Graphic: Crime in Canada (Harper and his Omnibus bill), page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 11:31 AM by intrepid

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Mandatory sentencing for pot-users?

Not in Canada. Dealers and growers yes. Not users.

You cannot have one without the other.

That's true but one is illegal and one is not. Confusing isn't it? Another is prostitution. Carlin said(cleaning it up because of the T&C), "Sex is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal?" He's right. Now watch out for this one. Ontario legalized prostitution. The Harper gov't is going to court to overrule this.

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 11:40 AM by alphacenturi

Unfortunate isn't it that we have judges in this country (especially ontario court judges) who are way too soft on crime, if these judges excersised some common sense juxtaposed with the sentencing, the justice system wouldn't have failed so. I am glad for the tough on crime stance, other posters have mentioned the old don't do the crime, no time cliche... agreed. That being said the punishment should fit the crime. I don't want to see some teenager do time for a bit of weed, once again common sense.

I have a 22 year old daughter that lives in Toronto, there is not a day that goes by that I don't worry about her coming home from university or work, these crime measures are soley based upon repeat criminal offenders for violent crimes, sorry, if you carry an illegal weapon, thats a crime and your going to jail, good! If you prey upon small children for your own deviant desires, thats a crime, your going to jail, good! The problem with these criminals is they get a slap on the wrist, house arrest, or sime other useless unrehabilitation procees that doesn't deter them at all. Never been arressted, don't plan on it, pretty simple when you think about, as a law abiding citizen, and many others like myself, feel these laws should have been passed a long time ago, its about time.

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 11:40 AM by boncho

reply to post by intrepid

Crime should be crime unless it has a victim. And even in crimes with victims (theft) the victim should have the opportunity to request payment for forgiveness if they so choose. (edit) obviously this does not apply to all types.

I know there is restitution, but this would be different.

Someone steals your bike, he is caught. Authorities ask you, do you want this person to go to jail or will you relieve them of this if they pay for the bike. (Payment would have to show where it came from-or obtained through a work program).

There. Settled. The person with the stolen bike was empowered, the thief had to pay it back. Everyone walks away.

Instead, now, a majority of victims are indignant. "Hope he rots in hell." And they live with their bitterness. The thief goes on to be bitter as well.

My thoughts, for monetary crimes, make people pay it back, if you lock them up where there is a work program, have them working to pay back the victim. This wouldn't apply for large capital crimes, but it is a good start to change punishment so it builds character and not hate.

edit on 18-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 11:45 AM by intrepid

reply to post by boncho

I can't fault that. Makes sense. "Makes sense. That's why it won't happen." I hear that all the time. This week in fact. There's something else that you may not be aware of. Do you know what it costs to house 1 inmate for 1 day? Just under $300/day.

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 11:45 AM by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Mandatory sentencing for pot-users?

Not in Canada. Dealers and growers yes. Not users.

It was not my intention to dwell on this issue but that appears to be what this mandatory sentencing is largely directed at. A user that would wish to side-step the "criminal" entanglement of making regular illicit purchases, buying a larger quantity so as not to have to deal with that element as frequently, or worse growing a small garden for personal consumption would then be viewed as a dealer or "manufacturer", they will do mandatory time. I would be unrepentant and harbor ill-feeling for law and justice in that situation.

edit on 18-9-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 11:53 AM by boncho

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by boncho

I can't fault that. Makes sense. "Makes sense. That's why it won't happen." I hear that all the time. This week in fact. There's something else that you may not be aware of. Do you know what it costs to house 1 inmate for 1 day? Just under $300/day.

Exactly my point. It takes an extreme economic toll on our country to stick to some of the backwards principals we have. And all it seems to do is divide the parties even further. I have had many people (friends/kids of relatives) that have tried to take something from me.

I held them accountable, through communication, and everything worked out. In fact, a few of them developed respect.

As a kid, same thing happened to me. The people that worked out their problems with me earned my respect. Funny story, a few years ago I went to the store I used to take 5 cent candies from. I gave the owner $50 and told them it should cover the interest.

They said that all the local kids still do it. They are used to it, and factor it in to the candy cost. But they thought it was hilarious that someone came back to make amends.

So in that scenario, had I ended up in Juvenile detention, would it have been better? Highly doubtful.

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 12:05 PM by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by alphacenturi

if these judges excersised some common sense juxtaposed with the sentencing, the justice system wouldn't have failed so. I am glad for the tough on crime stance, other posters have mentioned the old don't do the crime, no time cliche... agreed. That being said the punishment should fit the crime. I don't want to see some teenager do time for a bit of weed, once again common sense.

...these crime measures are soley based upon repeat criminal offenders for violent crimes

I would agree with you however mandatory sentencing does away with common-sense sentencing. If this were aimed at the criminally dangerous and violent criminals that could be good. However, if this follows the model in the US then those violent criminals will be turned back onto the streets due to overcrowding in prisons because of laws that impose mandatory sentences against minor substance violations. I don't see much good coming of it. Doubt it will work as the people envision.

edit on 18-9-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 01:38 PM by alphacenturi

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

As I said it is initially aimed for, like you said the dangerous and violent offenders, and this is the stress factor, it is the repeat offenders that have made the common sense revolution fly off, along with the justice system for being lax and worried as usual about being politically correct, there is always someone who justifies a criminal act by somehow blaming the victim, like some people deserved to be robbed because they have nice things, or women deserved to be sexually assaulted because of the way they dress.

Its a bit of a catch 22 scenario, hopefully with some common sense and yeah, how about some help from the public in supporting the fair, just and firm judges who do the throw the book at some terrible criminals, giving them the affirmative silent nod instead of tieing their hands at sentence time, less they offend the bleeding hearts who believe more in criminal rights than those over the victims.

As much as some other posters, not yourself

, it will always comes down to the big bad Harper government

and their oh so worn out "hidden agenda," lest we all forget, I believe it was the big bad Harper government that gave back the rights to the victims and took it away from the criminal, Toronto storeowner and vigilante