Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
That would be very close, if not exactly what you would pay given the numbers as I understand them. Someone else might be able to give a more accurate account of the actual numbers because I don't have time to look for a copy of our recent justice system budgetary numbers. I honestly think my numbers here are extremely conservative.
Think of it this way. Every person who is put in jail is eligible for parole after serving 1/2 of their sentence, by default. If you make everyone serve a full sentence, you are going to increase the cost for housing existing prisoners by 100%. Thats double, just with who is currently in jail.
Then consider the number of people who get probation or some other type of community sentence for violent crimes like minor assault etc would be added to that prison population the number would increase even far more drastically because people who commit minor crimes make up the largest offender group in Canada by a large margin. Not only are you doubling the cost per prisoner, you are probably going to at least quadruple the number of prisoners (again, I think this is very conservative).
Then consider that you still need to convict these people, with more trials needed, because if you are going to jail you are way more likely to fight it. Right now there is such an extremely small amount of cases that actually go to trial in the justice system. So likely you would have an increase of trials in the 800-1600% range, possibly higher but again we will go with the conservative number and just assume 800%
Also, you would still need to deal with prisoners after their release, so despite getting rid of parole you would still need services for the prisoner afterwards.
Simple math says that is 8x the people being housed in prisons at any given time, so thats 8x the cost for the police, trial, incarceration, and release.
Still think it is a good idea to lock them all up and throw away the key?
I know the justice system isn't perfect, but the reality of the situation is no one is willing to do this, even if it was somehow a good idea from a crime prevention or reduction perspective, which it isn't.
Of course. Where do you draw the line? Those designated dangerous offenders? Isnt that pretty much how it works out now with our current system?
|
Or you could reduce costs in the prison system. If you take out cable and internet. But matresses and bed sheets used, Make the prisoners work and generate revenue for the prison systems. Reduce recreational facilities.
I have my serious doubts around doubling and tripling. Maybe we should take into account the rate of repeat offenders if you stiffen up the sentencing, we might see a reduction there.
Plus there are possible public benefits in terms of policing costs and public securities costs.
I just have trouble with a doubling of the system costs.