Emergency Alert for Dangerous Persons

[powderjunkie]

I'll just add this link, too...

https://www.canada.ca/en/sr/srb.html...8&wb-srch-sub=

There are piles of research on this topic...let's not pretend that there aren't tons of experts working hard to find the best possible policy.


Another somewhat relevant study:
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/r.../index-en.aspx

Question

Do Aboriginal offenders follow a similar path to chronic offending as Non-Aboriginal offenders?
Background

There is a body of research that shows that criminal behaviour may follow a number of different routes. One path may be transient and begins with adolescents engaging in relatively minor antisocial acts that all but disappear in adulthood. Another path is characterized as beginning in childhood, escalating significantly in adolescence and continuing through much of adulthood. The offences committed during the course of this pathway are also more serious. This second pathway has been labeled in different ways by researchers but the labels all commonly refer to a chronic and high frequency pattern of offending.

Although chronic offenders represent the minority of offenders (see Research Summary Vol. 13, No. 3), their high frequency and seriousness of offending is a special concern because of the disproportionate amount of resources directed to them by the criminal justice system. In general, almost all of the research on chronic offenders has been conducted on Caucasian offenders. In Canada, however, Aboriginal offenders are not only over-represented in prison populations nationally but in some of the Prairie Provinces, Aboriginal offenders constitute the majority of the incarcerated population.

Thus far, there have been no studies investigating the offending trajectories of Aboriginal offenders. Can Aboriginal offending be described by two general pathways as it has been done with Non-Aboriginal offending? Are the factors associated with chronic offending similar? These questions have remained unanswered.
Method

A random sample of 439 young offenders between the ages of 12 and 19 years was drawn from a Prairie province. The young offenders were under community supervision between 1986 and 1991 with 53% of the sample being Aboriginal. For these young offenders a range of information was gathered including personal-demographic, criminal history and risk factors. This sample was then followed into adulthood (ages 26 – 30 years) and their involvement in criminal activity, or lack of, was charted.

Various statistical procedures were applied to test whether or not the development of chronic offending for the Aboriginal offenders was similar to the Non-Aboriginal offenders.
Answer

The majority of the offenders, approximately 85%, showed low rates of offending with less serious crimes over the course of the follow-up. For this group, there was a slight decline in criminal activity after the age of 26 years.

A minority of the sample, approximately 15%, demonstrated a chronic high level of offending. The proportion of chronic offenders was similar for both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal offenders.

An analysis of risk factors associated with the chronic offending pathway for both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal offenders found few differences. However, substance abuse, family problems and associating with criminals was more salient for the chronic Aboriginal group. Frequent address changes was a risk factor for the Non-Aboriginal chronic group.

Policy Implications

As found with Non-Aboriginal offenders, there is also a small group of chronic Aboriginal offenders who commit serious crimes and over a long course of time. Resources and interventions should focus on this chronic group in order to have the largest returns in community safety.
The development of chronic offending starts at a young age. In this study, it was evident at as early as age 12 years but likely begins even earlier. Identifying these children early and appropriately intervening could yield significant long term benefits.
A number of risk factors for chronic offending were identified. Association with other delinquents, substance abuse and family problems may serve as warning signs for future behaviour. Services in Aboriginal communities should be directed to address these risk factors and stem the possibility of following a chronic offending trajectory.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Probably a lot more than you think. A very high proportion of violent crime is carried out by a very small number of habitually violent men.

with I'm sure a very high correlation to: drug and/or alcohol issues, issues in childhood and being poor.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

How many people are out there who have 59+ previous convictions?

That is why I have an issue with AFC saying 'thousands of others like him', because I don't believe there are thousands of people with that many convictions.

I'd wager there are a fair number. Half of this guy's convictions are from failure to abide by release conditions. And people are often charged and convicted on several counts at once, so it's not like we're talking about 59 different incidents.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It doesn’t make any sense to me why the specific conditions of what Acey thinks “life in prison” should be (no chance at parole, no rehabilitation efforts, etc) and ensuring someone dies in prison the same way they went in is morally any more comfortable than the death penalty.

It doesn't make sense to you why life in prison is less severe than the death penalty, but again every jurisdiction the planet has deemed it to be less severe, as do the majority of people, so I'm not really sure why my take on that is unusual.

“For the first time in Gallup’s 34-year trend, a majority of Americans say that life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is a better punishment for murder than the death penalty is.

The 60% to 36% advantage for life imprisonment marks a shift from the past two decades, when Americans were mostly divided in their views of the better punishment for murder. During the 1980s and 1990s, consistent majorities thought the death penalty was the better option for convicted murderers.”

Yes it's an American poll... but most Canadians have not seen capital punishment exist here in their lifetime so a poll here would be far further skewed in the direction of imprisonment.

[OptimalTates]

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-p...ting-1.6040367

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/guns-drug...tion-1.6050467

https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime...inted-firearms

Four more Calgary arrests in August alone where four men had a dozen or more charges laid during their single arrest. In fairness to them, not convictions yet, but it doesn't seem like a couple dozen convictions would be completely out of the norm for habitual offenders, especially when half of them are breaching probation orders.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Azure

How many people are out there who have 59+ previous convictions?

That is why I have an issue with AFC saying 'thousands of others like him', because I don't believe there are thousands of people with that many convictions.

I’ve met dozens, maybe a few hundred.

There are a few Northern communities that i go to for court where many people have a 5 page criminal record. There are also people living on the streets with a life time of addiction who accrue records like that, too.

The only way to get to 59 convictions is a lot of probation and release order breaches. Ie Johnny is released on bail, he gets high on meth (breach x 1) he steals a bag of chips from 7/11 (theft x 1) walks down the street and steals a jug of milk from another store (theft x 2) screams a threat at the store clerk (utter threat) and maybe pushes him at the exit (assault x 1) When the police arrest him, he has led pipe in his pants (he claims for protection) - (possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose x 1) (breach by having a weapon x 2) (breach keep the peace and be of good behaviour x 3)

There’s 8 charges. He’ll probably plead to 5-6 of those, the others will get dropped. He might receive a jail sentence of 90 days. Everyone gets released after 2/3 of their sentence in Provincial institutions in Canada, so he did a grand total of 60 days.

Go sit in any busy court building a larger city in Canada. You hear that type of scenario dozens of times a day.

[Azure]

Looks like the sighting earlier today was a false alarm.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1567256127309549568

Updated photo.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1567261478880792576

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

How many people are out there who have 59+ previous convictions?

That is why I have an issue with AFC saying 'thousands of others like him', because I don't believe there are thousands of people with that many convictions.

59 is nothing, once you get onto the treadmill of probation, homelessness and addiction an offender can pick up an offence on an almost weekly basis, most will be bail breaches, failures to appear but there will also be hundreds of property drug and, if they are angry which most are in this lifestyle, assaults and threats.

I would have kids leave my house at 19 with a hundred or more court convictions back in the 2000's

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

59 is nothing, once you get onto the treadmill of probation, homelessness and addiction an offender can pick up an offence on an almost weekly basis, most will be bail breaches, failures to appear but there will also be hundreds of property drug and, if they are angry which most are in this lifestyle, assaults and threats.

I would have kids leave my house at 19 with a hundred or more court convictions back in the 2000's

I understand that there are those who will have many, and I think at the point where you have many, the law should be a lot more strict with stuff like parole violations, especially if one of the convictions is in regards to violent crime.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

59 is nothing, once you get onto the treadmill of probation, homelessness and addiction an offender can pick up an offence on an almost weekly basis, most will be bail breaches, failures to appear but there will also be hundreds of property drug and, if they are angry which most are in this lifestyle, assaults and threats.

I would have kids leave my house at 19 with a hundred or more court convictions back in the 2000's

I always appreciate the insights you share from those experiences you've had.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I understand that there are those who will have many, and I think at the point where you have many, the law should be a lot more strict with stuff like parole violations, especially if one of the convictions is in regards to violent crime.

The point I'm trying to make here is only that you cant build a criminal justice system to prevent what is basically a one time event, there is nothing remarkable about this guy at all, he got 4 years or so for a drunken assault, that's a pretty long sentence for an event that doesnt appear to have been much more than a drunken brawl and a fight with the cop that was trying to arrest him, if the parole board had not let him out in 2021 he'd still be out now having finished his sentence, if he had been picked up straight away in 2021 when he absconded he probably still be out of jail now, I'm pretty certain short of locking up every angry addicted young man at 18 for life there really isnt much we can do or expect the system to do to absolutely prevent a tragedy like this, we have a system that does a pretty good job, I'm not sure we can ask for more than that

[Wormius]

Obviously we need pre-cogs advising the parole board.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

I'm obtuse? Someone suggests locking up violent repeat criminals for life as a possibility but you can't understand why they aren't advocating for the death sentence and can't wrap your head around it? Like someone suggesting that life imprisonment is such an absurd stance you can't make sense of it and that they must automatically advocate for the death penalty then? Yeah, I'm obtuse.

I have no issue with you disagreeing with life in prison without parole, I disagree with it. But you're acting like you can't wrap your head around the argument simply because you disagree with it. That's not engaging in good faith discussion.

If that's how you took what I said, even after clarification, then yeah, you are. I don't really care what you have an issue with. You're smart enough that you don't need this amount of hand holding. I'm not acting like it's an absurd stance, I'm questioning whether Acey's specific version of life in prison (not the kind found in "every jurisdiction on the planet" like he's pretending) becomes less morally acceptable than the death penalty. It has nothing to do with the moral difference between life in prison and the death penalty in general.

Again this version of life in prison is one without a chance of parole AND without rehabilitation efforts. Essentially, spending the rest of your days in a supermax style prison until you die in that prison.

I can wrap my head around the argument for that just fine. There are people that believe prison should be punishment and punishment alone, and not restorative or rehabilitative. I understand that. Great. I'm not saying it's absurd, or that I can't understand it. Hope that's crystal clear.

What I'm asking is, at what point is that ("that" being spending the rest of your life in prison, alone in a box, no rehabilitation efforts at all let alone the chance for parole) actually morally preferable to death. There are death row inmates who were given better treatment than that and a chance to rehabilitate even despite their upcoming end date. And you're acting like it's not in good faith to question the morality of it? Man, get over yourself.

[Captain Otto]

Anyways, have they caught this shlub yet?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[MRCboicgy]

Damn, I have that same burgundy Jays cap

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Damn, I have that same burgundy Jays cap

Do you Myles?? Do you...??

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What I'm asking is, at what point is that ("that" being spending the rest of your life in prison, alone in a box, no rehabilitation efforts at all let alone the chance for parole) actually morally preferable to death.

Morally preferable for who? The judge? Jury? The inmate? General population?

Genuine question, because there is enough data and polling to suggest all of those disciplines see LWOP (life without parole) as preferable to death greater than half the time, with the percentage only going up.

You've made it arrogantly clear that you believe LWOP to be an unfathomable fate, but it's not even the majority position by any metric.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

Morally preferable for who? The judge? Jury? The inmate? General population?

Genuine question, because there is enough data and polling to suggest all of those disciplines see LWOP (life without parole) as preferable to death greater than half the time, with the percentage only going up.

You've made it arrogantly clear that you believe LWOP to be an unfathomable fate, but it's not even the majority position by any metric.

Actually, never mind. You’re clearly more interested in assuming what I believe regardless of what I say and missing the point so you can talk about some vague appeal to authority. Go wild, you’re not worth the effort or the continued distraction to the thread. Hopefully they catch the guy soon.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Actually, never mind. You’re clearly more interested in assuming what I believe regardless of what I say and missing the point so you can talk about some vague appeal to authority.

Yes, by asking you a question to clarify your position I'm making assumptions. You have a habit of finding a way to reiterate how much smarter you are than anyone else with a contrary opinion, especially when data contradicts you. Pretty bad faith discourse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yes, by asking you a question to clarify your position I'm making assumptions.

Originally Posted by Acey

You've made it arrogantly clear that you believe LWOP to be an unfathomable fate

You’re better than this.