Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Tories to crack down on parole for non-violent offenders


Recommended Posts

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ub=TopStoriesV2

The federal government is planning to introduce legislation to crack down on early parole for non-violent offenders, CTV News has learned.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan is expected to lay out the Conservatives' plan to reduce parole opportunities for non-violent offenders such drug dealers and white collar criminals on Monday.

"Offenders will no longer be eligible for day parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence," CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Sunday on the planned legislation. "Offenders will no longer be released on full parole after serving only one-third of their sentence."

It looks like we are going to need a massive amount of prisons built. Wish that Van Loan would reveal the cost to his plan.

In Manitoba, the Free Press revealed that every prison in the province was way over capacity. A riot in Brandon in the last weeks was due in part to crowded conditions, according to officials themselves.

If the goal is to ensure that everyone convicted of a crime serves a long sentence, we will need a lot more prisons than we do now and will have to pay more annually than we do now.

The Tories always play the tough on crime stance but they downplay the tough on finances aspect of their policies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The perception that white-collar criminals get off with a slap on the wrist, coupled with some large-scale rip-offs has created a public desire for this.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites
The perception that white-collar criminals get off with a slap on the wrist, coupled with some large-scale rip-offs has created a public desire for this.

No doubt. Let's just see the costing up front since there is a public desire not to push the deficit to a permanent fixture too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The perception that white-collar criminals get off with a slap on the wrist, coupled with some large-scale rip-offs has created a public desire for this.

-k

I think we are long overdue for a few new prisons anyway. Saying "we can't afford it" is an awful lame excuse not to punish criminals.

"White collar crime" needs to be dealt with more severely. While maybe non-violent, they can and have destroyed lives. There is no deterrent right now for someone with low morals to take a chance on ripping some innocent people off of their savings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ub=TopStoriesV2

It looks like we are going to need a massive amount of prisons built. Wish that Van Loan would reveal the cost to his plan.

I'm not so sure at all about needing a whole bunch more prison capacity. We're basically talking about drug pushers. These leeches are arrested over and over again....they clog up the courts and treat jailtime - if they actually serve it - as a cost of doing business. Keeping them in jail longer to counter the "cost of doing business" attitude should make SOME of these bloodsuckers think twice about their choice of professions......and if these professional pushers are in jail longer, it's not a sure bet that someone will replace them on the street if the consequences of their actions finally mean something. It should free up the courts to some extent in that the same guys are not parading through the revolving door that we laughingly call justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt. Let's just see the costing up front since there is a public desire not to push the deficit to a permanent fixture too.

The present system has been hiding costs for years! By releasing criminals early and making punishments light, instead of money for prisons we have money stolen from us directly!

It's harder to track the cost of a break-in. Insurance totals only the replacement cost of the property involved. The time and aggravation is not paid for at all. It is born by the victim. Any deductibles on the insurance policies are paid by the victims. Often in areas where that type of crime is rampant insurance premiums become exorbitant. In other threads it's been mentioned that some shopkeepers can't get insured at any price. When they are robbed they bear the entire cost with no mitigation.

Saving money on prisons seems to me to be false economy. It lets governments offload costs back onto citizens, in a manner easy to obfuscate. What's more, if sentences were stiffer it's possible that after an initial increase in prison enrolments the numbers may start to fall, as fewer potential criminals care to risk the price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I like most about the sentencing reforms is the emphasis on "earning" parole. That really is an emphasis on rehabilitation. If a prisoner takes the proper programs, shows remorse, demonstrates a willingness to join society - then they get serious consideration for parole. Why should someone who does the opposite get any parole at all? What's the purpose of a sentence if for all intents and purposes, you never have to serve it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The present system has been hiding costs for years! By releasing criminals early and making punishments light, instead of money for prisons we have money stolen from us directly!

How are the costs hidden? On future crimes?

It's harder to track the cost of a break-in. Insurance totals only the replacement cost of the property involved. The time and aggravation is not paid for at all. It is born by the victim. Any deductibles on the insurance policies are paid by the victims. Often in areas where that type of crime is rampant insurance premiums become exorbitant. In other threads it's been mentioned that some shopkeepers can't get insured at any price. When they are robbed they bear the entire cost with no mitigation.

The main concern for someone convicted of a crime should be punishment and where possible restitution. Thereafter, the parole system should be set up to drop the hammer on recidivism.

If a non-violent offender who is likely not to commit a crime again is kept in prison for a lengthy period, the taxpayer will have to bear those costs.

Saving money on prisons seems to me to be false economy. It lets governments offload costs back onto citizens, in a manner easy to obfuscate. What's more, if sentences were stiffer it's possible that after an initial increase in prison enrolments the numbers may start to fall, as fewer potential criminals care to risk the price.

And yet in some jurisdictions, the issue of prisons becoming ever greater draws on the purse-strings becomes greater.

I don't think I've seen evidence that long sentences curbs crimes. Do you have anything on that subject?

I do know that several days ago, the breakdown on prison populations in Manitoba showed every prison was overcapacity. If the Feds wish to increase sentences, they will see a greater number of provincial prisoners transferred to federal prisons because anything over 2 years ends up in the national system.

There will be costs. Let's hear them. And if the government has estimates on costs saved from keeping people in jail, let's hear those too.

But for heaven sakes, let's talk about numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we are long overdue for a few new prisons anyway. Saying "we can't afford it" is an awful lame excuse not to punish criminals.

I didn't say that at all.

I said let's talk about the costs financially. Where are the numbers? If you talk tough on crime, you should be able to give the financials in carrying out the policy.

It is a lame excuse if you can't tell what the budget of such a policy is.

"White collar crime" needs to be dealt with more severely. While maybe non-violent, they can and have destroyed lives. There is no deterrent right now for someone with low morals to take a chance on ripping some innocent people off of their savings.

That's all well and good. But let's hear the numbers. Let's hear how effective it will be in deterrence.

Tough on crime seems to mean vague on budgets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not so sure at all about needing a whole bunch more prison capacity.

Okay. So you don't think new prisons need to be built? How do you come to that conclusion?

Here is the situation in Manitoba:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/loc...re-65891527.htm

Manitoba prisons/capacity

Number of provincial jails: 12

Total capacity available: 1,662

Actual number of prisoners in provincial jails: 2,158

Number of prisoners in provincial jails on remand: 1,554 (72 per cent)

Number of prisoners serving sentences in provincial jails: 604

If you eliminate bail, if you increase sentences, if you increase arrests, it results in more people incarcerated.

If the sentences are over 2 years, the Feds take over. There will be costs. So what are they?

And if there are savings from having people in jail, what are they?

We're basically talking about drug pushers. These leeches are arrested over and over again....they clog up the courts and treat jailtime - if they actually serve it - as a cost of doing business. Keeping them in jail longer to counter the "cost of doing business" attitude should make SOME of these bloodsuckers think twice about their choice of professions......and if these professional pushers are in jail longer, it's not a sure bet that someone will replace them on the street if the consequences of their actions finally mean something. It should free up the courts to some extent in that the same guys are not parading through the revolving door that we laughingly call justice.

Then let's hear what those cost savings are. And let's hear what the numbers are for prisons. Why the vagueness?

If Conservatives feel strongly about this, we should hear solid reasons and numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In February, the Correctional Service of Canada confirmed that it will close six prison farms that have, over many years, provided thousands of inmates with useful exposure to honest labour. The penitentiary service has operated prison farms for 150 years, since before Canada was a country. Why close them now? It wasn't the economics of the farms, which normally made a profit or came close to making a profit. (The farms were obliged, in fact, to operate as profit-making enterprises.)

...Oddly, the prison farms succeeded only because the federal government permitted them to operate outside the law, a morally dubious proposition when working with accomplished miscreants. In the entire country, the government uniquely exempted criminals from supply management, the system that requires farmers to buy licences to milk cows...

...The first two prison farms to go (Pittsburgh and Frontenac) are in Ontario, near Kingston. At the Frontenac farm, 60 inmates tended 130 cows that produced 4,000 litres of milk a day for consumption in prisons throughout the region and three prisons in dairy-rich Quebec. The farm was deemed one of the best dairy operations in the country.

Story

Conservatives routinely pride themselves for having more economic smarts than anyone else so perhaps they could explain the rational behind this. The argument for closing these is that apparently only 1% of criminals go into farming after their release. As the story reports however...

It now costs 10 times as much, per cow, to buy the licence as it does to buy the cow. An inmate who wanted to enter small-scale dairy farming after his release from prison would need a quarter of a million dollars for the right to milk 10 cows, and another million to buy a farm. This is one reason why fewer than 1 per cent of ex-inmates has chosen farming as a post-prison career.

I suspect a grow-op would be significantly cheaper.

Notwithstanding this I would have thought the supply management angle of this story alone would be enough to prompt Conservatives to highlight how supply management causes such grotesque distortions of the market. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a cabal of white-collar dairy industry CEO's somewhere who have lobbied the politicians to close these embarassing examples of common sense before anyone takes notice of them. Would that be a crime or perfectly legal?

Further to the issue of supply and demand if Keepitsimple is anything to go by many conservatives must still be convinced they can simply concentrate on the supply side of the war on drugs and somehow the demand for them will just magically go away, in complete defiance of scientifically proven economic laws. The Fraser Institute once described prohibition as being like an attempt to repeal the law of gravity. I guess they must have a bunch of bleeding-heart hand-wringing molly-coddling lefties running the place.

Again I ask, where is the much vaunted economic sense of conservatives in all of this? Has it been taken out back and shot in the head or something?

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians believes no education, no peace, no kindness to people who are not perfect, no convert them to gentle men. They believes to "crack down" others with power, with violence, with bully. What's the difference with the methods criminals uses, they don't want to find the deep reason that cause all the problems and find solutions, because many problems are caused by themselves, they want help interest groups to robber people through legislation and they have their own need in their own political career.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say that at all.

Yes, that was your basic premise. Like I've said before, if it helps, think of prison construction as stimulus shovel-ready jobs for unionized workers. Are you against economic stimulus? Are you against creating well-paying unionized jobs? Are you against locking up criminals? Are you against justice?

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. So you don't think new prisons need to be built? How do you come to that conclusion?

Here is the situation in Manitoba:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/loc...re-65891527.htm

If you eliminate bail, if you increase sentences, if you increase arrests, it results in more people incarcerated.

If the sentences are over 2 years, the Feds take over. There will be costs. So what are they?

And if there are savings from having people in jail, what are they?

Then let's hear what those cost savings are. And let's hear what the numbers are for prisons. Why the vagueness?

If Conservatives feel strongly about this, we should hear solid reasons and numbers.

Difficult for anyone to say - that's why it's vague. If the Feds take over because of longer sentences - that saves money for the provinces but costs money for the Feds. I think it will cost some money overall but will save money in the courts - or at least speed up other justice issues - because you won't have revolving door drug convictions - the abusers will be in jail. One wild card is whether the sentencing reforms will actually act as a deterrent and if it does, that will result in savings. Personally, I think the penny-ante pushers will be deterred but the hard-core pushers will re-design their way of doing business.....so we'll have fewer pushers but the drugs will still be somewhere - they always are. But if that happens, we'll get rid of a lot of the small time guys in jail that go back and forth, over and over. It's all conjecture at this point.....but that's why it's difficult to really cost out. Another wild card is "earned" parole - which is really a form of rehabilitation. If prisoners know that they have to take programs, educate themselves, show remorse, and keep their nose clean in order to get parole - maybe a higher percentage will be inclined to get a job. You're just counting prisoners as if the sentencing reforms will have absolutely no deterrent or rehabilitation effect. That's your choice. I'm a bit more optimistic.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that was your basic premise. Like I've said before, if it helps, think of prison construction as stimulus shovel-ready jobs for unionized workers. Are you against economic stimulus? Are you against creating well-paying unionized jobs? Are you against locking up criminals? Are you against justice?

:blink:

Are you against producing budgetary numbers? If this is stimulus money, let's hear how much money. Is this stimulus money for the next ten years? Is this an attempt to take the burden off off provincial jails by making many crimes federal crimes with sentences over 2 years?

Let's hear the numbers? And if they produce a deficit or an increased percentage of federal spending, let's hear what taxes will be increased or what cuts will be made?

Why so vague? If it is $60 million, break it down. Does it include more prisons? Is that in addition to other judicial changes?

Are you against transparency? Are you against Canada?

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Difficult for anyone to say - that's why it's vague. If the Feds take over because of longer sentences - that saves money for the provinces but costs money for the Feds. I think it will cost some money overall but will save money in the courts - or at least speed up other justice issues - because you won't have revolving door drug convictions - the abusers will be in jail.

If that is the case, let's hear even the vague numbers.

One wild card is whether the sentencing reforms will actually act as a deterrent and if it does, that will result in savings. Personally, I think the penny-ante pushers will be deterred but the hard-core pushers will re-design their way of doing business.....so we'll have fewer pushers but the drugs will still be somewhere - they always are.

I haven't seen deterrence work yet in this area. Do you have any numbers? Perhaps if they had long sentences for users of say... 5 years, you might see some change in behaviour. I don't know. How many people do you want to put in jail?

But if that happens, we'll get rid of a lot of the small time guys in jail that go back and forth, over and over. It's all conjecture at this point.....but that's why it's difficult to really cost out. Another wild card is "earned" parole - which is really a form of rehabilitation. If prisoners know that they have to take programs, educate themselves, show remorse, and keep their nose clean in order to get parole - maybe a higher percentage will be inclined to get a job. You're just counting prisoners as if the sentencing reforms will have absolutely no deterrent or rehabilitation effect. That's your choice. I'm a bit more optimistic.

We still need to hear the numbers. This was the main problem with three strikes, you're out. It was an ever increasing money number.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Difficult for anyone to say - that's why it's vague. If the Feds take over because of longer sentences - that saves money for the provinces but costs money for the Feds. I think it will cost some money overall but will save money in the courts - or at least speed up other justice issues - because you won't have revolving door drug convictions - the abusers will be in jail. One wild card is whether the sentencing reforms will actually act as a deterrent and if it does, that will result in savings. Personally, I think the penny-ante pushers will be deterred but the hard-core pushers will re-design their way of doing business.....so we'll have fewer pushers but the drugs will still be somewhere - they always are. But if that happens, we'll get rid of a lot of the small time guys in jail that go back and forth, over and over. It's all conjecture at this point.....but that's why it's difficult to really cost out. Another wild card is "earned" parole - which is really a form of rehabilitation. If prisoners know that they have to take programs, educate themselves, show remorse, and keep their nose clean in order to get parole - maybe a higher percentage will be inclined to get a job. You're just counting prisoners as if the sentencing reforms will have absolutely no deterrent or rehabilitation effect. That's your choice. I'm a bit more optimistic.

Face it, Conservatives neither know or care about the costs or effectiveness of their so-called reforms. This whole excersize is simply to make Conservatives more electable by playing the tough on crime card and as the story I posted above indicates they are perfectly willing to ignore their core economic principles to do so.

The only result can be more criminals and I really think that must be the goal. More crime = more fear = more election winning, galvanizing fear. Such is the way police states are born.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If that is the case, let's hear even the vague numbers.

I haven't seen deterrence work yet in this area. Do you have any numbers? Perhaps if they had long sentences for users of say... 5 years, you might see some change in behaviour. I don't know. How many people do you want to put in jail?

We still need to hear the numbers. This was the main problem with three strikes, you're out. It was an ever increasing money number.

In the final analysis, I don't really care about the numbvers. I care about what's fair - and what's just....and I care that the sentences and the way we handle parole reflects society's reprehension toward these crimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the final analysis, I don't really care about the numbvers. I care about what's fair - and what's just....and I care that the sentences and the way we handle parole reflects society's reprehension toward these crimes.

Fair and just? These concepts are far removed from the system we now have. We have a legal system and desperately need a justice system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don t even need to build a prison.......just build a bunch of city type prison's up North, no guards

no fence just air drop food into them once in awhile if they try to escape? if the cold doesn t get them

the Polar Bears will! If they kill each other? oh well who cares...of course this would be only for the

worst of the worst,as for the rest of them build some prisons out on Sable Island!!

there is nowhere to go out there!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Society is not getting a justice system, it's getting a vengence system. We're going to get more criminals too, and they'll also be a lot tougher and meaner, just like the system and the society that's cultivating them.

Then bring back the death penality!!! Dead criminals don t reoffend! Cuddling

bad guys doesn t work either!!! The Liberals already tried that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Politicians believes no education, no peace, no kindness to people who are not perfect, no convert them to gentle men. They believes to "crack down" others with power, with violence, with bully. What's the difference with the methods criminals uses, they don't want to find the deep reason that cause all the problems and find solutions, because many problems are caused by themselves, they want help interest groups to robber people through legislation and they have their own need in their own political career.

People make mistakes..........but for violent criminals? no mercy! we need to get these scumbags off our

streets and keep them off for good and away from law abiding people!

Link to post
Share on other sites
People make mistakes..........but for violent criminals? no mercy! we need to get these scumbags off our

streets and keep them off for good and away from law abiding people!

It'll sure be interesting to see what happens when the 50% or so of people that are arrested for alcohol-fuelled violence start hitting the mandatory sentencing wall. If its a Conservative government that's in charge they'll probably make it even easier for people to get their hands on booze. Like I said, the system is at such odds with itself at every turn its pathetic - its also completely unsustainable both economically and socially.

People may make mistakes but only a politician would do so deliberately. What does that say about people who vote for them when they do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...