Criminal justice and prisons

[dtkvictim]

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

[danbrotherston]

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

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.

[dtkmelissa]

The mounted program ended in 2014. https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/police-hors...-1.1812480

[dtkvictim]

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.

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.

[tomh009]

Many issues remain to be addressed in the Canadian criminal justice system. And yet, even now, it is far more focused on rehabilitation (as opposed to punishment) than many other countries, including our neighbours to the south. There is no silver bullet to resolving all the problems, but I hope we can continue to progress on this front.

[Bytor]

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.

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.

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...ex-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."

[danbrotherston]

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...ex-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."

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:

I don't care much j-walking, because the chances of punishment are low and the punishment is low. In the Netherlands, I actually take it a lot more seriously because the potential punishment I face is higher--it can affect my immigration status (although, I'd have to get a LOT of fines for it to make a real difference), and also because other contextual things are different--the law is less intentionally biased and oppressive against me because I am not in a car.

Unfortunately this reality predisposes people in our station in life to believing that sentencing can make a major difference in the types of crimes they're concerned about...

[ijmorlan]

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:

Another category which I believe can be affected by sentencing is economic crimes, typically although not always committed by wealthy individuals. Essentially I mean businesses whose operations depends on committing crimes. For example, bulk shoplifting, where a whole gang of people goes into a store and cleans out a section, or fraudulent educational institutions. 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.

[Bytor]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

I think you’re saying the sentence lengths don’t need to be excessive to get the point across? You’re probably right, and I’m not necessarily calling for heavy sentences in all cases, although repeat offences need to be handled more strictly.

My point is that these types of criminals can be assumed to think about the consequences; if they still do the crime it’s because they think they won’t get caught or because the penalties are insufficient, not because they really need that extra $1M in fraud proceeds to keep warm tonight. But it’s at least as much about the system being willing to investigate, prosecute, and convict them, and then sentence them to something real, not some nonsense suspended sentence or whatever, as it is about the de jure penalties.

[Bytor]

Well, I already gave one link showing that longer sentences do not reduce crime, specifically recidivism.

More evidence that longer sentences simply do not work:

https://www.vera.org/news/research-shows...ove-safety

https://ccla.org/criminal-justice/no-lon...uce-crime/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf...10.00680.x

and on, and on, if one simply wishes to look for it and be educated.

[ac3r]

Long prison sentences should only be reserved for specific crimes that are very severe or if the person would be at risk of doing similar offences if released. That could include violent crime (murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, slavery, non-sexual child abuse, animal abuse [we basically do nothing about this]), sexual crimes (assault, rape, voyeurism, sexual slavery, anything involving children), organized crime, high profile drug trafficking (from major local drug dealers to people who are involved in importing large amounts of drugs across the border), crimes against the state (espionage, treason etc), interfering with the judiciary system (obstruction, perjury) and so on.

Short jail sentences should be reserved for small things, essentially a "you done fucked up" and which warrants some degree of punishment that acts as a really hard slap on the wrist. It needn't be a long sentence, just enough to make things miserable for them. Enough to send the message that if you think fraud or selling vapes to kids is okay, you'll spend a few weeks or months in jail. A criminal record will follow them afterwards too. Probation and similar things can also be used after release. Interviews with social workers, psychiatrists and other professionals would also be good, in order to determine why someone committed a crime and to figure out ways to steer them away from ever doing that again.

And while it's true long imprisonments tends to not reduce crime in any way, it's evident short sentences - or no sentence - is also not helping much. Crime rates have been rising in many parts of the country. Clearly we need some changes to fix that. The causes for rising crime seems like it can often be explained by socioeconomic issues that are impacting everyone. When life gets hard - especially financially or if one's mental health completely shatters - then people are tempted to do things they think will help (stealing, fraud etc) or make irrational choices (just look at the incel crowd...heh). I think it could also be used for drug addiction, though perhaps not imprisonment in a jail, but being legally obliged to go into detox. We routinely hold people in psychiatric care when it is determined they are a harm to themselves or others, so why not drug addiction? That is an even greater harm to the individual, but also the general public because it has created a widespread, complex public health issue. It also costs the nation millions of dollars per year. I don't see why we just turn a blind eye to it all and let them abuse drugs. You can't go anywhere these days without seeing an addict. We need to find a way to fight that, but unfortunately we are stuck with this hands off let them do what they want approach thanks to the bleeding heart liberal crowd hijacking public policy. That bullshit isn't working.

As for public safety - or rather the perception of it - police patrols may help. Have more beat cops downtown/uptown. Have police do patrols of neighbourhoods, even if it doesn't really do much. Feels like the only time you see a cop is when they're parked somewhere doing paper work, chatting with another cop or driving somewhere. All cops are bastards, but they can at least have an impact on the perception of public safety, even if ultimately they are an awful concept that exists. It sucks, but we don't have any alternatives that fill the role of public safety - yet.

[Kodra24]

I heard it's difficult to reoffend if you're behind bars

[danbrotherston]

I heard it's difficult to reoffend if you're behind bars

This is only useful if you intend to lock people up forever. For serious crimes like premediated murder, this is perhaps a solution.

For petty crimes, this isn't a real solution, both in that it's like, stereotypically fascist, and also that it's immensely expensive. Incarcerating people isn't free.

Of course, regimes that do this kind of thing usually just go full fascist and start working their prisoners to death.

In any case, assuming we would would actually like a free society, we need to plan for releasing people sometime, and if that's the case, minimizing recidivisim should be our goal.

I find it disturbing when I need to point this kind of thing out.

[tomh009]

Is crime rising? Yes, about 5% if you look at the past two years (2021 and 2022), but there is the pandemic effect as well so it's dangerous to assume it's a long-term trend.

Here is the actual long-term trend from StatCan. You can see that property crime is down about 60% over the past 30 years, with a bit of an uptick before the pandemic. Violent crime is down about 15% over the same time period.