Yes we’re sending enough people to prison, but we aren’t sending some of them long enough. Today an Amber Alert was issued to help track down a little boy from Whitewood Saskatchewan, who was presumed taken by a known pedophile. How someone with a serious record, and crimes against children, was allowed out of prison without being 90 - 100% certain that they wouldn’t repeat their crimes, is beyond me. I think we’re being much too trusting of convicted criminals of violent crimes, and letting them out based on when their peers are let out, rather than when the individual shows improvement from their supervisors in jail, and also an independent review board. The victim’s family should also have some say in continued incarceration.
We need to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act too, and before the Conservatives are turfed in the Winter, I hope they make certain key changes that the Liberals are unlikely to make:
- Identify any criminals under the age of 18 to the community, down to the age of 12, so that the community knows which families are not raising their children properly. A 16 year old is mature enough to work a job, own a car, and decide if they want to join a gang or get a job. They shouldn’t get hidden from view, so that until they are put in jail and show signs of maturity, they can’t walk down the street with a smarmy attitude.
- Increase sentences for youth who commit violent crime.
- Have repeated reports of bullying trigger an investigation into the bully’s home situation. This way if it’s due to abuse or neglect in the home, social services can treat the root cause of the aggression.
- Fund youth criminal treatment programs in jails adaquately, if they are not meeting reasonable goals currently.
The Conservatives should also start addressing poverty issues, since the majority of youth crime in a developed country like Canada simply wouldn’t be happening if kids always had a safe home at night, and places for constructive activity day or night.
- Personal income tax exemption should be doubled so it’s closer to the actual poverty line.
- Funding for parks and activity centers, libraries, and school playgrounds should be increased in urban and rural areas.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Ashley | 31-Jul-06 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
“Identify any criminals under the age of 18 to the community, down to the age of 12, so that the community knows which families are not raising their children properly.”
I agree with most of this point, except i dont think its fair to automatically assume the parents arent raising their kid right. Could be problems with friends, school, abuse from non-immediate family members, small town boredom, etc etc
I think criminals under 18 should be identified to humiliate them and let the community know who is a danger, and who to keep their own kids away from.
Saskboy | 31-Jul-06 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
“i dont think its fair to automatically assume the parents arent raising their kid right. Could be problems with friends, school, abuse from non-immediate family members, small town boredom, etc etc”
I just didn’t give the all inclusive reason list, so thank you for filling in some other justifications. Obviously the precise justification isn’t as important as finally bringing some mild level of shame to youth criminals, which should deter them.
I think a compromise such as only releasing the name or only the photo of the convicted youth criminals might be a smaller step to take, where even the Liberals might not oppose the change in their law.
Brandon | 31-Jul-06 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
I am a firm, firm believer that when a child is caught engaging in a crime - you post their name and the parents names in the Sunday morning paper. If people knew that their name could be on a list of local criminals that all the town gossipers would be combing through every Sunday, you’d see parents taking more of an interest in what their children were up to. It’s called accountability.
The whole Whitewood situation is definitely a sad story. All we can hope is that it has a happy ending. Personally, I’m tired of seeing these stories pop up and seeing the rap sheet on these criminals. Why wasn’t this fellow in jail? And why aren’t the people who should have put and kept him in jail being held to account for their (clearly) irresponsible judgement on the situation? I don’t give two cents about this fellow or what happens to him. I want to know what’s going to be done to punish the people who allowed it to happen. Though the answer is, obviously, nothing. :(
cycles2k | 01-Aug-06 at 1:02 am | Permalink
I find the idea of labelling young offenders as criminals and releasing their names to newspapers to be disturbing. Of course the system sometimes fails us (and them) but humiliation is unlikely to yield a benefit. That will just lead to them being ostracized or their families subject to investigation.
My biggest fear would be driving them from their homes and onto the streets.
And…..
Am I the only person who thinks that the victims are the last people who should have a say in the punishment? I want impartial judges deciding justice, not people with an obvious emotional attachment.
Saskboy | 01-Aug-06 at 7:42 am | Permalink
I agree Brandon. There are some mistakes that have forgivable consequences, but the kidnapping of one or two children is not very forgivable in the short-term.
Cycles, I think I find your view more than a little disturbing. It’s part of why the Conservatives are so aghast at the Liberals’ whacky YCJAct, and won the election partly on that issue. Who better to decide when the guilty criminal should go free than the person or people victimized by the criminal?
Repeat after me:
Part of the point of putting people in prison is to protect the perfectly peaceful.
I’m not saying they should have a veto, since some people just won’t ever forgive even the smallest crime, but don’t you think they should have a meaningful vote especially since they will have to live with the criminal in their community again, and as the victim has the most meaningful account of the damage done by the crime? Judges are supposed to balance the weight of the crime, with the weight of sentences given to other crimes of a similar nature to be fair to both the victim and criminal. In recent years the criminal has been getting the benefit of the doubt in this balance, and the result every year has been preventable crimes against children, property, and adults.
“humiliation is unlikely to yield a benefit.”
Perhaps we should strive for awareness, not humiliation then. Hiding criminals’ identities only protects the criminals, that much is certain. What are the incentives to take responsibility, if society promises to not care what you did when you turn 18 in just a few short years?
Brandon | 01-Aug-06 at 1:24 pm | Permalink
“I find the idea of labelling young offenders as criminals and releasing their names to newspapers to be disturbing.”
You find it to be “disturbing”? Don’t you think that’s a little dramatic? I think you fail to see the point, anyway. Who cares if the families are humiliated? That’s the whole point. As it stands now, parents let their kids do whatever they want to do, because no one is held to account for their actions anymore. If a parent knew that THEIR name would be in the paper Sunday morning if little Johnny was out, unsupervised, breaking the law, then you can pretty much guarantee that the aforementioned parent would take a lot of extra care and attention in ensuring that little Johnny was actually BEHAVING himself. Making your kids behave - what a foreign concept these days!
Matt | 01-Aug-06 at 9:01 pm | Permalink
I must ask? What is the next step? Why don’t we allow the victims to dole out whatever punishment they deem fit? It seems to me that is this one of those situations where emotions would dilute any effective input the victims may be able to provide.
Saskboy | 02-Aug-06 at 12:35 am | Permalink
Matt, not all victims are blubbering masses. Some just genuinely want to protect other people from the fate they suffered. We’re talking generally months or years after the initial crime, for when they’d give their input for either sentencing or parole. And unlike now, they’d have an actual vote on the release, instead of just giving a victim’s statement. Remember, they didn’t ask to be dragged into the justice system, but if they want to stay there and help dole out the fix, then that should be an option open to them. The criminal will just have to take that into account before doing the crime. You know, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time?
cycles2k | 02-Aug-06 at 1:25 am | Permalink
Saskboy, terribly disturbing as you find my comment, I shall try to reiterate it because I have heard this before type of thing before and I think it is a suggestion that runs contrary to the objective evidence .
Conservatives are often aghast. Their get tough on crime is bad policy that will result in an increase in crime, just as it did in every jurisdiction that implemented it. Off the cuff ideas may be equally destructive and I am thankful that we have an independant judiciary that is not nfluenced by the tides of political fashion. It allows them to work on justice instead of focusing on simply creating the appearance of justice.
“In recent years the criminal has been getting the benefit of the doubt in this balance, and the result every year has been preventable crimes against children, property, and adults.”
Have you any evidence of this other than a few incidents?. Have you evidence of a society that humiliated its young people or their parents into lawfullness?
Victim sentencing cannot work. Some victims will seek fair punishment, some will seek minimal sentences and other will seek the severest available punishment.
Repeat after me “telling people to repeat after me is bad form.”
Brandon Writes: “Don’t you think that’s a little dramatic?”
Not really. Dramatic would be calling the idea babaric.
sean | 11-Jan-07 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
I strongly feel that all women inmates in a womens prison who serve a lifetime for murder or other serious crimes, should lose there rights to take care of there newborns while in prison. Its not fair for a newborn baby to growup in prison just because the mother is a criminal, by taking care of there newborns while in prison, its giving women inmates an easy way out plus not to mention other things thats giving them an easy way out such as a free college education. I feel if women inmates want to be rehabilitated, why not send there butts over to a prison chaingang just like how it used to be in the 1940s
sean | 11-Jan-07 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
our prison systems are too soft thats the problem, we need to enforce more chaingangs for female inmates who feel they want rehabilitation.
sean | 11-Jan-07 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
I strongly 100%support Capital Punishment such as a firing squad, hanging or the electric chair
sean | 11-Jan-07 at 6:06 pm | Permalink
capital punishment should also be applied to kids under 18 as well
sean | 11-Jan-07 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
We need to strenghten our prisons, like stop giving inmates highschool-college educations, its very useless to teach an excon education because he will not be hired with a ciminal recored. What really pisses me off those most is seeing female inmates in the womens prison system get a easy way out by taking there newborn babys in prison, and at the same time, they are getting a highschool-college school work. This kind of thing really undermines punishment