What does DTK need?

[Rainrider22]

Oh you are very right on that my friend, it cuts into their social media time. Plus you might get cold or hot... But here is the thing, there are still hires that will do it gladly. They were taught the right things growing up and understand a good days work for pay, but more importantly, the right thing to do. Sir Robert A Peel said " The public are the police, and the police are the.public" Don't kid yourself, many still subscribe to this guiding principle. You only see the shit that the media shows..

[ijmorlan]

For a while WRPS had a couple of mounted officers. I thought that was great. Done properly, it’s similar to walking, but more visible, and when necessary much more inherently but gently forceful than people walking. Plus the kids love it.

[tomh009]

For a while WRPS had a couple of mounted officers. I thought that was great. Done properly, it’s similar to walking, but more visible, and when necessary much more inherently but gently forceful than people walking. Plus the kids love it.

I think they still do--but likely not in winter.

[ac3r]

I can't recall ever seeing mounted officers outside of parades. Would be an interesting way to police the streets, though mostly for show I guess. I can't picture a horse chase downtown haha so they would more act as a presence. Probably hard to justify the cost of that these days.

Having them walking around or using bicycles would be pretty good though and really help with the perception of public safety. With all the new residents living downtown and all the new students there as well, it would work great. Not sure if they still do it, but they also used to ride motorized dirt bikes on city paths too which extends the scope of more highly mobile patrols.

[tomh009]

By "mounted" I assumed on bicycles ... have not see officers on horses for ages.

[plam]

By "mounted" I assumed on bicycles ... have not see officers on horses for ages.

Crowd control...

[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

[danbrotherston]

Yeah, that's honestly a good thing...it was pointless. They did use them in practice...but like, when there was a "gun sighted" situation in the block we lived on and the police closed the whole road and redirected Victoria St. traffic past our house, I was trying to talk to the cop on the horse, and like....I couldn't hear them from up there owing to the amount of car noise...I found a different cop and asked them if we could go home....

[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]

By "mounted" I assumed on bicycles ... have not see officers on horses for ages.

Before the pandemic, they had mounted officers at BluesFest.

[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...