Thieves and other criminals and the justice system

[sk270]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply to my earlier post about how police services handle thefts. I decided to start this thread to shift the issue away from catalytic converters to crime in general.

It is clear that the current system is not working. Crime rates keep going up (https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most...us-places-2020) even as more police officers are hired. Something needs to be done.

If I understand correctly, it is impossible that an officer told the victim in the original news story that nothing would be done. Rather, the police are just as frustrated as the public with the way that the system deals with criminals. It seems that the thief in the original video has been arrested before. Whatever sentence(s) the judge(s) gave him made no difference, so here he is stealing again.

The Harper government passed a number of measures to make crime less attractive to criminals but these were dismantled by judges. This included mandatory minimum sentences, limiting credit for pretrial detention if a guilty verdict was delivered, and victim surcharges. These measures were designed to make a life of crime less attractive but judges have a different view of how to handle criminals. The problem is that what they are doing is not working.

Since we can’t elect judges as they do in the United States, is there anything the public can do to change the way courts deal with career criminals? I would like to hear from judges and law enforcement officers who understand how the system works. I admit I am looking in from outside.

As I said in an earlier post, expensive measures need to be taken to address the root causes of criminal behaviour. However, right now, I'd like to see changes at the judicial level and I think a lot of people agree with me.

[fishtank]

[gunluvr]

Actually, more expensive measures for police services in particular aren't necessary. We keep hearing how RCMP detachments are under manned and underfunded and can't provide enough patrols to deter growing criminal activity. The RCMP could be far more effective if they would change one thing:Hours of duty. Our local detachment actually ceases it's patrols at midnight and doesn't commence again till 8 am. Obviously, these are precisely the hours that the vast majority of thefts, both urban and rural occur. Thieves operate at night, under cover of darkness, for obvious reasons, but more so because they know the cops are home in bed. The local force rotates one member at a time "on call", but not on duty. Also, in the event of a call out, that one member is not allowed to respond without an additional member for backup. So if you report a break- in in the middle of the night, you can be assured that no officer will be dispatched until after 8 am.
I don't know about other detachments, but this how our local one operates, and covers virtually all of a very large rural county.
Why do RCMP detachments do this? Because responding to crimes in progress is dangerous. Well, that is what police recruits signed up for. Not just to write traffic tickets and scarf donuts.
The OP is right, something needs to be done, or this country will be third-world in 10 years.

[liar]

more patrols at night would catch more crooks . but at the end of the day , the real problem is after they get caught . the hug a thug system we have . the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results . these thieves go before a judge , get a fine or minor jail time , go steal more stuff , get caught , go before a judge , get a fine or minor jail time , go steal more stuff ...repeat,repeat,repeat .

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by liar

more patrols at night would catch more crooks . but at the end of the day , the real problem is after they get caught . the hug a thug system we have . the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results . these thieves go before a judge , get a fine or minor jail time , go steal more stuff , get caught , go before a judge , get a fine or minor jail time , go steal more stuff ...repeat,repeat,repeat .

Catching more thieves is not necessarily the motive, providing a deterrent would be an enormous improvement. If homeowners were to shoot a few thieves things would improve overnight.

[bat119]

In most rural areas the RCMP have at least a 30 minute response time coupled with low employment and weak sentencing is it any wonder we have a crime problem?
Just to make things worse
We have a federal government that would rather spend millions on buying guns from innocent people than use the funds to fight the real problems.

[mattthegorby]

It is important to note that our society is getting safer and that we are doing some things right, maybe not enough, but it is not a society in decline.

There is also no magic bullet that will reduce all types of crime as the motivations to commit a crime are different. A mandatory minimum sentence may stop an employee stealing credit card numbers as the risk may outweigh the benefit, but may not stop a drug addict who is motivated by not going into withdrawal.

We all have our biases and mine is from the perspective of someone who works in rehabilitation with ex-offenders. A purely punitive approuch does not work with the vast majority of the population I support - what is needed is increased access to mental health supports, addictions support, programming in institutions, creative solutions like Calgary drug court, etc... that being said... Much of this work is already being done and done well.

I am not saying just throwing more money at the challenge will fix things. There definitely needs to be direction and accountability - especially in publicly provided services that may not be maximizing their impact.

[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.

[monsterdon]

Originally Posted by mattthegorby

It is important to note that our society is getting safer and that we are doing some things right, maybe not enough, but it is not a society in decline.

Citation needed. That sounds like an ideological talking point, not a fact.

According to this Statistics Canada table, it looks like crime is rising in Alberta:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=3510018301

Total violations:
2014: 328,090
2015: 369,546
2016: 378,735
2017: 395,914
2018: 400,909

(It is rising per capita as well.)

Originally Posted by mattthegorby

There is also no magic bullet that will reduce all types of crime as the motivations to commit a crime are different.

Harsh punishment would reduce all types of crime.

Originally Posted by mattthegorby

We all have our biases and mine is from the perspective of someone who works in rehabilitation with ex-offenders. A purely punitive approuch does not work with the vast majority of the population I support - what is needed is increased access to mental health supports, addictions support, programming in institutions, creative solutions like Calgary drug court, etc... that being said... Much of this work is already being done and done well.

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.

[Khrfn]

Here's an insider view....

Our justice system is broken. Officers will pour tremendous amounts of time and effort into files big or small just to have the charges withdrawn. Why are charges usually withdrawn? Because defence lawyers love to make deals with the crown before going infront of the judge. Tell me why somebody shouldn't be before the courts for all of their crimes as opposed to a couple of them just because they pled guilty? This one baffles law enforcement officers not just the public.

More often than not lawyers and prosecutors will make deals on sentences that end up being peanuts in comparison to what the offender should have gotten. What does this mean? This means the offender thinks the system is a joke and re-offends.

I have seen complete disrespect for the system simply because it is too soft.

Who suffers? We the law abiding citizens do.

Who wins? The criminal who gets a slap on the wrist and free room/board IF they get any time in prison.

The system needs a complete overhaul and unfortunately that is a very complex task that would take many many years.

[erkel1]

I think one of the big problems is that the criminals know the system and what the punishment will be.How about we add a little incentive and let the perp create his own sentence.The judge issues the sentence as per guidelines then the crook is handed a die and gets to roll it.on 4 sides a 1 which means the sentence is as per judge ruling. 0n 1 side a x10 and on the last side a x20. roll a 1 and do your sentence say 6 months but roll a x20 and thats 10 yrs in the big house son. Still want to steal that converter?

[sk270]

I disagree with mattthegorby that our society is becoming safer. Monsterdon is correct. The crime rate is going up which means that what we are doing is not working. In fact, several cities in western Canada are the most dangerous in Canada (https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most...us-places-2020).

Defence lawyers do what they are paid to do: defend criminals so they receive the least punishment possible. However, prosecutors and judges are paid by the taxpayer, presumably to make society safer. They are not doing their jobs and I would like to know how to change this.

Mattthegorby says that rehabilitation is being done well. If that is actually the case, shouldn't the number of repeat offenders be going down? I can't find any statistics one way or the other. Matt, do you have the figures?

Khrfn says that criminals think the system is a joke and no deterrent. I have no personal insight into the thought processes of offenders, but it seems reasonable that this would occur. My Corrections Officer friend mentioned in my earlier post agrees for sure.

Is there no way to get prosecutors and judges to change and to see that what they are doing is not working? Otherwise, maybe our society will continue to see rising crime rates and more calls for vigilante justice.

Judges? Prosecutors? Where are you?

[mattthegorby]

Hey guys,

Just to be clear, I am basing my observations on the overall trend over the last 30 years. I understand that we are currently seeing a surge and that much of these crimes are property related - as is the context of the OP. My feeling is that this is related to the economic downturn and opioid use, but this is admittedly based on assumptions.

I will check back later to read others comments and give a more thoughtful response. Just running around town right now, lol.

Matt

[Grizzly Adams]

Judges? Prosecutors? Where are you?

They're all lawyers , milking the system for what it's worth.

Grizz

[mattthegorby]

Originally Posted by sk270

I disagree with mattthegorby that our society is becoming safer. Monsterdon is correct. The crime rate is going up which means that what we are doing is not working. In fact, several cities in western Canada are the most dangerous in Canada (https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most...us-places-2020).

Defence lawyers do what they are paid to do: defend criminals so they receive the least punishment possible. However, prosecutors and judges are paid by the taxpayer, presumably to make society safer. They are not doing their jobs and I would like to know how to change this.

Mattthegorby says that rehabilitation is being done well. If that is actually the case, shouldn't the number of repeat offenders be going down? I can't find any statistics one way or the other. Matt, do you have the figures?

Khrfn says that criminals think the system is a joke and no deterrent. I have no personal insight into the thought processes of offenders, but it seems reasonable that this would occur. My Corrections Officer friend mentioned in my earlier post agrees for sure.

Is there no way to get prosecutors and judges to change and to see that what they are doing is not working? Otherwise, maybe our society will continue to see rising crime rates and more calls for vigilante justice.

Judges? Prosecutors? Where are you?

The following articles reflect what I see with the folks that I work with. I tried to be impartial and go with the first 3 articles that would pop up. I am sure if one dug deeply enough that there would be exceptions - and I bet these exceptions would teach us valuable lessons as well.

We all have our own personal experiences and values that will color our perceptions, fair enough. The impact on victims needs to be considered as well in terms of sentencing and often these voices are not heard as deals are made.

There is no one answer. Acknowledging the benefits of supportive programming and doing a cost/benefit analysis in terms of the expenses of increased incarceration rates and draw on social services does not mean that some offences shouldn't have harsher sentences or that manipulation of the courts does not need to be looked at.

(edit: just to clarify. I believe that much of the work being done by individuals to decrease recidivism is being done well, but I do not believe that all is well at a systemic level - systems are slow to react)

First 3 Articles on Google Scholar: “recidivism mental health”

Procedural justice and the mental health court judge's role in reducing recidivism:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60252710000555

Juvenile Offenders With Mental Health Needs: Reducing Recidivism Using Wraparound:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...11128705278632

Effectiveness of a Mental Health Court in Reducing Criminal Recidivism and Violence:
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi....2007.06101664


First 3 Articles on Google Scholar: “recidivism addictions”

High Dose Methadone Reduces Criminal Recidivism in Opiate Addicts
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...66359909004372

The Effects of Intensive Treatment on Reducing the Criminal Recidivism of Addicted Offenders:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=62&id=&page=

Prison‐based substance abuse treatment, residential aftercare and recidivism:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1999.9468337.x

First 3 (relevant - one did not look directly related to search items) Articles on Google Scholar: “mandatory minimum sentencing recidivism:

The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism - Public Safety Canada:
http://madgic.library.carleton.ca/de...ences_1999.pdf

The Impact of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in Federal Sentencing:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...iv=7&id=&page=

Women of Circumstance - The Effects of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing on Women Minimally Involved in Drug Crimes:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=51&id=&page=


StatCan Statistics on crime in Canada that place the increase since 2014 into context:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/p...df?st=_Q7_dclK

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by bat119

In most rural areas the RCMP have at least a 30 minute response time coupled with low employment and weak sentencing is it any wonder we have a crime problem?
Just to make things worse
We have a federal government that would rather spend millions on buying guns from innocent people than use the funds to fight the real problems.

That supposed 30 minute response time is during "business hours" (8 am- midnight), and is ambitious.
One must recognize that the feds propose to buy guns from the very people whose money they are spending. And criminals rarely pay taxes so this doesn't cost them anything, but routes spending for crime prevention away from law enforcement. It's called buying votes, and it's what Turdo and Morneau are good at. Public safety be damned.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by Khrfn

Here's an insider view....

Our justice system is broken. Officers will pour tremendous amounts of time and effort into files big or small just to have the charges withdrawn. Why are charges usually withdrawn? Because defence lawyers love to make deals with the crown before going infront of the judge. Tell me why somebody shouldn't be before the courts for all of their crimes as opposed to a couple of them just because they pled guilty? This one baffles law enforcement officers not just the public.

More often than not lawyers and prosecutors will make deals on sentences that end up being peanuts in comparison to what the offender should have gotten. What does this mean? This means the offender thinks the system is a joke and re-offends.

I have seen complete disrespect for the system simply because it is too soft.

Who suffers? We the law abiding citizens do.

Who wins? The criminal who gets a slap on the wrist and free room/board IF they get any time in prison.

The system needs a complete overhaul and unfortunately that is a very complex task that would take many many years.

You forgot that the lawyers and courts win too...

[sk270]

Thanks to mattthegorby for the citations and thanks to everybody for their interesting opinions.

I found that Canadian statistics show that the crime rate increased from 1962 to 2000 or so, and then decreased until 2013. The crime rate has been increasing since then, and now matches that of the 1970's.

Why then do so many people, including police services, believe that crime is rampant today like never before? Is there something wrong with the statistics?

Mattthegorby: if a large proportion of criminals are identified as mentally ill, should they not be subject to mandatory treatment until they are "cured"?

[ShortsideK]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

Catching more thieves is not necessarily the motive, providing a deterrent would be an enormous improvement. If homeowners were to shoot a few thieves things would improve overnight.

I knew this thread topic would bring out the nutjobs.

[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.[/QUOTE]

Another nutjob.

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by ShortsideK

I knew this thread topic would bring out the nutjobs.

To ponder what would happen is not the same as suggesting that it should. Maybe you feel sympathy for the poor thieves?

[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.

[elkhunter11]

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.

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

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by sk270

Thanks to mattthegorby for the citations and thanks to everybody for their interesting opinions.

I found that Canadian statistics show that the crime rate increased from 1962 to 2000 or so, and then decreased until 2013. The crime rate has been increasing since then, and now matches that of the 1970's.

Why then do so many people, including police services, believe that crime is rampant today like never before? Is there something wrong with the statistics?

Mattthegorby: if a large proportion of criminals are identified as mentally ill, should they not be subject to mandatory treatment until they are "cured"?

The crime rate statistic is per capita. The fact that Canada's population has increased by some 60% since the mid 60s means there are more crimes committed nation wide regardless of per capita basis. Police services likely hasn't caught up with population growth. The growth in crime since 2013 is no doubt related to opiod use.
I don't know if you can ever say a mentally ill person has been "cured". How do you tell?
I also believe the RCMP has degenerated into a more lethargic position. They are just more generally reluctant to face dangerous situations. James Roszko probably had a lot to do with that. I'm sure something has changed in RCMP procedural training to reduce the likelihood of things like that happening again.
Criminals no doubt know this.

[bat119]

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.

Murderers can only kill once if they are in jail unless they prey on other prisoners. Most serious crimes are committed by those that have been through the system several times many lives could be spared by keeping criminals in prison longer.

[gunluvr]

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

Hard labor would certainly make prison time less attractive. It would also benefit inmates as it would make time go by faster for them, and keep them fit. Give them each a shovel and tell them the Chinese will set them free once they get there.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by ShortsideK

I knew this thread topic would bring out the nutjobs.

What makes the poster a nutjob? If our laws were changed to allow homeowners to use lethal force on home invaders, it's only logical that the thieves would have second thoughts about breaking into homes, and that would reduce the number of home invasions. As it is, our current laws that protect criminals, are actually encouraging those criminals.

[sk270]

I certainly agree that a criminal who is locked up (or executed) cannot hurt anyone except fellow inmates or COs. I would like to see more repeat offenders serving their full sentences with sentences increasing with each offense.

However, I can't find any evidence that harsh punishment deters crime. I'd like someone to point me in that direction.

As far as I can determine, break and entries per capita are not lower in the United States where they have castle doctrine and similar rights to shoot burglars. If anything, the figures are higher. Am I wrong?

I don't know how you tell if a mentally ill person has been cured, which is why I put "cured" in quotation marks. The best we can do is diagnosis by a psychiatrist.

[mattthegorby]

Originally Posted by sk270

Mattthegorby: if a large proportion of criminals are identified as mentally ill, should they not be subject to mandatory treatment until they are "cured"?

Off the cuff, I dunno - it is pretty complex and each individual is unique. Required, supervised med compliance for a repeat violent offender is different in my mind than requiring this of someone with ADHD who improperly stored their firearms.

As well, the infrastructure needs to be in place before the requirement can be set. Someone with FASD may have the intellectual age of a 10 year old and require daily one on one support to not shoplift every now and then.

That being said, probation and parole mandate all sorts of expectations of folks as a condition of release and this can have many good effects.

Matt

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by sk270

I found that Canadian statistics show that the crime rate increased from 1962 to 2000 or so, and then decreased until 2013. The crime rate has been increasing since then, and now matches that of the 1970's.

Why then do so many people, including police services, believe that crime is rampant today like never before? Is there something wrong with the statistics?

Statistics don't tell the whole story. A lot more crimes were reported back in the day. Those were the days when people left their homes and cars unlocked. When someone committed a crime the whole police force was looking for that criminal and he was likely to get caught and get a stiff sentence. Today one police officer is looking for probably dozens of criminals, the whole police force is looking for hundreds if not thousands of petty criminals and focus on the serious crimes leaving the petty criminals pretty much free reign to do as they please. The catch and conviction rate is much lower, when caught they get little if any meaningful punishment.

Back in the day one or two officers would respond to a situation go in and deal with it. Nowadays any type of serious crime involves detectives, uniformed police, undercover, and swat teams, etc. it has become onerously expensive to combat crime today.

A lot of the problem with crime today was spawned by the young offenders act. We have had a couple or three generations of criminals that because of this act who have grown up with little fear of apprehension or of the sentencing they receive if any at all.

We don't need more police. We simply need to take these people out of circulation when they first start committing crime and nip it in the bud as opposed to allowing them to get a rap sheet many pages long before we start spanking them with a feather like we do today.

We have to get back to a justice system that makes people afraid of committing crimes. This will never happen with the current system as it has become a politically operated corporate industrial complex dependent on the revolving door and financed by the taxpayer.