# Oh dear God, you must be kidding me....



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Jul 2007)

I've read of some absolutely assinine programs over the years, but this may take the cake.

Anyone who doesn't think we need to de-Liberal the bureaucracies of this country is simply not paying attention.


Matthew.   



> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/07/01/4304724-sun.html
> 
> Young offenders offered top treatment
> Fed program earmarks big bucks for 24 of this country's worst young offenders
> ...


----------



## armyvern (1 Jul 2007)

This just makes me want to vomit. It only goes to affirm in my mind that troubled youth (and their _'rehabilitation programs'_) aren't the only thing wrong in our system today ... but the fact that there's obviously some very troubled adults out there granting and approving this bullshit for them.


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (1 Jul 2007)

What the hell? Who thought this up?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jul 2007)

Tip o' the iceberg...............


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 Jul 2007)

Hmm, and to think my biggest life decision was to reply to my college acceptance letter or to say "yes" to the recruiting center that called the same day.  Either case involved hard work and no free ride!!

Somedays I wish I could work for a different group of politicians...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2007)

> In return for accepting treatment  for their mental issues, serious violent offenders  can escape adult prison and do easy time instead in a youth facility, like Ontario's Sprucedale, while taxpayers spend $100,375 per inmate for academic courses, counselling, "life skills" and reintegration.



OK, OK, I understand there are big league medical-ethics questions with forcing people to 'accept' treatment but these sh!t pumps are prisoners.  If they, in all their well established maturity, decide to reject treatment then chain 'em all to the walls, feed 'em slops and let 'em out when hell is nicely frozen over.

I said elsewhere I don't favour prison time for most white-collar criminals - for violent offenders, on the other hand, I favour nothing but jail.  Lock 'em up, for very, _very_, *very* long times, stop worrying about 'em (or their parents' family visit 'rights') and get on with sweeping the trash (human and inanimate) off the streets.


----------



## teddybear (1 Jul 2007)

Maybe if we make youth "prisons" a place of punishment, then we just might not see them reoffending again as adults - committing much more violent crimes. Who the hell thought up a reward system for criminals? Wouldn't you want to reoffend just to get back into someplace with all the luxuries like video games on big screens? And then we wonder what this world is coming to???


----------



## armyvern (1 Jul 2007)

teddybear said:
			
		

> Maybe if we make youth "prisons" a place of punishment, then we just might not see them reoffending again as adults - committing much more violent crimes. Who the hell thought up a reward system for criminals? Wouldn't you want to reoffend just to get back into someplace with all the luxuries like video games on big screens? And then we wonder what this world is coming to???



You see teddybear, you have common sense. Some decision-making adults obviously do not.

Who'd have thunk it?? Actually punishing people when they do something wrong ... 

It's a pretty sad state out there...


----------



## Steel Badger (1 Jul 2007)

Like Bruce says......  The Tip of  very VERY large 'berg....


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, OK, I understand there are big league medical-ethics questions with forcing people to 'accept' treatment but these sh!t pumps are prisoners.  If they, in all their well established maturity, decide to reject treatment then chain 'em all to the walls, feed 'em slops and let 'em out when hell is nicely frozen over.
> 
> I said elsewhere I don't favour prison time for most white-collar criminals - for violent offenders, on the other hand, I favour nothing but jail.  Lock 'em up, for very, _very_, *very* long times, stop worrying about 'em (or their parents' family visit 'rights') and get on with sweeping the trash (human and inanimate) off the streets.



There used to be lovely old sentence:  "Detained at the Queen's Pleasure".   You were released when the Queen (or her agents the Government) saw fit.  You had to prove that you were fit to rejoin society.  It was used for criminals in prisons and in Institutes for the Criminally Insane.

Where did the Good Old Days go?


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2007)

You want a rehabilitation program to get their heads back in gear? How about an "Outward Bound" type program somewhere in the high arctic so they learn and understand concepts like looking out for others (or you'll starve/freeze to death)? At least a graduate of _my_ rehab will be able to do more than "talk the talk", and the fact they are there in person at the end will be the proof that it worked.

Of course, that is only some utopian speculation..........


----------



## sdimock (2 Jul 2007)

a_majoor

You should put a proposal together and apply for a billion dollars, it would be a better use of the money.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (2 Jul 2007)

I agree. The system is broken. This is a prime example, but its not just this.

We need to figure what we are willing to spend money on and what we are trying to do.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (3 Jul 2007)

Its a clear message to criminals in this country that "crime does pay".

I wish we would go to a prison system like the US has, brutal, uncompromising and unfettered by political BS. You walk in , but you may never walk out. And bring back the death penalty for violent crimes. 

Our prisons are run like Holiday Inns compared to the US. Prisoners in Canada have more rights than their victims.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jul 2007)

All that wasted space on Hans Island, too.  What a wonderful gulag that would make.


----------



## rz350 (4 Jul 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Its a clear message to criminals in this country that "crime does pay".
> 
> I wish we would go to a prison system like the US has, brutal, uncompromising and unfettered by political BS. You walk in , but you may never walk out. And bring back the death penalty for violent crimes.
> 
> Our prisons are run like Holiday Inns compared to the US. Prisoners in Canada have more rights than their victims.



Why stop there? Why dont we imitate all the countries all you right wingers love to put down on this site, we can go USSR/Russian style, or Chinese style or North Korean style, or Syria, or Iran style.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Jul 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> Why stop there? Why dont we imitate all the countries all you right wingers love to put down on this site, we can go USSR/Russian style, or Chinese style or North Korean style, or Syria, or Iran style.



Yes....because we all know that right wing ideology in the criminal justice system is the fundamental reason we're having the problems described, right?


Matthew.    :


----------



## midget-boyd91 (4 Jul 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> Why stop there? Why dont we imitate all the countries all you right wingers love to put down on this site, we can go USSR/Russian style, or Chinese style or North Korean style, or Syria, or Iran style.



I hardly think that criticizing the prison system in Canada as being too soft warrants to have that said. Prisoners are in prison for a reason. Some don't deserve to be treated the way other prisoners should be  --- A man who doesn't pay taxes shouldn't be put into the same system as a serial killer, and everyone knows that. But saying that our system is too soft on violent criminals doesn't deserve to have that thrown at it.
We all know that prisons in Syria and Iran are brutal and torture is common amongst criminals, but wanting a violent criminal in prison to have a hard life while in prison doesn't mean torture.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> Why stop there? Why dont we imitate all the countries all you right wingers love to put down on this site, we can go USSR/Russian style, or Chinese style or North Korean style, or Syria, or Iran style.



Well, we have a North Korean style rationed health care system and we're really proud of that, maybe their prison system is equally 'good.'

And, while we're at it: what is the recidivism rate in China?


----------



## rz350 (4 Jul 2007)

My point is, the US system is not the best. I dont think a 18yo who shags his 17 yo girlfriend needs 10 years in a texas pen.

I would advocate harder on violence and sexual( as in rape or real peadophilia..not 17 and 18 year olds) criminals, but not a full fledged USA prison system with YEARS in prison for smoking pot or tax fraud on a personal level.


----------



## englishmuffin (4 Jul 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, while we're at it: what is the recidivism rate in China?


Low...although I'd hazard a guess not a lot of people walk out of prison there in the first place.


----------



## Yrys (4 Jul 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, while we're at it: what is the recidivism rate in China?



It may be an interesting fact to know, but Canadians will never go for their justice system, so it's not applicable here...


----------



## Sheerin (9 Jul 2007)

While I may not agree with some of the treatment these offenders are receiving, I do find myself wondering how you guys seriously expect certain offenders to successfully re intergrate into society once their prison term is up?  Unless of course you're advocating that we just throw away the key for everyone?

This could be the bleeding heart liberal in me, but how likely is it for a kid or young adult to get out of prison without any qualifications to find a job that will actually support them?  it's not like working at McDonald's will earn anyone enough to survive.  So if those who have done their time can't successfully re intergrate, what else is there other than a life of crime?


----------



## Steel Badger (9 Jul 2007)

Once upon a time at the Guelph Correctional Centre, there were a lot of training programs that offered an inmate something on release. But those programs were seen as a waste of taxpayer dollars and resulted in outraged complaints from local businesses / tradesmen who wanted to know why we trained inmates to repair engines or work autobody, or weld.   

A man with prospects at least has a chance when he hits the streets........

As for the Young Offender system being designed to re-integrate the youths back into society...it does. It leaves them in precisely the same state they arrived in. It does NOT reform or correct because there are NO sanctions at all.

Focussing on reintegration aloows people to ignore the critical issue of RUNNING institutions. Most of our clientele does NOT wish to reintegrate. They feel that THEY have chosen the correct path in life.

Using kid gloves on most of our clients is counterproductive to say the least.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jul 2007)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> While I may not agree with some of the treatment these offenders are receiving, I do find myself wondering how you guys seriously expect certain offenders to successfully re intergrate into society once their prison term is up?  Unless of course you're advocating that we just throw away the key for everyone?
> 
> This could be the bleeding heart liberal in me, but how likely is it for a kid or young adult to get out of prison without any qualifications to find a job that will actually support them?  it's not like working at McDonald's will earn anyone enough to survive.  So if those who have done their time can't successfully re intergrate, what else is there other than a life of crime?



BULLSHIT!!!!!!

There are lots of good honest people out there with no qualifications who make a go of it. Why the $&@# should Joe Honest who works two jobs to support himself/family be put furthur behind the 8-ball because some piece of shit low-life learned how to weld or fix small engines whilst serving time for raping your sister?

%#@*, we are a stunned society.


----------



## Sheerin (9 Jul 2007)

> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> There are lots of good honest people out there with no qualifications who make a go of it. Why the $&@# should Joe Honest who works two jobs to support himself/family be put furthur behind the 8-ball because some piece of crap low-life learned how to weld or fix small engines whilst serving time for raping your sister?
> 
> %#@*, we are a stunned society.



Well times are changing there Bruce.  The number of unskilled jobs that actually pay a liveable wage drying up quickly.  Unless you be live making 8 dollars an hour as a walmart greeter provides a liveable income?  

Your fear mongering doesn't really help your point.  I would personally love it if a dirt bag who raped my nonexistent little sister (lets change that to niece) was never given the opportunity to breath free air again.  I was more speaking of people who, thanks to some piss poor choices on their part, end up in engaging some form of criminal activity (excluding rape, murder, child porn et cetera et cetera).  Can you honestly tell me that someone who leaves prison with a grade 10 education (at best!), is likely to find any sort legitimate job that will actually allow this individual to thrive as a productive member of society?  I'm not saying that we are responsible for their actions, what I am saying is that while we are punishing those who commit crimes, we should also do our best to ensure that they won't re offend.  A lot of you will point to history and say that the punishment 150 years ago was harsh and as such there was a low rat eof reoffense.  But what you're omitting is that the economy was totally different back then.  You could survive with just your two hands and muscles, now, not so much. 

To give you an example, DOFASCO in Hamilton used to hire just about anyone to work in the factory, now the minimum qualification is a university degree.  Same goes for other factories which historically have only required very rudimentary education.  Times are a changing


----------



## Munxcub (9 Jul 2007)

Well if they can't find a livable job with a grade 10, ex-con background, maybe they should have made better choices. I don't have much sympathy for someone who chose to live outsides the boundaries of responsible  society and then cries when they are no longer accepted. You made your bed, now lie in it, not my problem that yours happens to be outside, while mine is under a roof. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACCOUNTABILITY is just that, personal. I took responsibility for my life a long time ago, I guess it's too much to ask that others do the same. </rant>


----------



## beands (9 Jul 2007)

In my opinion, our prison system should go bare bones.
No TV/internet, no couches, no prestige meals, no workout equipment, no anything.
If you rape/murder/(insert other violent crime here), then you need to be given the time appropriate for the crime, and nothing but 8 by 10 cell, alone without even a book or paper to write on. Much like when you were grounded as kid, alone to think about what you had done. Nothing but time to THINK. 
Only rice/noodles for meals, and ground beef. The only time out of cell would be for laundry, or bathing or cleaning some part of the prison. 

For nonviolent crimes, pot smoking/tax/computer fraud/etc, an appropriate fine or house arrest.

We spend way too much on giving these people luxuries the average Joe can't normally afford. Society works damn hard for the television, and even harder to get the better cable/satelite and nevermind the furnishings to enjoy it with. Even at home we Have to work for our meals. Nobody cooks me steak and potatoes every Friday, and washes the dishes for me too. I cook my own meals and the nice meals are fewer and farther between than what criminals get. 
And now young offenders get copious amounts of money for the crap they don't deserve or at least earn? 
Why do taxpayers have less creature comforts then criminals?
Not to mention honest Joe to get a mortgage, doesn't have the credit, can maybe get $100 000 in a market where the average is $400 000, and the lowest  available is $230 000. Meanwhile rapist pigface gets set up in a place with ultra minimum rent, set up with welfare program for released inmates, help to get a job and the whole bit. 
No requirement to earn or learn, just open your hands and catch everything you need. 

And we wonder WHY are there so many repeat offenders. 

End rant here, I have to go to work so I can make supper, pay my taxes, bills and overpriced rent.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jul 2007)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Can you honestly tell me that someone who leaves prison with a grade 10 education (at best!), is likely to find any sort legitimate job that will actually allow this individual to thrive as a productive member of society?



Well I had 11 credits,...not even Grade 10, when I left and well................I like me!!!


...and they reoffend because they WANT to, its easier than actually working.


----------



## Scott (9 Jul 2007)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> While I may not agree with some of the treatment these offenders are receiving, I do find myself wondering how you guys seriously expect certain offenders to successfully re intergrate into society once their prison term is up?



The same way most of us have integrated ourselves into society all on our lonesome.



> This could be the bleeding heart liberal in me



Agreed.



> but how likely is it for a kid or young adult to get out of prison without any qualifications to find a job that will actually support them?



Again, the same way the rest of us do. They may find it harder and they bloody well should.

I know a few guys who stepped into it big time when they were kids and were never given the "benefits" that we are talking about here. They now lead the same productive lives that you are talking about. How did they do it? They put their nose down and earned it. 



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well I had 11 credits,...not even Grade 10, when I left and well................I like me!!!
> 
> 
> ...and they reoffend because they WANT to, its easier than actually working.



Yup! + a bunch.


----------



## beands (9 Jul 2007)

I guess I should have added there are those who actually gain from their punishment, and not in the sence they get a free education. Some get the desire NOT to go back. 
I just feel they are given too many free rides and handouts while the good guy has to work his butt off to scrounge up a half-a**ed living, while paying for crooked joe to get most everything he ever dreamed of.


----------



## Sheerin (12 Jul 2007)

Well some of you may misunderstand what I mean.  I personally don't believe that Prison should be a cake walk; they shouldn't be able to watch TV, movies, play pool or the like.  The food shouldn't be good, it should be nutritionally adequate (I'm thinking some form of paste that has all the nutrients, minerals, salts the body needs).  
As for education, yes I firmly believe they should have access to an education, particularly young offenders.  Like i said above it is quite difficult, if not downright impossible to find any job that will pay enough to support any one without some form of education.  Some of you may point to people you know (or yourself) and say "well I don't have a formal education but I did pretty damned well for myself", well I would venture to say people like that are the exception rather than the rule.  If we release people at the end of their prison sentence with out the tools required to succeed in today's economy then we are releasing them with the expectation that they will fail and choose/be forced back into a life of crime.  Afterall, isn't one of the goals of incarceration is to rehabilitate the offender?    
 If given the choice between earning 15,000/year while working 40 hours a week as a burger flipper or wal-mart greeter  or making 40-60k a year without paying taxes through crime, what would you choose?  Is it any wonder that some people choose crime?  Perhaps if we educated them to the point that they could make a middle class income then some/most of those in the system would upon their release, live a hard working, law abiding life?  



I also firmly believe that post secondary education should be free for all those that wish to persue it (but that's really a different topic).


----------



## Scott (12 Jul 2007)

So it's OK to feed them groule but we can shell out thousands so that Johnny can make a guitar because that expands his knowledge? Where does it stop?

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, these guys would have had the chance to get that nice job you speak of if they hadn't frigged up in the first place? So now, because criminals find it hard to find employment I should shell out more money on their education to make them more employable so they don't return to a life of crime? It's my fault, right?



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> If we release people at the end of their prison sentence with out the tools required to succeed in today's economy then we are releasing them with the expectation that they will fail and choose/be *forced* back into a life of crime.



You have got to be joking. I am holding back saying what I really think here as it will clearly spell out what I think of your level of intelligence after that remark.



> If given the choice between earning 15,000/year while working 40 hours a week as a burger flipper or wal-mart greeter  or making 40-60k a year without paying taxes through crime, what would you choose?  Is it any wonder that some people choose crime?



Sweet Chocolate Christ! You're right! To hell with the firefighting biz and this Army.ca crap, I am going out to knock over the nearest Mac's! We must all be stupid, paying taxes, EI, CPP, paying for gas, groceries, meals...hell, I had breakfast out this morning and tipped 20%, GOOD GOD!

You know, I do see your point, but I hall never agree.


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

Well the thing is though, aren't we better off if we rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated and then re-integrate them into society. As much as I think we are too lenient on criminals that are serving time in prison, I think to say that they made a bad choice thus they should be confined to flipping hamburgers or working as a Wal Mart greeter is somewhat puerile. I would prefer our prison system to be based on the idea that in order to get anything one should have to earn it, whether it be through good behavior, or working, etc. If a prisoner is making steps towards bettering himself I wouldn't have a problem having him get his high school diploma or a trade while in prison so he can work at a decent job after serving his time.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jul 2007)

Yea Sheerin,
I guess the two PHD's on my unit will stop molesting their nieces if they get some more education........

Folks,
rehabilitate 

Is the biggest con game society plays on itself......................its greed, greed and more greed.  Its not poverty, its not some oft wiring [mostly], its not lack of education,.......ITS GREED. 


Using Sigs Guy and Sheerins philosophy, this guy is a model citizen, no?  If not maybe some more education might help?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/06/27/lafleur-sponsorhip.html?ref=rss


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jul 2007)

Accepting, as I do, that a whole lot of people are just plain *bad*, and recognizing that I may come off as a loony left wing nut, I do have a *theory* about crime and punishment.  It’s a theory based on nothing much except ‘thought.’  I have neither formal training nor experience in law, law enforcement, corrections, rehabilitation or anything else – beyond what one learns from years and years of regimental duty up to and including command.

I think most criminals are stupid.*

Most reasonably smart or even slightly intelligent people understand that crime does not pay, not as well as a half decent job anyway.  Most also understand, even if they don’t like the fact, that education is the key to that good job.  I have read that prisons are full of the least educated Canadians.

I also think that some (much?) of our school system does little except prepare many children, especially boys and especially aboriginal boys and boys from some (but not all) visible minority communities for socio-economic failure, crime and prison.

Too many boys ‘graduate’ from some level of high school without elementary literacy, numeracy or what our American friends call ‘civics.’   We ought not to be surprised that they cannot get a half decent job – who wants to hire a kind who cannot read or handle a waybill or who does not comprehend how an honest, hard working society functions?  These same children are also exposed – overexposed – to a constant stream of sound and image which glorifies the gangster/drug dealer/pimp lifestyle with all its _bling-bling_, big cars, fast women and easy money.  Why are we even slightly surprised when they want what they see on TV?  Why are we surprised when, being unemployable, they turn to crime to get what they want?

How to fix it?

Keep them in school, but, *big  BUT* make them learn in school.

How?

First: feed them.  Teachers have told me that many schools in Canada’s richest cities are full of children, boys and girls, who have a hard time learning anything because they are hungry – every morning when they arrive in school.  I believe it costs something like $75,000 per year – likely more – to incarcerate an offender.  I think we can provide 10 good solid meals per week, 40 weeks per year, year after year for about $2,500.00/year – in other words we can feed 30 kids for a year for the cost of keeping just one of them in jail.  It must be worth it.

Second: While we’re at it we should also insist upon school uniforms to help damp down the style and gang ‘cultures’ and we can also provide free uniforms to children from poor families (through a combination of vouchers (for all) and tax claw backs). 

Third: Stop passing kids, grade after grade just because they aged a year and grew an inch.  Provide ‘streams’ and more vocational schools and programmes.  Get e.g. the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce involved in education *standards* – they *know* what a real ‘elementary’ education ought to involve.  They know what a kid ‘must know’ to get a hold a half decent job.  Let them set real, practical, *measurable* performance standards and then let the _educrats_ in Edmonton, Toronto, Halifax etc develop curricula and so on which will allow most children to meet them.  (Also, let universities and colleges set and mark their own entrance exams and let the _educrats_ design curricula for that, too.)

Let’s aim at diverting some kids away from crime and towards productive, honest citizenship.  It will not take very many success stories to pay for the programmes. 

-----------
* I’m happy to stipulate that some, a few are ‘smart’ and a small group, even fewer are actually intelligent . 


P.S. I also favour corporal punishment - *public* corporal punishment - for a wide range of *adult* offences, including, in some cases, as an alternative to jail.


----------



## Sheerin (12 Jul 2007)

> So it's OK to feed them groule but we can shell out thousands so that Johnny can make a guitar because that expands his knowledge? Where does it stop?
> 
> Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, these guys would have had the chance to get that nice job you speak of if they hadn't frigged up in the first place? So now, because criminals find it hard to find employment I should shell out more money on their education to make them more employable so they don't return to a life of crime? It's my fault, right?



Well first of all, I never really said it was societies fault that they're in prison.  And from what the story said, it sounded like they gave him the wood for reasons other than educational.  Again, I don't agree with that.  
As for the money, I'm sure they could save money by not buying TVs and other amenities.



> You have got to be joking. I am holding back saying what I really think here as it will clearly spell out what I think of your level of intelligence after that remark.



Why is it okay for Directing Staff to belittle someone's intelligence because they don't agree with they said?  



> Sweet Chocolate Christ! You're right! To hell with the firefighting biz and this Army.ca crap, I am going out to knock over the nearest Mac's! We must all be stupid, paying taxes, EI, CPP, paying for gas, groceries, meals...hell, I had breakfast out this morning and tipped 20%, GOOD GOD!
> 
> You know, I do see your point, but I hall never agree.



To some people thats a perfectly reasonable alternative, to me it most certainly is not.  
As for your last comment, i'm not sure if meant that to be sarcastic or not.  




> Yea Sheerin,
> I guess the two PHD's on my unit will stop molesting their nieces if they get some more education........



Did you even read what I said or are you just choosing to ignore it and make smart ass remarks?  

You can't really equate a sexual crime with a kid knocking over a 7-11 or getting involved in gangs, or what have you.


----------



## Scott (12 Jul 2007)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Why is it okay for Directing Staff to belittle someone's intelligence because they don't agree with they said?



Get this straight, I am posting in this thread as a member of this site, not as Staff, do not bring that into the equation, please. Full stop.

Belittling? No. Questioning. You said that criminals can be "*forced* back into a life of crime", I find that laughable and would question the intelligence of anyone making such an asinine statement.



> As for your last comment, i'm not sure if meant that to be sarcastic or not.



Actually, I did see your point. I don't agree with it but can figure out where you're coming from.

But now I am confused. Which is the reasonable alternative that you refer to?


----------



## Sheerin (12 Jul 2007)

> Belittling? No. Questioning. You said that criminals can be "forced back into a life of crime", I find that laughable and would question the intelligence of anyone making such an asinine statement.



Forced as in an individual may feel that there is no other alternative.  It doesn't really matter if you or I see an alternative, if they don't then they may feel forced.  I was not suggesting that the state was actively forcing them into crime for some sinister purpose.  


> But now I am confused. Which is the reasonable alternative that you refer to?



It's not reasonable to us, but to some it may seem a reasonable alternative to turn to crime of regular legal work doesn't actually provide a livable wage.  Its all based on perspective.  You and I share a common perspective in that crime is not a reasonable alternative, but to someone else it may be. 



> Get this straight, I am posting in this thread as a member of this site, not as Staff, do not bring that into the equation, please. Full stop.



Well considering your user name has 'moderator' written quite prominently above your name, it's hard to distinguish between when you're a regular member and when you're a moderator.


----------



## Munxcub (13 Jul 2007)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> It's not reasonable to us, but to some it may seem a reasonable alternative to turn to crime of regular legal work doesn't actually provide a livable wage.  Its all based on perspective.  You and I share a common perspective in that crime is not a reasonable alternative, but to someone else it may be.



And if they continue to see crime as a reasonable alternative, as opposed to getting a legit job and living within the means that it provides (it IS possible... you just need to give some stuff up...) That they are not ready to be let back out into society, and if they never see crime as an unacceptable means of living then I guess they never get to reintegrate into society...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Jul 2007)

Criminal sentencing is lockstep with conditioned response.  Sentencing is pathetic and soft, thus being a criminal is easy and encouraged.  
The solution is simple. 
Make prison brutal and crushing.  Hard labour, zero protein meals, gulag style conditions.  For a person who has a short sentence, they will have to endure the most horrific event of their lives.  By and large, this should encourage them to get their shit together.  
For the imbecile that can't learn, they will emerge from prison physically shattered and mentally crushed.  Perhaps they will even kill themselves.  I'm okay with that.  I'm also okay with wasting my tax money on them when they have to go on permanent disability, because that will still be cheaper than the bullshit system we have now.  Part of that disability cheque would require them to ingest medication to dampen their evil broken minds, to ensure they are mush heads until the day they expire.  
However, too many candy asses need to lay their self righteous massive heads on their massive pillows at night and convince themselves that they are so much more pure and pious than the rest of us unwashed hordes, these things will not come to pass.  
But a guy can dream, right?


----------



## Munxcub (13 Jul 2007)

+1 zip... hell +10


----------



## Pikache (14 Jul 2007)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Well considering your user name has 'moderator' written quite prominently above your name, it's hard to distinguish between when you're a regular member and when you're a moderator.


General rule of thumb is that any post made by a mod in the DS mode will have some sort of end sentence like 'Directing Staff' or something to that effect to clearly distinguish themselves when in the 'Staff mode'. 

For most part, the mods are just regular members who from time to time wear the Moderator cape to fight the evil trolls and whatnot.


----------



## CE621 (14 Jul 2007)

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction........or should be.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2007)

I don't think imprisonment needs to be unnecessarily harsh.  If all prisons were run like detention barracks it would probably be good enough - every day a busy and regimented one.


----------



## Steel Badger (15 Jul 2007)

To the social workers currently running Ontario's Coreectional Services, the DB concept is unacceptably harsh and draconian. our pampered clientele apparently require and deserve softer treatment.....


Drives ya to drink it does......


----------



## FastEddy (15 Jul 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't think imprisonment needs to be unnecessarily harsh.  If all prisons were run like detention barracks it would probably be good enough - every day a busy and regimented one.




After reading all 4 pages, I am most heartened to find that I have not been marching to a different Drummer.

As for "Brad Sallows" suggestion, if he is referring to a style Incorporated during 1950-60, I would fully agree.

And "Zipperheadcop" couldn't have voiced it more clearly.

And one of the few good things to come out of France was Devils Island and the Judges sentencing remarks, "You are no good to yourself, You are no good to Society, You are no good to France". Yes you say, and then they abolished it, yeah ! and that really seems to have done them a lot of good.

And it wouldn't even require sending them to a nice warm climate. We have plenty of room in the far North.
Escape, In the Summer if the Heat, Blackflys or Wolves don't kill you then Starvation will. As for the Artic Winters, I'll leave that to your imagenations.

These Camps would be populated by all of and only the Scum who Rape, Murder, Use Weapons in the Commission of their Crimes, Who offer Brutality and Violence to their Victims, Drug Pushers & Importers and Child Molesters. This Group being Class 1. (we'd soon see how profitable Drugs are) the minimum sentence would be ten years straight and hardtime. More depending on the Crime. 

These Camps would be economically self supporting with only the barest of supplies provided and the Guards only provided to stop them from killing each other and admin. If after ten years of this Hell and they would take the chance of going back for re-offending , honestly what chance has the system we have in place and is it really working.

Whats this got to do with Young Offenders, well if they have a ounce of intelligence as you credit them with, fine, educate them, but without Strong Deterrents, all your doing  is creating  Educated Criminals.


----------



## Sassy (16 Jul 2007)

Welcome to the New Canadian Order, socialist policies that pander to the criminals and ignore the victims.  It's cheaper in the long run to commit a Federal Offense, a female can get a free degree in Social Work and it's free and they feed you and wow it's called time.   Some serious spring cleaning needs to be done in all Federal Institutions to de-left/left, common sense is scarce but the socialist dogma of Nanny Nation is alive and growing.  We either stop the nonsense or sit and wait  until we have no say in how our country is run.  Politicians come and go but the hogs at the gravy train called Federal Institutions have built an empire.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Jul 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't think imprisonment needs to be unnecessarily harsh.  If all prisons were run like detention barracks it would probably be good enough - every day a busy and regimented one.



It's a start.  Anything would be better than what we have now.


----------



## Hawk (17 Jul 2007)

One of the great problems in our society, as regards our children, is that everyone panders to them from the moment of birth.

You're a bad parent if you allow your baby to cry, for even a few seconds. Instead they learn to expect instant gratification. No parent nowadays seems willing to say no to their child. Ever watched the little darlings throwing temper tantrums in the cereal aisle, toy department or restaurant? To shut them up, Mommy gives them exactly what they want, not what they deserve! (Excuse me, I was raised by the Scottish Mafia - my Grandma was a British trained and fully experienced Nanny). By the time these little sweethearts go to school, they've learned to get their own way by being obnoxious. I know one young woman who, by the time she finally got tired of being in school, grade 10, as I remember, couldn't read - but she passed every year. No teacher in town wanted to take a chance on having her around for a second year! The stories I could tell you about her behavior around the community . . . well, best left unsaid.

Now I live in Winnipeg. I live not too far from a corner frequented by drug dealers - some are cute little kids. I hear of  children who should be in bed running around the streets at all hours. Where are their parents? Some are off doing their own thing. Some don't realize their kids are out - they crawl through windows. We have serious gang problems in Winnipeg, and I'm beginning to suspect a gang war heating up. Lots of these gang members are youngsters. What should be their fate? The same as it is for over-18 gang members. Lock them up. Rehabilitation? Doesn't work. I've hear these kids on the street. They're not stupid - they're laughing about it, because they know no one can do anything to them. They think adults are all stupid, and they'll tell you they can do whatever they want. I have a friend whose daughter(age 23) tells her that on a regular basis. "I can do what I want, and you can't stop me", and she'll destroy her mom's home, assault her young daughter, in her mom's custody. Know what happened when my friend called the cops because Darlling Daughter broke into her house and went through ther personal papers? Nothing! They told her there's nothing they can do. 

I don't  know what the answer is. I know its getting worse. Kids are out of control, they know they can't be touched. They know they can do what they like with little or no circumstances - and its society's fault. You can't discipline your child - its against the law. Society wants to rehabilitate them, and they don't want to be rehabilitated. They'll play the game, then contact their gang, and be back on our corner selling drugs, or tagging buildings, or shooting/stabbing other gang's members.

Sorry - I'm ranting. I hope in all this I've made some sort of sense.


Hawk


----------



## FastEddy (17 Jul 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> One of the great problems in our society, as regards our children, is that everyone panders to them from the moment of birth.
> 
> Sorry - I'm ranting. I hope in all this I've made some sort of sense.
> 
> ...




You've made it perfectly clear and your absolutely right. And unfortunately its become the rule of thumb in North America.

Again it comes down to Discipline which equals Deterrents. And that does not include "Oooops Johnny you just killed the Puppy, you know Mommy doesn't like you to hit things with your BaseBall Bat, now its timeout, so go over and sit down by the Fridge" Ridiculous you say, yeah ! but how far from the truth is it ?.

They say the Death Penalty is not a Deterrent, just look who supports that idea. But today, Hell shoot the Cop, on one hand if I get away, Good, if I get caught, so what, so whats a few extra years.

We've made Crime PAY, ask any Drug Dealer.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> ... Kids are out of control, they know they can't be touched ...



Then we have two problems:

1.  Too many parents do not understand their duties and responsibilities - often at a basic, human level.  This is to be expected when: the extended family has all but disappeared and, consequentially, the _parenting skills_ lessons which grandma and mom passed on are no longer available; and when children are being reared by, literally, children.  I'm sorry, but poorly educated, poorly _socialized_, inexperienced teenagers are not equipped to be good parents.

2.  The law is, yet again (still?) an ass.  Children being used as e.g. drug mules is symptomatic of a legal system which has lost its way.  The traffickers must not be allowed to exploit young children in that way - it is worse than a crime against society, it is an *attack* on society.  We need to make the drug trade less and less attractive - use needs to be penalized: big, Big fines - thousands of dollars for first time, simple possession; and harsh, even cruel punishments for trafficking, regardless of the *race* or *status* of the trafficker.  This is one of the reasons I favour *public* corporal punishment - I think 50 lashes, administered in front of a crowd of young neighbourhood people, would be better than a year in jail.


Edit: typo - "... lashes, administered in frontm of  a crowd of young ..."


----------



## FastEddy (17 Jul 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is one of the reasons I favour *public* corporal punishment - I think 50 lashes, administered in from of a crowd of young neighbourhood people, would be better than a year in jail.




And if that didn't get the message across, then its time to visit the far North.

Cheers.



Grammatical Edit


----------



## Hawk (17 Jul 2007)

Look out, people - you've got me on my favourite hobby-horse now!

Society - the legal system - has taken the rights and responsibilities out of parent's hands. You can be charged with assault for spanking your child. Laying a few slaps on Junior's backside - not beating him - but a well-aimed slap at a young age would stop some of this nonsence we have to put up with from kids. I'm so glad I raised mine when it was just unfashionable to spank, not illegal. Now we have this time out nonsence. That, obviously, does a lot of good! So, your child goes out of control, what happens? The "authorities" get involved. Now you're a bad parent, and Junior goes to a foster home. Guess what? Now he meets other children who've been in the system for long enough to know how it works, and how to work it. Write that kid off!

Remember when it was embarrasing if you got disciplined? You'd never admit you were being bad and Mom or Dad spanked you. Now its, "I'm grounded, but give me time, I'll annoy the old lady till she tosses me out". Where do the kids' rights end and the adults' rights begin? 

Then there's kids raising kids. No solutions there, and its symptomatic of the way kids are raised. They're never made responsible for their actions, so they learn to act as they see fit, without having the maturity to deal with the consequences. Then there's an inocent child in the equation - what chance does that child have?

Another point I wanted to make: the extended family. Haven't you heard that the only way your child should be cared for while you're at work is in a government regulated day care facility? You're mistreating your child if you let Aunt Mabel or Grandma babysit. They have no idea how to raise a child - doesn't matter that maybe Aunt Mable had 6 kids, all of whom have turned out to be outstanding citizens, or Grandma may have been an educator, or in my case, a British Nanny. They're too old fashioned, I guess, and shouldn't play too strong a roll in a child's life. Perhaps if Grandma was in charge, Junior would be made to behave.

Sort of an aside, but it speaks to the conversation at hand. At Doors Open Winnipeg, I visited the old Vaughan Street Jail - the oldest facility in Winnipeg. Interesting tour! One of the re-enactors was talking about a 5-year-old who was jailed - yes! - jailed for theft! He was small enough that he could squeeze between the bars and practically had run of the jail. He was in-and-out of cells occupied by drunks, murderers, thieves, etc. The actor stepped out of character for a few minutes to say, although this treatment may seem harsh, it was a better alternative than what's happening today. I asked what became of the little 5-year-old - he went straight!

Public humiliation - there's a thought! Bring back the pillory, I say - feel free to throw fruit and eggs at the little blighter. Maybe an over-ripe tomato in the forehead would do some good!


Hawk


----------



## FastEddy (17 Jul 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Look out, people - you've got me on my favourite hobby-horse now!




 +1, maybe its about time we all got back on that Hobby-Horse.

Cheers.


----------



## Hawk (17 Jul 2007)

Love this forum - I've finally found people who agree with me! Talk about needing gratification and validation  ;D

Joking aside: Somehow parents have to find a way to grab back their kids; to get them back out of the cluches of psychologists, child-advocates, and government organizations. Parents have to regain the maturity, self-control, and common sense to tell these groups ENOUGH! How? Don't know. 

As I've said, and, its obvious from what I'm ranting on about, I'm beyond child-rearing. Maybe I shouldn't talk loose - I have a friend only a few years younger than me with a 4-year-old: her granddaughter, whom she's adopted. I'm seeing things from a different perspective than a lot of you. I had an old-fashioned upbringing, where Mom and Dad loved me no end, where I knew the rules, and knew the consequences of not following them, and Nanny to add weight to the household rules. I raised my son the same way. 

Parents have to rethink their own goals and ambitions, and figure out where their kids fit in, and figure out how to accomplish their child-rearing goals. They have to start raising their kids with greater care, paying attention to how they're going to turn out good citizens not ratbags who prey on other people and society in general.

You serving members of the CF have my respect and admiration. You're obviously interested in how your kids are raised, and, no doubt doing a great job, by the way you speak. It can't be easy. You must have great kids to start with, and a supportive spouse who can hold it together while you're deployed. I don't know if The Kid would have turned out as well as he has if I'd had to face that - it was hard enough struggling with a civillian career, by the time he came along!


Hawk


----------



## chanman (18 Jul 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2.  The law is, yet again (still?) an ass.  Children being used as e.g. drug mules is symptomatic of a legal system which has lost its way.  The traffickers must not be allowed to exploit young children in that way - it is worse than a crime against society, it is an *attack* on society.  We need to make the drug trade less and less attractive - use needs to be penalized: big, Big fines - thousands of dollars for first time, simple possession; and harsh, even cruel punishments for trafficking, regardless of the *race* or *status* of the trafficker.  This is one of the reasons I favour *public* corporal punishment - I think 50 lashes, administered in front of a crowd of young neighbourhood people, would be better than a year in jail.
> 
> 
> Edit: typo - "... lashes, administered in frontm of  a crowd of young ..."



Mind you, I think Singapore's idea of executing drug mules, while overly harsh, also provides distinct incentive to check your luggage carefully.



> Female shop assistant executed for drug trafficking: Poon Yuen-chung from Hong Kong
> Poon Yuen-chung, a shop assistant from Hong Kong, was 18-years-old when she and her 17-year-old friend, Lam Hoi-ka were arrested at Changi Airport, Singapore, after arriving from Bangkok. The two girls had gone on holiday to Bangkok after telling their parents they were going on a local camping trip. Airport officials found heroin hidden in a secret compartment in their luggage. Both girls denied any prior knowledge of the drugs and said they had been befriended by a Chinese couple in Bangkok who had taken them out to dinner and on sightseeing tours, and later bought suitcases for them. "My sister is a simple and naïve girl who can do foolish things sometimes", Poon Yuen-chung’s sister later told the Sunday Morning Post, a Hong Kong newspaper. Despite appeals for clemency, Poon Yuen-chung was executed in April 1995(16). Her friend Lam Hoi-ka was sentenced to life imprisonment as she was under 18 at the time of the offence.
> 
> (16) A second woman, Tong Ching-man, also 18-years-old, was executed on the same day in an unrelated drugs case.



From an Amnesty International report on Singapore from 2004.  It should probably be noted that both women were 18 when caught, not when executed.

Side note: Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, and Taiwan all have the death penalty in place for drug smuggling as well.  "Drug Smuggling is punishable by Death" was plastered all over the entry areas at Chiang Kai-Shek airport.

South Korea and Japan also keep the death penalty on the books, just not for drugs.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Jul 2007)

> The two girls had gone on holiday to Bangkok after telling their parents they were going on a local camping trip.



That's the line right there.  Sorry.  They knew what they were doing.  Sucks for the parents, but they knew they might be killed for their efforts.  TFB.  

I don't get this "child worship" mentality.  I know that the Children's Aid Society has a large amount of blame for this, as they tell people some pretty stupid things with regards to how kids should be disciplined.  I swear, part of the hiring criteria over there must be that field workers must not have ever been parents.  I talk to so many people that are convinced that "if I hit my kid, I'll get charged and the CAS will take my kids".  No.  You won't.  If you put your kid in the hospital, yes you might get charged.  I would be amazed if any officer actually charged anyone these days for giving their kid a whack on the bum for acting out.  As for the CAS, they put kids back into cockroach infested crack houses.  Nobody really needs to worry about being without their kids for too long.


----------



## Hawk (23 Jul 2007)

I stand corrected. I had assumed, like most other people, that it was illegal to spank. Most people I know assume that. We should be better informed, for the sake of our children. If its not illegal, it's still causing a lot of chaos, fights, and children waging war on their parents. A young relative told his father - "You touch me and I'll call the cops". Teachers are telling kids at school that if their parents lay a hand on them, to tell the teacher, their parents aren't allowed to touch them. Honest - I've heard it from kids who have been told this! No wonder we all assume spanking's illegal. 

You mentioned Children's Aid telling people stupid things. I heard of one case where a parent was told she shouldn't try to control her 15-year-old girl. They really helped that family. 

We were sitting on a bench in the shade last night, The Man and I, and we watched a kid, no more that 14 or 15, make 4 drug deals, then take off on his bike up the street. He was so obvious - they aren't even covert about it. He looked a cocky little twerp - he knows, and his supplier knows nothing bad will happen to him.

Please stop society, I want to get off!!


Hawk


----------



## 18-and-ready (23 Jul 2007)

I was taught through good old fashion fear, I did not get hit alot but I knew if I acted up enough I would.

Plain and simple act up, get punished

Lets bring back the parents who kept a big wooden spoon on the counter for you to see
Or the belt on the wall.

I'm not saying to go out and beat our kids - let them think we will.

Even our jails pat you on the back give you a hug a warm meal and send you on your way.
Its all just a joke, lets bring back bad conditions make it hell to be in jail
let them sit in a black windowless hole in the wall with no social contact with spearing meals of bread and water

Make jail feel like going home with a bad report card
Not an ego booster

18


----------



## Hawk (23 Jul 2007)

I wonder what its going to take for society to realize that the problems kids are causing started to get really bad when it started being unfashionable to discipline kids? I'm not saying there weren't bad-a$$es when I was a kid. There were! Back in the dark ages, kids in my grade 5 class were stealing family allowances out of mailboxes, and taking money out of milk bottles on steps. (For those that missed that - milk came in glass bottles. The day the milk man delivered, you put the washed bottles on the step, with the money inside for another bottle of milk). The police walked right into the classroom and escorted 2 of these kids out. **Well, none of us were surprised, those families are always in trouble anyway**. Kids didn't steal cars, people didn't get shot outside bars (they may get beat up, but not shot), gangs didn't rule the street. We had a drug ring in my high school. It was kept so quiet, I found out about it years later. Now, I don't know if its safe to go out!


Hawk


----------



## chanman (24 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That's the line right there.  Sorry.  They knew what they were doing.  Sucks for the parents, but they knew they might be killed for their efforts.  TFB.



I'll agree with that.  Singapore's justice system is known for being harsh, not corrupt.  And I don't get the planted drugs excuse - maybe if you want to frame somebody, but it seems an odd way of delivering valuable contraband given that the receiving party will need to know who the dupe is, which luggage is the one with the cargo, and will need to make off with it with no one the wiser.  Rather risky endeavour considering the sums involved in drug shipments.

I just wanted to offer a counterpoint to countries considered too soft on their kids.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jul 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Accepting, as I do, that a whole lot of people are just plain *bad*, and recognizing that I may come off as a loony left wing nut, I do have a *theory* about crime and punishment.  It’s a theory based on nothing much except ‘thought.’  I have neither formal training nor experience in law, law enforcement, corrections, rehabilitation or anything else – beyond what one learns from years and years of regimental duty up to and including command.
> 
> I think most criminals are stupid.*
> 
> ...



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an editorial from today's _Globe and Mai/i]:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070724.ECRIME24/TPStory/Opinion/editorials



The shooting of Ephraim Brown, 11

July 24, 2007

To be black and to live in or near public housing in Toronto is to face a big risk of dying young. The fatal shooting of 11-year-old Ephraim Brown while he was riding a scooter Saturday was not an aberration. It is what the city has become.

Toronto is an unusually safe city unless a gun battle happens to break out. It can break out at any time and in any place. Bullets have flown in the Eaton Centre, the big downtown mall. They have flown outside the mall, on Yonge Street. They have flown in bars crowded with 500 people, in the downtown entertainment district and in distant suburbs. They have flown on the streets outside the bars.

But mostly they have flown in and around the public housing projects where poor, black and usually fatherless families live. Six years ago, Dudley Laws, a local activist, produced a list of 100 black people, mostly young men, who had been killed in Toronto by other black people between 1996 and 2001. Today, however, even young children are at risk.
Torontonians are not jaded yet; they remember each separate incident. A 15-year-old boy, Jordan Manners, was shot dead in his high school in May. An 11-year-old girl, Tamara Carter, was shot in the eye on a packed city bus three years ago. Amon Beckles, 18, was shot dead two years ago on the church steps at the funeral of his best friend, Jamal Hemmings, 17, who had also been fatally shot. A four-year-old boy, Shaquan Cadougan, was shot in the knee two years ago. All of those shooting victims were black. And in numerous other incidents, bullets whizzed over the heads of children at play. But for good luck, there would have been many more Ephraim Browns.

The secondary damage done to children and teenagers who witness deadly shootings has not been well documented in Toronto. It has been extensively documented in the housing projects of Chicago. "In some environments," writes educator James Garbarino, "virtually all youth demonstrate negative effects of highly stressful and threatening environments." For instance, they fall more than a grade level behind in school.

The research shows that Ephraim's death is not an isolated incident. Black residents in Toronto are murdered at a far greater rate than non-black Torontonians: roughly 10 victims for every 100,000 people, compared with just two non-black victims, according to research by University of Toronto criminologist Rosemary Gartner, covering the years 1992 to 2003. Homicide victims are younger than in the past, more apt to be shot than before and more likely to be killed in public spaces. (Seventy-five per cent of homicides occur in places such as parking lots and bars, up from 50 per cent in the 1990s.) 

Toronto has undertaken a variety of useful responses: setting up four 18-member police squads that blitz high-crime areas on foot, creating extra social programs, and keeping schools open for summer programs. But the underlying problem of large, poor, fatherless families, alienated teens and a gangster culture transplanted in part from Jamaica is sinking its roots into Toronto, and will not soon let go.
		
Click to expand...


The problem is not confined to either Toronto or the black communit*ies* (there is more than just one) and certainly not just to the Toronto-Jamaican community.

There are large *under-classes* in most if not all Canadian cities: some are black/Jamaican, other are black/Somali and others are aboriginal or South Asian or Vietnamese or, or, or ...  These *under classes* share a few attributes – here are just a very few:

1. They are, broadly, young and male – young black, aboriginal or Asian women are, somehow or other, *better able* – but not 'perfectly' or even 'predominantly' able – to escape the traps;

2. In most cases, one of the root cause*s* is that children (ages 13-16) are raising children – with only limited supervision from parents (some of whom become grandmothers before they turn 30) or other family members;

3. Most of the boys in each *under-class* leave school before they turn 16 – they are, broadly, illiterate and innumerate and, consequently, unemployable.  The school systems fail them by passing them, grade-by-grade, despite being unable (or unwilling in the higher grades) to do the work;

4. Reverse racism is rampant in Canada.  Blacks, Aboriginals, Asians etc. must be *excused* their failure to conform to even the most minimally acceptable societal norms because they are 'victims.'  We *create* the victims by failing to demand minimally acceptable standards or behaviours and citizenship – standards 'our' school system probably failed to explain in the first place; and

5. *We* have, despite centuries of experience, failed, miserably, to balance the *rights* of the majority to live in safety with the inalienable *right* of every individual, no matter that he might be a well known gangster, to be free from unlawful search and seizure. 

I remain convinced that changing the *sub-cultures* which animate these *upper-classes* is the key to preventing young men from having 'run and gun' duels on city streets.  The school system is, traditionally – going back to 17th century Scotland – the way *we* (the enlightened West) change our sub-cultures.  Ours are not doing their jobs – not in the *under-class* communities, anyway.  We should start by demanding more and better schooling, maybe offset by less and less social service mollycoddling.  (Which does not, I hasten to add, involve cuts in most sports and after-school programmes.)  


Edit: format_


----------



## Hawk (24 Jul 2007)

Still think we need a "thumbs up" smilie!!

Well done, I agree completely. We somehow think we're doing kids a favour by mollycoddling them - can't let them get behind their peer group by failing them if they didn't learn anything, treating them with psychology while they laugh at us. No one's teaching them that they're responsible for their actions. In some cases (kids raising kids, but not just kids raising kids) their parents aren't any smarter than they are. Some people just don't have the parenting skills. Schools, as we've said before, fail them, society rejects them - its no wonder they end up in gangs.

Now I'm generalizing, and I don't mean to. A certain percentage pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something, however little, or however major,  of themselves. What it boils down to, is society has to find some way to turn this around. Violence and anarchy are becoming the norm in our cities. There has to be a way . . .


Hawk


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jul 2007)

As always, a great post Edward.  The one thing that I would like to point out about underclasses though, is that they aren't confined to visible minorities.  There are plenty of dead end white kids kicking around causing heaps of crime with the same lack of consequence the legal system provides.  
I also agree with the "molly coddling" comment.  IMO until the welfare system stops rewarding people for being leeches on society, we will not eliminate that underclass.


----------



## Hawk (24 Jul 2007)

I've been reading an old thread in another forum I frequent - this one from the UK. Someone in there has a great definition of a *FERAL CHILD*. I'd never heard the expression before, apparently in common use in the UK. Unfortunately this person has left the forum, so I can't ask permission to share the whole thing with you. I'll try and give you a nut-shell version:

They are children who receive no practical parenting, whose fathers likely have never lived with the family, and whose siblings have different fathers; children who are tossed out on the street to roam free and uncontrolled, and are involved in vandalism, theft, drugs(taking and selling), and involved in gangs for companionship. Their parents don't know and don't care, and are likely on drugs or drunk. The kids are undereducated, unloved, unwanted, uncared for, and will likely be incapable of forming stable families of their own.

Thought I'd share that. Its a shocking thing - but look around - these kids are there. Canada doesn't have a monopoly on these kids, and there is no ethnicity attached - they can be kids from any background and culture.


BB


----------



## gman620 (24 Jul 2007)

actually my wife is an ece and I have watched a show on this, kids turning to gangs for love is not as bad as some.  there was a girl in the ukraine who was raised by dogs.  another kid was kept for I believe 13 years in a cage by her parents (the dad didnt want a girl !) and was only given scraps for food.  The human brain can only learn certain things for a certain time, unfortunately these ferral kids will never be able to speak or exsist in what we call a normal life.  I have more info if you are interested.


----------



## lawandorder (24 Jul 2007)

While I would agree that the money spent is outrageous, simply locking them up and "punishing" them isn't the solution.  How would you punish them?  The youth that are committing crimes more often then not have other issues besides bas decision making.  Youth need counseling and "therapy" but maybe not $700 pieces of wood for a home made guitar.  If you just lock them up and throw a way the key for a few years you see them re-offend because whatever made them commit the crime in the first place hasn't been dealt with.  Now I'm not saying pamper them, but if they are youth, and the "future" of our society, shouldn't we want to correct the problem so they can contribute?


----------



## Danjanou (24 Jul 2007)

I’ve seen lots of street kids in Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, The Dominican Republic, Haiti, Morocco, Thailand…. well you get the idea that would be considered Feral by the definitions this entails. Once you’ve been chased by a pack of glue sniffing teens and pre teens in Cartagena who are quite willing to knife you for your camera, you soon understand ( if not agree) why the local businesses organize death squads to kill them. They are long past any hope of rehabilitation.

The common factor there is these are developing countries not first world ones like ours. There almost no social safety nets in place in these places and therefore one can easily understand how it gets this bad. 

We ain’t there yet, but the fact we do have all these system in place to prevent this. Unfortunately that system is totally broken and no one is willing to even admit that let alone fix it.

Alright enough pontification, I have another hour of mollycoddling before quitting time.  :


----------



## gman620 (24 Jul 2007)

It is impossible to fix something that doesnt want to be fixed.  When I was a boy my church was in a rough area and when bums would come to the door and say that there family has nothing to eat, the pastors or older people would say well lets go to the gocery store and buy some groceries.  While SOME were happy others got irrate and yelled and swore because they wanted money for booze not food.  And still others would turn around and return the groceries.  But my point is, if these people are happy commiting crimes living in the streets no government help is going to stop that.  I live in Brandon Manitoba, and a few months ago they did a study on homelessness and of all the people they talked to said that they were happy were they were.  the thing is if welfare stopped crime would sky rocket.  I think the only thing that would deter criminals would have to be incentive NOT to go to jail.  A police station can be shut down due to health concerns if the holding cells are a bit dusty.  we need to punish the criminals.  and the young offenders act should only cover 1 maybe 2 mishaps. I hope im not rambling to much but check out this web site. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a75857671c.htm


----------



## Hawk (24 Jul 2007)

gman620-I read some articles online about the traditional meaning of Feral Children. Interesting stuff! The person on the other thread seems to think it has a more contemporary meaning as well, and I thought it fitted in well with this conversation. The group I meant were the young people in gangs, or not, who are out vandalizing property, stealing cars, dealing/using drugs, tagging buildings etc. etc.

Our young offenders laws have to be tightened up. One or two chances (and I'd vote for one) and they throw the book at you. If you're a repeat offender, you know you're doing wrong, and there's a point where you can't blame your home, or your upbringing, or whatever other sympathy getting excuse you can come up with.


Hawk


----------



## gman620 (24 Jul 2007)

hawk i couldn't agree more, i hear so many people say "well you know he didnt have a dad, he had a tough life" well my dad wasnt around much when i was a kid i had almost nothing growing up and ive started my life on more than one occassion with  literally nothing but the shirt on my back and now im stable have a good job and a wife, and i would consider myself fairly normal and an upstanding member of the community, excuses are for lazy people to be used on the ignorant .


----------



## gman620 (24 Jul 2007)

okay i just read the first post.  now can anyone at all give me a reason for a young offender NOT to kill someone? seriously we reward criminals, does this alarm anyone else?

God help us all


----------



## Staff Weenie (24 Jul 2007)

About a year ago, I was sitting in the courthouse, (not me.....waiting to go in with a soldier). While I was outside the courtroom for over an hour, I had a chance to watch, and listen to, a seemingly endless stream of teenage rabble.

These little fools were bragging about their crimes, to appear bigger and badder to the other kids beside them. And, they were all laughing about the system, and how they were sure they'd get the usual slap on the wrist when their lawyer and social worker pleaded to the judge. What was even worse to me, was the pregnant teenage girls that clung on to the arms of these idiots - probably to be tossed away the instant they outlive their usefulness.

Something tells me that this scene is repeated thousands of times per day from coast to coast.


----------



## lawandorder (24 Jul 2007)

gman620 said:
			
		

> okay i just read the first post.  now can anyone at all give me a reason for a young offender NOT to kill someone? seriously we reward criminals, does this alarm anyone else?
> 
> God help us all



Not all Young Offenders are violent criminals so that is a pretty good reason.  The system is set up the way it is, but needs to be changed, in my opinion, for sexual, violent, and drug related crimes when it come to youth.  The system, in my opinion, needs to be changed for adults in that area as well.

Too lump all young offenders together is a mistake as you have violent ones that aren't violent.  I wouldn't say the Canadian Justice system rewards people, it is just trying new things that may or may not work, because whatever was being done in the past clearly wasn't working with the amount of re-offenders that there are.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Jul 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Too lump all young offenders together is a mistake as you have violent ones that aren't violent.  I wouldn't say the Canadian Justice system rewards people, it is just trying new things that may or may not work, because whatever was being done in the past clearly wasn't working with the amount of re-offenders that there are.



Enough with the violent offender red herring.  Yes, violent crime is bad.  But the fact is that these kids don't start out on a violent rampage.  They are petty taggers, shoplifters, car thieves, drug dealers.  They learn very quickly from their ilk that the legal system is a joke, and nothing really happens to you.  Once they are mired in the criminal lifestyle, they find out that there is a pecking order and standards to maintain.  Then the violence follows.  Nip the behavior in the bud, swiftly, harshly and CONSISTANTLY.  As well, make parents suffer some sort of penalty for their kids misdeeds.  Maybe they will be able to tear themselves from the bingo halls and televisions long enough to clue in to the fact that little Justin just set the cat on fire.  
And how do you figure that the legal system doesn't reward people?   ???  Jason Asshat goes to court for six counts of Theft Under $5000, four counts of Breach of Undertaking, three counts of Break and Enter and two counts of Possess CDSA.  He pleads guilty to all of them, and then ends up with four months jail, but gets time served for the dead time he did while he was on his crime spree.  So then he gets Probation, which means sweet FA.  He also doesn't have to pay back a cent.  
The things that "would work" won't be tried, because they would violate the criminals oh-so-precious rights.  Corporal punishment _would_ work.  Hard labour camps _would_ work.  But our national conceit does not allow us to think that we could be so heinously barbaric as to hurt our precious criminals.  
But funny how the crime rate is so low in Singapore...


----------



## Steel Badger (25 Jul 2007)

+1 ZHC

Prison is no hardship to mopes, they even conduct their illicit street businesses from the confines of your local detention centre.

Sentancing should be harsh, consistent AND force the inamte to make resititution in some way. Chain gangs up!

SB


----------



## FastEddy (25 Jul 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Too lump all young offenders together is a mistake as you have violent ones that aren't violent.  I wouldn't say the Canadian Justice system rewards people, it is just trying new things that may or may not work, because whatever was being done in the past clearly wasn't working with the amount of re-offenders that there are.




1+ for ZHC. And what they are trying doesn't work either and its getting people killed, including a lot more LEO's.

Its so much easier to kill any witnesses than leave them behind to testify,
hell even in States with the Death Penalty if you are caught, you'll probally sit on Death Row and grow old.

And Bail, the greatest joke off them all, Man arrested for DUI (with many priors), out on Bail, kills young Pedestrian in DUI.

Parole, just ask the Connecticut Doctor who's Wife and two Daughters were murdered in a home invasion.

Yeah ! these new ways are sure working for us.


----------



## Hawk (25 Jul 2007)

What do you people think of this?  PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE, AT LEAST IN PART FOR THE MAKING OF A YOUNG OFFENDER. Who's the first influence on a child? Mom and Dad. Goes back to what we were saying earlier about parenting skills. If the child is raised with love and respect, tempered with a firm hand and good values, someone there to say yes that's good, or no you don't do that, perhaps that kid will stay straight, stay in school and be someone. Now, before someone jumps on that, you still have to get by peer pressure, the influence of the neighbourhood, all that, but good parenting would most certainly help.

A 4-year old in the north end of Winnipeg wandered off from home yesterday, not reported in the news, one of his neighbours told me. He got several blocks from home, and across a busy street -Keewatin, if any of you know Winnipeg, a busy street. His mother didn't even know he was gone-she was watching TV. Future criminal? Who knows?

Parents, in my opinion, should be held responsible. If Junior breaks a window, Mom and Dad pay. If Junior writes on a building - don't call Graffiti Busters - make Mom and Dad pay, if Junior steals a car, make Mom and Dad pay for repairs. Would that get parental attention?


Hawk


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2007)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Mum and Dad can control their kids...right up to and including the end of the driveway.  After that, all you can hope for is that you've given them the right influences to keep them from becoming shit pumps.  At the age of 14, they should know right from wrong and be held responsible for their actions. Short of tracking collars and surveillance cameras, how am I to monitor them 24/7? Their little pin head pals have way more influence over them at that age. Stiffen the penalties, and make the judges and prosecutors stick to them. Nice people do have rotten kids, despite all their efforts.  I broke a window when I was 10.  My dad made me work in the neighbour's yard all weekend to pay for it, and it was a well learned lesson.


----------



## Hawk (25 Jul 2007)

Absolutely, Kat - but till they are old enough to get beyond the end of the driveway, Mom and Dad have to instill the basic ideas of right and wrong, give them the confidence to judge their peer group accurately, and the courage to say no, I won't do that - its wrong.

Laws have to be enforced, penalties stiffened, and punishment has to be meted out in a way to teach kids, if their parents didn't, right from wrong. No more excuses, and no more Mr Nice Guy. Before all of society is sorry, we have to sort these little pinheads and their pinhead pals out.

Let me tell you about my son as a 15-year-old pinhead. He, and 2 friends got caught in some minor vandalism behind their school. No charges, the school wanted to handle it - they were basically good kids, just being really dumb! Mom did, however, have to go get him from the RCMP. Read the riot act, grounded for 3 weeks, as I remember. At school The Kid and the other pin heads had to remove all graffiti off lockers and walls - it took them 2 or more weeks. Now: grounding at our house meant SLAVE. I got the flower gardens weeded, and the lawn mowed. I didn't have to water them for 3 weeks, and he hated garden work! I got the basement cleaned. His Dad got the truck cleaned out, washed and waxed. The back step got leveled. Other than that, for 3 weeks he walked his dog as usual, did his homework, as usual, and agreed upon activities were music lesson, Cadets and school. Nothing else, not even going for ice cream after the garden was weeded. Cut off, Lad!! How did he turn out? Just fine - the kind of adult son a mother can be proud of. He works hard, obeys the law, treats his Significant Other with respect, and he's good to his mother.

Just so you know I had a pinhead, too, but I wasn't going to throw him aside, tolerate the attitude, or leave it to  Society to deal with him. I like to think I was a caring parent - we tried to be very careful how we raised him. At 28 he still calls me when something exciting has happened to him. And I was the meanest Mom in town - just ask him!


Hawk


----------



## lawandorder (25 Jul 2007)

ZHC, you made a good argument, but then if punishment is applied consistently what happens to Joe when he commits his first offense and its a mere petty theft of say a bike.  Around $200?  what happens to him, as opposed to a kid that consistently re-offends?  is the punishments different or should the both be whipped just as hard?

Steel Badger you said sentencing should be harsh?  Sentencing in the states is harsh....people constantly receive 100+ years in prison for their crimes.  That however doesn't seem to deter criminals nor does it solve their crime problems.  Locking someone up for a lengthy period of time is a band-aid solution that could have a "blow back effect" when the offender is released.  Now I'm not a bleeding heart liberal in any way and obviously I think crime and the justice system needs some long needed repairs, but from my studies and experience criminals needs more then just being locked up, they need opportunity to be integrated in to society in a productive manner after their release date, especially YO's, otherwise all we have done is temporarily ceased their criminal behaviors.  

Maybe we need a system that doesn't give a specified jail term for certain crimes, but a set of conditions that must be met in order to be released.   Like making sure everyone has at least a high school education.  Career counsellings, career training or something......just suggestions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2007)

Quote from: Law & Order on Today at 16:06:46
but from my studies and experience criminals needs more then just being locked up   


[1] Forget your studies,......I actually am really sorry, but you didn't learn anything useful about criminals.
[2] Between Steel Badger and myself we have well over 30 years experience with locked-up criminals.....and he's right


Quote from: Law & Order on Today at 16:06:46
criminals needs more then just being locked up, they need opportunity to be integrated in to society in a productive manner after their release date, especially YO's, otherwise all we have done is temporarily ceased their criminal behaviors.   


...99% DON'T want to "intergrate into society" and/or "cease their criminal behaviors"...........what now, brown cow?.....maybe change society to suit them?  You don't get it, just like some people are not cut out for the military, some people are not cut out for 'civilized' society.

Quote from: Law & Order on Today at 16:06:46
   Like making sure everyone has at least a high school education.  Career counsellings, career training or something......just suggestions.


They have all that and more....................Karla ring a bell? We had a certified high school at the jail in Guelph. The principal was the highest paid guy in the building. I couldn't start to list the different programs from memory that we have where I am now.


Hey, just my jail has "cured" Peter Whitmore twice now....... :


----------



## lawandorder (25 Jul 2007)

Good points and I don't dispute your experience while working with/in the system.
While my "studies" didn't teach me specifically about criminals, it did teach me about human behavior and how society has responded to criminal over the decades/centuries.  And as a result of the various takes on punishment of both youth and adults, no matter if it was corporal punishment, death sentences, or being locked up forever and being shipped to an island in the middle of the Ocean, it didn't really change the fact that crimes were still happening and criminals were re-offending.  And the 99% that you say don't want to be integrated into society, thats probably true.  But with the two of you with over 30 years experience in the business of doing the job that you do, what would you suggest is the solution?  IS locking them up for long periods of time the best solution?

And while you say forget my studies and haven't learned anything about criminals??  Well I am actually really sorry and that I have.  You really don't know what I've studied or who for that matter.  While I do admit that I don't have the years of experience as you do, I do have the the perspective that the justice system doesn't work the way it is, and it can't hurt too much more trying new things and new approaches when it comes to young offenders.

I've worked with youth, and have seen kids that were bad apples when they were young come full circle to seeing them in a courtroom on charges.  AND I can tell you right now, locking a kid up for an extended period of time isn't the solution, neither is corporal punishment.  There is far much more to the problem then can be fixed by locking people up and beating them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> While my "studies" didn't teach me specifically about criminals, it did teach me about human behavior



Useless............IMO, human behavior can't be taught.  The academic don't want you to know that though, they want their money. ........or did you KNOW I was going to say that? Hmmm.... ^-^



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> And while you say forget my studies and haven't learned anything about criminals??  Well I am actually really sorry and that I have.  You really don't know what I've studied or who for that matter.  While I do admit that I don't have the years of experience as you do, I do have the the perspective that the justice system doesn't work the way it is, and it can't hurt too much more trying new things and new approaches when it comes to young offenders.



Well since we have been mollycoddling them for twenty+ years now and that hasn't worked I guess the "new" approach you suggest must be to "lock em up and beat them".
Just how in the name of stupid did you make that reach?

I don't want longer sentences, why would I want criminals to be in their nice comfortable digs even longer than necessary?  Harder sentences are what must be done...............I thank someone everyday that there wasn't the YOA when I was 16 years old, chances are I would still be a long-haired dirtbag who thought that stealing wasn't that big of a deal.


----------



## lawandorder (26 Jul 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well since we have been mollycoddling them for twenty+ years now and that hasn't worked I guess the "new" approach you suggest must be to "lock em up and beat them".
> Just how in the name of stupid did you make that reach?



Well the new approach of locking them up and beating them isn't my idea, it was a suggestion posted by more then a few in previous posts, I simply said that that is not the answer.  Maybe there was some mix up on mine, yours, or  someone else's part.  So I guess to answer your question is that *I* didn't reach into stupid and pull that one out.

The YOA did have problems, that's why the government came out with the YCJA, unfortunately that didn't have enough teeth either.  So while we disagree on certain issue such as education.....yes basic innate human behaviour can be taught in my opinion(I guess we'll just have to live with disagreeing with each other on that one )......we can agree that things aren't quite working out in the youth system.  So focusing on youth, since this was the topic of discussion, what in your opinion is a rational, logical, and practical solution to taking care of youth's and crime.  Everything from first offences to re-offenders.  I am genuinely asking this question to those who have experience working in the system and not being sarcastic.


----------



## Steel Badger (26 Jul 2007)

Although "corporal " punishment is seen by all as the "old way", it still exists in our jails and detention centres. Unlike what they teach new staff at our Coconut Colledge; Inamtes don't meekly and serenly submit to the direction of staff. A great many of them have difficulty understanding anything but force

Forget about "why" they became that way, thats the reality. With each other, with staff and anyone else;their first , best resort is violence....and they DO NOT want to charge...nor do they see the need too.

They can manipulate the system to their advantage and do so on a regular basis.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Jul 2007)

For first time offenders, the sentence should be physically harsh, with no jail (speaking to property crimes).  Subsequent offences should garner sentences that get severe fairly quickly.   For repeat/incorrigable prisoners longer sentences provide a band aid protection for society while the gearbox is in jail.  As for what happens in jail, that needs to be looked at.  
Jail, IMO, must be a brutal, soul crushing experience.  Perhaps a graduated incarceration system.  After sentencing, criminals go to a "behavior repaterning" facility.  Bamboo mats in 10 watt lighting, barely nutritional gruel, forced labour with cattle prod instant punishments for those who don't comply.  Once some progress is made, they may graduate to a military style prison ala Club Ed.  There, they would be    provided an opportunity to demonstrate how they plan to better themselves.  Attending classes would require performance and standards, and if anyone slacked off, sassed back or otherwise displeased anyone; back to the work camp.  Again, exhausting days, but working towards some positive end stated.  Provide trade shops and hook parolees up with employers that are willing to take a chance.  Electronic monitoring devices would be worn/installed to ensure that the parolee is complying with their conditions, with lethal anti tampering capability.  
As for the ones who can't/won't change?  Leave them in the brutal system indefinately.  I would rather be wasting my tax dollars on someone who ends up on permanant disablilty than how much money gets spent on the system now.  
Life sentences would mean just that.  You are in the brutal system until you are dead.  Perhaps an incentive system could be created whereby a lifer could get a $10,000 bonus paid to their family or charity of their choice if they chose a lethal injection instead of staying in the system?


----------



## Hawk (26 Jul 2007)

Something sure has to be done! Latest from Winnipeg, car theft capital of Canada:

Two kids, 15 and 16 stole a truck and killed a man on a bicycle. They were level 3 and level 4 car thieves, so they've done this before, and the cops knew them. They're in the youth detention center, and any bets they get off YET AGAIN? Where is this going to end? They have rights, but what about the man they killed, didn't he have rights too? Life was better when all the rights a kid had were a right to food, clothing, shelter and education. Any other rights were at the discretion of their parents, and they didn't include a right to annoy society.


Hawk


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2007)

Long days of hard work with no down-time privileges will sort out any reasonable person.  And I see no reason for habitual criminals (repeat offenders) to have any say in the lives of others (ie. exercise a vote), ever, since their rational and moral judgement is clearly lacking.


----------



## Drummy (26 Jul 2007)

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on the law. But....it seems to me that we have a fairly good Legal System in this country of ours,......BUT NOW WE NEED A JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Drummy


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Jul 2007)

Drummy said:
			
		

> I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on the law. But....it seems to me that we have a fairly good Legal System in this country of ours,......BUT NOW WE NEED A JUSTICE SYSTEM.



Funny how these things always seem to drift back to the onus being on the  judges to do something....


----------

