BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[opendoor]

It really comes down to how expensive and how dystopian people want things to get. If someone has a history of minor offences, should we just lock them up indefinitely? Even violent criminals are going to get out of jail at some point unless we just have indefinite periods of detention. The vast majority of violent offenders don't escalate their crimes to murder, and it's obviously not really possible to predict which ones will do so, so are we OK with just jailing them all indefinitely?

Or should we create a large mental health apparatus that can treat these people and basically commit them to that? We've had that in the past, but it was gutted through deinstitutionalization in the 1990s and 2000s to save money.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How do you know this person wasn't thoroughly prosecuted enough? There are sentencing guidelines that are set to be consistent with the government's obligations under the Charter. Do you have evidence that these were applied inconsistently/incorrectly in this instance?

I think everyone agrees this a tragedy, but it's premature to make the assumption that this was a system failure.

Do you think a guy with prior violent convictions having just killed and severely injured random people with a machete is an example of the system working well?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It really comes down to how expensive and how dystopian people want things to get. If someone has a history of minor offences, should we just lock them up indefinitely? Even violent criminals are going to get out of jail at some point unless we just have indefinite periods of detention. The vast majority of violent offenders don't escalate their crimes to murder, and it's obviously not really possible to predict which ones will do so, so are we OK with just jailing them all indefinitely?

Or should we create a large mental health apparatus that can treat these people and basically commit them to that? We've had that in the past, but it was gutted through deinstitutionalization in the 1990s and 2000s to save money.

For the record, I would prefer a system that prioritizes rehabilitation and balances that with risk to the public, as opposed to one that does a piss-poor job of trying to balance rehabilitation with punishment.

In a nutshell, I'd like offenders to be offered proper psychiatric/rehabilitation opportunities, but for violent offenders they would have to be assessed as a low-risk to reoffend before being released.

That said, I can't see this type of system being politically popular in Canada. It would result in some people being institutionalised for longer periods, but also shorter times for some offenders, which would be an unsatisfactory pound of flesh for certain segments of the public.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Do you think a guy with prior violent convictions having just killed and severely injured random people with a machete is an example of the system working well?

That's a post hoc fallacy.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It really comes down to how expensive and how dystopian people want things to get. If someone has a history of minor offences, should we just lock them up indefinitely? Even violent criminals are going to get out of jail at some point unless we just have indefinite periods of detention. The vast majority of violent offenders don't escalate their crimes to murder, and it's obviously not really possible to predict which ones will do so, so are we OK with just jailing them all indefinitely?

Or should we create a large mental health apparatus that can treat these people and basically commit them to that? We've had that in the past, but it was gutted through deinstitutionalization in the 1990s and 2000s to save money.

The point isn't to become dystopian. It's to keep the right people behind bars so they can't cause danger to the community. That's it. You can completely do that with a justice system that isn't "authoritarian".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Igottago

The point isn't to become dystopian. It's to keep the right people behind bars so they can't cause danger to the community. That's it. You can completely do that with a justice system that isn't "authoritarian".

Holding people without charging them formally is pretty damn dystopian in my books. It pretty much completely disregards Habeas corpus.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Igottago

The point isn't to become dystopian. It's to keep the right people behind bars so they can't cause danger to the community. That's it. You can completely do that with a justice system that isn't "authoritarian".

How do you identify the "right people"? In Vancouver for instance, there are about 5,000 assaults each year but only 10-15 murders. There are hundreds of people guilty of assault for each one person that murders.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that most data I've seen shows that only about 25-30% of murderers have a prior violent arrest. So even if every single person arrested for a violent crime was locked up indefinitely, you'd still only be dropping the number of murders in Vancouver from 15 to maybe 11 a year despite having the most draconian justice system in the world.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, this isn't a B.C.-specific issue. Unless one of the site's lawyers wants to correct me on this, 24-hour release requirements for people who haven't been charged with a crime are a federal mandate. And really, that's a good thing. It would be pretty authoritarian to keep people for longer than that if they haven't been charged with anything.

Yes. You, generally, can't hold people for very long who haven't been charged. You can hold people in between being charged and a trial though. The poster you were responding to stated "convicted". So they were likely referring to people who have been charged but not had trial/pled yet.

You can be held either by choice, as you get time and a half served, or you can be denied bail and held.

There are exceptions to holding people people not charged with a crime. For example, if you are a danger to yourself or others. That's more of a medical issue though, as doctors can, for example, commit you to a psych ward:

https://www.bcmhsus.ca/about-us/who-...o%2048%20hours.

In that scenario, police can apprehend you and take you for an involuntary assessment before a nurse practitioner and/or a doctor.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Holding people without charging them formally is pretty damn dystopian in my books. It pretty much completely disregards Habeas corpus.

You keep saying this and no one has suggested this. The point is getting sentencing right, for people already charged or convicted of violent crimes.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Igottago

You keep saying this and no one has suggested this. The point is getting sentencing right, for people already charged or convicted of violent crimes.

Your only evidence that this person wasn't sentenced correctly is that they re-offended. You realize why this is a flawed argument, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes. You, generally, can't hold people for very long who haven't been charged. You can hold people in between being charged and a trial though. The poster you were responding to stated "convicted". So they were likely referring to people who have been charged but not had trial/pled yet.

Which I'm totally fine with. The poster hasn't provided any evidence that this person was "let out" incorrectly, other than the fact that they re-offended.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Your only evidence that this person wasn't sentenced correctly is that they re-offended. You realize why this is a flawed argument, right?

No please enlighten me.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Igottago

No please enlighten me.

Well to start, again, it's a logical fallacy.

Second, recidivism is a thing that's going to exist regardless of how harsh or lenient a sentence is.

I'm honestly shocked you need that spelled out for you.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well to start, again, it's a logical fallacy.

Second, recidivism is a thing that's going to exist regardless of how harsh or lenient a sentence is.

I'm honestly shocked you need that spelled out for you.

Do you think the system ever releases people when they shouldn't be, or are you comfortable telling the victims of crimes like today we should all just shrug our shoulders and pretend everything is working well?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Do you think the system ever releases people when they shouldn't be, or are you comfortable telling the victims of crimes like today we should all just shrug our shoulders and pretend everything is working well?

But the opposite remains true. Are you comfortable telling the loved ones of people incarcerated that they now will serve a lot more time just in case they reoffend? The balancing act is always having to weigh the rights of the individual vs the chance at repeat offending. Sure there have been news stories about reoffenders but based on the statistics, it doesn't seem like violent crime is seriously on the rise or that these anecdotal occurrences are evidence of a larger systemic issue.

How many people were released and didn't reoffend? We already have trained people evaluating the convicts and making the determination about their risk to society.

Its nice to easy to say they are evaluating wrong, but unless we have some precognition there is no true way to get away from the case that sometimes people will be released and commit another crime.

The only way I see to to limit that, is to extend terms for everyone and unfairly punish the others, the silent majority, of people who serve their time.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Do you think the system ever releases people when they shouldn't be, or are you comfortable telling the victims of crimes like today we should all just shrug our shoulders and pretend everything is working well?

Are you honestly this much of a ####ing muppet?

What part of this post makes you believe that I think the current system is perfect?

Originally Posted by rubecube

For the record, I would prefer a system that prioritizes rehabilitation and balances that with risk to the public, as opposed to one that does a piss-poor job of trying to balance rehabilitation with punishment.

In a nutshell, I'd like offenders to be offered proper psychiatric/rehabilitation opportunities, but for violent offenders they would have to be assessed as a low-risk to reoffend before being released.

That said, I can't see this type of system being politically popular in Canada. It would result in some people being institutionalised for longer periods, but also shorter times for some offenders, which would be an unsatisfactory pound of flesh for certain segments of the public.

You still haven't provided any evidence that the justice system failed in this particular instance.

Ah, nevermind. Right-wing mindset in a nutshell. "I don't need facts or evidence to believe something to be true!"

Originally Posted by Igottago

You don't need additional facts here to understand that.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by belsarius

But the opposite remains true. Are you comfortable telling the loved ones of people incarcerated that they now will serve a lot more time just in case they reoffend? The balancing act is always having to weigh the rights of the individual vs the chance at repeat offending. Sure there have been news stories about reoffenders but based on the statistics, it doesn't seem like violent crime is seriously on the rise or that these anecdotal occurrences are evidence of a larger systemic issue.

This is wrong.
Overall violent crime may be decreasing.
Random violent attacks have skyrocketed since covid. At one point in Vancouver (2021), they were estimating 4 attacks per day.
That's what happened today and that's what people are concerned about to the point where people completely avoid parts of DT Vancouver now.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by belsarius

But the opposite remains true. Are you comfortable telling the loved ones of people incarcerated that they now will serve a lot more time just in case they reoffend? The balancing act is always having to weigh the rights of the individual vs the chance at repeat offending. Sure there have been news stories about reoffenders but based on the statistics, it doesn't seem like violent crime is seriously on the rise or that these anecdotal occurrences are evidence of a larger systemic issue.

How many people were released and didn't reoffend? We already have trained people evaluating the convicts and making the determination about their risk to society.

Its nice to easy to say they are evaluating wrong, but unless we have some precognition there is no true way to get away from the case that sometimes people will be released and commit another crime.

The only way I see to to limit that, is to extend terms for everyone and unfairly punish the others, the silent majority, of people who serve their time.

Tell that to the residents of downtown Vancouver. I don't know what the stats are, but residents are certainly more on edge than they were several years ago. I don't recall as many violent stranger attacks in the city pre-covid.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

This is wrong.
Overall violent crime may be decreasing.
Random violent attacks have skyrocketed since covid. At one point in Vancouver (2021), they were estimating 4 attacks per day.
That's what happened today and that's what people are concerned about to the point where people completely avoid parts of DT Vancouver now.

Doesn't look like that's necessarily accurate unless you have something more up to date.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/steady-decline...eals-1.6658016

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Doesn't look like that's necessarily accurate unless you have something more up to date.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/steady-decline...eals-1.6658016

That literally says what I posted, 4 attacks per day in 2021.
I did not say 2024 is the peak, but all years since 2021 are highly elevated compared to pre covid times.

Are you actually making the case that random attacks are not higher in recent years?