The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics
- Thread starter zipperhead_cop
- Start date
GAP said:
There isn't nearly enough, but there is some. That said, this is one of the bigger problems facing our criminal justice system.
I'd be curious to see a properly done cost benefit analysis comparing the cost of various programs to assist inmates in squaring themselves away with the economic costs as a result of both further crime and of further incarceration. Call it an investment, if you will- pay some to help inmates now so we don't pay more to feed and house them again later.
You are talking a 180 degree turn on the Prison system, the governing bodies, and on the inmates part. To accomplish anything reflective of what you are wanting will cost millions, if it can even be done. I don't see the public, nor government support for that massive an input. Most people just want the convicted "out of sight/out of mind".
GAP said:
Of course it will cost millions. Hell, the new federal budget gives Corrections $102m over two years to update infrastructure, equipment and programming (Programming being the institutional term for offender services designed to alter their behavioural patterns or to help educate/train them). The money's there already, and more could be given. Their anticipated spending for 2006-2007 is about $1.6 billion.
Sure, prisoners may be out of sight/out of mind for a third to two thirds of their sentence... Then what?
Sometimes the government has to shoehorn spending that the public as a whole is not prepared to recognize as necessary, either due to philosophy, ignorance, or party affiliation among many reasons... But an essential element of public security is reducing crime, and part of that is reducing recidivism and giving criminals the option to be productive members of society on release. Granted most of that falls on them to decide for themselves, but the corrections system is designed so as to be able to provide help- hence the term 'corrections'.
I'd like to see how those that responded answer this one: "How much thought did put into massive judicial reform before you were given this survey?"
And I might suggest that electing judges is perhaps the very worst way to take care prison system, young offenders, rehabilitation issues.
And I might suggest that electing judges is perhaps the very worst way to take care prison system, young offenders, rehabilitation issues.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Government is supposed to be composed of three evenly balanced sections. In Canada, the judicial branch has no reasonable counterbalance. Parliament handed over responsibility to the courts to avoid being held responsible for some tough decisions and the courts took the money and run.
People who are making decisions that affect my everyday life, need to be elected. The courts in Canada are making law, not just interpreting it.
People who are making decisions that affect my everyday life, need to be elected. The courts in Canada are making law, not just interpreting it.
Port Hope said:
Care to provide examples?
The courts have the ability to declare laws null and void, generally on constitutional grounds. All they can do is throw it back to the legislature to be reworked. The legislature also has the notwithstanding clause of the Charter at its disposal if they deem something absolutely necessary.
I don't see any instances where judicial discretion has allowed for gross miscarriages of justice of the sort that would justify revamping the entire system...
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
Later on tonight when I'm REALLY bored I may actually read that 'load of crap' but a quick skim gave me at least one thing that is 'stupid' [ and perjury as far as I'm concerned]
During the 10-year period, 15,418 offenders were released on full parole. Figure 1 shows their outcomes. Of those released on full parole, almost three quarters (72%) completed their sentence without being returned to federal custody.
However any sentence that only landed two years less a day, [you know minor crimes like rape, child pornagraphy, B&E, some manslaughters, etc], or the offender was still in front of a judge, or he/she died while shooting up/ breaking in/ etc, or the police finally did us all a favour, or the P&P Officer was told not t5o revoke his parole from higher,is still considered a success.
EDIT: took out a line because I posted it too fast before I finished it. I will get back too it Brihard.
During the 10-year period, 15,418 offenders were released on full parole. Figure 1 shows their outcomes. Of those released on full parole, almost three quarters (72%) completed their sentence without being returned to federal custody.
However any sentence that only landed two years less a day, [you know minor crimes like rape, child pornagraphy, B&E, some manslaughters, etc], or the offender was still in front of a judge, or he/she died while shooting up/ breaking in/ etc, or the police finally did us all a favour, or the P&P Officer was told not t5o revoke his parole from higher,is still considered a success.
EDIT: took out a line because I posted it too fast before I finished it. I will get back too it Brihard.
Bruce Monkhouse said:
So it's a load of crap without you having even read it? Wow, I'm imrpessed. Great effort at honest debate here. If I'd known I was providing data to people who have already made up their minds without research I'd not have bothered.
When you get really bored and go back to read it in its entirety, make a point of noting the statistics about the number of offenders readmitted to the correctional system on new offences after their sentences are completed. They're in there, but I won't waste any more of my time digging them up for you. There's plenty about staying out in there if the report's read in its entirety. Sorry, but academia is not about pick and choose. Of course, I invite you to provide contradictory data if you so choose- I will always change my views if I'm shown to be wrong. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but there's only one set of facts.
If anyone has an interest in honestly discussing this, I'll be around.
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
Brihard said:
I've spent 18 years reading and disecting this crap whilst locking those federal parole offender successes into the system. I think I've earned some leaway.
Now, here is the rub,.....listen up good, this is important.......you say the "correctional system", they say the "federal correctional system".
..and academia IS about pick and choose, otherwise one teacher would do the whole country on each subject, no?
Valid point on the correctional system v. federal correctional system. I'll have to see what more comprehensive data I can dig up once I've got the time. Unfortunately this stuff isn't as easily accessible as one would think... I'll have to dig for it.
What I meant by 'it's not pick and choose' is you can't just pick specific data points and analyze them without making an effort to see what else there is. Data in isolation is useless- you need context. The only sample you've really had to work with is those who reoffend, since you'd obviously have little need to confront offenders who completed their sentences and went on to not do anything wrong..
I'd suggest that if you've been locking up offenders for 18 years, you're probably a bit biased by having been exposed almost exclusively to one side of the equation for that long. That would understandably foster frustration at the system. But hard numbers are hard numbers- you can only make this argument with data; there's a lot of it there. PErsonal experience only deals with individual cases. The whole picture is too big for one person to paint it.
What I meant by 'it's not pick and choose' is you can't just pick specific data points and analyze them without making an effort to see what else there is. Data in isolation is useless- you need context. The only sample you've really had to work with is those who reoffend, since you'd obviously have little need to confront offenders who completed their sentences and went on to not do anything wrong..
I'd suggest that if you've been locking up offenders for 18 years, you're probably a bit biased by having been exposed almost exclusively to one side of the equation for that long. That would understandably foster frustration at the system. But hard numbers are hard numbers- you can only make this argument with data; there's a lot of it there. PErsonal experience only deals with individual cases. The whole picture is too big for one person to paint it.
GAP said:
I did not say he has no perspective- rather, his closely involved perspective is exactly my point. I said he is probably 'a bit biased', and I know I sound arrogant as hell saying that- but I'll stand by it. Anyone closely involved in any institution is generally biased to some degree. I'm biased in favour of academia, being a university student. I wouldn't presume to call myself objective on military affairs either, as I'm a member of the forces. A police officer will have certain predetermined beliefs about law enforcement and crime. Criminals will have an entirely different take on it.
Everyone - you, me, everyone in this world - is coloured by their biases, the only difference is whether you acknowledge and take your biases into account or not. Very few people can call themselves completely objective on anything with which their connected. However, any academic pursuit - which the study of sociology and criminology necessarily has to be - requires one to be as objective as possible, and pure analysis of statistical data is one of the best ways to do it.
I'll admit my experience in the field is limited- though not completely absent... I'm a criminology and criminal justice major- I've been taught the value of honest analysis. When you're dealing with tens of thousands of offenders, there's really no other way to do it with any measure of justice- letting personal biases slip into the system are how great injustices occur in the first place. I'm not arguing that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The only thing I've committed to is my interpretation of what the research data on this subject shows, and I've provided my sources for that. I'd rather stick to the subject at hand and not turn this personal- that's not at all my intention. I just try to keep people (including myself) honest when I smell a good discussion.
GAP said:
Academics doesn't deal with individual cases. I challenge you to point out where I've said otherwise. Saying that offender program X vs offender program Y will result in 8% fewer reconvictions post release doesn't mean that in the case of Joe Bloggins offender it will make that specific difference. Demonstrating that probation and fines is more effective in some minor offences than incarceration doesn't mean that joe blow shouldn't be jailed for his particular stunt, or that a fine is all that's necessary in every case. I'd never take the studies to the range- but I'd take them to policy and legislation debates, because that's what they're intended for, and I've never claimed otherwise. Please don't make inferences about what I'm saying, as everything I claim in a discussion like this is meant to be taken at face value and with the limits inherent in what is actually said. Research hits the range only in studies that have positive application to individuals- i.e., psychological research into methods of anger management training, or offender risk profiling, or criminal interrogation methods, etc.
Before you go slamming the value of criminological research, ask yourself why the system is the way it is today: hint, it's not the whims of correction or law enforcement officers; it's the policies laid down by governmental agencies derived from hundreds or thousands of studies into what does and does not work, filtered through the processes of politics and bureaucracy. I'd never presume to tell a corrections officer or official how to do his job; I only bring up data which ought to be considered in debating the matter at hand. Don't kill the messenger here, I'm just presenting another side to the party line, and if I step on a few toes, so be it. The second I am demonstrated to be wrong on anything I say, I will gladly admit it and learn from it.
Academics study real life in broad terms and samples. Understanding the interplay between research data and action or policy is vital to having a grasp of the whole picture of any system or institution, and that's all I'm trying to claim in this particular instance. Just don't dismiss study as useless in all cases- that is an assertion you cannot prove.
Back to the original start of this whole mess, the only thing I've positively claimed is that stiffer sentencing has not been demonstrated to have a positive effect in reducing rates of recidivism. Noone has yet shown me anything to prove me incorrect. I'd rather not drag this thread further off topic with more of an academic tangent though, and I've got a paper to finish, so I'll take this up again sometime tomorrow.
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
Quote from link,
Keeping this in mind, we are now going to look at some recidivism rates and at an overview of how a sample of 1,000 federal offenders did while on release.
Hmmm, I noticed that this isn't a random survey..............1000 from Beaver Creek or a 1000 from the Kingston Pen?
Well, I guess that would depend on what you want your " hard statistical data" to say, now wouldn't it?
Quote,
We defined the recidivism rate as the percentage of released offenders readmitted to federal custody during a particular period of study. Readmission was defined as violations of release conditions (i.e., technical violations) and convictions for new offences.
To see how well we have been managing offenders over a certain period of time, we compared the recidivism rates for a number of consecutive short-term (three-month) periods.
We looked at the recidivism rates for each quarter during the last three years, from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1993. We found that the average recidivism rate for each of the 12 quarters studied has remained fairly constant at 4.8%. This is impressive, given that the number of offenders on conditional release has increased by nearly 10% during the same period, from 8,937 in April 1990 to 9,793 by March 1993
Like I stated above, anyone who committed a crime that was still before the courts, or got two years less a day or the Parole Board just decided not to revoke are all " parole successes". Nice statistics.....
Quote,
Looking at the recidivism rates for offenders on different types of release, we found that offenders on full parole did much better than those on mandatory supervision (now called statutory release). The average quarterly recidivism rate for offenders released on full parole was 1.9%; it was 10.8% for those released on mandatory supervision. In other words, there was approximately one parole failure for every five mandatory supervision failures. This ratio remained fairly stable over the 12 quarters.
Lets see, lets make a comparison of inmates who got parole because of, oh say, good behavior in jail to those who were such arseholes, heinous crimed, and/or such repeat offenders that they wouldn't stand a chance if God himself testified on their behalf. Nice statistics.......
Quote,
As shown in Figure 3, the overall readmission rate was 37.1%. The readmission rate for offenders released on mandatory supervision was almost twice the rate for those released on full parole (46.6% versus 25.1%), while the rate for those released on day parole was somewhere in between (41.6%).
See my argument above, comparing those who get parole to those who must complete their sentence. Nice statistics........
To give you a feel for what they do in these surveys would be like comparing the death rates of admissions at a long-term health care facility to death rates of admissions at the local hospital next door......................damn, you guys run a fine hospital here.
Keeping this in mind, we are now going to look at some recidivism rates and at an overview of how a sample of 1,000 federal offenders did while on release.
Hmmm, I noticed that this isn't a random survey..............1000 from Beaver Creek or a 1000 from the Kingston Pen?
Well, I guess that would depend on what you want your " hard statistical data" to say, now wouldn't it?
Quote,
We defined the recidivism rate as the percentage of released offenders readmitted to federal custody during a particular period of study. Readmission was defined as violations of release conditions (i.e., technical violations) and convictions for new offences.
To see how well we have been managing offenders over a certain period of time, we compared the recidivism rates for a number of consecutive short-term (three-month) periods.
We looked at the recidivism rates for each quarter during the last three years, from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1993. We found that the average recidivism rate for each of the 12 quarters studied has remained fairly constant at 4.8%. This is impressive, given that the number of offenders on conditional release has increased by nearly 10% during the same period, from 8,937 in April 1990 to 9,793 by March 1993
Like I stated above, anyone who committed a crime that was still before the courts, or got two years less a day or the Parole Board just decided not to revoke are all " parole successes". Nice statistics.....
Quote,
Looking at the recidivism rates for offenders on different types of release, we found that offenders on full parole did much better than those on mandatory supervision (now called statutory release). The average quarterly recidivism rate for offenders released on full parole was 1.9%; it was 10.8% for those released on mandatory supervision. In other words, there was approximately one parole failure for every five mandatory supervision failures. This ratio remained fairly stable over the 12 quarters.
Lets see, lets make a comparison of inmates who got parole because of, oh say, good behavior in jail to those who were such arseholes, heinous crimed, and/or such repeat offenders that they wouldn't stand a chance if God himself testified on their behalf. Nice statistics.......
Quote,
As shown in Figure 3, the overall readmission rate was 37.1%. The readmission rate for offenders released on mandatory supervision was almost twice the rate for those released on full parole (46.6% versus 25.1%), while the rate for those released on day parole was somewhere in between (41.6%).
See my argument above, comparing those who get parole to those who must complete their sentence. Nice statistics........
To give you a feel for what they do in these surveys would be like comparing the death rates of admissions at a long-term health care facility to death rates of admissions at the local hospital next door......................damn, you guys run a fine hospital here.
OK, I'll concede the point for the time being and see if I can dig up some more comprehensive stats- on second look you're right that the source data is fairly limited. I'll try to find something that incorporates both federal and provincial/territorial data before I re-make any assertions.
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
Take your time,...my brain hurts.
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Heh, no worries there...
I've got this paper to finish, due tomorrow at 1300... 0600 I wake up. 0800 I'm due at work on my class B. 1130-1200 I skin out of work to hand in this paper and write an exam. I shouldn't even be writing this post, never mind arguing statistics tonight. ;D
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
That would mean you get to sleep tonight....... :crybaby:
Now, this IS my bias speaking here, I really don't think that you will find too much in the way of provincial/federal statistics because they SEEM to be a great way to hide each other.
Just from a skim of the Ontario parole stuff,
If an offender is on probation and receives a federal sentence, the probation continues to run while the offender is under federal supervision. The Probation Officer may apply to the court for a termination.
So, does this mean a "parole success" for the provincial system since that person did not re-enter our jurisdiction?
Now, this IS my bias speaking here, I really don't think that you will find too much in the way of provincial/federal statistics because they SEEM to be a great way to hide each other.
Just from a skim of the Ontario parole stuff,
If an offender is on probation and receives a federal sentence, the probation continues to run while the offender is under federal supervision. The Probation Officer may apply to the court for a termination.
So, does this mean a "parole success" for the provincial system since that person did not re-enter our jurisdiction?
Similar threads
