Thieves and other criminals and the justice system

[sns2]

Originally Posted by ShortsideK

Harsh punishment would reduce all types of crime.


Death penalty would work. Easy. And a lot cheaper (if done sanely) than all those support services you want society to fund to keep useless criminals alive.

Another nutjob.[/QUOTE]

This is a perfect example of what gets you infracted.

No insults fellas.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Nobody can argue that an executed criminal can't reoffend. A person in prison also can't offend, so longer sentences definitely reduce the opportunity to commit crimes. I also believe that hard labor would make prison more of a deterrent.

Look at this link, do you believe that the people in the story would find jail as attractive if hard labor was still in use? I have heard of multiple cases where petty criminals actually do something to be sent to jail , so they get a warm place to sleep, and are fed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jail...-the-streets-5

People in prison certainly can offend, they can injure or kill guards. I'm less sympathetic if they injure other inmates though. Some inmates even manage to organize their criminal empires from behind bars. Many of them wind up honing their criminal skills while in detention. We should at least have some type of system where they're earning their own keep while getting job skills.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

People in prison certainly can offend, they can injure or kill guards. I'm less sympathetic if they injure other inmates though. Some inmates even manage to organize their criminal empires from behind bars. Many of them wind up honing their criminal skills while in detention. We should at least have some type of system where they're earning their own keep while getting job skills.

I would prefer them to reoffend in prison, where they are locked down, and the guards are at least trained and equipped to deal with them, rather than having them preying on the unsuspecting public. And if they are working at hard labor every day, they have less time to run their criminal activities from prison.

[CaberTosser]

We usually agree, just pointing out that prison ifs neither crime-free nor even drug-free. Now apparently safe injection sites in jails are getting to be a thing

Anti's figure that the gov't should be the only ones with firearms when they're not even competent enough to keep illegal drugs out of jails......

[traderal]

I suggest we send all our criminals to offshore jails. Much cheaper than maintaining our own infrastructure. We pay the ticket to get them there. They must be provided some form of food, shelter, and medical. They must be made to work to pay for their ticket back.
Heck we have already sent all our manufacturing and telemarketing jobs overseas, might as well send over our problem peoplekind there too.

Someone here made the comment about the local rural police have night time duty. I would extend that to social service workers too. In a small rural town I live by the RCMP have to constantly deal with social problems while the social workers are snug in their beds. What a waste of resources. Also welfare recipients head out to small towns because they get car allowance, unfortunately they "forget" to buy registration or insurance. The local blotter shows an average of 3 cases every week of unregistered and uninsured drivers.

[kingrat]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

We usually agree, just pointing out that prison ifs neither crime-free nor even drug-free. Now apparently safe injection sites in jails are getting to be a thing

Anti's figure that the gov't should be the only ones with firearms when they're not even competent enough to keep illegal drugs out of jails......

Yes safe injection sites are becoming g a thing in federal institutions. Along with no more segregation. They are called structured intervention units now and offer things like yoga, meditation, and a whole list of other activities that they can participate in while they are out for 4 hours of meaningful interaction daily. There is zero consequences for them now inside for anything they do to others or guards. So really who would be scared to go to jail it's most often alot better than they have it on the street.

[sk270]

It still is a fact that the crime rate went down from 1992 to 2013. I was a bit surprised to find that out when I followed up on some of matthegorby's citations. Maybe the recent increase in crime cannot be blamed on the catch-and-release nature of our justice system.

[Carriertxv]

Originally Posted by birdbeast

I am not a fan of a lot of Islam but the punishment for theft rings a bell for me. The first time you are caught and convicted, we cut off one finger. The second time, we lop off another finger. The third time it is the rest of the hand. Two things, it makes thieves easy to spot and as they are burdens on society already chopping off hands doesn't hurt their employment prospects.

Then what’s next? Hanging gays, stoning women? No thank you on the sharia law or anything like it.
I hate thieves as much as anyone else but the 7th century cancer is not the way to go.

[does it ALL outdoors]

I see this as a HUGE problem.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...r-with-robbery

The dirtbag was a repeat drug addicted armed robber, and the judge gave him one day in jail. ONE DAY

He was already on probation for armed robbery so clearly he just wasn't "getting it". Bet that ONE DAY in jail really had an impact on his thug life, sure taught him a lesson!

And to nobody's surprise, he re offended! Guess that ONE DAY in jail didn't do much to deter this loser, SHOCKING!

That Gladue nonsense NEEDS to be scrapped, they claimed he came from two generations of residential school survivors. Not sure how that would impact this dirtbag. My grandpa was in WW2 and saw some truly horrific things, does that mean I get a free pass to do an armed robbery cause I'm a victim?

Maybe these bleeding heart judges should let these scumbags stay at their house until they are off probation and fully rehabilitated since they seem comfortable enough to spring them on society?

We NEED to elect our judges to keep them accountable.

What happens to that judge that gave him ONE DAY? He is so worried about this poor misunderstood youth it makes me wounder if he even listened to the victim impact statement from the store cleark that is still suffering from this dirtbags actions, bet the scumbag and the judge sleep well at night, what about the victim? Bet she thinks pretty highly of that judge and our legal system.

One day for repeated armed robbery, absolutely insanity

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by does it ALL outdoors

I see this as a HUGE problem.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...r-with-robbery

The dirtbag was a repeat drug addicted armed robber, and the judge gave him one day in jail. ONE DAY

He was already on probation for armed robbery so clearly he just wasn't "getting it". Bet that ONE DAY in jail really had an impact on his thug life, sure taught him a lesson!

And to nobody's surprise, he re offended! Guess that ONE DAY in jail didn't do much to deter this loser, SHOCKING!

That Gladue nonsense NEEDS to be scrapped, they claimed he came from two generations of residential school survivors. Not sure how that would impact this dirtbag. My grandpa was in WW2 and saw some truly horrific things, does that mean I get a free pass to do an armed robbery cause I'm a victim?

Maybe these bleeding heart judges should let these scumbags stay at their house until they are off probation and fully rehabilitated since they seem comfortable enough to spring them on society?

We NEED to elect our judges to keep them accountable.

What happens to that judge that gave him ONE DAY? He is so worried about this poor misunderstood youth it makes me wounder if he even listened to the victim impact statement from the store cleark that is still suffering from this dirtbags actions, bet the scumbag and the judge sleep well at night, what about the victim? Bet she thinks pretty highly of that judge and our legal system.

One day for repeated armed robbery, absolutely insanity

The judge should be fired.

[monsterdon]

Originally Posted by sk270

Does anyone have any hard evidence that harsh punishment deters criminals? I can find nothing to suggest that this is true. For example, the murder rate in Canada went down after the death penalty was abolished.

It's common sense. Humans have been punishing other humans, including their children, for thousands of years as a way to change their behavior. I'm not surprised that modern people would question that. Maybe rewarding criminals would actually deter them?



I can tell you that for me, personally, I don't commit crime because of the threat of punishment. If society was to promise me a thousand bucks to commit a crime, I would certainly do it. If I fell on hard times, I imagine I would likely turn to crime since punishment seems so light nowadays. I am a believer in the motto "if you can't beat them, join them".

[sk270]

[QUOTE=monsterdon;4074956]It's common sense. Humans have been punishing other humans, including their children, for thousands of years as a way to change their behavior.

I wasn't clear enough in my post above. Other posters have mentioned amputation, exile, vehicular homicide, beating with bats and so on as punishments for theft. I was wondering if the harshness of the punishment can be shown to be related to the degree of reduction of the behaviour.

I see quite a difference, for example, between children who are taught proper behaviour by their parents using appropriate methods and those children who are disciplined by being punched or struck with belts or other objects.

For the record, I am in favour of incarcerating criminals to prevent them from further harming innocent members of society. Repeat offenders should automatically receive longer sentences. Incarceration should include treatment.

[elkhunter11]

[QUOTE=sk270;4075053]

Originally Posted by monsterdon

It's common sense. Humans have been punishing other humans, including their children, for thousands of years as a way to change their behavior.

I wasn't clear enough in my post above. Other posters have mentioned amputation, exile, vehicular homicide, beating with bats and so on as punishments for theft. I was wondering if the harshness of the punishment can be shown to be related to the degree of reduction of the behaviour.

I see quite a difference, for example, between children who are taught proper behaviour by their parents using appropriate methods and those children who are disciplined by being punched or struck with belts or other objects.

For the record, I am in favour of incarcerating criminals to prevent them from further harming innocent members of society. Repeat offenders should automatically receive longer sentences. Incarceration should include treatment.

Club Fed, is obviously not a deterrent, or there wouldn't be so many repeat offenders. Hard labor, with no television, internet, and only the basic nutrition necessary, would be much less appealing to criminals. Just lengthening sentences at club fed, likely won't have any effect on repeat offenders, and it costs us more money. If an armed intruder is shot dead, they don't threaten the public any more, and they don't cause future drain on the taxpayers. If a thief takes a baseball bat across the knees, he will likely think twice before stealing again, and he may not run nearly as fast to escape if he does. The bottom line, is that we need to put the priority on protecting law abiding citizens, instead of on protecting criminals, as seems to be the situation now.

[JB_AOL]

[QUOTE=sk270;4075053]

Originally Posted by monsterdon

Incarceration should include treatment.

Why should they get treatment?

IMHO, they gave up their human rights as soon as they committed a crime.
If they want to get treatment, that is up to them.

And Yes, we need to go back to the old labor ways. They should be working at their prisons, paying a daily fee, if they don't pay (has to be earned in prison), they don't leave.

They already have it better than most seniors. How is that right..

[trophybook]

What gets me is the drugs in the so called prison. I as a tax payer will contribute 2% more to provide fentanyl to all inmates but NO naloxone. The problem will clean itself up.

[sk270]

[QUOTE=JB_AOL;4075060]

Originally Posted by sk270

Why should they get treatment? . . .
And Yes, we need to go back to the old labor ways

Mattthegorby stated in an earlier post that treatment and rehabilitation makes it much more likely that they will not re-offend. He sounds like he is involved in this type of program and has seen much success over the last 30 years. Perhaps coincidentally, there has been a huge reduction in the crime rate in Canada over that time period.

One of the current problems with jail, whether federal or provincial, is that offenders may not get much rehabilitation. The expense of this treatment is for them but also for the rest of us so they are less likely to victimize someone after release.

I am waiting for someone to tell me what is wrong with the statistics that show the crime rate is almost as low now was it was in the 1970's despite our current justice system.

[monsterdon]

Originally Posted by sk270

I wasn't clear enough in my post above. Other posters have mentioned amputation, exile, vehicular homicide, beating with bats and so on as punishments for theft. I was wondering if the harshness of the punishment can be shown to be related to the degree of reduction of the behaviour.

I see quite a difference, for example, between children who are taught proper behaviour by their parents using appropriate methods and those children who are disciplined by being punched or struck with belts or other objects.

For the record, I am in favour of incarcerating criminals to prevent them from further harming innocent members of society. Repeat offenders should automatically receive longer sentences. Incarceration should include treatment.

Again, I think it's common sense. I stole some things when I was a teenager. Would I have done it if my hand would have been cut off if I was caught? I doubt it. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Scientific testing of this question would be considered unethical.

I know a few stand up guys who were beat by their parents as teenagers and they turned out well. At least of them credits that for turning his life around. Maybe the parents of ones on whom that treatment did not work on, did not go far enough?

We have an overpopulation of humans on the planet. There is no reason for us to keep criminals alive, let alone in luxurious "treatment" conditions, other than squeamishness by overly soft people towards harsher punishment, and political corruption that benefits from the sham that we call our justice system.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by trophybook

What gets me is the drugs in the so called prison. I as a tax payer will contribute 2% more to provide fentanyl to all inmates but NO naloxone. The problem will clean itself up.

Perhaps we should be supplying inmates with more fentanyl, the most powerful that can be produced, and let the criminals solve the problem for us?

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by sk270

Mattthegorby stated in an earlier post that treatment and rehabilitation makes it much more likely that they will not re-offend. He sounds like he is involved in this type of program and has seen much success over the last 30 years. Perhaps coincidentally, there has been a huge reduction in the crime rate in Canada over that time period.

Theoretically yes.. But how can someone get "treatment" when they aren't in jail or prison long enough to receive it? My experience with front line workers (friends/family are LEO's throughout canada) says the majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by monsterdon

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Scientific testing of this question would be considered unethical.
I know a few stand up guys who were beat by their parents as teenagers and they turned out well.
There is no reason for us to keep criminals alive, let alone in luxurious "treatment" conditions, other than squeamishness by overly soft people towards harsher punishment . . .

Correlational studies are scientific. Not everything can be tested by controlled experiment. The current data show a reduction in crime rates correlated with the abandonment of harsh punishments and the development of our current catch-and-release system. As I said, I don't believe in our current system but I don't see the evidence for replacing it with nothing but harshness.

I also know some solid citizens who were beaten by their parents. Most of them bear identifiable emotional scars. I also know some solid citizens who were never so much as spanked by their parents.

The reasons for our treatment of prisoners include ethics, morality, philosophy, even religion. I don't mean to insult you but the world you envision seems to be that of Thomas Hobbes. In our First World of material plenty I think we should consider the welfare of all. Humans are social animals with intellects that should lift us above the survival dogma of social Darwinism.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sk270

Correlational studies are scientific. Not everything can be tested by controlled experiment. The current data show a reduction in crime rates correlated with the abandonment of harsh punishments and the development of our current catch-and-release system. As I said, I don't believe in our current system but I don't see the evidence for replacing it with nothing but harshness.

I also know some solid citizens who were beaten by their parents. Most of them bear identifiable emotional scars. I also know some solid citizens who were never so much as spanked by their parents.

The reasons for our treatment of prisoners include ethics, morality, philosophy, even religion. I don't mean to insult you but the world you envision seems to be that of Thomas Hobbes. In our First World of material plenty I think we should consider the welfare of all. Humans are social animals with intellects that should lift us above the survival dogma of social Darwinism.

The first priority should be protecting the public from these criminals, not protecting criminals from the public. You mention children that were beaten, but how about children that were spanked? Do you have any data that proves that spanking causes issues later on in life? How about data that shows that manual labor causes behavioral issues? Did you observe bullies when you were growing up? I saw a few along the way, and the ones that stopped their bullying behavior usually did so, because someone fought back and put them in their place. Once they realized that their behavior was not going to be tolerated, they changed their behavior. I think that it is only logical that the same would be true with criminals. If they were breaking into homes, and the owners gave them a good beat down, many would change their behavior. If a few intruders were shot by homeowners, some other intruders might change their ways. At least the ones that were shot, would not be reoffending.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by sk270

It still is a fact that the crime rate went down from 1992 to 2013. I was a bit surprised to find that out when I followed up on some of matthegorby's citations. Maybe the recent increase in crime cannot be blamed on the catch-and-release nature of our justice system.

Some of the decrease is due to the aging of population, criminals just getting too old to commit crimes. The new surge is due to social disintegration.

Grizz

[sk270]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The first priority should be protecting the public from these criminals, not protecting criminals from the public. You mention children that were beaten, but how about children that were spanked? Do you have any data that proves that spanking causes issues later on in life? How about data that shows that manual labor causes behavioral issues?

If they were breaking into homes, and the owners gave them a good beat down, many would change their behavior. If a few intruders were shot by homeowners, some other intruders might change their ways. At least the ones that were shot, would not be reoffending.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, Elk, particularly about protecting the public from criminals. That is why I think criminals should be incarcerated, with longer sentences for every successive offense.

I have not said anything about spanking. I was responding to a suggestion that children should be beaten for wrong-doing.

I also have nothing against manual labour. The comment by the other poster was about returning to hard labour in prison, not constructive work.

It might be true that beating a specific thief would deter them but I am looking for some concrete evidence that it would deter thieves in general.

I am opposed to the death penalty for theft. However, I believe we should be allowed to defend ourselves in our homes by using deadly force if the intruder does not retreat immediately upon being warned.

[liar]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The first priority should be protecting the public from these criminals, not protecting criminals from the public. You mention children that were beaten, but how about children that were spanked? Do you have any data that proves that spanking causes issues later on in life? How about data that shows that manual labor causes behavioral issues? Did you observe bullies when you were growing up? I saw a few along the way, and the ones that stopped their bullying behavior usually did so, because someone fought back and put them in their place. Once they realized that their behavior was not going to be tolerated, they changed their behavior. I think that it is only logical that the same would be true with criminals. If they were breaking into homes, and the owners gave them a good beat down, many would change their behavior. If a few intruders were shot by homeowners, some other intruders might change their ways. At least the ones that were shot, would not be reoffending.

a couple things , if it were just changing behavior it can be done . throw in the highly addictive mind altering drugs that lots of these crooks are using and and the behavior that need to be changed is the addiction . just punishing the crime(or symptom)will not change the behavior.i dont know if you can cure addiction for someone that does not want to be cured ,
also , lots of people get impaired charges but people still drive drunk because the human thought process is " sucks for him , that wont happen to me " . i believe the same is true if you shot a few crooks . the ones you shoot wont reoffend but it wont stop the others , if anything it may make them more violent if they think they may get shot .

[mattthegorby]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Theoretically yes.. But how can someone get "treatment" when they aren't in jail or prison long enough to receive it? My experience with front line workers (friends/family are LEO's throughout canada) says the majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders.

While I am a big advocate for treatment/programming, an individual needs to want it and want something different for themselves in order for it to be effective.

I was posting research that could be used to argue against stiffer sentencing, but this is not taking into account all the reasons people commit crimes. The folks I work with want to change, but there are some that are not in that space and may never get there.

Drug court in Calgary is a great example of providing an option to costly incarceration for those that want change, but still having expectations attached to the program and has achieved a low recidivism rate for participants.

[sk270]

Matt, I hope I haven't misrepresented anything you were saying.

I would add that although my experience is somewhat limited and I am now retired, I believe that students who have had appropriate experiences in school almost all welcome help whether for addiction isues, FASD, hunger, or whatever. It is important to help people dealing with these issues as early as possible.

[monsterdon]

Originally Posted by sk270

Correlational studies are scientific. Not everything can be tested by controlled experiment. The current data show a reduction in crime rates correlated with the abandonment of harsh punishments and the development of our current catch-and-release system. As I said, I don't believe in our current system but I don't see the evidence for replacing it with nothing but harshness.

Correlation does not imply causation. A vast amount of variables have changed since 1970. It is unclear if our current justice system is any more effective. It is definitely more costly. Your answer seems to be to throw even more (taxpayer) money at it. For some reason, people like you always think of the best interests of the criminals (being taken care of, rehabilitated) rather than the interests of the productive, law-abiding citizens (saving money, defending themselves).

Originally Posted by sk270

I also know some solid citizens who were beaten by their parents. Most of them bear identifiable emotional scars. I also know some solid citizens who were never so much as spanked by their parents.

OK. Emotional scars are part of life and add to the diversity of character that people have. Some people idealize raising kids with no punishment at all, but I'm skeptical that would make people any better. But this is off topic.

Originally Posted by sk270

The reasons for our treatment of prisoners include ethics, morality, philosophy, even religion. I don't mean to insult you but the world you envision seems to be that of Thomas Hobbes. In our First World of material plenty I think we should consider the welfare of all. Humans are social animals with intellects that should lift us above the survival dogma of social Darwinism.

I see the world accurately: not through the lens of religion or (the prevailing) ethics/morality (which stems mostly from religion). From my vantage point, our civilization is in decline, which is the natural outcome of the unnatural/anti-natural principles we adopted with our religions. Namely, our desire for equality. We hate "survival of the fittest" because it is ruthlessly unequal. But, nonetheless, that is how life on this planet operates and we cannot escape it. Our desire to thwart it merely makes our population weak, and will lead to our eventual defeat by a stronger population.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by monsterdon

Your answer seems to be to throw even more (taxpayer) money at it. For some reason, people like you always think of the best interests of the criminals (being taken care of, rehabilitated) rather than the interests of the productive, law-abiding citizens (saving money, defending themselves).

From my vantage point, our civilization is in decline, which is the natural outcome of the unnatural/anti-natural principles we adopted with our religions. Namely, our desire for equality. We hate "survival of the fittest" because it is ruthlessly unequal. But, nonetheless, that is how life on this planet operates and we cannot escape it. Our desire to thwart it merely makes our population weak, and will lead to our eventual defeat by a stronger population.

I am not sure what you mean by "people like me" so I will not try to describe myself.

If we could achieve a further reduction in crime I think it would be worth the expense. I am not sure where the money should go but rehabilitation of criminals would be worthwhile. Longer periods of incarceration would be as well.

You mention in "defending themselves" as if I don't approve. In fact, as I stated, I approve of deadly force to defend persons but not to protect property.

The dominant religions of the world have been affecting mankind for 2500 (Buddhism) to 1200 years (Islam). I don't believe that civilization has been in decline since they began to be adopted.

We should remember that theories about evolution or "survival of the fittest" lead to understanding the value of altruism. Populations that act to benefit all members are more competitive than those that do not.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by liar

a couple things , if it were just changing behavior it can be done . throw in the highly addictive mind altering drugs that lots of these crooks are using and and the behavior that need to be changed is the addiction . just punishing the crime(or symptom)will not change the behavior.i dont know if you can cure addiction for someone that does not want to be cured ,
also , lots of people get impaired charges but people still drive drunk because the human thought process is " sucks for him , that wont happen to me " . i believe the same is true if you shot a few crooks . the ones you shoot wont reoffend but it wont stop the others , if anything it may make them more violent if they think they may get shot .

Have you ever heard of a place called Kennesaw Georgia? It made the news when the council mandated the presence of a firearm in every household. Once this went into effect, the crime rate plummeted, and stayed low ever since. Why do you suppose that was? Very simple, the thieves realized that they could be facing a homeowner with a firearm if they tried to commit crimes in Kennesaw, and in Georgia, the laws are much more lenient than ours regarding the use of lethal force.

[ABJB]

I dont think people are looking at theft properly, in a modern capitalist society theft is a huge economic wheel house. who benifits from theft? retail, insurance, the legal system, enforcment agencies ect. when people steal you buy more things more insurance, more work is created, staistics go up budgets get pushed, taxes get increased. north american economies are based on circulating problems not solving them. there are the better part of 400 million people on this continent with the best education systems in the world and the most advanced technology if we really wanted permanent solutions to our problems we would make it happend. nothing flows without unbalance whether its economies or electricity.

just some thing to think about.