Mandatory minimums

Why do the CONS want them when there is no indication they will work? All current evidence shows they don’t deter any crime.

Get the whole movie here:

They don’t work anywhere else why the fuck would they work here?  That doesnt mean the conservatives will still try to push it through so they can say they are ‘trying to do something’.

Bunch of fucking morons… just like the people who vote conservative.

All of the other intentions and decisions of the CPC are backed by research and sound logic, which is why it’s so glaring when they make a mistake like this.

All joking aside and party bickering aside,

Wikipedia: Prison-industrial complex

There are a few commonly held mistruths that need correcting.

The first is the commonly repeated mantra “our crime rate is not rising, it is falling, so we don’t need to crack down on crime”.  In fact our reported crime rate is falling, largely because most people realize it is not worthwhile to report  crimes when the perpetrator will go unpunished.  In the past 15 years I have been the victim of one theft of $200.00 (not reported, why bother), one assault (reported, police did nothing), and several lesser crimes not reported.  Most of us who are victims of minor crimes will not waste our time reporting the crime unless we feel there is a likelihood the criminal will be caught and punished.  In the past these crimes would have likely been reported, as the scales of justice were tipped more on the side of police and prosecutors rather than in favour of the accused.  Therefore reported crime rates were higher in the past, even though actual committed crimes are higher now.

One crime that can be reliably measured is murder, as almost all murders are reported.  There was a long decline in Canada’s murder rate since the 1970’s followed by a more recent uptick in the murder rate.  A primary reason for the decline in the murder rate is a vast improvement in trauma care over the past few decades.  We can routinely keep trauma patients alive after they have suffered injuries which a few decades ago would have been uniformly fatal.  This is more a testament to our medical system rather than evidence of a reduction in crime.  Now when a patient is assaulted and kicked repeatedly in the head so he bleeds into his brain, he can be kept alive with severe neurologic impairment, perhaps depending on 24/7 care to feed bathe and clothe him, although I question whether he is better off like this.  So Canada’s murder rate goes down but the effects of the crime are just as brutal.

The second widely held misconception is that “studies show mandatory minimum sentencing doesn’t work”.  The “studies have shown” argument is an empty one.  Unless you have read the “studies”, evaluated them critically and assessed their relevance to Canada’s crime rate and incarceration rate, please don’t pull out the lame “studies have shown” argument.  Which studies have shown this?  When were they done?  Did they assess the impact on victims?  Did they follow up long-term to see if criminals re-offended years later?  Did the authors of the studies have any conflicts of interest?  Were the studies peer-reviewed?  And did you actually read the studies, or are you just repeating what you read in a Globe and Mail article, which repeated what was read in some other article, without anyone ever having read the original study?  Similar to the urban myth of “drink six glasses of water a day for your health”, this is a house of cards built on other houses of cards resting on nothing.

The bottom line is, Canada’s crime rate is higher than it was in the past, while we have learned to tolerate and accept an ongoing level of crime which lessens our quality of life.  No one really knows whether mandatory minimum sentences work, because both sides (similar to the ideologically charged global warming debate) rely on emotion and innuendo rather than facts.  It would however seem logical to assume that a murderer or rapist is less likely to re-offend while he is locked up behind bars for 25 years.

A good start to sorting this problem out would be to actually do some scientifically based research (not the shoddy stuff that passes for research among faculty of criminology and humanities departments) and make policy based on this research, applying the findings after considering all who have a stake in this issue, not the least of whom are the victims of crime.

And we could ask the same, what studies have shown

“The bottom line is, Canada’s crime rate is higher than it was in the past”


Studies have shown you’re a fucking tool.  Way to make a bunch of claims with no factual representation.

edit: please see above quote for my source.

Aww… Herbie… there you go again… injecting logic in an otherwise solid argument for voting for the cons and their simplistic solutions.  :evil:

If you believe that you personally are more qualified to make decisions on matters of law than a Judge then you’re either a long serving disgruntled criminal lawyer or you’re making a fool of yourself.
Stephen Harper and his entire Cabinet included.

A canadian or an American Judge?.. because there’s a few american judges who’s decisions are questionable at best.

Mandatory minimums are probably not effective at deterring criminals. A plus side though of having a violent offender subject to a minimum sentence means that he won’t be out committing crimes while he’s incarcerated. Releasing the violent offender on bail or giving him a short jail sentence with probation or giving them a conditional sentence order is not an effective way to protect society.

I would love to see minimum sentences for repeat violent offenders. Keep it business as usual for one’s first home invasion, robbery or aggravated assault. Perhaps it was a wrong place / wrong time, broken home, or not enough hugs scenario. On the second or third or even the tenth, however, give them a mandatory minimum in the interests of protecting society.

Funny how Jesus would say anyone who votes Conservative is a moron. When the Liberals brought in The Faint Hope Clause, Lowered the age of consent to 14, and helped in the release of people like Carla Homolka, and Clifford Sleigh. Before they did the time to fit there crime,i.e. (LIFE) in prison, or 6-10 years as the Libs like to call it. Rehabilitation is a joke!.

You’re a fucking idiot (clearly a true conservative voter). Where did I say I supported the liberals or state my political beliefs whatsoever?

Not all crimes are equal even if they are classified as the same crime.  Stealing booze for example is not the same as stealing groceries to feed your starving family and the punishment should not be the same.  If you think it should then you’re a moron (aka conservative voter).

Mandatory minimums take away the judges the discretion which in my opinion is a very bad idea.

hey now- theft is theft and its wrong no matter what spin you put on it. 

I’m all for tougher sentances, I think mandatory minimums would be a deterent to crime…not right away of course, but I believe it will.

I’m not a moron either - I didnt vote :smiley:

You’re out at the lake, your friends get hammered. So hammered one falls down and smashes his head open open a rock and goes into convulsions. Everyone laughs, it’s just so funny.
But you only had a couple beers so you have enough wits about you to dress the wound, stuff him in the 4x4 and race him to the Emergency back in town.
Where one of the cops who shows up to investigate smells alcohol and asks you to blow in the machine. You blow .05
Unfortunately Mommies Temperance League and your local MLA have passed a zero tolerance law mandatory minimum law. You go to jail, you lose your car, you lose your job. Because the law is the law is the law and nothing else matters.
The LAW is to be obeyed out of fear, punishments should never end, the Clifford Olsons and Robert Latimers are all the same. If the shopkeepers had concealed carry permits Jean Valjean would just be another dead thief.
Yeah we’ve all heard that crap. F.O.A.D. or move to Texas where there’s tailgate parties when they fry retarded 13 year olds.

Kinda like, if you fight someone on the street , it’s called assault. If you fight someone in a ring, its called mixed marshal arts?

I don’t see mandatory minimums as crime deterrent, it’s more like having convicts to fully “honour” their sentences they’ve been given. Still they should serve the minimum anyway.

Mandatory rehabilitation while incarcerated would be a better crime deterrent instead.

What is wrong with this person?  Seriously.  I would say they way he treats others reflects on his feelings toward himself.  It is possible to disagree with others without swearing, calling them idiots, etc.  There are a whole world of people with different opinions from yours.  That does not make all of them morons.

Now go ahead and reply to this post and prove my point for me.

I’ve got a bad knee but other than that I’m good thanks.

I realize it’s possible to disagree with someone without them being a moron but in this case they were in fact at the very least making moronic statements.

It is a shame that you answered they way you did.  If you disagreed with the statements and opinions given, I would have liked to hear your reasons why.

To reiterate:

  1. Crime stats are inaccurate because they only reflect crimes reported to police.  Many crimes are not reported to police.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.

  1. Saying “studies have shown…” in an argument is not helpful unless you can actually say which studies you are referring to.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.

  1. No one knows whether mandatory minimum sentences work or not, because there have been no good studies to prove it one way or another, instead emotion and politics decide the matter instead of science.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.

  1. There have been advances in medicine in the past several decades which have made injuries which would have previously been fatal, now survivable.  Thus the murder rate goes down while the number of people with permanent life-altering injuries goes up.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.

5.  A murderer is less likely to murder again during the time he is locked up behind bars for 25 years.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.

Thanks for helping keep the discussion clean and constructive.