who suffered a moment of weakness sufficient to overcome general deterrence. It should not be expected to have any effect on the criminally minded.
For the criminally minded, there is only specific deterrence.
In summary: whether mandatory minimums provide general deterrence or rehabilitation is irrelevant. They meet the third objective, specific deterrence, which is sufficient. The only demonstrable flaw of mandatory minimums is that people who can generally be deterred or can be rehabilitated (in other words, basically honest people) can be swept up in the net. To mitigate that, we can distinguish between first and subsequent offences.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Sweet mother of Pearl!! Brad and me on the same wavelength! ;D 
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
This is the necessary balance. Judges can have their crack at alternate sentencing, rehabillitation, and possible mitigating circumstances leading to an initial encounter with the law. If a person choses to come back for a second round, then minimum sentences to protect the public from those who have chosen to continue with crime for fun and profit.Brad Sallows said:
- Reaction score
- 14,567
- Points
- 1,010
I agree. To me, this sounds like a workable balance. We should not be locking up 16 year olds who are on their first shoplifting offence for 10 years hard time- there are other ways. On the other hand, I don't really care if some @sshat who has stolen 40 cars isn't detered or doesn't learn anything from his mandatory 10 (or 15, or 20) year sentence- that is his problem. He is, however, off the street and not stealing cars for that time, which gives the rest of us a break.
We have an inquiry going on in NS right now about a 16 year old kid who was a habitual car thief and liked to go for high-speeed chases. He killed an innocent lady during one high speed run. It turns out he had been caught several (many?) times by the RCMP and Halifax Police, but the youth criminal justice system just kept putting him back out onto the street, as fast as the paperwork could be done.
Surely, after say, his 3rd or (5th or 10th) car theft, he could at least have been warehoused?
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
We just had one of those down her too. The little sh_t rags have learned that if they drive into oncoming traffic, or hit a pedestrian, the pursuit will be called off, and if someone is hurt, then the police will stop to render assistance instead of continuing the pursuit.
My regular partner just had court for a kid that was up for his sixth car theft/pursuit conviction. He had been pending charges for the same thing (turned 18 in jail, but still treated as a YO) so he did four months dead time. 4 months DT=8 month sentence. Pleads guilty, two years probation. Conditions? Not to occupy the front seat of a car. Typical sentence for a breach of probation? Time served, $50 fine.
Once again, I call for judges to be elected, so these self righteous prigs can get weeded out and someone who cares about society can take over.
My regular partner just had court for a kid that was up for his sixth car theft/pursuit conviction. He had been pending charges for the same thing (turned 18 in jail, but still treated as a YO) so he did four months dead time. 4 months DT=8 month sentence. Pleads guilty, two years probation. Conditions? Not to occupy the front seat of a car. Typical sentence for a breach of probation? Time served, $50 fine.
Once again, I call for judges to be elected, so these self righteous prigs can get weeded out and someone who cares about society can take over.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Link to slain teacher metioned above:
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=97e5d6c9-90c7-42bb-81ce-210aa2f7435b&rfp=dta
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=97e5d6c9-90c7-42bb-81ce-210aa2f7435b&rfp=dta
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,024
- Points
- 1,010
PIKE, please get real. Go down to Kingston Pen and meet some of these "charming misunderstood people" or maybe talk to the family of the last ten murder victim s in GTA and share your "enlightened" view on them.
In case no one told you, the 60s are way over.
In case no one told you, the 60s are way over.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,523
- Points
- 1,040
>Sweet mother of Pearl!! Brad and me on the same wavelength!
My wavelength is easy to pick out of the spectrum. Generally law-abiding citizens who respect the full measure of freedom of other citizens, are entitled to a full measure of freedom and the presumption of innocent behaviour and good conduct. Assholes, are not. My view is that if some people are a problem, we direct our efforts and attention to those people, not to everyone and his dog. I don't believe that we have to inconvenience everyone for the sake of paying homage to a vague sense of fairness.
My wavelength is easy to pick out of the spectrum. Generally law-abiding citizens who respect the full measure of freedom of other citizens, are entitled to a full measure of freedom and the presumption of innocent behaviour and good conduct. Assholes, are not. My view is that if some people are a problem, we direct our efforts and attention to those people, not to everyone and his dog. I don't believe that we have to inconvenience everyone for the sake of paying homage to a vague sense of fairness.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Always the fun governor. I'll pull you over to the dark side yet, Capt. Serious! :dontpanic:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
My 2 cents...
Was driving around Florida this past month and saw bill board signs that read "10...20...LIFE!" below it was use a gun in a crime get 10...fire that gun get 20 hurt someone with that gun get life.
Not only was this all over on billboards but on the radio also, you could not get away with a day in Florida without seeing or hearing it twice or more. Dont tell me that wont make a criminal think twice about what he does! And if it has no effect and the criminal goes away for life good society will be better off.
Was driving around Florida this past month and saw bill board signs that read "10...20...LIFE!" below it was use a gun in a crime get 10...fire that gun get 20 hurt someone with that gun get life.
Not only was this all over on billboards but on the radio also, you could not get away with a day in Florida without seeing or hearing it twice or more. Dont tell me that wont make a criminal think twice about what he does! And if it has no effect and the criminal goes away for life good society will be better off.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
3rd Horseman said:
For that supposed 2% of society it doesn't...
That's OK, you can't save everyone, and the ads do two things:
1. They reafirm the principles of responsibility and cosnequence in certain 'borderline' personalities (keeps it at 2% instead of 2.1%?); and
2. Keeps the rest of society focused on the choice the criminal made: "Well, serves the dang sumbitch right fur not payin attention t'all them billboards!". No limp-dyck debate over sentencing - it's on the billboard!
1. They reafirm the principles of responsibility and cosnequence in certain 'borderline' personalities (keeps it at 2% instead of 2.1%?); and
2. Keeps the rest of society focused on the choice the criminal made: "Well, serves the dang sumbitch right fur not payin attention t'all them billboards!". No limp-dyck debate over sentencing - it's on the billboard!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
zipperhead
"No one lives in tar paper shacks unless they want to, no one dies on the street unless they want to."
You must not fully understand the complexities of life if you really believe that statement of yours.
You really think people want to live in poverty?
"No one lives in tar paper shacks unless they want to, no one dies on the street unless they want to."
You must not fully understand the complexities of life if you really believe that statement of yours.
You really think people want to live in poverty?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Pike said:
I think there are many people on welfare that could care less what they live in, because they have been raised to believe that the Fed owes them food, shelter and clothes just because they got shat out on this side of a border. If your grandmother is on welfare, and your mom is on welfare and that is how you were raised, chances are you aren't exactly shooting for the moon. Ghetto dwellers (mainly the white and black ones from my experience, as opposed to the new immigrants who seem to get jobs faster and get out of the housing projects fairly quickly) only concern is making sure that cheque shows up. Recently, welfare stopped it's policy of depositing rent money straight to the landlords. "OOO, it is so labeling to not allow people to make their own choices. It makes them feel like we don't trust them". Now what we see (mainly the ones who don't have kids yet) is a person move into a place, pay first months rent (since someone decided that last month is unfair too) then never give the landlord another dime. You have thirty days to pay late rent before the land lord can start the eviction process, which in turn takes about 30 days. So they get three months for one, and welfare is giving them the money all along. And yes, there are heaps of people that live that way, moving all of their crap that often. I hope a socialist like you comes up with a new category for ghetto dwellers, like "modern age marginalized urban nomads". Then they can be studied, given more grants and celebrated as a vital part of our uniquely Canadian mosaic.
There is nothing to compel people to better themselves. If there was any real chance of someone actually dying in the street, maybe that someone would conduct themselves in a bit more credible manner (again, notwithstanding street people who have mental health issues).
You socialists that get all hung up on "complex issues" need to get over yourselves. Get back to the simple issue: if you feed the strays, they will keep coming back. Boot 'em in the arse, the handout is done.
Similar threads
