So how many of you are for longer jail sentences......

[nottyboi]

Just wondering how many "hard on crime" nut jobs we have here perhaps they can digest this little fact:

The average annual cost of maintaining a single female federal offender is $343,810. Maintaining a male inmate in a maximum security prison costs $223,687. These figures, which represent the 2008-2009 fiscal year, were released in a report from the Parliamentary Budget Office in response to legislation passed earlier this year that will dramatically change the corrections system in Canada.

 

[Anynym]

Tell ya what: we'll just release the thieves into your neighbourhood. That oughta make you happy.

Or is everyone in favour of crime?

 

[69Shooter]

Tell ya what: we'll just release the thieves into your neighbourhood. That oughta make you happy.

Or is everyone in favour of crime?

What he said.

Part of the reason that the cost is so high is the fact that prisoners have to be treated so well. In addition to longer sentences they should cut back to a "bread and water" diet, get rid of the color TV's and put them all to work on a rock pile!

 

[blackrock13]

Longer isn't always the best answer, just the easier answer for the politician and the 15 second sound bit. The sentencing parameters do need tweaking but I'm not sure longer is it.

 

[Shallow Throat]

How about making it less expensive to take care of them as mentioned.
I would love to see a breakdown of the costs.
Let's analyze how much was spent on Karla Homolka for instance.
It sounds like she has it relatively cushy and a full education paid for.
NO prisoner should be living better than someone honest trying to live day-to-day in some place like Jane/Finch.
If that makes me a "nut job" then sanity is over-rated.

 

[Aardvark154]

It depends upon the crime committed etc. . . . Sentencing and incarceration are in the aggregate not easily reduced to simple slogans.

 

[blackrock13]

How about making it less expensive to take care of them as mentioned.
I would love to see a breakdown of the costs.
Let's analyze how much was spent on Karla Homolka for instance.
It sounds like she has it relatively cushy and a full education paid for.
NO prisoner should be living better than someone honest trying to live day-to-day in some place like Jane/Finch.
If that makes me a "nut job" then sanity is over-rated.

I'm guessing you've never been a guest of the province for more than an overnight. At least the inmates who do use their time to get a better education are smarter in a couple of ways, so give them that chance.

 

[red]

It depends upon the crime committed etc. . . . Sentencing and incarceration are in the aggregate not easily reduced to simple slogans.

well said.

 

[landscaper]

Put the repeat offenders in jail until their sentance runs out, read a report a while back about a repeat drunck driver who was jailed for the first time after 40 odd arrests. The ones who are out on bail and violate the bail restrictions ie., caught carring a firearm off you go no bail wait for your trial, caught and convicted of stealling another car welcome to the crowbar hotel. Give house arrest to the ones who are not violent offenders ie., first time fraud , etc if you have a second offence mind the door slaming shut behind you the bars might hurt.

Prison should be a deterant to committing crime unfortunatly it is not.

 

[Questor]

What he said.

Part of the reason that the cost is so high is the fact that prisoners have to be treated so well. In addition to longer sentences they should cut back to a "bread and water" diet, get rid of the color TV's and put them all to work on a rock pile!

Part of the purpose of any sensible prison system is rehabilitation. If you remove the rehabilitation component, then you better lock them up and throw away the key for any offense committed. Otherwise the prisoner is released back into society in worse shape than when he went into prison. If there is no rehabilitation, the criminal is most likely to re-offend and end up back in prison at a cost of $223,000 a year. How is that good for society?

How about making it less expensive to take care of them as mentioned.
I would love to see a breakdown of the costs.
Let's analyze how much was spent on Karla Homolka for instance.
It sounds like she has it relatively cushy and a full education paid for.
NO prisoner should be living better than someone honest trying to live day-to-day in some place like Jane/Finch.
If that makes me a "nut job" then sanity is over-rated.

Let's not look at the case of Karla Holmolka. She is a monster that manipulated the legal system to her advantage. She has nothing to do with the way our justice system should be run. She is an exception.

Prisoners do not live better than people on the outside. How is being confined to a cage for most of your day, every day, for years better than living at Jane and Finch or anywhere else in Canada? You lose all credibility when you suggest otherwise. Please see my comments on rehabilitation above. Education is part of the rehabilitation process. With an education, a person is less likely to re-offend. That is good for society and good for criminal.

 

[HetroGuy]

I saw an e-mail circulating regarding the hardships our senior citizens have supporting themselves and suggesting that we should jail our senior citizens instead of sending them to homes. They would get free accommodation, free meals, health care, dental, etc.

Prison inmates use to make license plates - now they don't do that. We should be making money if not breaking even. These guys should have to work for food pellets and if they refuse - send those around as a carnival act that people can pay to throw items, piss on them, etc.

 

[blackrock13]

I saw an e-mail circulating regarding the hardships our senior citizens have supporting themselves and suggesting that we should jail our senior citizens instead of sending them to homes. They would get free accommodation, free meals, health care, dental, etc.

Prison inmates use to make license plates - now they don't do that. We should be making money if not breaking even. These guys should have to work for food pellets and if they refuse - send those around as a carnival act that people can pay to throw items, piss on them, etc.

So this treatment would apply to all prisoners, or a particular subset. Put some more meat on your statement. So the man who steals a car or rob a liquor store should be pissed on and fed food pellet. I guess he's going to really rehabilitate and become a better citizen. They'll probably have to steal again to try to survive and maybe not care if he kills someone this time. Please expand on your wonderful idea.

 

[nottyboi]

The fact is, if we look to the south, there is proof that longer and harsher sentences result in MORE crime. If we look to Europe, where they have much more progressive and rehabilitation based systems, we see much less violence and crime.....so WHAT is the objective here? Less crime or revenge and retribution? Furthermore we are going to create more expensive, yet horrible jobs for prison wardens. Many will have their lives ruined by the trauma of dealing with increasingly hardened individuals. At the end of their longer, harsher sentences, criminals will come out more violent, and less able to reintegrate into society.

 

[blackrock13]

The fact is, if we look to the south, there is proof that longer and harsher sentences result in MORE crime. If we look to Europe, where they have much more progressive and rehabilitation based systems, we see much less violence and crime.....so WHAT is the objective here? Less crime or revenge and retribution? Furthermore we are going to create more expensive, yet horrible jobs for prison wardens. Many will have their lives ruined by the trauma of dealing with increasingly hardened individuals. At the end of their longer, harsher sentences, criminals will come out more violent, and less able to reintegrate into society.

Somebody gets it. There is a light in there somewhere NB. On this we agree.

 

[Questor]

I saw an e-mail circulating regarding the hardships our senior citizens have supporting themselves and suggesting that we should jail our senior citizens instead of sending them to homes. They would get free accommodation, free meals, health care, dental, etc.

Prison inmates use to make license plates - now they don't do that. We should be making money if not breaking even. These guys should have to work for food pellets and if they refuse - send those around as a carnival act that people can pay to throw items, piss on them, etc.

We can see you are a deep thinker, Hetero. Not even the most brutal, repressive governments have managed to implement this innovative system. I wonder why? Well, thanks anyway for that thoughtful contribution to an important discussion. </sarcasm>

 

[69Shooter]

The fact is, if we look to the south, there is proof that longer and harsher sentences result in MORE crime. If we look to Europe, where they have much more progressive and rehabilitation based systems, we see much less violence and crime.....so WHAT is the objective here?

Why does this seem to fly directly into the face of reason and logic? Would you suggest that no sentences would reduce crime to zero? Of course not!

On a very broad basis, let's assume that there are three types of people... i)those that would not commit a crime for any reason because they are decent and law-abiding citizens, ii)really rotten degenerates who habitually break the law and iii)everyone else. Now, it is probably safe to assume that longer sentences would have no effect on people in groups i and ii. To suggest that length of sentnece is not a significant factor for people in group iii chosing to commit a crime or not just does not make sense.

 

[Fireflint]

Just wondering how many "hard on crime" nut jobs we have here perhaps they can digest this little fact:

The average annual cost of maintaining a single female federal offender is $343,810. Maintaining a male inmate in a maximum security prison costs $223,687. These figures, which represent the 2008-2009 fiscal year, were released in a report from the Parliamentary Budget Office in response to legislation passed earlier this year that will dramatically change the corrections system in Canada.

"Nut jobs" are we??? Because we'd like our families to grow up safe while also providing a deterrent for people to commit crimes. The cost bothers me and I would do away with some of the "frills" that these violators are allowed (ie. spa days and big screen t.v.'s). I agree with Anynym, let's release the criminals into your neighbourhood and see how you like it. Lefties are such fairy-tale idealists.

 

[blackrock13]

"Nut jobs" are we??? Because we'd like our families to grow up safe while also providing a deterrent for people to commit crimes. The cost bothers me and I would do away with some of the "frills" that these violators are allowed (ie. spa days and big screen t.v.'s). I agree with Anynym, let's release the criminals into your neighbourhood and see how you like it. Lefties are such fairy-tale idealists.

Spa days? Reference please. Have you ever visited a prison anywhere. How much tv do they get a day? Do you really know or are you just letting gas escape out your cake hole? On your next trip to Negril, take a detour to St Catherines and compare. Long harsh sentences in Jamaica work well. What the crime rate there?

 

[Questor]

Why does this seem to fly directly into the face of reason and logic? Would you suggest that no sentences would reduce crime to zero? Of course not!

Congratulations for resurrecting the use of tboy logic. I didn't hear anyone suggest no sentences would result in zero crime. What a silly assertion. I believe nottyboi was suggesting that jails should have a rehabilitative function with the goal of re-integrating criminals into society. The use of deterrence alone does not effectively reduce crime. The idea is to have some balance.

 

[69Shooter]

Congratulations for resurrecting the use of tboy logic. I didn't hear anyone suggest no sentences would result in zero crime. What a silly assertion. I believe nottyboi was suggesting that jails should have a rehabilitative function with the goal of re-integrating criminals into society. The use of deterrence alone does not effectively reduce crime. The idea is to have some balance.

Seems to me this is essentially what the poster said:

The fact is, if we look to the south, there is proof that longer and harsher sentences result in MORE crime.

It stands to reason that if longer and harsher sentences result in MORE crime then shorter and less harsh sentences would have the opposite effect. I was only taking that reasoning to its absurd conclusion that no sentences would eventually lead to no crime. I have no problem with the fact that, as a society, we try to rehabilitate criminals. My guess is, however, that many of the criminals that are getting long harsh sentences have already turned down any opportunity for rehabilitation that they've been afforded.