How do you feel about the Conservatives’ focus on law and order issues? -

How do you feel about the Conservatives’ focus on law and order issues?


Filed under:

How do you feel about the Conservatives’ focus on law and order issues?

  1. these are our only choices? Sure, I understand that McLeans is read by a particular audience, but are atleast give the option to fully disagree with our current government's ideologically based policy decisions.

  2. Allow me to write your next poll for you.

    What do you think of the Conservative Government?
    a- Super cool
    b-Pretty amazing
    d-Like them a lot, but they could do better.

    How's that?

    • Not bad, but what about (e) all of the above.

      • So it is you writing the polls. makes more sense now.

        • he's getting help. There's some big words.

  3. I think I've been indicted into "the Left" on these boards, but I have no problem with being "tough on crime." But this government isn't tough on crime. They are tough on 'people already arrested for crimes.' To me being tough on crime means PREVENTING crimes – stopping crimes before they happen instead of just increasing punishments. Putting a murderer in jail forever is great and all, but wouldn't it have been better to catch him before he killed all those women? Give me a 'tough on crime' agenda that stops the next Robert Pickton, or reduces gang violence, and I'm on board.

    • 'I think I've been indicted into "the Left" on these boards…'

      Yes you have.

      'To me being tough on crime means PREVENTING crimes – stopping crimes before they happen instead of just increasing punishments.'

      John, there is no contradiction between being both tough on crime and working on crime prevention. It's not an either/or proposition. Hope that helps with any angst your false logic was causing you.

      • No false logic, only one counts as being "tough on crime" in my books. Sure they can do both, but I don't see any evidence that they are.

        As an example, instead of (or heck, in addition to) kicking up a fuss about criminals who are already in jail the government could commit to stopping the disappearances of Aboriginal women in BC. But silly me, that's only something us Leftists care about.

    • I totally agree. Provention is the best way that stop crimes instead of being tough to the person who made mistakes.

    • Are prevention and punishment mutually exclusive? I would think not – we can do both. Moreover, if deterrence works (and there is evidence it does, though it is debated), then punishment IS a successful preventative.

      • Limited funding suggests that whether we theoretically can do both, practically we need to focus on one or the other.

  4. Moe, that's a rather fatuous response, and I suspect you know it. Crime prevention isn't about "thought crime", it's about reducing the appeal of committing crimes as an often "rational" response to one's personal situation. In the main, that means reducing poverty. Kids in the 'hood who can't get jobs…for whatever reason…but still want "stuff"…have to see dealing drugs, mugging, robbery, etcetera as a relatively easy "shortcut". Single mothers who can't get jobs AND pay for childcare have to see prostitution…or any other crime…as rational. Drug addicts who can't hold down jobs will also see a life of crime as rational.

  5. Maybe one answer is in changing our "consumption" society to something else. That would take a long time, and I suspect most industries and business leaders would fight that tooth and nail. Cutting back government programs that help support those in need just isn't the answer, in fact it exacerbates the crime problem. Too few business leaders take the long view; most think in terms of quarterly profit and loss statements, which is why their insistance on lower taxes is actually self-defeating. Even Henry Ford understood that people had to be paid enough to be able to afford to buy the products that he and other industrialists were making.

  6. I can't believe that Canada has become a country where television addled sheep believe it is wrong to send people to jail for rape, murder, and other serious crimes, and make no mistake, many leftist commenters here explicitly argue against punishment and deterrence for serious crimes.

    I can understand feminism and militant homosexualism, but to be actively pro crime goes well beyond insane.

    These people think it is wrong to send Willie Pickton to jail, since they don't believe in deterrence or punishment in sentencing criminals. They would let him walk after a few years of "therapy".

    • If you can find me one quote from someone who 'thinks it is wrong to send Willie Pickton to jail' I will buy you a first class ticket on the Western Standard cruise.

    • These are also the people who think every boat load of illegal immigrants deserve the Set for Life treatment. They think the protestors held for a few hours at the G8 deserve millions. They believe we should welcome Khadr back and probably try to force our government into yet another "compensation" payment. Is it any wonder they would not like money spent on punishing criminals, instead we should be teaching them about flowers and butterflies, yes prevention is an option, but you need incarcination for many people who are repeat dangerous offenders. Yes those of us who oppose the leftist views that flood Macleans and CBC are automatically branded as uneducated rednecks. But we have something that is worth more than these look down their nose "scholarly" and that is Common Sense and a sense of reality!

    • How stupid are you?

      This is why most people hate conservative thinking…it is full of outrageous fallacies, like ordinary people being "pro crime."

      I'll bet you also are a fan of Fox News.

      • Really??? Let's just watch shall we? We've seenit all time and time again, so call me a Fox News watcher all you like. (I've neverseen it) I prefer to call myself a watcher…period. And I have been seeing the same crap from your ilk for years. We have also been seeing people with rap sheets the length of both their arms committing crimes, being let out on house arrest, skipping parole, walking through restraining orders, and mollesting, murdering, stealing, etc., etc. etc… cannot deny that, no matter how rose colored your glasses are.

        • Inmyopinion:

          My comments were directed to the original commentator: Proper Conservatice. Not you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  7. According to John Geddes and the other denizens of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, Canadians and the government should be listening to the "experts" when it comes to crime control.

    These so-called experts beleive in therapy for criminals, not punishment. It's the hug-a-thug philosophy.

    We've tried the hug-a-thug philosophy: not only does it not work, it is wholly unjust as it does punish the offender which is the cornerstone of any criminal justice system.

    You want a just criminal justice system and one that works?

    The answer is as simple as it is clear: punish criminals.

    • And Conservatives are all racists. That's the level of debate you're going for here, right?

      • Before you get to "Hug a Thug" you have to "Find a Dimitri".

    • Hey, why don't you just round up young babes born into poverty and cycles of abuse, addiction and mental illness and nip it right early in the bud! You're ignorant. Feed the hungry, heal the wounded, protect children, shelter the homeless, have compassion, volunteer, get active – be selfless…. get involved and make a difference instead of sitting back and applauding humans kept in cages like animals.

      • You got to be kidding me. It is socialist, "wrap everyone in cotton wool" thinking that has put justice in the sad state that is today.People make choices to rape someone's daughter.Make a choice to smoke crack,then shoot someone's brother in the face because they just happened to be in the corner store that he was robbing.They make a choice to molest the little boy around the corner.God forbid these things ever happen to someone you love.
        If it does I doubt very much you will be volunteering at the local Good Shepard giving these "humans" a coffee,cookie and a hug,telling them its o.k its not there fault.Give your head a shake.

        • Uh yeah right. That is one of the more twisted and inaccurate definitions of socialism Ive read in a while.

          Stay awake during class Sean.

  8. Who said anything about arresting people for crimes not committed? Perhaps you have committed a logic crime here, but I don't think you should be arrested for it.

  9. Instead of spending $billions housing all these crooks and murderers and rapists. Send them out on chain gangs building roads, railways, pipelines, etc, in the North.

    The Bleeding hearts can volunteer to work in the camps and tuck them in at night.

    If the occasional one, (like a Clifford Olsen, or Bernardo), wanders off and gets eaten by Wolves or a Polar Bear, No great loss.

    • Lets put them to work on farms. That hard work will teach them, right? Wait, what's that, we already do that? And the tough-on-crime Conservatives are canceling the program so the criminals can sit around and watch TV? Hmm.

      • yeah which also gets rid of the fresh produce from prison farms that go to food banks. Sort of an unfortunate victim of their tough on crime lack of thinking.

        So why do conservatives hate poor Canadians?

  10. A significant problem with the discipline of criminology is that it is infested with Marxist assumptions and hence an almost exclusive concern with the so-called 'roots causes of crime'. The moral paradigm of criminal acts, that is that it is a voluntary wrongful act is treated almost as an afterthought.

    Poverty and other social conditions are not, contrary to what the marxists think, either necessary or sufficient causes of crime.

    • Perhaps not.. but will you deny that they are factors?

    • You speak of "Marxist assumptions" about the "root causes of crime."

      You must know that the most repressive regimes on the face of the earth were (are) the Marxist regimes in the Soviet Union and China.

      So, it appears that, if we want Canada to be rid of crime, we should encourage the Conservatives to become more Marxist in their responses to crime – kill all of the miscreants and other enemies of the peaceful state.

  11. People should be responsible for their actions.
    I don't care what kind of childhood you had, if you kill or harm someone, pay the price.

    Now when it comes to crimes where no one is harmed, physically or financially, like the guy growing a couple of pot plants, or smoking a joint behind a bar. Or someone caught blowing slightly over the limit on a breatherizer at a checkstop. I can go along with the idea of no jail time. Or Like throwing people in jail to protect them from themselves.

  12. Climate change is mostly natural,we should be doing more to cleanup the enviornment,we can and must do.Lake Winnipeg is a jewel for the prairies,but over the years it has been used as a cesspool by Canadians and Americans.Studies have shown that 95 percent of the pollution in Lake Winnipeg flow from the Red River and these studies also show that 95 percent of the pollution in the Red River are in place before the Red River flows into Canada .Like thanks USA,green scum all over the place ,can't we dam the Red River at the border, let the USA deal with their own crap,Devils Lake water diverted to flow into the Red River,so that the crap won't flow into the Mississippi.We did have laws and agreements with the good old USA,but when do they abide by laws and agreements.Remember 1812 never forget your lessons.

    • The hell? What on earth does any of that have to do with the CPC law & order stuff?

  13. I find it hard to even contemplate that Conrad Black, who is a convicted criminal, could be allowed back into Canada when a heroic figure like George Galloway is denied entry.

  14. Living in Winnipeg where crime is rampant, I wish some of those bleeding heart lefties,from the East, would come stay here for awhile and experience what are daily occurances in this province!! There is no way I believe crime is falling.

    • So, because you do not believe it, it cannot be true?

      • and apparently Winnipeg is a sample group for all of Canada. Those Manitoba mountains just define what it is like to be a British Columbian.

  15. As crass as this may sound to many in this society, I do believe that crime, especially violent crime, isn't dealt with sufficiently in our country.

    I'll use the following as examples:

    1) Anybody who can be proven to kill someone else in a premeditated manner should be subject to the death penalty. At worst, that person should get life in prison with ABSOLUTELY NO opportunity for parole. This thing called life in prison really equaling 25 years (or thereabout) with the opportunity for parole in some shorter amount of years is truly a mishandling of justice in our country.

    2) Anybody who kills someone else while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (or whatever) or by any illegal handling of the vehicle (speeding, using a hand-held device, etc.) should be imprisoned in the same manner as someone who 'accidentally' kills someone without having intended to do so. To be lenient as is commonly being done is, again, a miscarriage of justice.

    3) Anybody who assaults someone else (ie. a husband beating a wife (or the other way around) should not be given 'slaps on the hand' and/or simple restraining orders since these decisions are usually a license to go back to the behaviour in question.

    These are only examples of how I believe that our justice system is much too lenient towards people who assault or kill others. I hope that this (or any) government will let the pendulum swing back to where it should be.

    Anybody who cries that there's always the possibility of punishing or executing an innocent person is dealing with past issues. With today's technology (and those being constantly developed), it's getting to be a miniscule possibility that such a thing could happen.

    • Unless you have tainted "experts" like Dr. Charles Smith, misusing the latest technology.

      • The Charles Smiths of this world are very rare. But you do have a valid point. Thank you.

    • Death penalty? No one person has the right to end another person's life. Two wrongs don't make a right. What kind of person thinks it's fine to kill a human -even ones who have done horrible things. Killing others is not the answer. Why don't you dig a little deeper. Maybe you can move to a state in the US that still has the death penalty. I vote your kind out of the country!

      • Thank you for your response, Gord.

        I have dug deeply and I've come to understand that certain crimes need to be dealt with in a severe manner. As to arguments against the death penalty, I'll deal with a few here. First, the taking of a life isn't necessarily wrong. It is definitely wrong to do so to an 'undeserving' or innocent person. Yet, in a way, to not make the crime of premeditated murder deserving of a consequent punishment (and I'm not meaning in the manner of revenge) is, in fact making the value of individual life less meaningful. Ours is a society that, hopefully, cherishes the life of each and every individual within it. Those who perpetrate such crimes need to know that the life they've taken is one that was/is cherished just as our society must be reminded, also, that the life that was ended was/is of great value. The death penalty, in this instance, though not the only expression of that principle, is the most valid statement of that fact. Second, it is known that the death penalty isn't really an effective deterrent, I know, but that's not the issue. The issue,really, is how to deal appropriately with those who willingly (and with forethought) destroy the future and the possibilities of the one they've killed. This has been dealt with in my first comments. Third (and I don't even want to consider this one myself) is the fact that maintaining these criminals for the rest of their lives is way too expensive so their burden should be removed from our society. This is a blatant contradiction of the first premise, that each and every life is precious. Lives are not to be taken simply for 'logistical' or 'practical' reasons.

        In any case, I thank you again for taking the time to respond to my comments. It is people like you who, through dialogue, can help to make our country a better one. Gord, when I say 'our country', I mean it since I am glad to be Canadian and have no intention to become American even if some of them hold views similar to mine. Ours, bottom line, is a better place in which to live.

  16. Harper has not been tough on crime at all. Jails never turned anyone into a better person either.

  17. Wow, it's amazing how in spite of years and years of evidence, Canadians are still hung up on getting tougher on crime. It's simple logic, if you want to reduce crime, intervention is too late when you are simply punishing criminals. You need to PREVENT crime, and yes, this means looking at the causes and doing something about them. All research indicates that getting tougher on crime, particularly those crimes that you are most concerned about (assault, gang activity, etc.), does not reduce crime. In fact, many studies show that getting "tougher" can lead to increases in future criminal behaviour, particularly with youth intervention. Our government knows this but will continue to ask for harsher penalties only to appease people that listen to rhetoric rather than taking five minutes to review the easily available evidence. It's not just for experts anymore.

  18. Our system is not perfect but seems to be working to the extent that crime is in decline. One has to wonder why on earth anyone would want to emulate the US system which is not. My philosophy is that, unless all of are safe, none of us is safe. I much prefer to concentrate on solving poverty of body and spirit with support, care, counseling and education to concentrating on more severe and costly punishments. We have to write off some people and separate them from society forever but more and longer sentences for non-violent crimes seems non-productive. Isn't it odd that probation bans socializing with people with criminal backgrounds while prison enforces exclusive socializing with people with criminal records?

  19. I am baffled how people parrot the line that we have enought prisons and that we do not need more. Here is the reality: We probably have enough prisons for a 1950-1960 population of 27000000 people, however we know have a population of over 33 000 000 people and realistically we should expect more criminals and consequently, require more facilities, we cannot let them all go like the addled Leftists would have us do

  20. Our problem in Canada is that the punishment never fits the crime. Instead of building more jails, we should be creating a gulag work camp up north somewhere and get the army to put a huge perimeter around it. That would keep the home army constructively busy to prevent convicts from escaping. Then we could also send all the goody goody socialworkers and therapists up there too to teach the convicts something useful. That would be tough on crime and prevention. Or even better, let us make a deal with the Mexican government to take all our convicts. It would probably be much cheaper for Canada and after serving their time, they would never want to go back to a Mexican jail. That to me would be

    a good solution. I am dreaming again.

    • I know that, in most ways, you are being serious but I also like your sense of humour, Your 'goody goody socialworkers and therpists going way up north to a 'gulag' kind of environment would likely raise a hue & cry from them but I'm sure you did it both tongue-in-cheek and with a serious intent.

      The Mexican jail picture… I don't know if it would work but it surely is a funny picture in a backwards way.

      Thanks for both the suggestions and the accompanying laughs you gave me.

  21. Crime ia not only on the street. White collar crime in the offices has been ignored too long. In government offices are particularly damaging the nature of our society. Our judicial leaders has concerned Canadian justice system not covered ordinary Canadians from big hanh power abuse.
    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s Constitution 1982 has made our leaders stand tall among nations. As a matter of fact, all levels of Canadian government have breached our sacred Constitution. Without legal service, there is hardly any accessibility to justice for ordinary Canadians. That means the majority of Canadians who can not retain a lawyer have no protection of law. Therefore, there are always some government officials and big corporations persecuting law abiding citizens in all kinds of fraudulent ways. According to law, Canadian top officials should have pleaded guilty, because their deliberately ignorance of their constitutional duty. They have pretended no knowledge of the sufferings of the victims of injustice. The miscarriage of justice and wrong convictions of Courts have been wide spread in recent years. I can confirm the situation because I have been working on a case for years and I am myself one of the victims of injustice.
    For years, Hon. .s. Harper has not answered my letters. To show his respect of law, the constitution in particular, first he should expand Legal Aid to Civil court to all Canadians. The fringe groups have been ignored too long without accessibility to justice.
    Just like the Air India disaster, Harper officially apologized after 25 years delay is still a credit to our governm,ent. The Charter has been 28 years signed to law, according to law, the state has a duty to implement the law. He ignore his duty is against the law. Wish God give him wisdom to do his duty well. That would be really a blessing to the country. What would be further blessing is that Canada would be the beacon in the world civility. That is ALL CANADIANS WANTED.

  22. Yes–we need more jails. I don't want criminals 2 have the pleasure of walking the same streets– I do-. murderers & rapists can not b e rehabilitated– i t's been proven over & over– yet- they say– they have been– then are let out– & do it again & again– need 2 be locked up 4 good.HOw many more children must suffer–or worse– be killed becasue of this,.with the D N A testing –one can tell–who committed the crime. so –build more jails– if we must–& keep them off the streets –for GOOD!!!

  23. My choice would be:
    4. It is a Conservative smoke and mirrors game attempting to create fear where none is required(because crime has been in decline for 15-20 years) with the intention to divert attention from their gaffes on the long census, Guergis, their war crimes in Afghanistan and their penchant for proroguing Parliament to deprive Canadians of representation.

    The Conservative notion of petty, divisive retributive justice instead of inclusive restorative justice is another topic for another day.

  24. Just another follow the US republican platform of tough on crime when the experience there has almost bankruped the state of California. I think we now have a Canadian version of the Tea Party, ignor the truth and make up your own facts (without the true censes they can make up their own facts).

  25. did you forget to print some of the questions?

  26. Help the criminal psychologically to become normal person instead of branding them and put them in jail. No one is perfect except the god!