(02-12-2024, 11:05 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I don't think I've seen (horse) mounted police since roughly around the pandemic. I have seen pairs out on bicycles a few times during each summer. I have never seen an officer patrolling on foot.

As much as I'd prefer police walking a beat and engaging with the community instead of driving around in cruisers, I don't think this is primarily a policing issue. It's a mental health, housing, drug use, and criminal justice system issue. These problems being present in every Canadian city regardless of the police force makes that pretty clear. Almost invariably the most egregious offenses across Canada that make the news show the perpetrators to have unbelievably long criminal records meaning the police are doing their job. It's the government and the courts, not the police, that decide who is fit to live among the public. It's the government and us who elect them that decide not to take housing, drug use, and mental health more seriously.

Edit: I should clarify I don't mean to absolve the police of needing to improve, only to put more blame and focus on where I think the biggest issues are

(02-13-2024, 02:16 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I wouldn't blame the courts, they are applying the sentences prescribed by the law, and there are lots of reasons for recidivism, and "too short/lenient sentences" isn't a reason. More likely the lack of focus on rehabilitation in our justice system is a cause, but very generally, people who engage in criminality are not given the tools (in the justice system, or without). For example, counselling is expensive and often unavailable, so people with a record of domestic violence who would absolutely benefit from such help cannot get it reliably.

And this is a broader problem, whether related to serious criminality or not (and it is most often not) our society's social safety net is increasingly threadbare.

Quote:and there are lots of reasons for recidivism, and "too short/lenient sentences" isn't a reason.

(02-13-2024, 11:06 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(02-13-2024, 02:16 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I wouldn't blame the courts, they are applying the sentences prescribed by the law, and there are lots of reasons for recidivism, and "too short/lenient sentences" isn't a reason. More likely the lack of focus on rehabilitation in our justice system is a cause, but very generally, people who engage in criminality are not given the tools (in the justice system, or without). For example, counselling is expensive and often unavailable, so people with a record of domestic violence who would absolutely benefit from such help cannot get it reliably.

And this is a broader problem, whether related to serious criminality or not (and it is most often not) our society's social safety net is increasingly threadbare.

I'm not as knowledgeable as I need to be in order to argue the percentage of responsibility between the government and the criminal justice system, but I am under the impression that it's not solely on the government. Law is a messy, imperfect system dealing with the complexities of humans. Combine that with sentencing and bail laws (rightly or wrongly) including considerations (an important word here) of circumstances, race, public safety, past convictions, etc., and the fact that new interpretations or considerations regarding old laws can occur at any time, and it seems easy for the large criminal justice system to get the balance incorrect. Perhaps their role in these issues are insignificant; I just don't know and am happy to be informed.

Quote:and there are lots of reasons for recidivism, and "too short/lenient sentences" isn't a reason.

In the absence of proper rehabilitation, which we are nowhere close to, I think it's far more productive to consider sentencing, where applicable, as a tool for public safety that rehabilitation should have served rather than punishment for the individual convicted. In that perspective it's worth thinking about the fact that sentence length is an immediate tool against recidivism in that the convicted can't create new victims while incarcerated. Though I understand the concerns with that line of thinking, remember that rehabilitation is itself a tool against reducing crime and not the goal of the CJS itself.

And I'm just kind of spitballing thoughts there... Broadly speaking I agree with what you've said. There are far more tools at the disposal of government and society that have been left untouched. And an additional problem I didn't mention before, it seems our current funding or ability to staff the courts is so out of line with demand that we are throwing out cases because the backlog is so big.

(02-17-2024, 03:32 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(02-13-2024, 11:06 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I'm not as knowledgeable as I need to be in order to argue the percentage of responsibility between the government and the criminal justice system, but I am under the impression that it's not solely on the government. Law is a messy, imperfect system dealing with the complexities of humans. Combine that with sentencing and bail laws (rightly or wrongly) including considerations (an important word here) of circumstances, race, public safety, past convictions, etc., and the fact that new interpretations or considerations regarding old laws can occur at any time, and it seems easy for the large criminal justice system to get the balance incorrect. Perhaps their role in these issues are insignificant; I just don't know and am happy to be informed.


In the absence of proper rehabilitation, which we are nowhere close to, I think it's far more productive to consider sentencing, where applicable, as a tool for public safety that rehabilitation should have served rather than punishment for the individual convicted. In that perspective it's worth thinking about the fact that sentence length is an immediate tool against recidivism in that the convicted can't create new victims while incarcerated. Though I understand the concerns with that line of thinking, remember that rehabilitation is itself a tool against reducing crime and not the goal of the CJS itself.

And I'm just kind of spitballing thoughts there... Broadly speaking I agree with what you've said. There are far more tools at the disposal of government and society that have been left untouched. And an additional problem I didn't mention before, it seems our current funding or ability to staff the courts is so out of line with demand that we are throwing out cases because the backlog is so big.

Longer sentences does nothing to reduce recidivism, and instead plays a part in making it a little more likely.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffct-prsn/index-en.aspx

"An analysis of the studies according to the risk of the offender also did not show a deterrent effect. For both low risk and high risk offenders, increasing sentence length was associated with small increases in recidivism. Low risk offenders were slightly more likely to commit new offences than high risk offenders. This finding suggests some support to the theory that prison may serve as a "school for crime" for some offenders.

"Regardless of the type of analysis employed, no evidence for a crime deterrent function was found."

(02-17-2024, 04:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The problem is that the deterrence effect of punishment changes depending on the crime and the motivations for it.

Punishment has little effect on a persons crimes of passion or crimes of desperation (the types of crimes we're most often talking about here).

But they do have significant effect on crimes of convenience (which are the types of crimes that most people, like you and I) are almost exclusively contemplating committing. The most obvious example is traffic violations:

(02-17-2024, 06:23 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I think well-off people who have the ability to run a business will think carefully about the penalties, and are likely to stay away from anything that has a good chance of putting them in prison.

(02-17-2024, 06:46 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(02-17-2024, 06:23 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I think well-off people who have the ability to run a business will think carefully about the penalties, and are likely to stay away from anything that has a good chance of putting them in prison.

Isn't that likely to be the case, though, regardless of sentence length? I doubt any of them want to answer "yes" to the conviction question on an application or have that pop up in their background search.

(03-11-2024, 12:19 PM)Kodra24 Wrote: I heard it's difficult to reoffend if you're behind bars