38

How will Bill C-10 affect crime rates in Canada?


 

 
Filed under:

How will Bill C-10 affect crime rates in Canada?

  1. The whole POINT of c10 was to make more criminals so that we could have a US-style, for-profit, slave-prison industry. Since Canadian kids are spoiled and entitled and complacent, it seems perfectly reasonable, to me, to use them as slave labor in prisons. Too lazy to vote? Good, we need a guy like you to make fighter jet parts. Into the cage, sonny!

    Canada deserves every bad thing that happens from now on. 

    •  What a nonsense.

      • Only one nonsense?

    • I wish that I could disagree with you on anything you’ve said, but the simple truth is that most people simply don’t care about anything until it’s far too late to do anything to fix anything.

      They complain and wait for “someone else to fix things” never once considering that a country full of 35 milion people COULD simply get off their collective asses and DEMAND CHANGES BE MADE NOW!

      Of course, that requires that people care…and we’ve already established nobody cares until whatever problem lands directly on their own doorstep.

      In the meantime, we’ll see an astronomical rise in incidents of non-violent people being imprisoned, and this will “justify all the billions wasted in new, unneeded prisons” in a country which, until Bill C-10, had a near-40-year consistent drop in all manner of crime, across the board.

      Canadian politics:  Talk to the stupid people, and never let REALITY come into play…it’s all about funnelling money from one criminal regime to another criminal corporation these days.  Next thing you know, Harperius will start playing warmonger and launching attacks in foreign countries so that he can “justify” creating a Canadian version of “Der Fatherland Security Office.”  It’ll make the transition to the North American Union a lot smoother, when nobody has any rights left.

  2. Crime rates will rise, but not because of the bill. Rather because of the increased poverty that Canadians are going to experience due to this government’s poor timing on austerity measures.

    However, two things are going to happen  from this bill. First, the severity of crimes is going to increase. Second, minor crimes will not be brought before the court as often because killing the ability to plea bargain will clog up our court system, and so prosecutors will simply stop worrying about the “small stuff”.

    This will add to the general public’s disillusionment about law enforcement, and I’ve little doubt will lead to calls from them for even harsher punishments to be put into place.

  3. The Tories actually WANT crime to go up, because Conservatives fare better electorally when the population lives in fear. The vicious circle they hope to ramp up can sadly only benefit them in the end. 

    • Wow. You think that if crime goes up, people are going to give the Tories credit for it, and be more likely to vote for them? Why would people be do that? Are you saying all Canadians are insane?

      • No, he’s saying that people won’t be looking to attach blame to what moved the crime rates, and instead will vote for the party that is thought to be the most ‘anti-crime’

        You see, it’s “common sense” that harsher penalties and tougher crime enforcement cuts down on crime — which is what the CPC likes to tout. 

        But, like with heavier things falling faster than lighter things, or the earth being flat or being the center of the universe, common sense is simply wrong. The counter-intuitive truth is that harsher sentences do little to affect crime incidence, but instead tend to affect crime severity, with harsher sentences leading to the crimes being committed being more severe.  For instance, the liquor store robbery which starts to go wrong becomes a liquor store murder as the culprit suddenly starts thinking about what happens if he gets caught and there’s a witness.

        Unfortunately, most people just go with what their common sense tells them and don’t think things through any further than that.

        • Your argument tries to have it both ways. You are suggesting that harsher sentences don’t have a deterrent effect when people are planning a crime, but that criminals rationally respond to the greater punishment while committing a crime. That doesn’t seem to make much sense either – if anything, it should be the other way around. 

          Additionally I contest the notion that “there is no evidence harsher penalties/tougher enforcement effects crime rates”. Plenty of folks – particularly those operating in the law and economics (I’d trust the statistics skills of economists over criminologists any day) tradition – have found support for harsher sentencing. For instance, Levitt (1998) finds evidence to support both a deterrence and incapacitation effect from greater arrest rates: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittWhyDoIncreasedArrest1998.pdfOr more recently, Owens (2009) estimated that the incapacitative benefits of incarceration alone are a net social benefit, despite the fiscal cost of imprisonment.http://kg6ek7cq2b.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=EG&aulast=Owens&atitle=More+time,+less+crime%3F+Estimating+the+incapacitative+effect+of+sentence+enhancements&id=doi:10.1086/593141&title=Journal+of+law+%26+economics&volume=52&issue=3&date=2009&spage=551&issn=0022-2186 And – so soon after the death of James Q. Wilson, I would be remiss not to mention the success of “broken window” policing tactics (for instance in New York City). By being less tolerant of minor crimes, police help signal a higher likelihood that the law will be enforced. While not the only factor in reduction in New York’s crime rate, it certainly helped.The reality is that well implemented “tough on crime” policies can provide positive results. Moreover, reasonable people may have deontological reasons for demanding that crimes go punished. However, they are costly, and probably exhibit diminishing returns to scale. So there are tradeoffs that governments need to pay attention to before locking people up and throwing away the key.    

          • It makes perfect sense.. if you allow that criminals don’t have much for long-term thinking.

            A criminal committing a crime is generally not thinking about the sentence, they’re thinking how they’ll avoid getting caught. When those thoughts are shown to be false, they move to the next bit of short term logic — “What happens when I *do* get caught? Oh shit. I gotta make sure they can’t prove anything!”

            I’m not fully up on the debates in criminal sociology however in a quick read through, I notice that Owens counts number of arrests that the recidivist commits as equal to the number of charges laid. Given that one crime often has several charges laid (armed robbery, possession of a fire-arm, break and enter, resisting arrest, etc) we can immediately see a difficulty in her assumption as to the costs to society. After all, when you conflate all the charges of one crime with the crime itself that’s going to give you a much higher rate of “arrests”, which she later ties to a direct cost/arrest. Given that her results found only marginal benefit even under that circumstance, I don’t think it’s a stretch to argue that she could be wrong.

            Levitt and the Broken Window theory both speak to what I’m talking about — criminals thinking more about “will I get caught” than harsher sentencing. Because “increasing arrest rate”, which Levitt examines, is very different from “harsher sentences”. Yeah, you increase incidence of arrest, or you increase the impression that the neighborhood is watching and reacting to events, criminals are less likely to do something, because they’re less likely to be able to think of a plan where they won’t get caught. (Incidentally, broken windows was about repairing minor damage done quickly, not more arrests.. it was about making sure a neighborhood didn’t look derelict. And it had absolutely *nothing* to do with sentencing.)

            I mean, hell yeah, if the CPC bill was about increasing police presence and public surveillance capabilities, I’d be all for it. Even if doesn’t address the root causes of crime, it’s still a way to bring down the crime rate further. It’s not what the bill is about, however.

          • According to criminologists the only crime prevention that works is making it harder to commit a crime and making the fact known that who ever commits a crime and whatever his or her’s mindset and fervent imagination is about getting away with it, that they will be caught, tried, serve time and be rehabilitated. The main problem with debating about crime in this country, is the negation of what people call petty crimes and violations like speeding, watching videos, texting and using cell phones while driving, drinking and driving and debating how drunk one was. How about so called petty tax evasions when paying for work done under the table and other illegal tax saving tricks that many like to interpret. How about white collar crime and fraud that most prefer to hee haw about as offended virgins. How about those who destroy companies and export our jobs out of the country and call themselves patriots instead of traitors, Shouldn’t economic treason be a crime. It seems that we have many standards and degrees about what is crime in this country. Yes, we are all experts off other people’s crimes. What if the Harper government started cracking down seriously on common crime also and jailing the perps who think that they are smarter than the system and obviously in their twisted minds and  fragile egos that they are also smarter than average bear. Sorry, but I dont buy any of the reasoning and non founded arguments from the proponents that facilitated  a selective bill C-10 instead of total crime prevention strategies. The majority of Canadians (60%) , how ever the Harper government wants to interpret their so called  40% majority, did not vote for this bill.

        •  I, frankly don’t give a damn about the myth of ‘rehabilitation’. I prefer the gov’t do it’s job and keep perps off the streets and if longer sentences do that, then good.

          • I guess that’s why your name is Maggat (Maggot). 
            Just eat away at society rather than fix the problems that lead to higher crime rates: poverty, lack of proper funding for good education, lack of social services, underfunded health care, taking away support for single women and their children…….all this while as you lower tax rates for corporations and the top 1% of our country. Yeah, just lock ’em ALL up…short sighted policies and already proven NOT to work in other places.

          •  Hi there, Maggat is the correct name, given to me when I joined a blog years ago, I liked it and so I use elsewhere. Canada does not have all the problems you mention, the pleas for & delivery of more money HAVE NOT worked in the past and I don’t expect it would work in the future. We as a country have a long way to go to erase the excesses of the past ‘progressive’ governments. At least we are on the path to correction and none to soon. Oh and bye the way, I can’t personally lower taxes, but if I could, I would.

          • You have no clue what’s going on. Wait till your kid gets 2 years for growing 6 plants, so he can afford to live while he’s paying overpriced college tuitions.. Smarten up.

          • But education is FREE in jail and anyway college is cheap in Canada thanks to us long suffering taxpayers.

          • If they did, sure.

            They don’t.

          •  When they are in the slammer they are NOT on the street.

          • And the average sentence imposed by judges was generally more than the minimums this law has imposed, except for in rare cases where there were extenuating circumstances.

            With this legislation however, prosecutors will be less likely to bother with small crimes because they’ll be too busy using up their court dates for bigger crimes which can no longer be plea-bargained with. Plus before, defendant lawyers would generally argue for a lower sentence based on what the average sentence was (which was higher) now they’ll be arguing for sentences based on the legislated minimum.

            ERgo, the legislation is a crock of crap because it means fewer criminals will plead guilty and see the inside of a jail at all, and most of those who do will wind up getting *lighter* sentences, not heavier. The exception to this will be people who putting in jail for a year or more who really shouldn’t be there, like those who are mentally unstable or people committing extremely minor offenses (like a college kid growing a pot plant in his rented apartment and giving some to his friends — that’s trafficking using the real property of a third person)

          • Yes how about putting all the friendly neighborly perps away that speed on our streets and highways, text, use cell phones and watch videos while driving or  drive drunk. How about the perps who injure other players in sport events and the perp fans that encourage violence at sporting events and in our streets and bars or that  highjack and join student riots in progress and destroy downtown property, raid and steal ffrom stores and then blame it on students that are demonstrating for free education. What! Boys and girls just gotta have fun after getting drunk in bars and sporting events and ride a student event to get they sorry rocks off. How about the perps that evade taxes by paying for work done under the table and other cute strategies not to pay their share of taxes that must now  pay for bill C-10 that some hail loud and proud without knowing the real consequences of such bills. Some people should start reading the canadian criminal code because all crimes are coded in there with a penalty and some who enjoy petty crime would be surprised at what is actually coded as a crime. Most people are lucky that Big brothers in the Harper government hasn’t yet amended the crime bill to really crack down on the above so called crimes yet in order  to keep all the perps off of our streets and communities in keeping with the politics of preventing broken windows.

      • Major crimes have actually  been down for years according to criminologists. The crimes that are going up are simple assaults in bars, in streets and sporting events where most fans are in total denial and expect highly paid players to beat each other up to a pulp in the name of sports and for the insane pleasure of the fans. Another insane pastime is finding an excuse to destroy a downtown core after a sporting event or even a cheaper excuse like highjacking and joining a student protest in progress to destroy property and raid stores and then blame the event on students. All the Canadians are not insane but some are while others are asleep at the wheel being disinformed by the Media that prefers to sensationalize certain events and trivialize others. Bill C-10 is a PR ploy to divide Canadians via their emotions about crime without the facts. Hence, why offer facts about crime when one can pull the wool over our collective eyes and keep us divided in prejudice, emotions and gore in lieu of facts.

    • Did you think of that all on your own or is it another NDP parroting point?

  4. return capital punishment. let’s get rid of this rif raf permanently!

    •  We can return capital punishment as soon as we become so wise that we never make a mistake. It’s really hard to undo capital punishment if you’ve already killed an innocent person. There have been a number of cases in my lifetime where the courts have made a serious mistake. As soon as you can devise a system that never makes mistakes, we’d all like to hear about it. And by the way I have worked in the prisons for years.  Have you?

  5. This poll has very badly formulated questions. 

  6. People who commit heinous crimes where people end up dead, mutilated, maimed; or who throw babies into a wall, should be imprisoned and given to the many brutish convicts inside the prisons who will then dispatch them. They will have been put away because they have no place in society.

    It is unfortunate that that inoocent people sometimes get sent to prison but that is plainly because our police have fulfilled their design on finding a scapegoat.Today, we have enough scientific acumen to avoid any chances of an error.

    R.Prendergast.

  7. This is a test 

  8. General crime rates will likely continue to decrease  – unfortunately Harper and his minions will be able to interpret this as a result of their “tough on crtime agenda” when in fact it will not be possible to determine what the cause actually is.    The only result that will be indisputable is many more taxpayer dollars beingh spent, and unfortunately a good proportion of the extra spending will be on Conservative/Government propoganda touting the conservative’s/the government’s “tough on crtime agenda”

  9. This is a typical anti
    conservative biased poll. Anyone that replies to choice one present himself as
    a simpleton and a yahoo, Second choice it is the quasi sophisticated  leftist choice. Third choice it is a
    variation on the second choice.

    Macleans Magazine
    became a leftist propaganda tool same as the Toronto Star. I had been 5 years a
    subscriber but I had enough of it and have not renewed it in spite of many
    reminders each of them with a better offer

  10. It is a leftist biased anticonservative stuf typical of the Macleans

  11. They have been trying to wanker in this C-10 type bill since the Reform Party days in the 80’s. Like education, once the government magicians decide that they can no longer afford the costs of prisons and justice, prisons and the justice system will be privatized for profit just like in education, health and social services to pay for crony administrator salaries in our health system or like in universities like Concordia that are run as businesses competing for customers under the premisses of offering a better education at a higher cost. Elites love to compare themselves and their things and are willing to pay anything to be able to brag about their achiements whatever the cost. Who said that all of the people can’t be fooled all of the time with crafty public relation ploys and nifty arguments that set people up against each other while the elite and their well paid crony apologists have their way and laugh all the way to the bank or is it to their tax havens as they preach austerity and the myth of monetary scarcity to the middle class and workers. .

  12. Am I the only one who wants to see criminals get punished? Has everyone forgot Karla, what about the victims killed by drunk drivers? What about the victims family, don’t they deserve a sence of justice?

    The fact is criminals cost us money inside prison or outside prison but atleast on the inside they stop hurting us.

    Tougher sentencing doen’t seem to deter new criminals but it sure slows down the reoffender.

    Tougher laws won’t solve all our social issues but taking the ones that make it worse out of the equation is a good start.

    The one thing we should include in this is some plan on reducing the social issues that cause many crimes and programs in and out of prison to help stopnthe cycle.

    I would pay for that but I suspect asking the government to do something right is asking a lot.

    • I agree that social disruption and mismanagement are the sole cause of crime.
      Our government is at fault for supporting the demise of social values.
      By putting everyone in jail will only increase the amount of hardened criminals after they come out of the crime institute.
      I myself have talked to crimninals comming out of jail that had a much more sophisticated
      idea of commiting crime and never get caught.
      We are slowly drifting into a capitalistic police state,which is what Hitler had.

  13. Where can I enter; Yes, because there are now more laws requiring jail time? It’s not about hardening criminals, it’s simply about having more ways people can enter the criminal justice system.  It’s obvious these policy makers want crime up, statistically at least. 

  14. I believe that when the young offenders act came in and kids could get away with anything because their parents had money and where not judged by community in the same way aN old fashioned parents of my generation where(we didn’t do anyting wrong or we’d be severely punished at home) and shamed by communityand the work foce.we behaved better because we feared consequencs.
    teach a kid it is okayif you canget away with consequences…and you get more vandism, drunk driving, street races, riots, break and enter to get street drugs..the internet teaches them to build
    anything they want including bombs, — you name it – we live in a society where one can literally get away with murder, especially with double time waiting for a court appearance for a life sentence, less than 25 years.
    what we truly need to do is add value to our justice system, where-in there are more family courts,
    and petty crime courts that are more accessible.  right now we have a justice system like in bc where they are so clogged, the fancy lawyers appeal for waiting times being too long and thus they just let 2500 cases off the hook, – we need to clean up at the level it starts, – right now young offenders because they get off are being used by drug dealers etc.  and yes, at the risk of sounding prejuidice,
    did poor immigration laws  let in too many gang or drug related types/
     quicker  access tocourt

  15. What I don’t like about bill C-10 is that it doesn’t do anything to address the issues and the source of criminal activities; It will also make criminals out of  some of us .. “reasonable” law abiding citizens, Basically I don’t trust the Conservatives when it comes to being smart about the fight on Crime.

    when we want and just plain doesn’t there’s just one thing I don’t like about the

  16. Sorry about the last line in my text, it was part of my first Draft and I didn’t notice it till I had posted my comments.

Sign in to comment.