Liberals get coveted endorsement from Criminals

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Forgive me for being more concerned about victims than the perpetrators of crimes. Miss Creba for example will never get to watch TV again, get a University education nor will she ever get to vote - things murderers, rapists and inside-traders are allowed to do.

I forgive you. I also am more concerned about victims than criminals. In fact crime is one of the areas that I am fairly conservative about. I would like to see harsher penalties, and I also don't think people in jail should be allowed to vote.

The part that I find amusing, is how many threads have popped up lately that look an awful lot like fear mongering about the liberals. Instead of presenting a topic, the threads are all cheap shots at a particular party. I thought only the Liberals did that???

Why not start a thread called "Conservatives get endorsement from religious fundamentalists"?
and then write this
"How appropriate is it that fundamentalists are endorsing the conservative party? Takes one to know one"

There's gonna be pocket groups of morons who support every party. If that's what you judge the party by, then good luck finding any party you like.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

First, we clearly do NOT treat criminals badly - we treat them very well.

He never said we didn't. There were comments in this thread to the effect that criminals were getting it easy because they have tv and access to education. All Rouge was suggesting is that this isn't a terrible thing.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Ace

WHAT!!??

How so? what kind of a deterrent is treating criminals well. Maybe it they we're treated a little more like, uh, i don't know, CRIMINALS, some of them might think again about committing these crimes.

Well... if you take a thief who knows how to steal, spend some time and effort educating him (ie, 'treating him well'), there's a chance he'll employ his new skills at something other than stealing when he gets out.

If you stick him in a 5x8 box and let him walk a tiny courtyard for half an hour a day and feed him... and thats it (ie, 'treating him poorly'), chances _seem_ better that he'll repeat offend, given that theft is still his main 'employment skill', or at least, the most rewarding one he knows given that working at McDonalds full-time still puts you well below the poverty line.

It may not be a simple concept... but I think it can be broken down into some obvious common sense. Thats why prison is not meant to be solely a punishment tool, but also a rehabilitation tool. Otherwise, why not just kill the lot of them and save a bunch of time and money?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Why not start a thread called "Conservatives get endorsement from religious fundamentalists"?
and then write this
"How appropriate is it that fundamentalists are endorsing the conservative party? Takes one to know one"

Go ahead and start that thread - who is stopping you? I posted this story because it happens to be the news of the day - its on the CTV, CBC, Globe & Mail etc websites

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

First, we clearly do NOT treat criminals badly - we treat them very well. Secondly, I'm not a criminologist. I have no idea what effect the method of punishment has on the amount of crime that is perpetrated - I doubt it is such an 'easy concept'

I know we don't treat them badly. I never said we did.

It is an easy concept. Here's a hypothetical. Take 2 guys, all things being equal, and lock them up for 5 years.

Put one guy in a 10 X 12 cell with a tv, decent food, a couple hours of exercise, books, maybe some therapy or training, human contact, weekly visitors and a shower every other day.

Take the other guy, lock him in an 5 X 6 cell with a toilet and feed him a little bit of crappy food. Hose him down once a week.

5 years later you let them both out. Which one do you think will have a better chance at getting back into normal society? Becoming a normal person is, after all, the goal.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I know we don't treat them badly. I never said we did.

It is an easy concept. Here's a hypothetical. Take 2 guys, all things being equal, and lock them up for 5 years....

I'm guessing that your first scenario is closer to reality than your second. So, does it really reduce or prevent repeat offenders? Here are some stats for your information and you can judge for yourself if this is acceptable:

How many sex offenders re-offend?

Sex offenders are more likely to return to prison for a sexual offence than the general prison population.

Repeat sexual offenders (those with a previous federal sentence for sex offences) are more likely to violate conditional release and more likely to re-offend with a nonsexual offence.

A study from the 1980s showed that of sexual offenders released from federal institutions in Canada:

• 68.8 per cent of all sexual offenders and 48.8 per cent of repeat offenders did not return to jail.
• 6.2 per cent of all sexual offenders and 14.6 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new sexual offence.
• 5.9 per cent of all sexual offenders and 8.5 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new violent offence.
• 7.7 per cent of all sex offenders and 6.1 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new non-violent offence.

Just an example

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I'm guessing that your first scenario is closer to reality than your second. So, does it really reduce or prevent repeat offenders? Here are some stats for your information and you can judge for yourself if this is acceptable:


Just an example

I'm trying hard, but I can't seem to find the relevancy of your stats.

What does this have to do with prisoner treatment? All this says is that sex-offenders are more likely to go back to prison than non-sex offenders. Maybe I'm missing your point?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I'm guessing that your first scenario is closer to reality than your second. So, does it really reduce or prevent repeat offenders? Here are some stats for your information and you can judge for yourself if this is acceptable:


Just an example

Does it reduce or prevent repeat offenders? Yes. Are there still repeat offenders? Of course. I never said otherwise.

Are you trying to tell me that if they were treated terribly in prison there would be fewer repeat offenders?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Does it reduce or prevent repeat offenders? Yes. Are there still repeat offenders? Of course. I never said otherwise.

Are you trying to tell me that if they were treated terribly in prison there would be fewer repeat offenders?

That is pure conjecture. In a country like Singapore where criminals are treated horribly - tortured, death penalty etc the crime rate is miniscule. Is it not possible that harsh punishments can be a deterent to crime?

[RougeUnderoos]

I'm not familiar with Singapore's practices or crime rates.

They Americans incarcerate more people, give harsher prison sentences, don't treat their prisoners as well and have the death penalty yet they have more crime than we do. Is it not possible that harsh punishments can lead to more crime?

Answer the question I posed earlier please. Would a guy stuck in a box for 5 years have a better chance to become a normal person than the other guy who was treated humanely? Yes or no.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They Americans incarcerate more people, give harsher prison sentences, don't treat their prisoners as well and have the death penalty yet they have more crime than we do. Is it not possible that harsh punishments can lead to more crime?

Well there you have it. I cite an example for yay, you have one for nay - perhaps its not such an 'easy concept'. In regard to your particular example, ultra-liberal Michael Moore seems to think its not the US prison system that differentiates them from us, but rather the pervasive use of guns

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Answer the question I posed earlier please. Would a guy stuck in a box for 5 years have a better chance to become a normal person than the other guy who was treated humanely? Yes or no.

I did answer your question - I gave you hard facts and stats on sex ofenders in our cushy prison system who are highly predisposed to re-offending - shows quite clearly that treating these animals like humans does not rehabilitate them. I also cited an example in the world where criminals are treated poorly and the crime rate in that country is very low. ie. sometimes treating them well has no positive effect on the criminals whereas treat them poorly and the crime rate is low. Is this an absolute? NO, but I would never suggest that this is an 'easy concept'

[FireFly]

No, but you're taking it WAY too far, Rouge. We're not saying they should be stuck in boxes, perhaps a little work and education? Maybe some sports? Or should they just sit in front of a tv and vegitate for 5 years?

[Flame On]

Don't they have the death sentance in Texas? I guess there's no more crime there.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Don't they have the death sentance in Texas? I guess there's no more crime there.

Most states have the death penalty...though i havent a clue what that has to do with this discussion.

STATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Illinois
Kansas *
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York *
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

ALSO
- U.S. Gov't
- U.S. Military
* The New York (6/24) and Kansas (12/17) death penalty statutes were declared unconstitutional in 2004.

STATES WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY
Alaska
Hawaii
Iowa
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
North Dakota
Rhode Island
VermontWest Virginia
Wisconsin

ALSO
- Dist. of Columbia

[CaramonLS]

IMO there are two purposes to Prison: Rehab and Punishment. I don't see TV/Playstation falling into either category.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

IMO there are two purposes to Prison: Rehab and Punishment. I don't see TV/Playstation falling into either category.

I think one of the main reasons for prison is to take dangerous people off the street. I like long sentences for violent crimes but prison with it's lose of freedom is punishment enough for most convicts and I don't see much point in having angry cons hitting the street. Rehab and training has to be done because a lot of these people don't know how to function in normal society.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Well there you have it. I cite an example for yay, you have one for nay - perhaps its not such an 'easy concept'. In regard to your particular example, ultra-liberal Michael Moore seems to think its not the US prison system that differentiates them from us, but rather the pervasive use of guns

I did answer your question - I gave you hard facts and stats on sex ofenders in our cushy prison system who are highly predisposed to re-offending - shows quite clearly that treating these animals like humans does not rehabilitate them. I also cited an example in the world where criminals are treated poorly and the crime rate in that country is very low. ie. sometimes treating them well has no positive effect on the criminals whereas treat them poorly and the crime rate is low. Is this an absolute? NO, but I would never suggest that this is an 'easy concept'

I don't care what Michael Moore has to say.

You didn't answer my question. It's a simple one. Which guy would have a better chance at being a normal person? The guy in solitary cofinement in a dark cage for 5 years, or the other guy?

Did you even read the hard facts and statistics that you provided?

5.9 per cent of all sexual offenders and 8.5 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new violent offence.

5.9 per cent? Is that a high number? Does that mean that they are "highly pre-disposed to re-offend"? Isn't that a 94% success rate? That doesn't seem all that bad. Do you think torturing and beating the prisoners and sticking them in filthy cages would result in 0% recidivism? I don't.

Like I said, I don't know anything about how they do things in Singapore. I know they treat criminals extremely harshly in Saudi Arabia though. Do you think we should try to emulate the things they do in Saudi Arabia? Would that make Canada a better place to live?

[Agamemnon]

I made a point about television in prisons earlier in the thread, but it seems to have been ignored, given the numerous repetitions that 'tv and playstation do not belong in prison'.

As far as I'm concerned, thats completely right. However, its probably deemed one of the cheapest, effective ways to keep inmates under control. Should they all have 16 hours a day of work, counselling, and education? Absolutely. Are Canadians willing to put up the cost to fully rehabilitate these individuals? No. Many conservatives believe pumping money into prisons is a waste of that money.

So instead, we park them in front of the tv. I don't think its necessarily being 'soft', I think its being cheap. TV is not treated as a luxury there, its a necessity from a cost point of view. What cheaper way is there to fill up their days?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, but you're taking it WAY too far, Rouge. We're not saying they should be stuck in boxes, perhaps a little work and education? Maybe some sports? Or should they just sit in front of a tv and vegitate for 5 years?

You aren't saying they should be stuck in boxes, but other people are saying the "don't care" how they are treated. I agree with you about everything else.

[duncan]

treating them harsher doesn't deter, other than that joke we call the YCJA, criminals do not offend because the 'punishment' is light. Criminals become criminals because they are mentally ill (sexually deviant and socially deviant), financially challenged, or chemically altered. The Tories opened boot camps in Ontario, and they failed dramatically, eventually closing after 3 years. The only thing that makes a difference, is their acceptance of the programming. Like AA, you can only help those who want help. If an officer can reach an inmate, help them help themselves, the inmate doesn't return. Treat them like animals, you breed nimals.