Will the Canadian Public understand

Kel Varnsen

If getting tough on crime was the answer, then American jails would be empty....instead they're bursting at the seems.

As far as comparing Canadian and American prisons the big difference is that all prisons in Canada are run by the federal government. I would have to think that makes a huge difference to the prison population compared to most prisons in the United States being run by individual states.

Think about it, if you are one of the poorer states, it is probably because you have a poorer tax base, there isn't enough money in the state budget for social programs to help people from committing crimes (since your population is generally poorer to begin with) and in turn there isn't as much money to fund prisons. So in this case you have the double whammy that is of course going to lead to increased prison populations. In Canada since the prisons are federal, if a prison in BC you can always transfer convicts to prisons in Alberta. I don't think you can transfer a state prisoner from California to Nevada.

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

As far as comparing Canadian and American prisons the big difference is that all prisons in Canada are run by the federal government. I would have to think that makes a huge difference to the prison population compared to most prisons in the United States being run by individual states.

Think about it, if you are one of the poorer states, it is probably because you have a poorer tax base, there isn't enough money in the state budget for social programs to help people from committing crimes (since your population is generally poorer to begin with) and in turn there isn't as much money to fund prisons. So in this case you have the double whammy that is of course going to lead to increased prison populations. In Canada since the prisons are federal, if a prison in BC you can always transfer convicts to prisons in Alberta. I don't think you can transfer a state prisoner from California to Nevada.

it might be very early for me but that does not make any sense. are you trying to say that the reason that the prisons in the states are full is because there is not enough of them. please let me know if i got that wrong.

i still wonder how many people in the prison states are there for drug offensives or other related crimes. i believe that the number would be very high. of course i am canadian so i can speck for teh USA.

Kel Varnsen

Thecure wrote:

at the present moment, the government is not releasing details about the crime bill. my worry is that all types of crimes will be listed. so let's say that a person is found to have some drugs and is charged will they face long sentences. i guess we will have to wait until teh crime bill is introduced today.

The crime bill was in the National Post this morning. Longer sentences for gun and sexually based offences. Raising the age of consent and making it harder for repeat offenders to get bail before they go to trial. That seemed to be the basics of it, and there is nothing there I really have a problem with.

Kel Varnsen

Thecure wrote:

it might be very early for me but that does not make any sense. are you trying to say that the reason that the prisons in the states are full is because there is not enough of them. please let me know if i got that wrong.

i still wonder how many people in the prison states are there for drug offensives or other related crimes. i believe that the number would be very high. of course i am canadian so i can speck for teh USA.

I was trying to say was that since the prison system in Canada is federal it is a lot more flexible. The reason that prisons in the US are full is not because there isn't enough of them, what I was trying to say was that the poorer states in the union generally wouldn't have as much money for social programs to keep people from turning to crime, and on top of that they wouldn't have enough money to maintain or expand the prisons as needed. They are basically getting screwed both ways, since they don't have the money to keep people out of jail, and they don't have the money to make sure there is enough room in jail. On top since most state funds come from taxes the poorer states are generally the ones with the poorer people (who would probably be more likely to commit crimes to begin with).

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The crime bill was in the National Post this morning. Longer sentences for gun and sexually based offences. Raising the age of consent and making it harder for repeat offenders to get bail before they go to trial. That seemed to be the basics of it, and there is nothing there I really have a problem with.

i just saw teh crime bill and i have to say that the only problem that i see is that the onus is on the defense to prove why the person should be release on bail.

there might be issues around the charter with that one.

however, i still want to see if the repeat offenders means just violent offenders or something else. it was not specfic in the article.

also, i wonder how the government is going to respond to people being killed less last year. it is true that youth killing is up but i wondering how people are going to respond to a youth being sent to prison for life.

i don't know.

Thecure

By Lorrie Goldstein




If politicians want to know why Canadians are increasingly tuning them out and not bothering to vote, they have only to look at the weeks of shenanigans in Ottawa that ended yesterday in a painfully obvious outcome.

That occurred when Liberal leader Stephane Dion, heading a divided and battered Liberal party, decided against committing political suicide by bringing down the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

That would have forced Canadians into a third, unwanted $300-million election in less than 3 years.

It was the right thing for Dion to do for himself, his party and country.

In declaring his intentions, Dion was being neither a coward nor a wimp, but a pragmatic politician.



He was behaving just as Harper did Tuesday in his throne speech. While it goaded the Liberals on such issues as their non-implementation of the Kyoto accord, it didn't throw down the gauntlet at them, compelling the Grits to join the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in defeating the government.

In doing what he did, Harper was being neither a puppet master nor an evil genius, but a practical politician.

As for all the shouting by NDP Leader Jack Layton and the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe rejecting the throne speech before they'd seen it, that was posturing by the peanut gallery since neither can form a government.

Now that sanity has momentarily reared its head in Ottawa, consider what would have happened if the fools on the hill had forced an election.

MPs, having just returned from a four-month summer vacation that started June 20, would have been right back on the campaign trail. That would have meant no meaningful government work getting done for six more months once the election and post-election niceties were completed,

Only idiots -- in this case, apparently, the Bloc and NDP -- would do something that stupid, in defiance of the wishes of most Canadians.

What can be said of Dion and the Liberals is that yesterday they didn't behave like complete idiots.

Given the way they've been behaving lately, trust me, that's a compliment.

Thecure

By SARAH GREEN, SUN MEDIA




The number of homicides in Canada dropped 10% last year, including a decline in the number of shooting deaths, new Statistics Canada figures show.

While the decline was echoed in Toronto with 70 homicides last year compared to 80 during the bloody year of the gun in 2005, the city has already seen 68 murders this year with more than two months left to go in 2007, according to Toronto Police figures.

Toronto has had 33 shooting deaths this year, including the high-profile gun killing of 15-year-old Jordan Manners last May at C.W. Jefferys high school. Two teenagers are charged with first-degree murder in his death.

The StatsCan report, released yesterday, showed the number of youths charged with homicide in Canada in 2006 was at its highest since 1961, the first year data was collected. There were 84 youths aged 12 to 17 accused of homicide last year, 12 more than in 2005. There was also 3% increase in youth violent crime.

Gangs were involved in 22% of murders in which a youth was accused last year, compared to 9% of homicides where an adult was implicated, the report said.



"There's got to be opportunities. There's got to be hope. They don't have that hope," said Audette Shephard, who lost her son Justin, 19, to gun violence in 2001. The murder remains unsolved.

"Everyone, we're all accountable. Some people blame parents, some people blame society -- (I believe) the old adage it takes a village to raise a child especially in dangerous times."

Shephard, who founded United Mothers Opposing Violence Everywhere, said the group will hold a "Stop the Violence" rally Sunday at Mel Lastman Square to raise awareness about youth violence. The 2 p.m. event, which organizers hope will draw 1,000 people, will include a "moment of noise."

"Instead of a moment of silence, we want to have a moment of noise to be a voice for the victims who have been silenced by violence," Shephard said.

Across Canada, there were 605 homicides in 2006, 58 fewer than the previous year. There were 190 shooting deaths, 33 fewer than the previous year. This compares to 210 stabbing victims, up from 198 in 2005.

The Toronto area -- which includes parts of Durham, York, Peel, Halton and other regions, according to StatsCan -- saw the highest number of gun deaths with 34 last year.

"However, taking population into account, Toronto's firearm homicide rate was less than half that of Edmonton, the city with the highest rate," the report said.

The majority of murder victims were killed by someone they knew, the report said.

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

As far as comparing Canadian and American prisons the big difference is that all prisons in Canada are run by the federal government. I would have to think that makes a huge difference to the prison population compared to most prisons in the United States being run by individual states.

Think about it, if you are one of the poorer states, it is probably because you have a poorer tax base, there isn't enough money in the state budget for social programs to help people from committing crimes (since your population is generally poorer to begin with) and in turn there isn't as much money to fund prisons. So in this case you have the double whammy that is of course going to lead to increased prison populations. In Canada since the prisons are federal, if a prison in BC you can always transfer convicts to prisons in Alberta. I don't think you can transfer a state prisoner from California to Nevada.

here is a reason why the US prisons are full:
Estimated Number of Arrests
United States, 2006

Drug abuse violations 1,889,810
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 13,435
Forcible rape 24,535
Robbery 125,605
Aggravated assault 447,948
*Violent crime 611,523
Other assaults 1,305,757

* Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_29.html

if teh US would give up on this idea that sending people to prison for having drugs is correct maybe they would have more space.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Harper is another corporate cash sucking Bush clone.

Kel Varnsen

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Harper is another corporate cash sucking Bush clone.

Care to elaborate since I don't see it. Harper seems to want to go by the will of Parliament on a lot of things (even if he personally doesn't like them), Bush vetoes anything that he doesn't like. Bush totally wears his religion like a badge even commentating that God chose him to be president, Harper keeps his faith to himself. Bush uses his wife and family to help his political career, Harper tries to shield his family from the public eye. I think they are totally different, I would be curious as to how they are the same.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Care to elaborate since I don't see it. Harper seems to want to go by the will of Parliament on a lot of things (even if he personally doesn't like them), Bush vetoes anything that he doesn't like. Bush totally wears his religion like a badge even commentating that God chose him to be president, Harper keeps his faith to himself. Bush uses his wife and family to help his political career, Harper tries to shield his family from the public eye. I think they are totally different, I would be curious as to how they are the same.

North American Union for starters. He's just playing along like Martin did.

also if you have to publicly state for the record you are not a bush clone (in those exact words I believe)...chances are you have become exactly that.

Kel Varnsen

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

North American Union for starters. He's just playing along like Martin did.

also if you have to publicly state for the record you are not a bush clone (in those exact words I believe)...chances are you have become exactly that.

He went against Bush on the northwest passage and he is pretty strong on Canadian Arctic sovereignty, doesn't really sound like playing along to me. If increasing our economic ties with our biggest trading partner is just for starters please feel free to add more.

On top of the differences in personality I have already mentioned, Bush also likes to play up the Texas regular average American guy part of his personality (who might not be very smart), Harper is a smart guy who makes not attempts to hid that to appeal to voters.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

He went against Bush on the northwest passage and he is pretty strong on Canadian Arctic sovereignty, doesn't really sound like playing along to me. If increasing our economic ties with our biggest trading partner is just for starters please feel free to add more.

On top of the differences in personality I have already mentioned, Bush also likes to play up the Texas regular average American guy part of his personality (who might not be very smart), Harper is a smart guy who makes not attempts to hid that to appeal to voters.

Soon Canadians will learn how much Harper has sold out Canada's sovereignty with all the secret back room meetings to determine the very future of Canada as a country itself.

Kel Varnsen

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Soon Canadians will learn how much Harper has sold out Canada's sovereignty with all the secret back room meetings to determine the very future of Canada as a country itself.

Again feel free to post any examples of this since so far you have only given one and the rest just seems to be your personal opinion.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Again feel free to post any examples of this since so far you have only given one and the rest just seems to be your personal opinion.

The NAU is personal opinion?

Find out about it. I've posted a fair amount about in this forum.

gue_barium

Who the hell is that nice looking dark-skinned woman who seems to speak for Canada at those public occasions of substance? My goodness, she is fine.

Kel Varnsen

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The NAU is personal opinion?

Find out about it. I've posted a fair amount about in this forum.

I hardly think agreeing on one issue makes him a Bush clone. If that was true then pretty much every world leader would be a clone of every other world leader.

Thecure

gue_barium wrote:

Who the hell is that nice looking dark-skinned woman who seems to speak for Canada at those public occasions of substance? My goodness, she is fine.

that is our gov-general and yes she is very good looking. she is our connection to the queen in england

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I hardly think agreeing on one issue makes him a Bush clone. If that was true then pretty much every world leader would be a clone of every other world leader.

what about the war, the new policy on drugs, climate change. same sex marriage.

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

He went against Bush on the northwest passage and he is pretty strong on Canadian Arctic sovereignty, doesn't really sound like playing along to me. If increasing our economic ties with our biggest trading partner is just for starters please feel free to add more.

On top of the differences in personality I have already mentioned, Bush also likes to play up the Texas regular average American guy part of his personality (who might not be very smart), Harper is a smart guy who makes not attempts to hid that to appeal to voters.

i don't really agree with that last statement. Harper did play up his "i am not a career politician like the others" in the last election. and also, every PM has had ties to teh amercans so that is not so different. the only difference is that when we had a liberal as PM we also Clinton in the office in the states.