[andyt]

Jack Phast Jack Phast:

The bill is absolute nonsense. Sending people to prison doesn't make us safer. Those sent to prison come out more hardened criminals who are more disenfranchised and are more likely to recommit a crime. Spend money on rehabilitation and prevention, rather than on imprisonment.

I agree with prevention. Saves money too. But prison certainly could play a big role in rehabilitation, if we set it up that way. Violent criminals should be locked up, probably longer than they are now. Same with big time white collar criminals, unless you find a way to make them pay their debt to society on a long term basis without incarceration.

[ShepherdsDog]

Fewer people should go to prison, but those who do, should go for longer periods. Sociopaths and psychopaths can't be rehabilitated and should be labelled dangerous offenders and be locked up indefinitely. Those mentally ill, who are deemed a danger to themselves and others, require a 'detention' facility, but not a prison.

As I mentioned earlier, people who commit property crimes should be made to repay their debts to victims and society through a work sentence with garnishment of their pay. They must also serve a period of house arrest and take part in couselling as part of their sentence. Failure to adhere to these conditions could lead to a period of detention in a correctional facility.

[Jack Phast]

andyt andyt:

Same with big time white collar criminals, unless you find a way to make them pay their debt to society on a long term basis without incarceration.

White collar criminals shouldn't be treated different from anyone else. If we send other to prison for theft or fraud or whatever, then white collar criminals need to get the same treatment. I don't like the idea of them being able to pay their debt some other way - inevitably that will become that they just have to pay a fine (kinda like it is now)

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Fewer people should go to prison, but those who do, should go for longer periods. Sociopaths and psychopaths can't be rehabilitated and should be labelled dangerous offenders and be locked up indefinitely. The mentally ill who are a danger to themselves and others need a 'detention' facility, but not a prison. As I mentioned earlier, people who commit property crimes should be made to repay their debts to victims and society through a work sentence with garnishment of their pay. They must also serve a period of house arrest and take part in couselling as part of their sentence. Failure to adhere to these conditions could lead to a period of detention in a correctional facility.

I agree that those committing property crimes should pay the debts to victims/society rather than being imprisoned necessary. Take the Vancouver riots, the major part of their sentence should be paying (or working) to fix what they destroyed.

As far as the mentally ill.... I have trouble locking someone up not because they have done something, but because of a disease (or other condition) that they have. I suppose in a case when they become very dangerous and there is no alternative, something might have to be done to keep them from hurting themselves or others, but I believe it should be an absolute last resort.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Ah, $19 billion is a lot of money. In all of Ottawa there must be better ideas, areas where the money could be better spent. The opposition has an arrow in it's quiver here.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Jack Phast Jack Phast:

As far as the mentally ill.... I have trouble locking someone up not because they have done something, but because of a disease (or other condition) that they have. I suppose in a case when they become very dangerous and there is no alternative, something might have to be done to keep them from hurting themselves or others, but I believe it should be an absolute last resort.

I think you incorrectly interpereted what Shep wrote. He said "The mentally ill who are a danger to themselves and others need a 'detention' facility, but not a prison."

But it's like you read it as "The mentally ill, who are a danger to themselves and others need a 'detention' facility, but not a prison."

Shep's lack of a comma after "ill" indicates to me that he only means those that are a danger to themselves or others, not all mentally ill people.

[Bruce_the_vii]

It's probably a dirty secret what the justice system costs. Something like property damage probably costs more to convict than the original crime. That is when you consider the cost of a police visit and court room time. And of course incarceration is something like $400,000 a cell a year. There's no justice in the world, it's a difficult topic from the get go.

[jeff744]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Non violent offenders don't really need to be locked up. Only those who pose a danger to themselves and the public, really need to be incarcerated. the others can serve house arrest and community service/terms of indentured servitude to make restitution.

Good sir, I do believe your orange is showing.

[ShepherdsDog]

Grandad was born and baptized into the Orange Order.

[eureka]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Fewer people should go to prison, but those who do, should go for longer periods. Sociopaths and psychopaths can't be rehabilitated and should be labelled dangerous offenders and be locked up indefinitely. Those mentally ill, who are deemed a danger to themselves and others, require a 'detention' facility, but not a prison.

As I mentioned earlier, people who commit property crimes should be made to repay their debts to victims and society through a work sentence with garnishment of their pay. They must also serve a period of house arrest and take part in couselling as part of their sentence. Failure to adhere to these conditions could lead to a period of detention in a correctional facility.

I am a firm believer in Restitutional Justice and that concept is what is completely lacking from this Bill. The problem comes when the amount is beyond the capacity of the offender to repay. Shou8ld there then be a reduced punishment additional to the work obligation?

[Proculation]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Proculation Proculation:

Justice is the basic role of a government. The cost should be a non-issue. Cut the programs that the state should not be in.

While I share some of your libertarian sentiment, what if the "programs that the state should not be in" fall under this Justice bill, such as the prohibition of marijuana? Justice isn't served by enacting and enforcing unjust laws.

I will admit I consider it's a bad idea to continue the marijuana war. But, sincerely, here in Quebec, we have not talked about that part at all. It's all about Harper putting babies in prison for stealing chewing gums. That's the part we talk about

[andyt]

Jack Phast Jack Phast:

andyt andyt:

Same with big time white collar criminals, unless you find a way to make them pay their debt to society on a long term basis without incarceration.

White collar criminals shouldn't be treated different from anyone else. If we send other to prison for theft or fraud or whatever, then white collar criminals need to get the same treatment. I don't like the idea of them being able to pay their debt some other way - inevitably that will become that they just have to pay a fine (kinda like it is now)

Severity of the offense. Steal a TV, you don't need to be locked up unless you keep doing it. Steal a lot of people's retirement savings, and you should do some time. Or pay you debt in a way that isn't just pay a fine, but puts you in a severely limited lifestyle while you work off your debt.