# Revitalization of Corrections Canada



## Fraser.g (16 Jan 2006)

I am personally sick and tired of persons within the corrections system, who have been convicted of a crime and sent to jail having more privileges than those law abiding citizens.

Advocacy groups like the Fry society ensuring that each cell has a cable TV, internet access in some cases, free food, the list goes on is sickening. 
How many out there know that yesterday and today were voting days in the federal and provincial systems. These are people who have thumbed their noses at law, government and society in general but yet they still have the "right" to have a voice as to who governs this great country for the next few years???

Here is a concept ladies and gentlemen, why not establish a system like the DB for the rest of Canada's misbehaving members. Perhaps the chain gang should be brought back, let them do some productive work for a change. We are paying the bill, it stands to reason that we should get some value for our monies.

Take for example the following:

Why can't our Canada do something like this here - instead of the heat, perhaps they would enjoy the cold temps. 
I bet there would be less and less crime.



Here is a law enforcement person that "knows" how to treat criminals!
He just keeps getting elected, over and over!!

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO 

    HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF 

       AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER. 



THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) who created the "tent city jail":

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked! up the cable TV again only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.

He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton If you don't like it, don't come back."

He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.




More on the Arizona Sheriff:

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before.

Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.

"It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 year. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves. 


Sheriff Joe was just reelected Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona.

 Rant off...

Discuss


----------



## mo-litia (16 Jan 2006)

We need a thousand Sheriff Joe's in Canada...actually what we need is a system of elected law enforcement leaders and judges who would be sensitive to the will of the people (and their continued employment) while they are considering punishments for the criminal element in this society.

Consider the type of sentence Karla Homolka would have received from an elected judge who would have been sensitive to the public emotions about her horrible crimes. I *highly* doubt that she would have gotten the farce of a sentence that she received from a judge who-because they are not elected-was not concerned with public opinion.

And, yes; *I DO SUPPORT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!*   ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jan 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18217.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32133.0.html


----------



## Fraser.g (16 Jan 2006)

And here I thought I did a pretty good search before posting.

My bad

GF


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Jan 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> We need a thousand Sheriff Joe's in Canada...actually what we need is a system of elected law enforcement leaders and judges who would be sensitive to the will of the people (and their continued employment) while they are considering punishments for the criminal element in this society.
> 
> Consider the type of sentence Karla Homolka would have received from an elected judge who would have been sensitive to the public emotions about her horrible crimes. I *highly* doubt that she would have gotten the farce of a sentence that she received from a judge who-because they are not elected-was not concerned with public opinion.
> 
> And, yes; *I DO SUPPORT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!*   ;D



The public's emotions and feelings should be immaterial to a judge rendering his verdict or sentencing. If the public wants a sentence or law, have the legislature set it. Justice is supposed to be impartial and blind, not held in the sway of a fickle populous and its whimsy.


----------



## mo-litia (16 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The public's emotions and feelings should be immaterial to a judge rendering his verdict or sentencing. If the public wants a sentence or law, have the legislature set it. Justice is supposed to be impartial and blind, not held in the sway of a fickle populous and its whimsy.



Obviously.

My point was that by using elected representatives in these areas, there would be a tendency *NOT* to impose the minimum sentence where a more severe one would be appropriate.

I am sure most informed people can agree that Canada's 'justice' system is notoriously soft on our criminals, often at the expense of public safety.  Some criminals can not be rehabilitated and it is a fallacy to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jan 2006)

RN PRN,

Most users do a good job of trying to search, however the search button on the top right is @$%@ [IMO],  try an experiment, put the sherriff's last name in the "advanced search" located after hitting the search button somewhere in the middle of the top "tabs".........works waaaay better.

PS, I didn't  post the links with no text to show "a bad", just that I was on my way out to vote in the advance poll.......done!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jan 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> My point was that by using elected representatives in these areas, there would be a tendency *NOT* to impose the minimum sentence where a more severe one would be appropriate.



What credentials and/or evidence do you have to back up such a claim?  Not saying you're unqualified to comment, I would just be genuinely interested if this is only a gut reaction on your part or if it has some basis in scientific or statistical fact.


----------



## midgetcop (16 Jan 2006)

Well, it sounds all fine and dandy from an emotional, 'appeal-to-vengeance' type viewpoint. 

Is there any evidence that these implementations are successfully deterring would-be criminals?

I mean, we're not talking about minimum sentencing here. We're talking about prison conditions.


----------



## mo-litia (16 Jan 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> What credentials and/or evidence do you have to back up such a claim?  Not saying you're unqualified to comment, I would just be genuinely interested if this is only a gut reaction on your part or if it has some basis in scientific or statistical fact.



There is a plethora of evidence that suggests harsh prison conditions and tougher sentencing guidelines result in lower crime and recidivism rates.  To keep on track with the theme of this thread I was easily able to find that Sheriff Arpaio is responsible for a recidivism rate of 16 % at his 'tent city' jails.  This is in comparison to the national US average of about 85 %.

http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/24Seven/articles/113956/

Seems like the *ONLY* people complaining about this man's policies are criminal dirtbags, and bleeding heart liberals who would probably soil *THEIR* pink underwear if they were ever on the inside of a prison.  Sheriff Arpaio has got his priorities in line, *which is why he is so popular in his jurisdiction that he faced NO opponents in his second sherriff's election.*  

Obviously, with a high-profile police officer and the existing liberal-friendly media climate that exists today there has been some unflattering news gathered on Sheriff Arpaio and his policies.  In the intrests of keeping this debate objective, I'll provide links to two of the most well known anti-Sheriff Arpaio site on the net.  They are:

A website for 'Mothers Against Arpaio'.  It appears some women get upset when they realize that little Johnny's in a tough jail while nicely overlooking the fact why he's there in the first place-he's a bloody criminal!

http://www.mothersagainstarpaio.com/

And-I love this one-a site that's been on-line bashing Sheriff Arpaio since 1998.  If you'll look at the bottom right of the homepage, you'll realize that the site is nothing more than a platform for Arpaio's political opponents to try and get elected into Sheriff Arpaio's job.  (They failed.)

http://arpaio.com/

There is a lot of debate regarding this man, but I'll let you decide who to support; a hugely popular sheriff who drastically lowered crime and recidivism rates, or, those who believe in criminal's 'rights' so strongly they would tie our police officer's hands together and then stand back and laugh while the police try to do their jobs.  

I think I'll throw in my lot with the cops over the kind of people who would applaud Karla Holmoka's release at the end of her short sentence and call that justice.

Elected law enforcement is an very effective means of keeping crime down.  If the cop is a thud-%$@&, they'll be out on their *** in no time flat.   Of course, that's why we'll never see it in Canada; the politically correct left-wingers would have a collective conniption fit if their darling criminal 'wayward members of society' were to be subjected to something so 'brutal' as surplus meals (of the same nourishing type fed to the homeless) and **GASP  ** a chain gang where, by the fruit of their labours, they could actually contribute some of their otherwise worthless lives back into law-abiding society.

Thanks, Mikey-I've missed debating with you.  ^-^


----------



## xFusilier (16 Jan 2006)

When you compare the goings on in Arizona, to Corrections Canada, you also have to remember that you could be comparing apples to oranges.  I'm sure someone like Muskrat89 can correct me if I'm wrong but County gaol's in the US generally incarcerate those people convicted of petty crimes, although this probably varies from state to state.  Offenders in the Federal Corrections system have all been convicted of indictable offences.  I highly doubt that anyone is serving a long custodial sentence for a serious crime in the Maricopa County Digger.

I would be interested to see the recidivism rates for individuals that have been in such a custodial arrangement.  I futher doubt that such an arragement would be considered constitutional in Canada.

In the intereset of providing some balance to this debate I give you the following http://www.arpaio.com/, as with all other things on the Al Gore designed internet, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Jan 2006)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see the recidivism rates for individuals that have been in such a custodial arrangement.  I futher doubt that such an arragement would be considered constitutional in Canada.



Is that opinion based on anything?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jan 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Thanks, Mikey-I've missed debating with you.  ^-^



Nothing to debate, really, just looking for some sources - you've provided some good ones, for which I thank you.  I know recidivism is lower still in military prisons, but I always thought that was a statistical fluke because some guys get out altogether after a serious charge...hence no chance to reoffend....


----------



## Phillman (16 Jan 2006)

Just remember one thing: A person is sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. It is believed that taking away someone's freedom is enough punishment.


----------



## mo-litia (16 Jan 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Nothing to debate, really, just looking for some sources - you've provided some good ones, for which I thank you.  I know recidivism is lower still in military prisons, but I always thought that was a statistical fluke because some guys get out altogether after a serious charge...hence no chance to reoffend....



I'm in agreement with you on this.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Jan 2006)

Phillman said:
			
		

> Just remember one thing: A person is sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. It is believed that taking away someone's freedom is enough punishment.



Beleived by whom?

And what freedoms?

And where are you getting this information from?


----------



## mo-litia (16 Jan 2006)

Phillman said:
			
		

> Just remember one thing: A person is sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. It is believed that taking away someone's freedom is enough punishment.



Yes and no; losing one's freedom would be bad, I'll be the first to agree with you on that.  But when you have a prison system that is so soft that it provides many of the inmates in it with a higher standard of living-and in Canada's case, a guard staff that is hobbled by political directives-much of the incentive to avoid returning to prison is negated.

I don't think inmates should be chained to a wall in a dungeon for the duration of their sentences.  I do believe that every attempt should be made to assist prisoners in a successful transition back into society.  What I *do not* agree with is pampering these criminals to the point that when they are faced with the challenges of real life that they start to long for the comfort and familiarity of life in prison.


----------



## xFusilier (16 Jan 2006)

> Is that opinion based on anything?



s.12 of the Charter


----------



## Fraser.g (16 Jan 2006)

According to the Charter 

"(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and 
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. "

6.(2)a)

and 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada 

This can be infringed on when a member is incarcerated for going against society. 
Why can't others be infringed on in the same way such as:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Who says that Cable TV, BBQs, access to a law library, internet are "rights" that must be upheld in our correctional facilities.

IMHO If you make the experience distasteful, there will be a lesser desire by the population to return once released.


----------



## xFusilier (16 Jan 2006)

Considering that minimum sentences, were ruled to be unconstitutional (prohibition of cruel and inhuman punishment) it is highly doubtful that the courts would uphold the practice of requiring inmates to live in tents, wear pink and eat baloney sandwiches.  You may make prison as distasteful as posible, but remember that all inmates have right of redress to the courts, and there are any number of lawers whom I'd hazzard to guess would love to argue this one to the supreme court.


----------



## midgetcop (16 Jan 2006)

RN PRN said:
			
		

> Who says that Cable TV, BBQs, access to a law library, internet are "rights" that must be upheld in our correctional facilities.



I don't think anyone has claimed that those were constitutional rights, but rather the other extreme posed by Sherriff Arpaio might be a problem. 

IMHO there needs to be something in between.


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Jan 2006)

I was always under the impression that many of the concessions made to inmates (TV, internet, etc) were, in part, an attempt to create an environment more easily controlled and less violent. I'd be interested to see the figures on intra-prison crime, especially violent crime, in Canada's system vs. that of the US. 

I wouldn't mind Bruce's input on the idea (IE better living conditions = more easily/less violently managed inmates). From what I understand (taken from a convict friend's point of view, not a guard's, mind you), the prisoners have a substantial amount of input on matters within the prison. Again, maybe he was way out to lunch in his interpretation, which is why I'd like to hear from Bruce.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Jan 2006)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Considering that minimum sentences, were ruled to be unconstitutional (prohibition of cruel and inhuman punishment) it is highly doubtful that the courts would uphold the practice of requiring inmates to live in tents, wear pink and eat baloney sandwiches.  You may make prison as distasteful as posible, but remember that all inmates have right of redress to the courts, and there are any number of lawers whom I'd hazzard to guess would love to argue this one to the supreme court.



What the hell?  Living in Mod-tents and eating mass-produced tasteless food is considered "cruel and unusual punishment"?  Dude.  I'm SO suing the army....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jan 2006)

I don't have a whole lot of time tonight, but Ape is essentially correct. Since the days of floggin' and beancake are over, there needs to be someway to have control, and that would be the "extras" of which people speak.
Remember inmates "run" a jail, which is to say that without a mutual consent nothing can get done
[ cleaning, food preparation, etc]. We may have the "final" say, however the "final" option is always man, time and money consuming.....

And as for saying make them work, just what does one do when they say "hoop your forehead"?

A question for those whom have attended or worked in the DB,...what happens when a resident says "no"?


----------



## xFusilier (16 Jan 2006)

> What the hell?  Living in Mod-tents and eating mass-produced tasteless food is considered "cruel and unusual punishment"?  Dude.  I'm SO suing the army....



Good luck with that, why not make it a class action suit, I'll sign up if you pay for the lawyer.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I don't have a whole lot of time tonight, but Ape is essentially correct. Since the days of floggin' and beancake are over, there needs to be someway to have control, and that would be the "extras" of which people speak.
> Remember inmates "run" a jail, which is to say that without a mutual consent nothing can get done
> [ cleaning, food preparation, etc]. We may have the "final" say, however the "final" option is always man, time and money consuming.....
> 
> ...



I haven't heard the term "hoop" in that context in a looooong looooong time (since last speaking with the aforementioned convict). It must be a prison thing... 

Would you agree that a more comfortable prison is a safer environment for corrections workers? What's your view on the no-smoking regulation? I remember being able to smoke in the outside visitors area (though it was a minimum security prison) - is that gone now too?


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Jan 2006)

I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but....who is generally better behaved:  a child that is given every luxury, and has no responsibilities, or a child given the bare necessities, and the opportunity to earn rewards through hard work and responsible conduct?

Bruce, when they say "No", you should have a system in place to deal with it.  Solitary confinement seems like an idea.  Modifications to their diet would be another.  And then there's always group punishment.  One guy doesn't want to work?  NOBODY gets to watch TV.  See how soon he changes his mind.

And yes, I know that those things wouldn't be allowed under our current system.  The system needs to change.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jan 2006)

48th,
I really can't speak for the federal system [ nor would I want to] but all those things you speak about happen in the Provincial system. Thats why the average inmate would rather get 5 years than 2 years less a day....easier "time" and a get out sooner card...

Ape,
Yes these things make life MUCH easier for the staff....we don't call it TV, we call it "the babysitter"....

and as for the solitary confinement thing, most of these guys are anti-social to start with and so all that does is leave them alone with the person they love the most [ and most often ;D]. Remember the mandate of Corrections is just that, correction, .......however hand tied that unfortunately leaves us.


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> and as for the solitary confinement thing, most of these guys are anti-social to start with and so all that does is leave them alone with the person they love the most [ and most often ;D]. Remember the mandate of Corrections is just that, correction, .......however hand tied that unfortunately leaves us.



Is that "solitary confinement" as in "hey, guess what, you don't have to get out of bed today", or are we talking solitary confinement as in 3 weeks in a dark hole-in-the-ground of a cell, with only bread, water, and a couple vitamin tablets for a meal?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2006)

The former....


----------



## Fraser.g (18 Jan 2006)

Again we go back to the fact that if it is unpleasant then they will not want to do it.
If they (the prisoners) view solitary as a sleep over then make it miserable for them. I am not talking about physical or mental torture but simply not a happy place to be. 
Then it becomes a deterrent and not a "time out".
How about Humid... or dry...or dark...or light...or no furniture....or no contact

there are tons of things that can be done to make the most aesthetically pleasing environment not desirable. I am sure that those who have been to the DB can come up with a few. 

Getting back on the DB principal, I believe that that environment is so uncomfortable for those who are sentenced to it that there is only a few miscreants that would value their own behavior over a re-sentence. 
For those who I have talked to who have gone through it they wear it as a badge of pride but at the same time say "no F..in way am I ever going back there"
If it works, lets give it a try in a broader context. It can hardly be worse than what we have now.
GF


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2006)

Sorry guys, but the DB thing is apples to oranges......you cannot compare a SOLDIER who either just lost his way or his cool to a life-long trashbag who aspires to be nothing more than a larger trashbag.


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Sorry guys, but the DB thing is apples to oranges......you cannot compare a SOLDIER who either just lost his way or his cool to a life-long trashbag who aspires to be nothing more than a larger trashbag.



Agreed, but the rest of his points are still valid.  If you want to be able to control their behaviour in civvie jails, you have to have the ability to make their lives miserable.  It's the carrot and stick approach.  When they behave well, you give them TV, and an exercise room, a library, whatever.  I'm not opposed to giving them a few perks, as long as they're reasonable.  But when they misbehave, you can't just take away the carrot.  You gotta bring in the stick!  Otherwise they'll just continue telling you to "hoop your forehead"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2006)

Trust me, that happens in the Ontario system.

I see no one has answered the question of what happens when a "resident" of DB says that "you can kiss my @#$, I'm just going to sit here for 20 days, do something about it".


----------



## Steel Badger (19 Jan 2006)

48th et al....

It is the " controlling of behaviour " which is at issue here.

Line Officers ( In the Ontario Provincial System)  can do little to control inmate behaviour for a number of reasons including lack of adequate staffing levels, shortage of appropriate segregation areas within the institution and a seeming lack of will at the highest levels to enforce the Ministry of Correctional Services Act in regards to the discipline of inmates.......especially where it concerns violence against other inmates and / or Staff.

Society as presently constituted deems it "appropriate" for the inmate population to retain their "rights" to TV etc and so they do. The same society deems it appropriate for offenders to be housed 3 to a cell  ...the third inmate on a mattress on the floor next to the toilet........

Cries of "Damn right to" and " Thats the stuff....stick it to the *&^%^&* " fail to acknowledge the difficulty a situation like the above poses on the unarmed and outnumbred officers.  Good C.O.'s can persuade the dead to rise, and with good reason......most often talking is the best and only weapon we have.....

Especially now that any use of force ( our other persuasive tool ) is scrutinized minutely "to protect the rights of the inmate"....

Our inmates are not afraid to use violence........and they feel NO remorse about doing so......because it is the communication tool they understand...

We are required to intervene when they fight each other ....by that I mean break up fights that are increasingly 3 or more on one.....and we then become targets....

That is the job...and we accept it........what we have difficulty with is the " inmate-centric" view-point held by the goverment and the General Public...



But what the hell do I know.....I am just a  knuckle dragging gahrd....


----------

