Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Memo to Canada: Don't ape U.S. crime policy
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161294617124&call_pageid=970599119419 ^ | 10/20/06 | LOVISA STANNOW

Posted on 10/22/2006 4:57:09 PM PDT by ozoneliar

Mandatory minimum sentencing schemes do not work, at least not if the goal is to reduce violent crime and improve public safety. In the United States we know that, because we have tried them all. Canadians may therefore be surprised to learn that their government is mimicking this failed U.S. penal model, in the name of getting tough on violent crime.

(Excerpt) Read more at thestar.com ...


TOPICS: Canada; Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 3strikes; 3strikesworks; threestrikes; torontostar

1 posted on 10/22/2006 4:57:10 PM PDT by ozoneliar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

Crime rates dropped in this country in the 1990's as state and local governments (Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others) cracked down on crime. (3 strikes your out)

As the prisons filled, crime went down. With attacks on the death penalty and "racial profiling" being raised up this trend is threatened in the United States.

This is the memo Canada needs to read.


2 posted on 10/22/2006 5:02:14 PM PDT by Nextrush (Communism died in the Soviet Union, but Diversity lives on everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

The social scientists who come out with statements like this are plain nuts. You cannot assess the effects of a policy by simply looking at before and after.

Locking up criminals for longer sentences DOES cut crime by those convicted perps. All sorts of studies show that the longer a criminal is in jail, the fewer crimes he commits, even when he gets out! That is probably because he is an old man by the time he emerges, and old criminals are less violent and less dangerous that young ones.

The Canadian public is fed up with empty punishments for serious crimes. Judges have been coddling criminals there for years. Canada is not a safe country as a result. Their crime rates are very comparable with ours, particularly if one adjusts for ethnicity factors.


3 posted on 10/22/2006 5:05:15 PM PDT by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
Good grief -- and these lefties say these things with a straight face.

The U.S. experience has shown that mandatory sentencing dramatically increases the rates of incarceration without deterring crime.

WHAT?

Even when crime rates in the U.S. have dropped, blanket sentencing policies were not the reason.

Nonsense!

For example, between 1991 and 2001, mandatory minimum sentences alone caused incarceration rates to increase by 139 per cent in Texas and 11 per cent in New York. During that same period, the crime rate dropped by 34 per cent in Texas and 53 per cent in New York. Thus, despite its greater reliance on mandatory sentencing schemes, Texas was much less effective at reducing crime than New York.

Maybe because New York had a bigger crime problem to start with!

4 posted on 10/22/2006 5:06:33 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
"During that same period, the crime rate dropped by 34 per cent in Texas and 53 per cent in New York. "

Idiot - Texas is right next to Mexico, and we are just jailing the Mexicans doing the crimes Americans don't want to do!

5 posted on 10/22/2006 5:08:08 PM PDT by Dacus943
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

When a Judge gives a traitor and terrorist enabler 28 Months instead of execution,its no wopnder crime goes up. mandatory sentences work if we can get Judges to use them instead of doing what they like. The death penalty would work too if it was carried out in a year instead of 14 or never. If it is stopped because too many are aiting or it seems too many are being executed it doesnt work. Right now over 600 people are waiting on death row in california alone, The chances of more than 10% of them ever being executed is slim.


6 posted on 10/22/2006 5:11:07 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

"Despite Drop in Crime, an Increase in Inmates"

--my favorite New York Times headline...heck, one of my favorite news headlines, anywhere, any time


7 posted on 10/22/2006 5:15:42 PM PDT by RichInOC (Stupidity is its own punishment...but too much of the press thinks they're exempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
Mandatory minimum sentencing schemes do not work, at least not if the goal is to reduce violent crime and improve public safety.

The Goal is to keep them locked up for long periods of time, and that does work.

As to the argument that they aren't a deterrent, I couldn't care less. They're not meant to be a deterrent, they were made to punish.

8 posted on 10/22/2006 5:21:36 PM PDT by CAWats (And I will make no distinction between the terrorists and the Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
Lovisa Stannow [the author of the article] is the co-executive director of Stop Prisoner Rape, a U.S.-based human rights organization.

Oh, I don't know. Some pedophiles deserve to be raped in prison by a 300-pound weightlifter doing 5 consecutive life terms.

9 posted on 10/22/2006 5:26:30 PM PDT by CAWats (And I will make no distinction between the terrorists and the Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

Solving prison overcrowding is easy, cost-effective, and generally better for all concerned.

First build tent city prisons out in the boondocks, using surplus army tents, kitchens, etc., with inmate-dug latrines and wooden barracks for the guards. Put the majority of the prisoners there who do not need to be near urban areas, in "brick" prisons, for health reasons, pending court hearing, family problems, etc.

Once they are out there, living no worse than soldiers, have them contracted to work on Indian Reservations doing labor intensive work to improve the quality of life there, which often seriously needs it, being some of the poorest lands in the country.

If there is no Reservation around, then have them perform labor intensive environmental projects of all varieties, maybe do a top to bottom makeover of an area, turning it from wasteland to healthy forest.

The idea is first, to eliminate overcrowding so that judges won't fret about adding new prisoners. Second thing is to put them to work doing something productive, but not in competition with free enterprise. Third is to have something they can actually accomplish to improve their State and the country.

This last part is important. In WWII, prisoners across the US were often involved in production for the war effort, and there was virtually *zero* prison problems during that time. The prisoners felt that they were contributing something worthwhile, and it really mattered to them.


10 posted on 10/22/2006 5:28:33 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAWats

I think we both prefer mandatory maximum sentences.


11 posted on 10/22/2006 5:29:13 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
read the article....the stats they give re: the US actually proves incarceration works.

The author's real premise is to have a manageable prison population, to reduce prison rape. Can't get that with mandatory sentences.

The article was written by:
Lovisa Stannow, the co-executive director of Stop Prisoner Rape
12 posted on 10/22/2006 5:30:15 PM PDT by stylin19a ("Klaatu Barada Nikto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

Advice to Canada-Do not listen to U.S. moonbats.


13 posted on 10/22/2006 5:32:32 PM PDT by bilhosty (to hell with ABCNNBCBS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

Mandatory minimums work simply because they keep criminals from following their careers for longetr times. Saying Mandatory Minimums don't reduce crime is absurd. Perhaps the author means that mandatory minimums do not turn criminals into model citizens any better than wristslaps do. One can argue that point but it is not patently absurd.It is, however,beside the point.


14 posted on 10/22/2006 5:33:34 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
Quite the contrary, mandatory minimum sentences DO work. I spent decades in Maryland State Penitentiary as a lawyer, and a participant in the prison Jaycees and the Seven Step Foundation. The simple fact is that most criminals are specialists, and most crimes are repetitious.

Burglars specialize in burglary and commit many more crimes than they are charged with. Rapists specialize in rape, and also commit many more crimes than they are charged with. The bottom line is that longer prison sentences reduce crime, NOT because criminals are reformed in prison, but because they cannot commit their particular crimes behind bars.

The clueless New York Times periodically publishes articles with the headline, "Crime Down, Prisons are More Full." They miss the point, as does this article, that the surest way to prevent a career criminal from committing his, say, two dozen burglaries a year, is to keep him in jail.

Sheesh.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Recess at Salisbury State"

Please see my most recent new statement on running for Congress, here.

15 posted on 10/22/2006 5:48:29 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Have a look-see. Please get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The Canadian writer is obviously a rather vicious racist. Looking at the murder rate in Richmond, VA alone, it's pretty obvious the 5 year mandatory sentence for commiting a crime with a gun has cut that rate in half ~ and virtually all of the benefit has been to the African-Americans who were victims of almost all the murders in that city.

Eliminating parole also keeps Richmond's criminal class in prison where they belong.

Back to my point, the Canadian writer obviously doesn't care to reduce the threat of crime to African-Americans.

16 posted on 10/22/2006 6:39:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
There was a time not long ago when a murderer would serve 5 to 8 years of a 20 year sentence.This was a system that put violent criminals back on the streets after serving 25% of a sentence for a violent crime.When it was changed in the mid 1990s it had a huge impact on the amount of crime being committed.A person convicted of murder wouldn't be back on the street for a minimum of 20 years.I would rather build more prisons than go back to the days of catch and release.
17 posted on 10/22/2006 7:33:34 PM PDT by peeps36 (Rebuild Iraq's Army And Send It Over To Kick Iran In The Teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson