[Nobody]

Source Linky: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2006/10/17/2050704-cp.html

OTTAWA (CP) - Three-time violent or sexual offenders could face indefinite jail terms under the latest tough-on-crime bill introduced by the Conservative government.

"We need this bill in order to ensure that Canadians are protected against dangerous offenders," Justice Minister Vic Toews said after tabling the legislation in the Commons on Tuesday.

He brushed aside objections from academics who say longer jail terms do little to deter crime, and also rejected contentions that the bill wouldn't survive a court challenge under the Charter of Rights.

"It absolutely will act as a deterrent," Toews insisted outside the House. "It is not unconstitutional, we have considered it very carefully."

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin was skeptical, calling the bill "a bit of an overkill" and saying he has serious doubts that it could stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

"This is political posturing," said Comartin, predicting the bill has little chance of passing the Commons before next spring, when another federal election is widely expected.

Under the legislation, anyone convicted of three serious violent or sexual offences would have to convince a judge why he or she shouldn't be classified as a dangerous offender - a category that carries an indeterminate prison term under the Criminal Code.

In effect, the bill reverses the normal burden of proof. It is currently up to the Crown to prove that anyone should be considered a danger to society.

The bill, promised last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has won applause from victims' rights campaigners and strong backing from the Canadian Professional Police Association, the lobby group for rank-and-file officers across the country.

But defence lawyers and civil libertarians say it goes too far and could well violate legal rights guaranteed under the Charter.

The Tories have introduced a range of crime-fighting bills in recent months, including measures to impose mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related offences and moves to curtail the use of house arrest as an alternative to jail time for many other crimes.

Most of the measures are bogged down in the legislative mill, however, and there are questions about whether the minority Tory government can mobilize enough support among other parties to make them law.

Okay, Canada is far more centered around Rights and Freedoms than a lot of other democracies, so this is a first step that's new for this country.

I'm curious if those Monkeys out there who have lived in communities where the 3-Strikes laws have been in effect for awhile have noticed any impact on crime?

My own opinion is that it's less of a deterrent and more of 'just keeping the bastards locked up longer' - which is fine by me. A girl I used to know was raped and murdered by a repeat violent felon.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Yeah, Im not sure how much of a deterrant it really is. But think about it, the sick ****ers who repeatedly do these kinds of things cant really be expected to rationally respond to increased threats as deterrants anyway, so why not just lock them up and flush the key if they dont learn? Or better yet, torture and kill them.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

If you don't learn the first two times yer in the clink....toss the key.

 

[Changleen]

Time and time again longer jail time or even corporal punishment has been shown to have basically no effect on the level of offences being perpitrated. Social conditioning is a far more effective tool to prevent crime than jail ever has been. I'm not saying jail is useless, it keeps these psychos off the streets, but stopping it happen in future is not about jails, jail time or punishment. It's about society.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Time and time again longer jail time or even corporal punishment has been shown to have basically no effect on the level of offences being perpitrated. Social conditioning is a far more effective tool to prevent crime than jail ever has been. I'm not saying jail is useless, it keeps these psychos off the streets, but stopping it happen in future is not about jails, jail time or punishment. It's about society.

And society is going to change drastically for the better how?! Until I live in Gattaca, this is the best system I see out there. Like I said, you don't learn the first two times that you need to change, *poof*, 6x8 and lockdown by 10 is gonna be the rest of your life.

 

[Slugman]

Criminals do not think they will get caught - so the punishment is not a deterrent.

However - if they’re convicted for longer than they'll live naturally, put a bullet in their head.

 

[Changleen]

And society is going to change drastically for the better how?! Until I live in Gattaca, this is the best system I see out there. Like I said, you don't learn the first two times that you need to change, *poof*, 6x8 and lockdown by 10 is gonna be the rest of your life.

Sensible government policies? A sense of social responsibility from good schooling? Believe it or not it can happen.

 

[reflux]

If I'm not mistaken, the 3 strikes rule in CA has been shown repeatedly to have no effect on crime. It gives (via a strike) small crimes like petty theft the same weight as violent crimes (murder). Imo, different crimes should receive different punishments, and this law doesn't accomplish anything near that.

 

[DRB]

Sensible government policies? A sense of social responsibility from good schooling? Believe it or not it can happen.

Come on you don't believe that this is the answer to all of societies' ills. The reality is that it might help some but not all. So having a three strike law or multiple offense law to lock up the ones that are beyond rehabilitation is a socially responsible thing.

 

[DRB]

Oh and I don't think all punishment needs to be tailored towards rehabilitation OR deterence.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Jails before schools damnit! I want my tax money going where it's gonna do the mostest's. Acres and acres of incarceration, brings a tear to the eye. So beautiful.

 

[Changleen]

Come on you don't believe that this is the answer to all of societies' ills.

Not at all. I'm just saying thinking that 3 strikes or anything like it will be an actual deterant in some way is probably quite stupid. Like I said I agree a lot of these people should be off the street.

The reality is that it might help some but not all. So having a three strike law or multiple offense law to lock up the ones that are beyond rehabilitation is a socially responsible thing.

If we want to avoid the phenomena of 'Acres and acres of incarceration' (which I think we can all agree is a bad thing) I personally think focussing on the root of the problem rather than trying to clean up the mess is the best way forward.

 

[Nobody]

By far, the majority of VIOLENT offenders are not deterred by anything. It has been proven time and again with thousands of statistics that the Death Penalty [in many different countries] does nothing to PREVENT crimes.

However, keeping psychopaths off the street is a worthy investment, in my mind.

 

[ohio]

It's for this reason:

violent or sexual offenders

that I'm cool with it. I don't think it's a deterrent, but repeat violent offenders should be removed from society. That is what prison is for... people who are beyond reform and an immediate danger.

The problem with most US state 3 strikes laws are that they cover non-violent criminals. 3 pot possessions and it's 25 to life for you.

 

[Silver]

The problem with most US state 3 strikes laws are that they cover non-violent criminals. 3 pot possessions and it's 25 to life for you.

If you've got a better idea to keep black boys away from my daughter, I'm all ears...

 

[Biscuit]

If I'm not mistaken, the 3 strikes rule in CA has been shown repeatedly to have no effect on crime. It gives (via a strike) small crimes like petty theft the same weight as violent crimes (murder). Imo, different crimes should receive different punishments, and this law doesn't accomplish anything near that.

^ I can't vote in the poll because of this. ^

I think the idea has a lot of merit but is set up completely wrong. It should be more of a points system, not the catchy "three strikes your out".

If designed properly, it could have the desired result: locking up poeple who repeatedly show themselves to be a danger to society. Not somebody who buys pot in bulk.

 

[Nobody]

The California 3-strikes has no rational basis that I can see. I believe that it was drafted with the assumption that a guy who steals a car now, and then maybe rob a liquor store next, then smokes some reefer, would, if left unchecked, kidnap, rape, murder and dismember a young girl.

The so-called 'escalation' effect.

I think the result is a lot of harmless pot-heads taking up a lot of room at the state inn.

Violent repeat offenders just need to be removed from society until too old and weak to do it again.

 

[Kihaji]

Not at all. I'm just saying thinking that 3 strikes or anything like it will be an actual deterant in some way is probably quite stupid. Like I said I agree a lot of these people should be off the street.

Go get 2 strikes, then come back and report to us how much the thought of going to jail for the rest of your life doesn't deter you. Sure, it wont deter the hard core criminals who would do what they want anyway, but then again, short of death, not much will.

If we want to avoid the phenomena of 'Acres and acres of incarceration' (which I think we can all agree is a bad thing) I personally think focussing on the root of the problem rather than trying to clean up the mess is the best way forward.

Oh, you mean like society who in the last 10 or so years has increasing said that "its not your fault". A society that thinks it's ok for an idiot who spills coffee on their lap and sues because it burned them is ok. A society who will look the other way in <insert offense here> because they can put a ball through a metal rim, their daddies are rich, they can act, they have some idiodic "psychological disease" like ADD?

Education will not save the people, self-responsibility will.

 

[Silver]

Go get 2 strikes, then come back and report to us how much the thought of going to jail for the rest of your life doesn't deter you. Sure, it wont deter the hard core criminals who would do what they want anyway, but then again, short of death, not much will.

No sense arguing there. You're like a self contradicting N8. Cool.

 

[renorider40]

why not just lock them up and flush the key if they dont learn? Or better yet, torture and kill them.

exactly why waste the money to feed them and house them.

 

[Nobody]

okay, let's get efficient.

a mine-flayer [google it] and a recently failed-strip mine. plus some bull dozers.

nice.

 

[valve bouncer]

Typical politician's smoke and mirrors trick. Appear to be strong on crime but in reality do nothing. Idiotic laws like this and other mandatory type measure are anti-justice as they remove the discretion of judges to decide on individual circumstances.

 

[jaydee]

Typical politician's smoke and mirrors trick. Appear to be strong on crime but in reality do nothing. Idiotic laws like this and other mandatory type measure are anti-justice as they remove the discretion of judges to decide on individual circumstances.

From watching the Canadian "justice system in action" (a colossal oxymoron) over the years, I question the ability of most judges to make an intelligent decision. There have been so many violent crimes committed by multiple offenders that I don't know how a judge with any sense of social responsibility could ever let one of these psychos back on to the street. I figure we should offer every dangerous criminal a chance to become educated and reform, even two chances. After that, chain him to the wall and let him think about it for 20 years or so. And, as for the argument that we can't afford to feed and keep all these wastes of biological material, we could follow the Mexican system and provide the bare minimum subsistence level of existence, i.e. no internet, TV, or steak dinners. Make the criminals or their families responsible for anything beyond that.

 

[valve bouncer]

From watching the Canadian "justice system in action" (a colossal oxymoron) over the years, I question the ability of most judges to make an intelligent decision. There have been so many violent crimes committed by multiple offenders that I don't know how a judge with any sense of social responsibility could ever let one of these psychos back on to the street. I figure we should offer every dangerous criminal a chance to become educated and reform, even two chances. After that, chain him to the wall and let him think about it for 20 years or so. And, as for the argument that we can't afford to feed and keep all these wastes of biological material, we could follow the Mexican system and provide the bare minimum subsistence level of existence, i.e. no internet, TV, or steak dinners. Make the criminals or their families responsible for anything beyond that.

The three strikes law is nothing but cynical grandstanding by oppurtunistic politicians. Effective though, seems the empty minded rhetoric has completely sucked you in.
The Mexican model, lol, works great doesn't it? The rich live comfortably, everyone else be damned, perfect parable for frotherism really.

 

[jaydee]

I'm not advocating that Canada become like Mexico. Most of what we have here works great. I just think our justice system is dysfunctional, and I was being mildly hyperbolic in saying that we should provide only bread and water in jails. I'm not listening to any rhetoric; I can think for myself. People here have expressed their increasing dissatisfaction and disgust with the judicial system for many years. As long as we give criminals more rights than victims and spend more money on them than on victims, why should a criminal stop being a criminal? I might say that you're being sucked in by the misguided psychobabble of criminal rights groups.

 

[LordOpie]

are some people saying it doesn't reduce crime?

How's that possible? I mean, if a criminal is locked up, how's he committing crimes?

Screw deterents, lock up the career criminals for life and that equals less crime.

 

[Changleen]

career criminals

Key phrase.

 

[valve bouncer]

I'm not advocating that Canada become like Mexico. Most of what we have here works great. I just think our justice system is dysfunctional, and I was being mildly hyperbolic in saying that we should provide only bread and water in jails. I'm not listening to any rhetoric; I can think for myself. People here have expressed their increasing dissatisfaction and disgust with the judicial system for many years. As long as we give criminals more rights than victims and spend more money on them than on victims, why should a criminal stop being a criminal? I might say that you're being sucked in by the misguided psychobabble of criminal rights groups.

So show me how 3 strikes works. At the moment you're just spouting out the usual "hang "em high" frother soundbytes. Your idea that because I don't favour feel good solutions to crime then I must be on the side of the criminals is about as stupid as saying that because you oppose the war you support Saddam.

 

[Changleen]

Saddam has a high entertainment value right now. They should extend his trial indefinitley IMO.

"You're out of order!"
"No, YOU'RE out of order! I'm the President of Iraq"

Awesome. What's he on, like his 5th Judge right now? 4 Judges pwn3d already! Nice.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If you've got a better idea to keep black boys away from my daughter, I'm all ears...

POTW.

 

[Kihaji]

No sense arguing there. You're like a self contradicting N8. Cool.

How is this self contradictory? Despite what the policy makers say, this law is a very good deterrent to people who are not hardcore violent criminals, but just really stupid. Stupid people with 2 strikes will be deterred. Nothing will deter a pure criminal.

That being said, I do believe that with this law there should also be a real system of reform in prisons to help prevent people from ever getting to 2 and 3 strikes. That would help educate the stupid people, and make this law less of a deterrent, and more of a "You've resisted and ignored all our help in the past, now tell me why you think you shouldn't be lost in a jail somewhere"

 

[Nobody]

Try to keep your eye on the ball, folks.

"Violent Repeat Offenders"

Keyword - Violent.

 

[jaydee]

So show me how 3 strikes works. At the moment you're just spouting out the usual "hang "em high" frother soundbytes. Your idea that because I don't favour feel good solutions to crime then I must be on the side of the criminals is about as stupid as saying that because you oppose the war you support Saddam.

I'm not entirely in favor of "three strikes". I would endorse it for repeat violent criminals, as I said before. It works because if you're in jail, you're not committing crimes against law-abiding citizens. If giving offenders 2 opportunities to get straight doesn't help, do you advocate that we just continue to pat them on the back and give them chance after chance? How exactly does that do any good? And how is it a "hang-em high" mentality to put repeat offenders, i.e. career criminals, in jail for long terms? Incarceration has several purposes, the first being to protect society from criminals. Somewhere on the list is the rehabilition of the criminal, but I can't understand how you could fail to see that the protection of lawful citizens far outweighs taking a third risk on a proven violent lawbreaker. I never said you were on the side of the criminals, as you would realize if you actually read the posts you are commenting about instead of just indulging in a typical knee-jerk reaction. I merely said that I disagree with your viewpoint, but I guess that's not acceptable to you. And that Saddam analogy you spouted is kind of puzzling in this context, just pointless rhetoric.

 

[valve bouncer]

I'm not entirely in favor of "three strikes". I would endorse it for repeat violent criminals, as I said before. It works because if you're in jail, you're not committing crimes against law-abiding citizens. If giving offenders 2 opportunities to get straight doesn't help, do you advocate that we just continue to pat them on the back and give them chance after chance? How exactly does that do any good? And how is it a "hang-em high" mentality to put repeat offenders, i.e. career criminals, in jail for long terms? Incarceration has several purposes, the first being to protect society from criminals. Somewhere on the list is the rehabilition of the criminal, but I can't understand how you could fail to see that the protection of lawful citizens far outweighs taking a third risk on a proven violent lawbreaker. I never said you were on the side of the criminals, as you would realize if you actually read the posts you are commenting about instead of just indulging in a typical knee-jerk reaction. I merely said that I disagree with your viewpoint, but I guess that's not acceptable to you. And that Saddam analogy you spouted is kind of puzzling in this context, just pointless rhetoric.

Sigh......is it that difficult to understand that if I'm opposed to three strikes and/or mandatory sentencing it doesn't mean that I'm in favour of violent criminals getting a slap on the wrist -just like opposing the war doesn't mean I support Saddam. Was the analogy really that much of a stretch or are you just being obtuse?
It's not black and white no matter how much you'd like it to be and removing discretion from the judicial system leads to injustice.