# Serial killer Olson threatens to sue federal government over benefits



## 57Chevy (8 Jul 2010)

Here's another one of those "gimme money now types" getting paid while doing time in prison.
Something is definately wrong with our justice system. I hope they pass the law quickly ;D
         ____________________________________________________________________

OTTAWA — Serial killer Clifford Olson is threatening to sue the federal government if proposed legislation to revoke Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments for convicts is passed.

The government was prompted to introduce Bill C-31 after it came to light a few months ago that Olson, 70, is receiving $1,100 every month in federal income supplements.

The cheques are deposited in a trust account while Olson serves his 11 consecutive life sentences in a Quebec penitentiary for the murder of 11 children in British Columbia in the early 1980s.

The bill, introduced by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley in early June, seeks to repeal the seniors' benefits for 400 federal prisoners serving sentences of two years or more, and the government is also negotiating with the provinces to cut off benefits for inmates in provincial jails, which house offenders serving less than two years.

(article continues)
Read more:  Serial killer Olsen 
           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jul 2010)

Posts claiming that preemptive capital punishment should be applied will be removed.  Warnings may accompany such moderator actions.  This is your warning.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2010)

I will make no claims for anything of the like of pre-emptive capital punishment; however, I do believe that state-sanctioned capital punishment should be reinstituted.  I would offer this not because Clifford Olson is threatening to sue, but I think that once in a while, unfortunately, people such as Mr. Olson, Mr. Bernardo and Ms. Homolka come along and commit heinous crimes that shake our society to its core.  Crimes so horrible and rehabilitation so remote that capital punishment may be the only way to protect our society.  

I would offer that following conviction, if the case calls for possible capital punishment as a sentence, that a new hearing be instituted to determine if the case in question merits carrying out that sentence.  The method of carrying out that sentence should be, in my opinion, be hanging.  It's quick and it's effective.

My  :2c:


----------



## mariomike (8 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The method of carrying out that sentence should be, in my opinion, be hanging.  It's quick and it's effective.



The last execution in Canada was a back-to-back hanging at the Don in Dec. 1962. The chaplain reported that Arthur Lucas was semi-decapitated.: 
http://www.openbooktoronto.com/files/images/dundurn-last-to-die.large.jpg
( page 180-181 for gruesome details )
I think the modern American methods are cleaner, and equally effective.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Posts claiming that preemptive capital punishment should be applied will be removed.  Warnings may accompany such moderator actions.  This is your warning.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Respectfully, considering he murdered 11 children can we publically wish he gets the death penalty instead of wasting tax dollars?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I think the modern American methods are cleaner, and equally effective.


This raises an interesting point.  Some will point out that hanging is "cruel and unusual punishment".  I would offer that yes, it is, and that's what makes it effective.  
Now, to explain, I'm not a sadist.  Punishment, to be effective must be both cruel and unusual.  It must be cruel in that it is _perceived_ to be cruel by the person receiving the punishment.  In other words, it causes discomfort in some manner.  To a four year old, that may be a time out.  To a mass murderer, it may mean ending their life.  And of course the spectrum runs between that wide gulf.  
And it must be unusual.  That same four year old cannot receive that punishment of the time out all the time.  And we cannot go about killing everyone we _suspect_ of murder.  It must not become commonplace to have punishment all the time.

So, "lethal injection" is more humane, but certainly not to the condemned.  I mean, they die no matter what, right?  My argument is that we try to make the punishments humane not for the condemned, but for us.  I say "screw our sensibilities".  If we find an execution to be humane, then we are missing the point.  It must cause us, society, a bit of discomfort when we send someone to death.  We must feel that we as a society can put our hands on our hearts and say "In this one certain case, we don't care if Mr. Bernardo (for example) is partially or fully decapitated by his hanging", as an example.  If we feel that it's humane, I fear that executions would become all too common.  And I argue that they must be a once-in-a-generation-or-so event.  

So, using the most recent examples of which I can easily recall without research, we would perhaps have had:
Mr. Olson circa 1980
Mr. Bernardo circa 1995
Mr. Pickton circa 2015

Perhaps Mr. Ng is in there somewhere as well.

But executions must be cruel as perceived by the condemned and society, and they must be unusual, noteworthy events.

Another  :2c:


----------



## gaspasser (8 Jul 2010)

I think I tried to say the same things here but in not so many words.  Perhaps my intentions were ill read and I was given a warning for speaking my mind.
My intention was to speak out about the fact that many folks over 65, who earned thier CPP and Old Age Pensions have to fight to get it, and people who are incarcerated get it with little hassles.  I strongly believe that pension payments for those convicted of heinous crimes should go to the families of the victims whose lives they've ruined.  
They say it costs over $65,000 per year to maintain a convict, few people have jobs and careers that pay that much!


----------



## mariomike (8 Jul 2010)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> They say it costs over $65,000 per year to maintain a convict,



Perhaps even more. This is from 2006:
"It costs Corrections Canada $110,223 to keep a male inmate in a maximum-security institution for a year ($150,867 for a woman). Medium- and minimum-security inmates cost more than $70,000 a year.":
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/realitycheck/crimetime.html


----------



## gaspasser (8 Jul 2010)

Thanks for the added info.  My keyboard took a burp and ceased working so I had to end my last post in mid thought.
Taxpayers are already hit and complaining about government squandring, mishandling of funds et al.  Why hasn't anyone really taken offense to these costs?  I wonder if COs make that much money to protect these individuals ??
All I'm saying is...what do we do with criminals who cannot or will not rehabilitate?  
Somewhere, this thread got off track of the original post, obviously, people are taking a real offense at hearing the serial killers and rapists are sueing to collect old age pension.  Has the government gone astray over the rights of the individual??  And forgotten the rights of the masses??

My  :2c: again.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Respectfully, considering he murdered 11 children can we publically wish he gets the death penalty instead of wasting tax dollars?



Why don't you take Technoviking's lead and present an argument for the death penalty in the first place.

What matters here is that we do not need members of the public or the media coming here to find a thread where immature members of the CF (or those who were, or wish to be) start trying to come up with new and interesting ways to say "kill him" when it's not part of Canadian law to do so at this time.  The potential cost to perception of the views of CF members isn't worth the staff time to sort out a thread composed of hatred and immaturity which depart from reasoned debate.  At a time when there are enough on-line comments about insensitivity and cruelty by CF members involved in certain news stories, do we really need to perpetuate those misconceptions among the public? Is that what you, or anyone here, wants to do for the CF's image?

While you prepare your case, don't forget to address these situations.


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jul 2010)

BYT Driver........Nobody has to fight to get their old age pension.
What gets me is the fact that everybody has to spend their money to live by, Whereas these guys
just sack it all away, get free room and board, and are able to earn more money for mediocre jobs that they are entitled to do. These guys can save more money than the majority of people can put aside in their lifetime.  I consider that to be quite unlawful to the law abiding citizens.
Worse, is the fact that they are telling the government, "if you cut my benifits, I will sue you".
I wonder if their victims next of kin are able to sue these guys for compensation of their losses.
That would be one story I would follow very closely.


----------



## gaspasser (9 Jul 2010)

57, I stand by that!
The government should give these guys thier old age pension and then sign it over to the victims families.  My mom had a hard time getting her old age pension and gets rightly upset when a refugee claimant is handed more than that and lives here free.  (my info could be off some) And it really urks me that the prisoners get to save it somehow, whereas normal citizens need/have to spend it on, oh let's say, living.

Mike, yes HERE we must uphold the ethos and principles of the CF; which is only a little slice of the Canadian Society.  It just happens that HERE and in the CF we have a concentration of people who are upstanding citizens who get peeved at wrongdoers, evildoers and those who aid in further corrupting the system and step on the little guy.  

I agree that some people have been wrongly convicted and we as a society must make amends for destroying their lives as they knew it.  BUT, in certain cases where it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of multiply heinous crimes and there is no chance for rehabilitation, something must be done to free society of thier ilk.  I'm not up on my CCC and sentencing, but does Canada imposed chemical castration on sex criminals??? 

That being said, someone once said, and I paraphrase because I'm not sure of the exact wording, 'All that evil needs to perpetuate is for good men to do nothing'

And that's my opinion.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jul 2010)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Mike, yes HERE we must uphold the ethos and principles of the CF; which is only a little slice of the Canadian Society.  It just happens that HERE and in the CF we have a concentration of people who are upstanding citizens who get peeved at wrongdoers, evildoers and those who aid in further corrupting the system and step on the little guy.



Which does not justify allowing Internet lynching parties.  If you feel that your conscience would be eased by posting such comments, I am certain you can find somewhere else to do it.  Here, we can try and expect people to debate the facts and get beyond unnecessary emotional outbursts.



			
				BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I agree that some people have been wrongly convicted and we as a society must make amends for destroying their lives as they knew it.  BUT, in certain cases where it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of multiply heinous crimes and there is no chance for rehabilitation, something must be done to free society of thier ilk.  I'm not up on my CCC and sentencing, but does Canada imposed chemical castration on sex criminals???



Every one of those wrongly convicted individuals was convicted because the judge/jury felt that the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jul 2010)

I could add to my last post......Someone should take it upon themselves to make a class action
lawsuit and sue the whole lot, right across the board, for the breach of all the victims' basic
constitutional rights.
I did a short stint working in a federal prison and they are very well treated no matter the crime
they committed. And I can say that hard working Canadians pay good money for the "club med"
type vacations...........prisoners live it year round. It really stinks.


----------



## mariomike (9 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I did a short stint working in a federal prison and they are very well treated no matter the crime
> they committed. And I can say that hard working Canadians pay good money for the "club med"
> type vacations...........prisoners live it year round. It really stinks.



"Killer bakes cookies at 'Club Fed': 'It's minimum security, maximum luxury,' says son of man shot dead by inmate seeking early parole under 'faint hope' clause":
http://www.thestar.com/article/172315

More on that:
"Our Prison Policies Suck":  
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/91624/post-905360.html#msg905360



			
				BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I'm not up on my CCC and sentencing, but does Canada imposed chemical castration on sex criminals???



2006:
"Chemical castration of pedophile upheld by Federal Court:
OTTAWA - A convicted pedophile ordered to take medication to control his sexual urges has lost his bid to have "chemical castration" declared unconstitutional.":
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3bea636f-3999-4b90-9997-6b5436f608ec&k=72044


----------



## stealthylizard (9 Jul 2010)

If said criminal has a family outside prison, I can understand OAS and pension going to them, but not the convict.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Jul 2010)

Here's a thought... pay them the pensions, then charge them an equivalent amount for their keep. I don't think they have a constitutional right not to pay for the cost of their incarceration.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Why don't you take Technoviking's lead and present an argument for the death penalty in the first place.
> 
> What matters here is that we do not need members of the public or the media coming here to find a thread where immature members of the CF (or those who were, or wish to be) start trying to come up with new and interesting ways to say "kill him"when it's not part of Canadian law to do so at this time.  The potential cost to perception of the views of CF members isn't worth the staff time to sort out a thread composed of hatred and immaturity which depart from reasoned debate.  At a time when there are enough on-line comments about insensitivity and cruelty by CF members involved in certain news stories, do we really need to perpetuate those misconceptions among the public? Is that what you, or anyone here, wants to do for the CF's image?



Good point.
I see it as having to decide between being honest in an environment of my peers and sugar coating my answer so some media type doesn't wander in and steal a comment from me.
I know what you mean where people, perhaps with no idea _how_ to express their anger over said lack of humanity, come up with creative, grotesque, graphic, inappropriate ways to punish them.  It's people venting their anger but yes the media loves that and would run with it.

Personally, I fight with myself over the death penalty. In a clear cut case of someone being guilty I think they should be put to death as cheaply as possible. Even as humane as possible, giving them a moments pain as "punishment" doesn't really matter, their gonna die anyways. I think they should then have their organs removed and given to other human beings.  In the case of this man he killed 11 children, how many kids at CHEO are waiting for organs? If the organs are too big for kids then how many parents are waiting for organs who have children who may loose a parent?

I'm not sure if that makes me a monster for suggesting that, I don't think it does. 
 What about people who are wrongly convicted? I think about that a lot when deciding if I am pro-capital punishment or not. I know I wouldn't want to be put to death for something I didn't do. And I am sure people HAVE been before too.  On the flip side how many people starve every day in our streets compared to how many inmates are sitting on death row who will be there the rest of their life, costing Canada $96'000 a year per person x 30, 40, 50 years?  It's a good debate.


 I know where you're coming from about making comments that can discredit the CF. I agree. Graphic ways to kill someone, even if they are monsters, is bad PR. (I wouldn't let one of my soldiers talk about that in public thats for sure)
Thinking about it though, should we really be talking about politics here in the open?  Or what we think of our allies Generals, or how the CF decides to spend money? (Tacvest bed crapping).  That's probably getting off track though.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2010)

> Thinking about it though, should we really be talking about politics here in the open?  Or what we think of our allies Generals, or how the CF decides to spend money? (Tacvest bed crapping)



Why in the world not....This is a free country, and yes CF members have an opinion AND a vote.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jul 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Why in the world not....This is a free country, and yes CF members have an opinion AND a vote.



I think that was exactly his point..........


----------



## gaspasser (9 Jul 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which does not justify allowing Internet lynching parties.  If you feel that your conscience would be eased by posting such comments, I am certain you can find somewhere else to do it.  Here, we can try and expect people to debate the facts and get beyond unnecessary emotional outbursts.
> 
> Every one of those wrongly convicted individuals was convicted because the judge/jury felt that the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Seems it's gang up on BYTD Day for typing the same things everyone else is typing.  Seems a there's lots of advocates for Capital Punishment here.

Au Revoir.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jul 2010)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Seems a there's lots of advocates for Capital Punishment here.



And there's nothing wrong with that.  A well reasoned post supporting (or against) the death penalty shows a lot more intelligence and responsibility that simply posting any variation on the theme of _"killl 'im"_, which has been consistently discouraged on the forum for some time because it adds nothing and makes those who do so look like the Neanderthals that some would accuse all CF members of being. When one person posts such a simplistic view, it is always followed by others doing the same in an infantile attempt at some sort of primitive bonding ritual by those who would form a lynching party in other times. To put it simply, if someone can't make their point in a rational and civilized manner, they can exercise their simplistic sense of "free speech" somewhere else.

As a final point for all, note that this thread was about "Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments for convicts" and perhaps that is what the discussion should have focused on.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I think that was exactly his point..........



oh............


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Why in the world not....This is a free country, and yes CF members have an opinion AND a vote.





What happens if you go on Global TV, identify yourself as a Canadian soldier and state your opinion that the liberals/conservitives etc.. are a bunch of morons and wankers?


----------



## mariomike (9 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> What happens if you go on Global TV, identify yourself as a Canadian soldier and state your opinion that the liberals/conservitives etc.. are a bunch of morons and wankers?



I recall reading this, about that:


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> A member of the CF is permitted to talk to the Press as a 'civilian', but not identify themselves as a member of the CF and bring controversy onto the CF or the Government.



Letter from Clifford Olson to the Government of Canada:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/08/OLSON.JPG


----------



## medicineman (9 Jul 2010)

Clifford Olsen has basically been in solitary confinement since the 80's - every so often, he starts beaking off to let people know he's still alive and does his utmost to stir up a hornet's nest because he gets off on causing chaos and kicking back to see what happens.  On a personal note, I wouldn't lose sleep over him not waking up one morning - along with thousands of other kids in BC that time frame, I was pretty much afraid of going out of doors much for awhile because of that wackjob.  He shouldn't be in effect rewarded for what he's done, nor should anyone else doing hard time.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2010)

It isn't that a case needs to be made "for" the death penalty.  As long as we - through our government - are willing to allow foreign innocents (eg. non-combatants)  to be accidentally killed by our armed forces, there isn't really an objection to be made against deliberately killing our own guilty criminals.  The restraint against a government killing a non-citizen, who is emphatically not subject to its powers by any reasonable standard, should be greater than against killing those theoretically subject to its powers; the restraint against killing innocents should be greater than against killing criminals, particularly criminals of a predatory nature.

The case needs to be made "against" the death penalty.  And the simplest and most compelling objection is that for a not unbearable annual maintenance cost, a convict's life is preserved against the possibility evidence might later surface which casts doubt on guilt.


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jul 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It isn't that a case needs to be made "for" the death penalty.  As long as we - through our government - are willing to allow foreign innocents (eg. non-combatants)  to be accidentally killed by our armed forces, there isn't really an objection to be made against deliberately killing our own guilty criminals.  The restraint against a government killing a non-citizen, who is emphatically not subject to its powers by any reasonable standard, should be greater than against killing those theoretically subject to its powers; the restraint against killing innocents should be greater than against killing criminals, particularly criminals of a predatory nature.
> 
> The case needs to be made "against" the death penalty.  And the simplest and most compelling objection is that for a not unbearable annual maintenance cost, a convict's life is preserved against the possibility evidence might later surface which casts doubt on guilt.



What does that have to do with this guy threatening to sue the government over receiving 
benifits.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Jul 2010)

I read his letter (thanks MM), and what a load of crap. Gotta love his grammer though  :nod: 

Whatever happened to the good ole days when the crims in gaol did not even get to vote?

As far as I am concerned they forfieted these rights and rights to any penions etc when they were sentanced.

One day, people will get sick and tired of the way things are, maybe not in our lifetimes, things will turn 180 degress back to when victims had rights and crims had hard labour and the gallows.

Olson and other like minded crims are nothing but paracites on society. They have it too good, too many rights, and back in the SHU should be laying in straw, with a bucket as a toilet, stale bread and stale water in a 5 by 7 cell with no heat!

Oops, edited for spelling


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jul 2010)

As a free and lawful taxpaying Canadian citizen, my constitutional rights extend throughout the Nation, and while I am abroad.
As this man is confined within the boundaries of a prison, then so should his rights be. 
I think that would be Constitutional.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It isn't that a case needs to be made "for" the death penalty.  As long as we - through our government - are willing to allow foreign innocents (eg. non-combatants)  to be accidentally killed by our armed forces, there isn't really an objection to be made against deliberately killing our own guilty criminals.  The restraint against a government killing a non-citizen, who is emphatically not subject to its powers by any reasonable standard, should be greater than against killing those theoretically subject to its powers; the restraint against killing innocents should be greater than against killing criminals, particularly criminals of a predatory nature.



Brad, this tipped the scales in my internal debate. I agree with this 100%.


----------



## medicineman (9 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> As a free and lawful taxpaying Canadian citizen, my constitutional rights extend throughout the Nation, and while I am abroad.
> As this man is confined within the boundaries of a prison, then so should his rights be.
> I think that would be Constitutional.



This asshat violated the rights of what, 11 kids that we know off, not to mention the rights of their families.  The fact that he is doing hard time vs being worm food somewhere is about as far as his rights should go.   Ooops, forgot, I'm paid to protect his rights...no subtle irony there eh?

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> This idiot violated the rights of what, 11 kids that we know off, not to mention the rights of their families.  The fact that he is doing hard time vs being worm food somewhere is about as far as his rights should go.   Ooops, forgot, I'm paid to protect his rights...no subtle irony there eh?
> 
> MM



Should someone like this retain his rights?
Should we afford criminals who spend their life preying on others causing constant pain and suffering the same rights  we afford a law abiding citizen or even petty criminal?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Should someone like this retain his rights?
> ...



That's the right question. The right answer is: No, but ...

Those who violate the rights of others by breaking the laws we make to 'regulate' ourselves and the business of living, working and trading together, must face sanctions which ought to include the *temporary* loss of most civil rights. But: Each individual offender must be afforded the opportunity to earn back almost all civil rights by demonstrating reform: acceptable conduct.

Most of us who are or were n the military understand the _carrot and stick_ very well and we know they work pretty well together, too. Our justice system needs to understand that punishment and rewards are *both* useful tools when used in tandem - generally punishment followed by the opportunity to demonstrate reform and then the 'reward' of rejoining society as a full fledged member with all (or almost all) the rights 'good' citizens enjoy. But 'rewards' are incentives and incentives work only when there is something to be gained. Civil rights must be taken away before they can be earned back.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jul 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Civil rights must be taken away before they can be earned back.


 
But, I would not go as far as that, at least not revoked completely.
As I mentioned, their civil rights should remain intact within the confines of the prison.
That way, they would be able to exercise/practice their basic rights amongst the other inmates.
Thus helping them to learn to be good citizens and perhaps to finally reintregate society.

Good point ER on "sanctions", as we as a country make use of such on other Nations.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> ....Someone should take it upon themselves to make a class action lawsuit and sue the whole lot, right across the board, for the breach of all the victims' basic constitutional rights.



Our boss, MND Peter MacKay, was involved with law before he made it into politics and made victims' rights one of his priorities.  

While I can not put words into his mouth or his mind, this is from his Wiki page: "MacKay has publicly stated that the major impetus for his entry into federal politics was his frustrations with the shortcomings in the justice system, particularly his perception that the courts do not care about the impact crime has on victims." 

Yay, we have a cool boss who shares our values!


----------



## gaspasser (10 Jul 2010)

Yes ! And Pete has a large can of whoop ass at his disposal    
I wonder why Gen. Hillier didn't get into politics ?Oh, yeah, he pissed off people in politics in order to get his troops stuff.

But I digress, we need politicians who are willing to take a stand for the weak and start pushing laws that reflect what the people want, not just what the government THINKS they want.  
I think its funny that the people whose rights we try to protect use those rights to violate the rights of others...and the world keeps turning...I'm getting dizzy   ???


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jul 2010)

I think that unfortunately, Olsen would win the case. The precedent WRT voting rights for the incarcerated virtually assures it. His legal team will argue that incarceration does not deprive persons of their Charter rights. Such incarceration is only a limitation on their right to mobility, which does not extend to all of their rights in general.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Jul 2010)

*Olson's pension threat insults victims: minister*
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/09/bc-clifford-olson-pension-lawsuit.html



> Serial killer Clifford Olson's threat to fight to keep his old age pension is "deeply insulting to his victims and their families," says Canada's human resources minister.
> 
> Olson, one of Canada's most notorious serial killers, is threatening to take the federal government to court over its plan to end pension payments to federal inmates like himself.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

For those of you who work in corrections, what sorts of work do criminals do while inside that contributes to society?

I don't mean for themselves like getting a degree or learning skills, but the forced labour kind.  A little more give and a little less take.

I'm sure they're not all making license plates.  

While I agree they shouldn't be working 20 hour days like in Auschwitz, I do think they should be working their asses off and performing a service to justify some of that $100k+/yr it costs to hold them.

Obviously escape risks would have to be mitigated if it were outside the prison, but I would think all sorts of small businesses could be assisted by free labour, especially in today's world where a lot of the work could be done by computer inside the walls.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2010)

Public Safety Canada:
"A day in the life of an inmate":
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/cor/acc/ff1-eng.aspx
"Inmates are expected to participate in programs, work, or study for six hours every weekday."

"Giving back to the community":
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/cor/acc/ff3-eng.aspx

Union of Solicitor General Employees - PSAC:
"Ending prison farm programs hurts all of us!":
http://www.saveourfarms.ca/
"An Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper:
The Union of Solicitor General Employees is seriously calling into question your government’s decision to close Canada’s six prison farms. We believe this decision is not in the best interest of the farm program participants, nor in the best interest of the Canadian public."

"A bleak harvest for Canadian inmates: Ottawa to shutter agricultural program that has helped convicts tame the beast within by tending to beasts":
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/708635--a-bleak-harvest-for-canadian-inmates

"Karla Homolka lives life of birthday cakes and baseball in “adult daycare,” ex-inmate says":
http://www.truecrime.net/karla/

Ontario:
"Workin' for the man":
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/corr_serv/adult_off/treat_prog/treat_prog_trilcor/treat_prog_trilcor.html


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

MM,

Thank you for the links, but those are government websites and may not exactly represent the ground truth anymore than the CF website reflects the ground truth of what a day in the life of a soldier is like.

As usual, your resourcefulness and data mining is un-paralleled, though.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> MM,
> 
> Thank you for the links, but those are government websites and may not exactly represent the ground truth anymore than the CF website reflects the ground truth of what a day in the life of a soldier is like.
> 
> As usual, your resourcefulness and data mining is un-paralleled, though.



My pleasure, Petamocto!

My employment used to send me inside the Don, a provincial facility. I remember being sent into the "old Don" too, before they shut it down. It looked Spartan to me. I did not see much work going on other than cooking, cleaning and maintenance. Many of them were on remand, so there was not much for them to do but wait for sentencing.

"Tory privatization agenda":
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n04ap06a.htm
"This approach fits with the strong pro-privatization ideology of the Harper government and the likelihood that it will try wherever it can to turn over a growing range of public services to private operators."
The union representing Federal corrections workers is against the idea. I saw a similar piece by OPSEU ( Ontario corrections workers ), also against the idea.

If interested in an American Cost/Benefit analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Cost.2FBenefit_analysis


----------



## stealthylizard (11 Jul 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think that unfortunately, Olsen would win the case. The precedent WRT voting rights for the incarcerated virtually assures it. His legal team will argue that incarceration does not deprive persons of their Charter rights. Such incarceration is only a limitation on their right to mobility, which does not extend to all of their rights in general.


I can't find anywhere in the Charter which mentions CPP, or OAS, or anything else regarding retirement benefits.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> For those of you who work in corrections, what sorts of work do criminals do while inside that contributes to society?
> 
> I don't mean for themselves like getting a degree or learning skills, but the forced labour kind.  A little more give and a little less take.
> 
> ...



They're making your office and barrack furniture. Anything with CorCan on it. Means Corrections Canada.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2010)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> I can't find anywhere in the Charter which mentions CPP, or OAS, or anything else regarding retirement benefits.



If it were found to be against his Charter rights, it would be a good time to try out that notwithstanding clause that they keep talking about but never use.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...Anything with CorCan on it. Means Corrections Canada.



Ahhh, cool, nice tidbit of info I hadn't picked up yet.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2010)

Corcan makes lots of stuff:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/corcan-catalogue/index-eng.shtml
"Military Equipment & Furnishings":
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/corcan-catalogue/7-eng.shtml

I was looking at laundry services:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/corcan-catalogue/3-eng.shtml
"CORCAN operates two industrial laundry operations at Leclerc and Archambault Institutions in Quebec, including sorting, staging, and delivery services for a select client group in the Greater Montreal area."

I wonder if that would include CFLRS?

If inmates could do the linen for the hospitals, nursing homes, and EMS ( supposed to be changed every call ) in the GTA, that would be a huge industry. Clean linen was always a major logistical concern and expense. Sometimes, the situation was critical.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Obviously escape risks would have to be mitigated if it were outside the prison, but I would think all sorts of small businesses could be assisted by free labour, especially in today's world where a lot of the work could be done by computer inside the walls.



I was thinking of clean, inside work with no heavy lifting. Mostly sit-down work.
Like the garment industry. Our garment district downtown has fallen on hard times. You could go there and buy clothes straight from the manufacturer. Our clothing labels used to say "Made in Canada". Not so much now. Our clothing is now often produced in sweat-shops overseas.
I remember reading that Babe Ruth was taught tailoring at St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys ( basically a reform school ),  and became a qualified shirtmaker. 
That was a long time ago, but it would be nice to see the "Made in Canada" labels re-appear on our shirts.

There is another idea for younger, able-bodied, low-risk inmates. Something like "The Civilian Conservation Corps":
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/photo-gallery/ccc/
The U.S. Army was put in charge of it, and it was considered to be a great success:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps#Legacy

The Army found itself between the wars, so manpower and equipment was not a major problem. 

This is the modern version of the CCC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmeriCorps


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They're making your office and barrack furniture. Anything with CorCan on it. Means Corrections Canada.



Don't forget the metal shelving that I'm sure most of us have assembled at one time or another! 

CORCAN also employs inmates when there is a renovation project in a prison (e.g. replacing windows in a cell block). They will bring in CORCAN staff (civilians), civilians contractors and inmates. The idea is for the contractors to teach the inmates a skill they can use after they are released from prison. 

Besides the CORCAN jobs, inmates are also employed in the kitchen preparing meals, assisting institute maintenance personnel (e.g. electricians, plumbers, metal workers, carpenters) in their duties and menial stuff like mopping floors/washrooms/taking out garbage, etc..


----------



## medicineman (11 Jul 2010)

All our new furnishings in Kingston when I was there were made by Collins Bay's finest, and probably Millhaven, KP, Joyceville, etc ad nauseum.

They've got a good gig going as far as furniture sales, vehicle refurbs, etc go.

MM


----------



## armyvern (11 Jul 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Perhaps even more. This is from 2006:
> "It costs Corrections Canada $110,223 to keep a male inmate in a maximum-security institution for a year ($150,867 for a woman). Medium- and minimum-security inmates cost more than $70,000 a year.":
> http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/realitycheck/crimetime.html



Now, for the life of me --- I can't understand this one. 

$40 644 bucks a year more for a chick why!!?? For tampons & Midol?? WTF??

Or are we paying for the haidressing, parties, manicures and fashion shows ala Homolka still?


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Jul 2010)

Surroundings that aren't simply cinder-block and concrete cost more:

[PDF] Grand Valley Institution for Women
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/wos25_GrandValley/GrandValley_e.pdf



> As a consequence, from 1995, CSC began to set up small institutions for federally-sentenced women, one in each of the five correctional regions; in addition to a Healing Lodge. Those institutions were an innovative attempt to put in place the five guiding principles of Creating Choices: empowerment, meaningful and responsible choices, respect and dignity, a supportive environment and shared responsibility. In 2000, the Kingston Prison for Women was closed.
> 
> The units in the new institutions have been designed as far as possible to normalize the experience of women in custody. Within a relatively low secure perimeter fence, women have free movement and small groups share houses in which they can take responsibility for themselves. They offer a radically different environment to that experienced in the majority of men’s prisons, or in women’s prisons elsewhere in Canada and in most other countries.



GRAND VALLEY INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN
Kitchener, Ontario
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/facilit/institutprofiles/grandvalley-eng.shtml



> Grand Valley Institution (GVI) is a multi level facility located in Kitchener, Ontario. GVI opened in 1997 and can accommodate up to 118 inmates.
> 
> *Inmates are housed in buildings (houses) arranged in campus style (clusters), one structured living environment house and one secure unit.*
> 
> The Institution provides a positive and supportive environment focused mainly on women’s timely and safe reintegration.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

Vern,

Likely just a unit cost thing / economies of scale.

The theory goes that if you have two wings of segregated inmates, you need lights on in both, a cook working both, someone in charge of both, etc...even if there are 1,000 on one side and 50 on the other.

The true "per-head" cost my be close to the same.  Whatever feminine needs would be offset by the men generally eating 20% more or so due to being bigger.

[/hypothesis]

Added: As per below though, females may be more expensive after all.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2010)

I came across this:
"The Costs of Incarceration":
◦Cost of incarcerating a Federal prisoner (2004/5): $259.05 per prisoner/per day
◦Cost of incarcerating a Federal female prisoner (2004/5): $150,000-$250,000 per prisoner/per year
◦Cost of incarcerating a Federal male prisoner (2004/5): $87,665 per prisoner/per year
◦Cost of incarcerating a provincial prisoner (2004/5): $141.78: per prisoner/per day
http://www.prisonjustice.ca/politics/facts_stats.html

They gave this as their source:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=85-002-X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng

More about Ottawa's decision to close the prison farms, if interested.
CP24
May. 05 2010 
"TORONTO — A $1-million price tag on milk for inmates at three Ontario institutions is providing new fodder for supporters of Canada's threatened prison farms.
They say the cost of replacing milk now produced at one of the country's six prison farms undercuts the case made by the Conservative government for closing down the farms, which are staffed by inmates.":
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100505/100505_prison_farms/20100505/?hub=CP24Home

"A glowing article in the January 2006 edition of Correctional Service Canada publication "Let's Talk" extolled the virtues of the 400-hectare Frontenac Institution farm.
The most important virtue, according to the article, was "the positive changes it makes in inmates' lives." "


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Now, for the life of me --- I can't understand this one.
> 
> $40 644 bucks a year more for a chick why!!?? For tampons & Midol?? WTF??
> 
> Or are we paying for the haidressing, parties, manicures and fashion shows ala Homolka still?



Women offenders respond far differently to incarceration than men. Female inmates are far more difficult to manage than males, who are hard enough to manage as it is.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jul 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Surroundings that aren't simply cinder-block and concrete cost more:
> 
> [PDF] Grand Valley Institution for Women
> http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/wos25_GrandValley/GrandValley_e.pdf
> ...



Wow. What ever happened to "equal rights" for women?? Your links seem to show that we are treating (& paying exorbiant costs) convicted women very much with "kid gloves" unlike their male counterparts ... & I bet too, that those manicures & hairstyling costs are hidden in those "innovative" costs somehwere). 

I bet the parents of Reena Virk are far from satisfied that the sadistic little wench Kelly Ellard is enjoying such creature comforts these days along with all her other female felon counterparts.

Unbelieveable. I'm just absolutely failing to see any kind of "deterrent" & "punishment" factors in the 'prison' (I certainly wouldn't describe them as that) set-ups outlined in your links.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jul 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> Women offenders respond far differently to incarceration than men. Female inmates are far more difficult to manage than males, who are hard enough to manage as it is.



Sure, we're bitchier, but ergo the tampon and midol costs.

As for "management" of women - they don't have to be harder to manage than male prisoners; the fact is that we 'allow" them to be more difficult to manage. Lock 'em down 23 hours a day too just like the guys ... treat them the same, then costs will even out. Of course they are all "hard to manage" because they don't conform to the rules and morals of average society ... & that's usually why their asses ended up in the clink in the first place.

Equal "rights" for women prisoners being "equal" treatment/punishment too and all that.   Or is that "equal rights" all for show?


----------



## armychick2009 (11 Jul 2010)

Likely there are fewer women prisoners then men so you can shove more men into a prison with fewer resources. Also, there are some women's prisons that actually allow them to bring their infants and raise them in more of a 'home environment' for their first year I believe, if the woman was pregnant while sentenced/incarcerated. 

Personally, I think it could be attributed to the high cost of providing chocolate during our monthlies and perhaps even, just on a regular basis to keep us from rioting. 

It is interesting though, why don't you write the minister in control of prisons and ask him? They must get asked this regularly!


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2010)

OK I just fired this off to my local MP:

"Good day sir:

I noticed with interest in the last week or so that two individuals, one accused of murder and the other a convicted murderer are seeking recompense from our nation.
One is Omar Khadr, who has been accused of murder as a fifteen year old while in Afghanistan, and since capture has been held prisoner by the United States of America in Guantanamo Bay. Mr Khadr is accused of murdering an American soldier, a medical soldier, with a grenade. 
Now Mr Khadr wants ten million dollars in recompense because his "rights" were violated by a Canadian CSIS official.

The second case I bring to your attention is Clifford Olsen, a convicted child serial killer. Mr Olsen has been incarcerated for a number of years, and is oone of Canada's most infamous serial killers. Mr Olsen is threatening to sue the Government of Canada if he does not receive his pension at age 65, claiming his "rights" will be violated.

Mr. Fletcher, our son Corporal Michael James Alexander Seggie, Second Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Canadian Forces was Killed In Action on 3 September 2008. This is not what our son died for. He was not off in Afghanistan fighting so an accused terrorist can profit from his misadventures. Mike did not die in Afghanistan so Clifford Olsen could collect an old age pension and continue to haunt the memories of his victims families.

Mr Fletcher, we beleive that over thirty million Canadian citizens' rights have been violated by even entertaining the thought of paying these two individuals off. It insults the memories of over 100,000 Canadians who died during all our wars doing  their duty for their country. It makes a mockery of what well over one million Canadians who have served in the military have accomplished.

Mr Fletcher, we strongly encourage you to bring this to attention of the Prime Minister and the Canadian Parliament, and strongly encourage all Members of Parliament to "Just Say NO to Omar Khadr and Clifford Olsen". 

Thank you for your time."


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2010)

Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
(CAEFS):
"Human and Fiscal Costs of Prison ( Canada ):
The cost of imprisoning a woman in a federal prison is estimated by Corrections to average $175,000 per year and can be higher than $250,000 per year for women kept in the most isolated and segregated conditions of confinement, such as the segregated maximum security units in the prisons for women.":
http://www.elizabethfry.ca/eweek2010e/pdf/Human%20and%20Fiscal%20Costs%20of%20Prison.pdf

Poster:
http://www.elizabethfry.ca/poster.htm
"The number of women in prison increased 200% in the past 15 years."

Feb 20 2010:
"Provinces to spend $2.7B on prisons: OTTAWA–Provinces are spending $2.7 billion to expand or replace aging and overcrowded jails across Canada – with little public scrutiny, an Ottawa researcher says.":
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/768637--provinces-to-spend-2-7b-on-prisons

June 23, 2010 
Globe and Mail:
"The Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda is also tough on taxpayers, with the cost of running prisons potentially set to more than double, says Parliament's spending watchdog.":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-laws-to-send-prison-spending-soaring-watchdog-says/article1614182/

Jun 22 2010
"Federal prison bill to cost a billion dollars a year: Report":
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/826778--tory-crime-bill-to-cost-extra-618m-per-year-report-finds

4 July, 2010
Montreal Gazette:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/Tough+crime+laws+tough+swallow/3234028/story.html


----------

