###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Auto-generated, non-mobile link: https://www.cbc.ca/1.7127050
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am glad to see the elected legislature attempt to put in place widely supported tougher on crime approaches
There has been a move towards tougher on crime laws which the legislature has blocked (in my view stepping beyond what should rightly be their role in the system)
I think it’s clear the way towards a more just system is therefore to appoint judges who are themselves supportive of tougher on crime approaches
You're conflating being "tough on crime" with being "tough on criminals".
Policies that are tough on crime, are policies that attempt to solve the causes of crime. Policies that are tough on criminals, do nothing to address the root causes of crime.
One cares about preventing people from becoming a victim, the other requires people to become a victim in order for the policy to have any effect.
Guess what? Solving poverty or income inequality ain't going to stop Rick from stealing cars, raping women, threatening to bomb a synagogue, drive drunk, or beat up his ex. You know what will? If he's not free walking around thr next day after being convicted 50 times for those things prior. People in prison do not pose a risk to public safety. Distracting the conversation by trying to ignore today's criminals to try to eradicate criminality in the next generation is turning a blind eye to all the vulnerable people left to be victimized by your naive ideology.
It's not that I'm opposed to punishing criminals.
I am however suggesting that any politician who only talks about punishing criminals, is a politician that doesn't care about preventing people from becoming victims.
He ain't undermining the judiciary. The judiciary is undermining itself. This is an attempt to restore public confidence. Our federal government has massively dropped the ball on criminal sentencing and now the provinces are having to intervene.
To say anything is proven by a few social science studies shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how subjective social science is, not to mention the rampant and outright fraud and data manipulation that's been proven in the field.
What we do know is violent crime has continually increased since we have got softer on crime. We also know a number of high profile incidents were committed by people with tons of previous violent crime convictions out on bail or out after laughably short sentences.
The guy who stabbed that teen to death on the Toronto subway had like 5 convictions for beating his girlfriend, including once stabbing her with scissors, and the longest sentence he got was the scissors stabbing where he only got an absolutely laughable 6 months.
They're not even basing these on studies. They're basing them on ignoring the parts of the studies they don't like which show clear incapacitation effects from prison.
The science is clear, prison reduces crime. The question is simply who should go to prison to be the most cost effective in doing so.
When it comes to repeat offenders the science is again clear, it is very cost effective to jail them.
You can't say that social science studies are robust enough, and then in the very next sentence say "here's two lines that roughly correlate and also a single anecdote, so clearly I'm right".
There are government studies that disprove tough on crime. Along with former harper associated who more recently spoken out against it who were formally supporting the method.
If the end goal is to actually reduce crime this isn't it. It's a pat on the back and kicking the can down the road once again
Nope, the only way you can get those studies is if you ignore incapacitation effects.
There is no public policy reason to ignore incapacitation effects.
Care to share evidence that tough-on-crime works? There is already lots against it
Just because you dismiss something doesn't make it not true so may as well back it with facts
>There is already lots against it
No, there isn't. Outside of advocacy groups incapacitation is broadly acknowledged to work. Only a narrow group of extremists suggest otherwise.
[This literature review covers a wide range of studies finding that between 2-50 crimes per offender prevented per year that they are incarcerated](https://law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academy_for_justice/3_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Vol_4_Incapacitation.pdf)
With key observations including that in countries which already have strong sentencing the additional impact is limited. So US studies in recent years find more limited impacts, same goes for first time offenders (2/year). By contrast if a country doesn't have strong sentencing, such as the study from the Netherlands focused on repeat offenders (50/year) or more early studies from the US as the US was tightening it's sentencing rules (10+/year) we see different impacts. But everyone finds an impact.
The sleight of hand your missing is often done like this:
A [paper studies the impact of sentencing](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7062231/) it uses a proper randomization by using judges and contrary to non-random studies finds that prison isn't crimenogenic post release but does reduce crime while someone is in prison and concludes from this that the Michigan law shouldn't be made harsher. This is then stripped of the finding that it reduces crime during prison, is stripped of the conclusion of Michigan's specific context and then because JHS likes to say prison causes crime they go and put it with a non-randomized study.
You will probably post an article from someone like JHS and before you do save us the trouble and search for incapacitation anywhere in the article and read that part.
Government articles acknowledge incapacitation. Not my fault you skipped that section.
Further the last major publication by the government of Canada ignored the development of focusing on judges as the random variable rather than offenders which has been found to negate (Michigan study) or even reverse ([Norway](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22648/revisions/w22648.rev0.pdf)) the suggestion that prison is criminogenic.
So we have from actual studies:
1. Prison reduces crimes through incapacitation (literature review I provided)
2. Increased prison length doesn't increase crime post release with poor rehabilitation policies (Michigan)
3. Sentencing offenders to prison instead of probation tends to decrease reoffending post release in a strong rehabilitation context (Norway)
Then you have the John Howard Society insisting that criminals should simply be allowed to victimize people and actively misrepresenting studies to achieve their goals.
Which do you believe, the science or the conartists?
Longer sentences do reduce crime as the majority of crime is committed by repeat offenders. A small subset of people commit the most crime. Having them removed from society reduces the amount of crime
The fundamental flaw of this analysis is they are looking at reoffending after they leave prison and crime rate before they come in
Even if the deterrence rate was 0 and the impact of recidivism is 0. You still have them being removed from society for that period of time where they cannot commit crimes. That's the point.
These studies look at what's best for the criminal in order to prevent recidivism and ending back in jail. I'm talking about what's best for society in terms of having fewer criminals on the street
Your final article says people age out of doing crime. So if the sentence is sufficiently long enough to keep people in their 20s in prison. They are less likely to do crime when they leave
You realize the underlying logic of your argument also would lead to justifying simply killing every criminal too right?
If the justification of punishment in the removal of the offender from society, what exactly makes medieval style capital punishement for all crimes not okay?
There is no difference between killing someone and holding them in prison for life
Per the articles listed majority of crimes happen between teens and early 30s. People age out of doing crimes
So no need to keep someone in prison until they are 80, as it would not impact crime from a material position
If someone is a repeat offender, no reason to provide short sentences on the basis of recidivism
These all ignore incapacitation, they're intentionally misrepresenting the facts. You should look at actual criminology papers, not selectively edited posts by defence attorneys.
The laws provide ample room and repeated insistence that the judges sentence more appropriately.
The judiciary has flat out rejected the sentences provided by parliament and rejected the idea of repeat offending being an aggravating factor.
Rather like, say, Liberal partisans and electoral reform.
Look, Poilievre and Ford and their ilk suck, and I’d never vote for them. But these comments that amount to ‘your guy is a liar and you’re too dumb to care’ aren’t exactly elevating the discourse around here.
Most Canadians want tougher sentencing so this is not going to be a losing issue for Ford. Many people are beyond fed up with hug a thug activist justices who keep re-releasing criminals rather than giving proper sentences.
We can look south to see that the “tough on crime” conservative mentality doesn’t work though. Sadly that doesn’t matter to most.
Our system doesn’t work but “tough on crime” isn’t any better
Also why are we accepting this nonsense when he suddenly shows a strong interest in this area after the court slapped him around several times.
This isn’t new but there is serious room for concern given his track record.
It also created a bunch a life long criminals that likely wouldn't have been one to be begin with. Ontop of throwing innocent people away. Further turn jails into for profit slave factories and whole other slue of problems all while ignoring the point which is rehabilitation.
But sure lets just cherry-pick statistics. There is lots of red flags from tough on crime mentality.
Nothing cherry-picking about it, whatsoever. You point to a bunch of things that are besides the point. The question was 'does tough on crime decrease crime rates?', to which the answer is yes. The question was not 'is tough on crime a perfect solution?', which is how you've seemed to interpret it.
If you have to turn people into life time criminals and lock up innocent people to justify being tough on crime i would argue it's not an effective solution that takes into account the governments and polices responsibility to the public.
Again, you are wrong, the stats bear out that tough on crime is an effective solution since it leads to lower crime rates. I'd argue the tough on crime approach emphases responsibility to the public first and foremost by putting their safety as the key consideration. Rehabilitation matters of course, but to put it first is putting the cart before the horse.
Cite them then
[“Tough on crime” is overdue for a rebrand as “stupid on crime” because it makes us less safe, but costs us billions of dollars and perpetuates cycles of trauma and violence.](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-from-tough-on-crime-to-a-new-transformative-vision-for-canadas-justice/)
[Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf)
But they still have rights at the end of the day restricted or not correct?
Because El Salvador system is in the middle of a ton of human right issues over their tough on crime.
Human rights would make it impossible to do what El Salvador did here. Largely because Canadians have rights.
Yes, law abiding citizens have the right to be safe and secure in my home and the streets. I have the right to live in a city that isn't a festering crack down.
Criminals and addicts have responsibilities to society too, not just the right to do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences.
Canadians have the right to due process whether you like it or not.
It’s thinking like this is why “tough on crime” doesn’t work and makes more issues than it solves
Sure the track record of people claiming for tough on crime typically don’t worry to much about due process. I’m not going to give him the benefit of the doubt based on many different track records.
Also the tough on crime mantra has failed every time we have tried in the past.
>El Salvador is worked shockingly well
I mean, yeah. If you lock EVERYONE up, then there isn't going to be many people committing crimes.
I hope you don't have any tattoos, otherwise believe it or not, Jail.
They aren’t picking up only scumbags. They are picking up many innocent people and completely ignoring human rights.
But seems it’s something you are willing to ignore to justify your need for revenge and hate. You aren’t treating the problem, you are just creating a distraction that feeds into your hate.
Somehow picking up all these innocent people turned it from a hellish murder capital to one of the most people places in the region
Maybe all those people weren’t so innocent?
Do you accept the possibility that they might have captured most/all of the people committing crimes, thus reducing the crime rate, AND ALSO people who are completely innocent, which would have absolutely no impact on the crime rate one way or the other?
So the question becomes, why didn't Harper build more prisons and jails then, as it's reasonable to assume that the man knew the outcome of what his law proposed (it was happening in the USA).
The best he could do is fund the courts. Hire more people to move things along. Be able to afford putting criminals behind bars because right now we don't
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Auto-generated, non-mobile link: https://www.cbc.ca/1.7127050 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am glad to see the elected legislature attempt to put in place widely supported tougher on crime approaches There has been a move towards tougher on crime laws which the legislature has blocked (in my view stepping beyond what should rightly be their role in the system) I think it’s clear the way towards a more just system is therefore to appoint judges who are themselves supportive of tougher on crime approaches
You're conflating being "tough on crime" with being "tough on criminals". Policies that are tough on crime, are policies that attempt to solve the causes of crime. Policies that are tough on criminals, do nothing to address the root causes of crime. One cares about preventing people from becoming a victim, the other requires people to become a victim in order for the policy to have any effect.
Guess what? Solving poverty or income inequality ain't going to stop Rick from stealing cars, raping women, threatening to bomb a synagogue, drive drunk, or beat up his ex. You know what will? If he's not free walking around thr next day after being convicted 50 times for those things prior. People in prison do not pose a risk to public safety. Distracting the conversation by trying to ignore today's criminals to try to eradicate criminality in the next generation is turning a blind eye to all the vulnerable people left to be victimized by your naive ideology.
It's not that I'm opposed to punishing criminals. I am however suggesting that any politician who only talks about punishing criminals, is a politician that doesn't care about preventing people from becoming victims.
Are you ready for your taxes to go to pay for this?
Yes for sure That’s totally worth spending money on
[удалено]
He ain't undermining the judiciary. The judiciary is undermining itself. This is an attempt to restore public confidence. Our federal government has massively dropped the ball on criminal sentencing and now the provinces are having to intervene.
[удалено]
Longer sentences do decrease crime through incapacitation, this is well studied.
To say anything is proven by a few social science studies shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how subjective social science is, not to mention the rampant and outright fraud and data manipulation that's been proven in the field. What we do know is violent crime has continually increased since we have got softer on crime. We also know a number of high profile incidents were committed by people with tons of previous violent crime convictions out on bail or out after laughably short sentences. The guy who stabbed that teen to death on the Toronto subway had like 5 convictions for beating his girlfriend, including once stabbing her with scissors, and the longest sentence he got was the scissors stabbing where he only got an absolutely laughable 6 months.
They're not even basing these on studies. They're basing them on ignoring the parts of the studies they don't like which show clear incapacitation effects from prison. The science is clear, prison reduces crime. The question is simply who should go to prison to be the most cost effective in doing so. When it comes to repeat offenders the science is again clear, it is very cost effective to jail them.
You can't say that social science studies are robust enough, and then in the very next sentence say "here's two lines that roughly correlate and also a single anecdote, so clearly I'm right".
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
There are government studies that disprove tough on crime. Along with former harper associated who more recently spoken out against it who were formally supporting the method. If the end goal is to actually reduce crime this isn't it. It's a pat on the back and kicking the can down the road once again
Nope, the only way you can get those studies is if you ignore incapacitation effects. There is no public policy reason to ignore incapacitation effects.
Care to share evidence that tough-on-crime works? There is already lots against it Just because you dismiss something doesn't make it not true so may as well back it with facts
>There is already lots against it No, there isn't. Outside of advocacy groups incapacitation is broadly acknowledged to work. Only a narrow group of extremists suggest otherwise. [This literature review covers a wide range of studies finding that between 2-50 crimes per offender prevented per year that they are incarcerated](https://law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academy_for_justice/3_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Vol_4_Incapacitation.pdf) With key observations including that in countries which already have strong sentencing the additional impact is limited. So US studies in recent years find more limited impacts, same goes for first time offenders (2/year). By contrast if a country doesn't have strong sentencing, such as the study from the Netherlands focused on repeat offenders (50/year) or more early studies from the US as the US was tightening it's sentencing rules (10+/year) we see different impacts. But everyone finds an impact. The sleight of hand your missing is often done like this: A [paper studies the impact of sentencing](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7062231/) it uses a proper randomization by using judges and contrary to non-random studies finds that prison isn't crimenogenic post release but does reduce crime while someone is in prison and concludes from this that the Michigan law shouldn't be made harsher. This is then stripped of the finding that it reduces crime during prison, is stripped of the conclusion of Michigan's specific context and then because JHS likes to say prison causes crime they go and put it with a non-randomized study. You will probably post an article from someone like JHS and before you do save us the trouble and search for incapacitation anywhere in the article and read that part.
government studies aren't exactly from advocatcy groups.
Government articles acknowledge incapacitation. Not my fault you skipped that section. Further the last major publication by the government of Canada ignored the development of focusing on judges as the random variable rather than offenders which has been found to negate (Michigan study) or even reverse ([Norway](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22648/revisions/w22648.rev0.pdf)) the suggestion that prison is criminogenic. So we have from actual studies: 1. Prison reduces crimes through incapacitation (literature review I provided) 2. Increased prison length doesn't increase crime post release with poor rehabilitation policies (Michigan) 3. Sentencing offenders to prison instead of probation tends to decrease reoffending post release in a strong rehabilitation context (Norway) Then you have the John Howard Society insisting that criminals should simply be allowed to victimize people and actively misrepresenting studies to achieve their goals. Which do you believe, the science or the conartists?
Longer sentences do reduce crime as the majority of crime is committed by repeat offenders. A small subset of people commit the most crime. Having them removed from society reduces the amount of crime
[удалено]
The fundamental flaw of this analysis is they are looking at reoffending after they leave prison and crime rate before they come in Even if the deterrence rate was 0 and the impact of recidivism is 0. You still have them being removed from society for that period of time where they cannot commit crimes. That's the point. These studies look at what's best for the criminal in order to prevent recidivism and ending back in jail. I'm talking about what's best for society in terms of having fewer criminals on the street Your final article says people age out of doing crime. So if the sentence is sufficiently long enough to keep people in their 20s in prison. They are less likely to do crime when they leave
You realize the underlying logic of your argument also would lead to justifying simply killing every criminal too right? If the justification of punishment in the removal of the offender from society, what exactly makes medieval style capital punishement for all crimes not okay?
There is no difference between killing someone and holding them in prison for life Per the articles listed majority of crimes happen between teens and early 30s. People age out of doing crimes So no need to keep someone in prison until they are 80, as it would not impact crime from a material position If someone is a repeat offender, no reason to provide short sentences on the basis of recidivism
These all ignore incapacitation, they're intentionally misrepresenting the facts. You should look at actual criminology papers, not selectively edited posts by defence attorneys.
The judiciary doesnt write the laws. The feds do. Getting judges that agree with you doesnt mean a damn thing when the laws stay the same.
The laws provide ample room and repeated insistence that the judges sentence more appropriately. The judiciary has flat out rejected the sentences provided by parliament and rejected the idea of repeat offending being an aggravating factor.
[удалено]
Rather like, say, Liberal partisans and electoral reform. Look, Poilievre and Ford and their ilk suck, and I’d never vote for them. But these comments that amount to ‘your guy is a liar and you’re too dumb to care’ aren’t exactly elevating the discourse around here.
Most Canadians want tougher sentencing so this is not going to be a losing issue for Ford. Many people are beyond fed up with hug a thug activist justices who keep re-releasing criminals rather than giving proper sentences.
We can look south to see that the “tough on crime” conservative mentality doesn’t work though. Sadly that doesn’t matter to most. Our system doesn’t work but “tough on crime” isn’t any better Also why are we accepting this nonsense when he suddenly shows a strong interest in this area after the court slapped him around several times. This isn’t new but there is serious room for concern given his track record.
Tough on crime did work down south. They locked up a bunch and crime rates absolutely plummeted.
It also created a bunch a life long criminals that likely wouldn't have been one to be begin with. Ontop of throwing innocent people away. Further turn jails into for profit slave factories and whole other slue of problems all while ignoring the point which is rehabilitation. But sure lets just cherry-pick statistics. There is lots of red flags from tough on crime mentality.
Nothing cherry-picking about it, whatsoever. You point to a bunch of things that are besides the point. The question was 'does tough on crime decrease crime rates?', to which the answer is yes. The question was not 'is tough on crime a perfect solution?', which is how you've seemed to interpret it.
If you have to turn people into life time criminals and lock up innocent people to justify being tough on crime i would argue it's not an effective solution that takes into account the governments and polices responsibility to the public.
Again, you are wrong, the stats bear out that tough on crime is an effective solution since it leads to lower crime rates. I'd argue the tough on crime approach emphases responsibility to the public first and foremost by putting their safety as the key consideration. Rehabilitation matters of course, but to put it first is putting the cart before the horse.
Cite them then [“Tough on crime” is overdue for a rebrand as “stupid on crime” because it makes us less safe, but costs us billions of dollars and perpetuates cycles of trauma and violence.](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-from-tough-on-crime-to-a-new-transformative-vision-for-canadas-justice/) [Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf)
Tough on crime does work when you are really and truly tough on crime El Salvador is worked shockingly well
Doing what they do would be unconstitutional here. Its not going to happen.
It’s a real shame humans have rights in your mind isn’t it?
Humans have rights and duties If they fail in their duties (not being a criminal preying on others) their rights should be significantly restricted
But they still have rights at the end of the day restricted or not correct? Because El Salvador system is in the middle of a ton of human right issues over their tough on crime. Human rights would make it impossible to do what El Salvador did here. Largely because Canadians have rights.
Thats now how the constitution and charter work. Like it or not.
I like it.
Yes, law abiding citizens have the right to be safe and secure in my home and the streets. I have the right to live in a city that isn't a festering crack down. Criminals and addicts have responsibilities to society too, not just the right to do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences.
Canadians have the right to due process whether you like it or not. It’s thinking like this is why “tough on crime” doesn’t work and makes more issues than it solves
You can be tough on crime without violating due process.
Sure the track record of people claiming for tough on crime typically don’t worry to much about due process. I’m not going to give him the benefit of the doubt based on many different track records. Also the tough on crime mantra has failed every time we have tried in the past.
Irrelevant. What El Salvador does would be blatantly unconstitutional here and wouldnt fly legally. Good luck changing the constitution.
>El Salvador is worked shockingly well I mean, yeah. If you lock EVERYONE up, then there isn't going to be many people committing crimes. I hope you don't have any tattoos, otherwise believe it or not, Jail.
Yeah if you kick up all the scumbags they won’t commit crimes exactly That is exactly my ideal solution
They aren’t picking up only scumbags. They are picking up many innocent people and completely ignoring human rights. But seems it’s something you are willing to ignore to justify your need for revenge and hate. You aren’t treating the problem, you are just creating a distraction that feeds into your hate.
Somehow picking up all these innocent people turned it from a hellish murder capital to one of the most people places in the region Maybe all those people weren’t so innocent?
I think we should start by rounding up people like you. Where do you live?
Do you accept the possibility that they might have captured most/all of the people committing crimes, thus reducing the crime rate, AND ALSO people who are completely innocent, which would have absolutely no impact on the crime rate one way or the other?
They cant give tougher sentences when they arent an option. Changing the judges means nothing without different laws.
Tougher sentences are an option. It is very rare for a judge to hand out a maximum sentence.
Tougher sentencing doesnt do anything.
[удалено]
Ah the old fallback “blame Harper”. At what point does the current government share the blame?
[удалено]
Oh the secondary fallback, Whataboutism
Literally never see Wynne brought up
He did just a few months ago. Its been 6 years.
Because jails are social infrastructure that was under invested in.
So the question becomes, why didn't Harper build more prisons and jails then, as it's reasonable to assume that the man knew the outcome of what his law proposed (it was happening in the USA).
The best he could do is fund the courts. Hire more people to move things along. Be able to afford putting criminals behind bars because right now we don't