Law and Order
For the last two months I have been busy in my move from Vancouver to Toronto due to my new job so that is why I haven't posted anything here. Anyways here is my next topic which is on law and order and this seems appropriate since much of the Tory agenda has centered around this. When it comes to law and order I take a pragmatic middle of the road approach which is laws should be based on prevention, rehabilatation, and punishment. For minor crimes I lean more towards the former two, while for more serious crimes I lean more towards the latter. In terms of sentencing, I don't believe in longer sentences just to score political points, but do believe there are certain crimes where it may be appropriate. Longer sentences should only be done if it is found to be a deterrence, which studies say really isn't the case, or if the person cannot be rehabilatated i.e. Clifford Olsen in which case I support them spending the rest of their life in prison
Victimless Crimes
Victimless Crimes are crimes in which there are no victims. I am here specifically referring to drugs and prostitution. I support legalization of both marijuana and prostitution. This way we could regulate both of them and have some control rather than relying on the black market. Much like alcohol and tobacco are legal, but heavily regulated, the same would apply to marijuana and prostitution. Only licenced dealers could sell marijuana and only those with licences could be prostitutes. Prostitutes would be required to have regular check-ups to ensure they don't have STDs. Only those over 19 could purchase marijuana and only those over 19 could be a prostitute or have sex with one. In the case of prostitution this would make it safer and greatly reduce the chances of having several going missing like what happened in the Robert Pickton case on the East side of Vancouver.
For harder drugs, I support keeping them illegal, but believe treatment, not jail time is the proper course of action for drug users. Only drug dealers and smugglers should face prison time. I also support allowing safe injection sites in cities where the community is supportive of one, but I would make one change, which is to provide the addicts with the drugs at the site rather than have them bring their own drugs. Since few of them have jobs, they likely have to steal to get the money to buy drugs, so providing it on the site would help lower property crime.
Death Penalty
I am not opposed to the death penalty per se, but I oppose re-introducing capital punishment for the simple reason you can never be 100% certain the person is guilty. If it were possible to create a system whereby there was absolutely no chance of executing an innocent person, I would support re-introducing it for first degree murder. However, the reality is there is no example today and likely never will of a system where there is no chance of executing an innocent person. Even if it is only a 1 in a million chance of executing an innocent person, that is still too high for me. Lets remember if we accidently send an innocent person to prison, we can always release them, whereas if we accidently execute an innocent person, we cannot bring them back to life. It is for this reason I support maintaining Canada's moratorium on the death penalty and also support ensuring all those facing extradition will not face the death penalty.
Violent and Repeat Offenders
I generally support light sentences for first time minor offences since people do sometimes do dumb things and they shouldn't have their life destroyed because of this. More importantly locking them away will not reduce their chances of recidivism and it will also mean they are less likely to be contributors to society in the longer run. However, violent or repeat offenders, I do support long jail sentences. Murder and rape are violent crimes that should be punished harshly and for the most part they are. Likewise for repeat offenders of property crimes, I do support longer jail sentences, although not your California three strikes and you are out. The reason for supporting longer sentences is if someone is continuously breaking the law, they likely cannot be rehabilatated over a short period of time, but require a longer period of time for it to occur. Also keeping them behind bars means they cannot commit crimes.
My next topic will be on the environment.
Victimless Crimes
Victimless Crimes are crimes in which there are no victims. I am here specifically referring to drugs and prostitution. I support legalization of both marijuana and prostitution. This way we could regulate both of them and have some control rather than relying on the black market. Much like alcohol and tobacco are legal, but heavily regulated, the same would apply to marijuana and prostitution. Only licenced dealers could sell marijuana and only those with licences could be prostitutes. Prostitutes would be required to have regular check-ups to ensure they don't have STDs. Only those over 19 could purchase marijuana and only those over 19 could be a prostitute or have sex with one. In the case of prostitution this would make it safer and greatly reduce the chances of having several going missing like what happened in the Robert Pickton case on the East side of Vancouver.
For harder drugs, I support keeping them illegal, but believe treatment, not jail time is the proper course of action for drug users. Only drug dealers and smugglers should face prison time. I also support allowing safe injection sites in cities where the community is supportive of one, but I would make one change, which is to provide the addicts with the drugs at the site rather than have them bring their own drugs. Since few of them have jobs, they likely have to steal to get the money to buy drugs, so providing it on the site would help lower property crime.
Death Penalty
I am not opposed to the death penalty per se, but I oppose re-introducing capital punishment for the simple reason you can never be 100% certain the person is guilty. If it were possible to create a system whereby there was absolutely no chance of executing an innocent person, I would support re-introducing it for first degree murder. However, the reality is there is no example today and likely never will of a system where there is no chance of executing an innocent person. Even if it is only a 1 in a million chance of executing an innocent person, that is still too high for me. Lets remember if we accidently send an innocent person to prison, we can always release them, whereas if we accidently execute an innocent person, we cannot bring them back to life. It is for this reason I support maintaining Canada's moratorium on the death penalty and also support ensuring all those facing extradition will not face the death penalty.
Violent and Repeat Offenders
I generally support light sentences for first time minor offences since people do sometimes do dumb things and they shouldn't have their life destroyed because of this. More importantly locking them away will not reduce their chances of recidivism and it will also mean they are less likely to be contributors to society in the longer run. However, violent or repeat offenders, I do support long jail sentences. Murder and rape are violent crimes that should be punished harshly and for the most part they are. Likewise for repeat offenders of property crimes, I do support longer jail sentences, although not your California three strikes and you are out. The reason for supporting longer sentences is if someone is continuously breaking the law, they likely cannot be rehabilatated over a short period of time, but require a longer period of time for it to occur. Also keeping them behind bars means they cannot commit crimes.
My next topic will be on the environment.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight | 7:46 AM
6 Comments:
Canada has too many examples of people convicted of the most heinous crimes, who turned out to be innocent of those crimes. So I agree that Capital Punishment is a non-starter. It is easier to reverse a mistake if the person is still alive.
I do not believe that there is any such thing as a "victimless" crime. If there is no victim then it would seem to be that there is no crime.
As for the three pillars of dealing with offenders that you state I cannot argue with any of them.
However, I would prefer that punishments of jail terms would be reserved for violent offenders while non-violent offenders are required to pay a hefty financial price and a hefty social price.
Example: If a person is convicted of simple assault he should spend time in prison. It does not have to be years but it should be a couple of months.
On the other hand if a person is convicted of defrauding a group of seniors of $10,000 he should be required to pay at least that much in fines and he should be required to pay restitutions to the victims. If he does not have the cash then his assets are seized and liquidated to pay the debt and if that still does not cover the debt then he becomes indentured to the state until it is paid off. That is his income is garnished for as long as it takes to pay his debt.
My theory is a person will think twice before committing such financial crimes as fraud if they knew the price for getting caught could be to lose everything they own.
Ottlib - I cannot say I disagree with anything you wrote. I agree with property crimes that restitution often works the best, although ones involving high amounts should result in jail time. For example, I don't think someone who steals a chocolate bar should go to jail, but someone who steals a car should, although unless a repeat offender, not for a long sentence.
In the case of assault, I think a lot depends on the intention. Of someone had the intention of killing the person, they should go to jail for a long time. If they simply were drunk at bar and got into a brawl, then not a long time.
Actually Miles my idea is to be certain that you do not go to jail if you commit serious money crimes.
To use another example, let's say a person embezzles half a million dollars from a bank.
What I would like to see is upon conviction this guy is given a fine of at least that much plus he has to pay all of the money back to the bank.
So he is on the hook for one million dollars. If he does not have the cash then all of his assets are taken from him to pay his debts. He loses his house, his kids' college funds, his car(s), his RRSPs and so on. If that still does not cover the debt then he is required to pay any surplus income towards that debt until he is debt free. He can use any money he earns only for the bare essentials and the rest goes towards his debt to society.
During that same period his movements are restricted so that he does not skip the country.
I believe that any would-be embezzler would think long and hard about committing such a crime considering what he could lose.
It is a funny quirk of people that they are more likely to refrain from criminal acts if they are faced with great financial consequences than if they are faced with other consequences, such as prison.
Ottlib - Certainly an idea, although I look at more the seriousness than anything. Embezzling half a billion dollars is much different than say stealing a chocolate bar from your local corner store. Still I do think full restitution and seizure of assets is a possibility. My only concern is those with limited assets wouldn't be able to repay so they would go to jail while those with more wouldn't.
Your final question in your response Miles is a good one and I really do not have a good answer for you.
I am not a lawyer or a legal expert. I have some knowledge of it but certainly not thorough knowledge.
I was merely throwing out some alternatives to the current method of doing things that I believe would reduce the cost of keeping prisoners and actually provide some justice to those people who are victims of non-violent crimes.
How would we make such as system work in the real world instead of just in my head? Who knows but I would really like to see some of our leaders begin to think outside of the box with regard to crime and punishment issues.
Ottlib - It is a good idea and I am not sure the exact reason although I suspect it might be that only the white collar crimes could repay while the blue collar ones couldn't so we would have the concern of a two-tiered justice system.
Is the woman who acquires Hep-C or HIV (notwithstanding all the best intentions and interference of regulators) or whose marriage breaks up because her husband is fiddling around with prostitutes or another partner - irrespective of status of a prostitute - in any way a victim? Or is victimhood a function only of crime rather than an absolute value, so that if you define away the crime there can by definition be no victim?
You have a valid point, but I would argue that legalizing prostitution would mean prostitutes could be checked up regularly and therefore the chances of spreading STDs would be lower than now. In the Netherlands where prostitution is legal, STDs amongst prostitutes is lower than here.
Post a Comment
<< Home