Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Criminal justice and prisons
#16
(03-11-2024, 12:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(03-11-2024, 12:19 PM)Kodra24 Wrote: 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.

I find it disturbing that we need to point out that we do have jails and need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending
Reply


#17
(03-11-2024, 03:01 PM)Kodra24 Wrote:
(03-11-2024, 12:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

I find it disturbing that we need to point out that we do have jails and need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending

This is just dishonest rhetoric. I already acknowledged the need for long term confinement of individuals guilty of extremely serious crimes.

Do you intend to lock up every offender indefinitely, no matter how minor their crimes?
Reply
#18
(03-11-2024, 03:01 PM)Kodra24 Wrote:
(03-11-2024, 12:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

I find it disturbing that we need to point out that we do have jails and need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending

Not to speak for Dan, but he said “For serious crimes like premediated murder, [locking people up forever] is perhaps a solution”, and then says that’s not a good solution for lesser crimes. Now you say that we “need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending”. So what exactly is the difference between what you are saying?

It sounds to me like you’re enthusiastic about imprisoning lots of people, but when challenged retreat to talking only about violent offenders.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a discussion to be had (in particular, what exactly do we do with somebody who keeps shoplifting again and again, including after being imprisoned for a short period? drunk driving, same question?), but I think overall we could do with a little less enthusiasm to lock people up for long periods of time.
Reply
#19
For nearly a quarter-century, Ontario's prisons have been overcrowded (and likely before that too).  From a government report 24 years ago (Corrections Population Report: Public Safety Canada (2000))

Quote:Ontario reports that remand offenders comprise approximately 40% of the daily count and that this has been approximately a 10% increase in the past 10 years. In addition, the length of stay has increased by 2 to 3% during that same time period. The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General has established "Video Remand Programs" in several communities. This allows the offender to attend their remand hearing without having to be transported to court. Involvement in this program is voluntary.


11 years ago (2013) nearly half of Ontario's prisons were overcrowded (CBC). (14 of 29 prisons)


Quote:The new [in 2013] facilities will bring in 280 net new beds to what is currently a 9,020-bed system that last year housed an average 8,806 people each day.

The province says most of those inmates were held on remand — awaiting a bail hearing or trial. It's a cohort which has surged to nearly two-thirds of the provincial penal population today from one-third back in 1996.


In 11 years, with 7 years of Conservatives in power, and 5 years of Liberals in power before that, the prison system had a net loss of 1452 beds.  By last year (2023) (Toronto Star), most jails were overcapacity.


Quote:As of Sept. 30, 2023, there was an average of 8,889 people in provincial jails, well over the 7,848-person capacity. Overall, the jails were operating at 113 per cent capacity at that time.

Most of Ontario's institutions were over capacity in 2023, the data shows.

Maplehurst Correction Complex in Milton, Ont., was the most overcrowded last year, with an average inmate population of 1,188 but official capacity for 887 – meaning it was operating at 134 per cent capacity in 2023.
 

What has led to this? (from the same Toronto Star article) Delayed bail hearings brought on by a justice system which has not found enough "like-minded judges" to fill the benches and more conservative Crown attorneys arguing against bail:


Quote:Meanwhile, an overwhelming number of inmates held – 81 per cent, the government said – are awaiting trial and presumptively innocent.


Also buried in that Toronto Star article, reducing the prison population doesn't actually produce a general increase in crime:


Quote:During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a concerted effort to reduce jail numbers when it became clear by April 2020 that the novel coronavirus spread rapidly in congregate settings.

The average number of inmates dropped to 6,661 in 2020, from an average of 8,049 in 2019, the data shows.

Bytensky, of the Criminal Lawyers Association, said there wasn't a subsequent jump in crime rates. In fact, he said, there was a significant drop in crime during the pandemic with a few exceptions like a surge in domestic violence charges.
Reply
#20
(03-11-2024, 12:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(03-11-2024, 12:19 PM)Kodra24 Wrote: 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.

You're right, but i still think that humane penal labour can help offset costs. Eg. community service of some sort, shitty manual labour jobs nobody else wants to do(but with worker's rights and such) etc.
Galatians 4:16
Reply
#21
(06-28-2024, 02:22 PM)Vojnik_Vahaj Wrote:
(03-11-2024, 12:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

You're right, but i still think that humane penal labour can help offset costs. Eg. community service of some sort, shitty manual labour jobs nobody else wants to do(but with worker's rights and such) etc.

There is nothing humane about penal labour--prisoners are vulnerable people by definition, they are wards of the state. The state should not be forcing them to work to defray the costs of their confinement. If holding people is too expensive, the solution is to do less of it. It SHOULD be expensive because the monetary costs to the state are only a tiny fraction of the real cost. And again, unless we are talking about lifetime prisoners, the goal must be to limit recidivism. We do not achieve that by using forced labour to defray the cost of confining people...how does that make those people more likely to have a pro-social engagement with society. Think of it from their position, do you think being made to do "shitty manual labour jobs that nobody else wants to do" (but with some imaginary worker's right and such, except it's forced labour so what rights do you think they have?) will make them have more or less respect for society?

If you are concerned with the cost of prisons, then lets work to decrease the need for them by addressing crime and recidivism through social programs, not by trying to make it cheaper to hold people.
Reply
#22
We only need to look south of our border to see what kind of system prison labour enables. It's become a key component of the economy of several US industries and has led to things like judges being pressured to convict more suspects in order to keep up the numbers of the labour force.
Reply


#23
Canadian legislation and correctional policy dictates that prison labour is intended for rehabilitation, not punishment. But pay is currently very, very low: the pay scales date back to the 1980s, and the previous (federal) conservative government clawed them back by a further 30%.

https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2022/11/opi...in-canada/
Reply
#24
.
Reply
#25
(06-29-2024, 05:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Canadian legislation and correctional policy dictates that prison labour is intended for rehabilitation, not punishment. But pay is currently very, very low: the pay scales date back to the 1980s, and the previous (federal) conservative government clawed them back by a further 30%.

https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2022/11/opi...in-canada/

At a minimum, prison labour should not be an exception to the minimum wage laws. Being paid a pittance is not the proper training for being on the outside; the proper lesson should be that working hard earns money and gives one more ability to control ones life.
Reply
#26
Why should they even be getting paid when it's already costing us tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner per year? They should work, but anything they earn should just be given right back to offset the cost of keeping some idiot behind bars. I fail to see any reasoning in suggesting that either they shouldn't work at all while incarcerated, or that they can but be at least getting minimum wage for it. Like...what? That's essentially paying a prisoner to be a prisoner. Lol.

The work itself should be reformed. Employment - even behind bars - can provide someone with a sense of purpose and responsibility which is a useful thing for prisoners. I have no idea what kind of labour they perform in Canadian jails and in prisons, but I'm sure it's very mundane. If you can provide inmates with a more meaningful labour it may benefit them. Better yet, offer them a way to learn new skills, maybe with a way that allows them to study things like various trades or something in social fields (drug rehabilitation counselling is often a common one ex-addicts go into). Develop better programs and reform the way a criminal record follows someone so that they don't feel trapped and compelled to reoffend once released.

But to suggest they should essentially be paid for being a criminal even though criminality costs our nation hundreds of millions of dollars a year is an insane idea. Try selling that to voters. They'd lose their minds. I don't know how people come up with these goofy ideas. People like to point to Scandinavia when it comes to what their idea of utopia looks like, but for crime you're better off looking at places like South Korea or Japan for solutions.
Reply
#27
(06-29-2024, 05:56 PM)ac3r Wrote: But to suggest they should essentially be paid for being a criminal even though criminality costs our nation hundreds of millions of dollars a year is an insane idea.

They don't get paid for having committed a crime. The pay is for doing work.
Reply
#28
It’s wild how easy it is for some people to support actual slavery when the people involved are sufficiently hated and dehumanized. Fortunately that’s rarely racial these days but prisoners are no less human.
Reply


#29
(06-29-2024, 08:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(06-29-2024, 05:56 PM)ac3r Wrote: But to suggest they should essentially be paid for being a criminal even though criminality costs our nation hundreds of millions of dollars a year is an insane idea.

They don't get paid for having committed a crime. The pay is for doing work.

My point was that whatever they earn should be paid back. It isn't a lot of money, but a prisoner costs us tens of thousands a year and we pay for that. Have them work, take their money to pay for staff it's costing us to keep them, but also reform the system. There are lots of countries we can look to for solutions, with Japan being one great example.

Prison labour is not slavery or dehumanizing because it works fine around the world. Jail and prison get's referred to as Con College. It would be much more beneficial for everyone if they worked while also developing skills and responsibility.
Reply
#30
(06-30-2024, 12:44 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(06-29-2024, 08:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote: They don't get paid for having committed a crime. The pay is for doing work.

My point was that whatever they earn should be paid back. It isn't a lot of money, but a prisoner costs us tens of thousands a year and we pay for that. Have them work, take their money to pay for staff it's costing us to keep them, but also reform the system. There are lots of countries we can look to for solutions, with Japan being one great example.

What, in particular, would you like to copy from the Japanese prison system?
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links