68

Geezers need excitement


 

While Stephen Harper details new ways he’ll get tough on crime, Frances Woolley considers cost-effective approaches to reducing crime.

A study by Michael Ward published this month in Contemporary Economic Policy (earlier version ungated here) suggests that there is. He finds that an increase in video game availability, as measured by the number of video game stores, leads to a significant reduction in rates of robbery, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and mortality. 

Video game availability makes more difference than police officers, Ward argues. He found that the relationship between crime rates and the number of police officers was statistically insignificant, except in the case of robbery.


 

Geezers need excitement

  1. In other words, keep the young liberals in the basement playing video games and they won't break the law?

  2. In other words, keep the young liberals in the basement playing video games and they won't break the law?

    • Construction season on your bridge, eh?

  3. If only Bruce Carson had an X-Box…..

  4. If only Bruce Carson had an X-Box…..

  5. ….Or Pablo Rodriguez.

    Hey, isn't he STILL running for the Liberals?

    He should ask the FOUNDER OF THE WHITE SUPREMIST PARTY, who is also still apparently a member of the Liberal party, to be his designated driver.

    Oh sure he's no angel, but at least he can get Pablo to the campaigns in one peice.

  6. ….Or Pablo Rodriguez.

    Hey, isn't he STILL running for the Liberals?

    He should ask the FOUNDER OF THE WHITE SUPREMIST PARTY, who is also still apparently a member of the Liberal party, to be his designated driver.

    Oh sure he's no angel, but at least he can get Pablo to the campaigns in one peice.

    • Or Doug Finley. Or Irving Gerstein.

    • Why don't we ask that Tamil Tigers guy for advice?

  7. Fascinating. Seems odd, but if it works we'd be foolish NOT to do it.

  8. Fascinating. Seems odd, but if it works we'd be foolish NOT to do it.

  9. Crime prevention report (with historic and future claims):

    There is only one understanding needed for preventing crime and it's this one:

    # 1 crime prevention solution: provide stable, caring families for children to grow up in. Mature adults understand this completely and are willing to provide such crime prevention methods.

    There is a shortage of adults available to provide such care.

  10. Crime prevention report (with historic and future claims):

    There is only one understanding needed for preventing crime and it's this one:

    # 1 crime prevention solution: provide stable, caring families for children to grow up in. Mature adults understand this completely and are willing to provide such crime prevention methods.

    There is a shortage of adults available to provide such care.

    • The article above references data to supports its argument.

      Got data?

      (Note: assertions based on emotion or "common sense", anecdotes and "shut up!" are NOT data).

      • Do you honestly believe that there is no 'data' that shows children from two parent families do best? I am often amazed, not sure why because I should be used to it now, how dire and misantrhopic liberals are when it comes to human nature.

        "A variety of studies of children with divorced parents experience more adjustment problems than children who grow up in nuclear families. This research suggests that parental divorce increases the chances the child will have difficulty with school, engage in early sex, suffer depression, commit delinquent acts and use illicit substances."
        Journal of Marriage/Family, Explaining Higher Incidence of Adjustment Problems
        —-
        "Meta-analysis involved 92 studies that compared children living in divorced single-parent families with children living in continuously intact families on measures of well-being. Children of divorce scored lower than children in intact families across a variety of outcomes, with the median effect size being .14 of a standard deviation." Parental divorce and the well-being of children, Psychological Bulletin

        • Good lord, thank you for that. There is nothing illogical about putting science aside for a moment and engaging the thought. Too often in these threads I see people who are confronted with some simple logic react "violently" by requesting sources. We're a discussion thread fer gawd sake, not an academic journal.

          Lastly, my friend, reacting in this foolish way is NOT the sole domain of 'liberals'. ;)

        • Personally, I think it's funny that Bergy would call someone else "dire and misanthropic".

          Has either of you ever engaged Fverhoven? If it kicks off with a motherhood statement like "There is only one understanding needed for preventing crime and it's this one: [insert motherhood statement]", the discussion isn't going anywhere. If he produced some data, like Bergy did, at least there's something to start with.

          For example: yup, not surprising that there's data linking divorce with problem children. I've been through it myself. So what's a policy that would reduce the divorce rate? I bet it doesn't include mandatory minimum sentencing or brand-new superjails. In fact, I'll bet there's nothing in the Conservative omnibus crime bill that aims to reduce divorce rates at all.

  11. Or Doug Finley. Or Irving Gerstein.

  12. Iggy should start a new national video game program as part of his daycare program. Give the kids in the government daycare an xbox and let them play games all day.

  13. Iggy should start a new national video game program as part of his daycare program. Give the kids in the government daycare an xbox and let them play games all day.

    • This is a serious issue, and all you can do is offer some unfunny bunkum? Your guy wants to waste a lot of money on an initiative proven to do harm, and you think it's a good idea? Unlock your critical thinking, please. Harper and his crew are plain wrong on this one — and there's plenty of evidence to support how wrong he is. How can you support a guy who will throw precious tax dollars away, solely for a perceived political advantage?

      • This is a serious issue, but no Liberal government has ever taken it seriously, ignoring victims and allowing repeat offenders to run wild. It's about time we considered the victims of crime, rather than only the perpetrators. No amount of evidence can account for the victims' lives that are ruined by pussyfooting with serial offenders. Take your holier-than-thou elitist and arrogant attitude back to whatever cave you crawled out of. What you call critical thinking, I call neanderthal thinking. You haven't had an original thought your entire life, I'm sure.

        • If there was an iota of evidence that what you're suggesting would reduce the number of victims in the slightest, I'd be a fairly strong supporter.

          As it stands, Harper does not appear to want to reduce the number of victims of crime, only punish the perpetrators. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of prison.

          • Punishing the perpetrators is one way to reduce the victims. Do you know how many criminals re-offend dozens of times? For a large number, prison is a revolving door, a place for them to stay for a while until they are released to offend again.
            Of course there are other ways to reduce the number of victims, one of them being to increase the chances of catching the perpetrators, and to do this you need more law enforcement as well.
            On both counts, Harper is stepping in where Liberal governments have chosen to do nothing.

            The classic example is New York City, which was a massive crime haven in the 70s and 80s, where getting mugged was bound to happen to every resident sooner or later, until Rudy Guiliani and others decided to take a tough line on crime, and ever since it's been a completely different place. This is what works, and there has been plenty of evidence to show it, but the so-called evidence based side has chosen to ignore the most obvious evidence. This is all the evidence you need: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

          • Yes, and others link the drop in crime to abortion legislation passed decades previous. There are certainly analyses showing that Guiliani's broken window-mending was more cosmetic than effectual.

            In any event, the United States easily persecutes the highest percentage of perpetrators. By their measure, they should have a crime rate significantly lower than Canada (and therefore fewer victims). And yet…it's not.

            I'd argue that our access to Universal healthcare is a prime reason for the difference in crime rates, as it's a great equalizer between rich and poor. When an obviously rich person is sitting next to an obviously poor person in a hospital waiting room, and both know that their children are going to receive the same level of care, it does wonders for the crime rate, in my opinion. It becomes much less of an "us versus them" mentality, as is seen so frequently in the USA.

            EDIT: Go back and look at your own link that you provided. The NY shift is replicated in almost every single state, and in the United States as a whole, when the peak crime period was around 1991 and has dropped consistently since then. Certainly, that cannot be attributed to one single mayor in New York.

          • I have a really hard time believing that abortion reduces crime rates. I think that's pure fiction. If that were true, you would see the same phenomenon elsewhere, because abortion rates have risen worldwide in the first world. Do we see the same phenomenon in London? In Los Angeles? No. The NY shift is not replicated in every state, as you claim, that's not true. Look at Texas. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

            While there are similarities of the trend (much of that likely due to aging populations and less young adults and kids country-wide), the crime rate in Texas today is about 50% of the peak in the 1980s. The NY crime rate is about 15% of the peak. So there is a big difference. The same is true of California, and other largely urbanized states like NY, the crime rate is about half. The NY experience has not been replicated elsewhere.

            Therefore the most obvious theory is most likely the correct one.

            Additionally, the "poverty==crime" meme that you've resurrected here is also false. The two do not go hand in hand.

          • I'm not saying abortion is the cause; it could simply be an element of the baby boomer trend, etc. I'm not a criminologist. But let's compare apples to apples; the Texas number you pulled doesn't account for the fact that the population went up by millions more.

            Texas 1991: 2,652 murders for 17,349,000 people = 15.2 per 100,000
            Texas 2009: 1,328 murders for 24,782,302 people = 5.35 per 100,000
            =65% drop

            New York 1991: 2,571 murders for 18,058,000 people = 14.2 per 100,000
            New York 2009: 778 murders for 19,541,453 people = 3.98 per 100,000
            =72% drop

            Washington DC 1991: 482 murders for 598,000 people = 80.6 per 100,000
            Washington DC 2009: 144 murders for 599,657 people = 24.0 per 100,000
            =70% drop

            When it comes to the United States as a whole:
            USA 1991: 24,700 murders for 252,177,000 people = 9.8 per 100,000
            USA 2009: 15,241 murders for 307,006,550 people = 4.96 per 100,000
            =49% drop

            So, I think we can agree that instead of Guiliani being responsible for a 72% drop in the crime rate (as predicted by homocides), his policies–if applicable–only accounted for a 23% drop above the general USA trend. And this was equalled by the performance of both Texas and Washington DC, even though Washington is still the worst of the bunch.

            Canada's peak homicide rates, around 3.0 in the 1970's, have fallen to 1.9 per 100,000 in 2006. This is lower than Europe and pretty much any other place on earth. This is why I can't, for the life of me, understand the Conservative's obsession with spending billions on additional prisons and tougher crime laws, when there are no stats showing that crime in Canada is on the increase.

          • Well, so there is agreement then that the NY situation is indeed different, and Giuliani did have a hand in it. Yes, I can agree with that. But I also think that focussing on the murder numbers is misleading. You can choose almost any other category and the discrepancy is huge. In fact, that makes perfect sense to me. The types of crimes you would expect to be stifled by Giulani would be lesser offences than murder – thefts, assaults, muggings, vandalism.

            "This is why I can't, for the life of me, understand the Conservative's obsession with spending billions on additional prisons and tougher crime laws, when there are no stats showing that crime in Canada is on the increase. "

            You cannot understand because you are stringing the wrong two things together, attributing the move for the wrong reasons. The conservatives have never said crime is increasing (and if they have, they are incorrect). What they've always said is they want to be tougher on crime. And that is hugely supported by myself on many other people. I've already said I find Canada's revolving door justice system appalling. The number of repeat offenses is appalling. The soft treatment of most crimes is appalling.

          • Indeed, and the numbers when focussing on violent crime in general certainly show the New York exception. I avoided those numbers only because I wanted to compare with Canada, and cross-border comparisons of violent crime are inherently flawed because they report differently.

            This was an illuminating exercise for me, as the last time I've undertaking this analysis was a few years ago, and the USA drop has been very impressive. While it's certainly true that Guiliani could have been responsible for some of the drop, I'm still loath to attribute all of it simply because I think policy only played a small role in the overall drop. But that could simply be my perception.

            I can see your point about the revolving-door justice system. This has been both a criticism and an accolade of our criminal justice system, as we do actually try to rehabilitate offenders, allow them to serve their debt to society, and then re-enter society. I think other countries do a much poorer job of that. If we have become too lax, fair enough, we could re-examine this policy. But I do get concerned that in our zeal to deal with a few bad apples we could end up destroying what really works well for us as Canadians, in aggregate.

            I hope that makes a little bit of sense. I'm having a hard time articulating my concerns, but my main concern is that we could over-kill on this response. The discussion is so fraught with appeals to emotion that it's very easy to wreck the sort of balance we've achieved that gives us our historically-low crime rate.

            I just wonder if this energy is not better spent elsewhere, like dealing with healthcare issues and economic issues. We could waste a lot of time, money, and political capital fighting a battle that I'm not convinced needs to be fought.

          • Well, I don't consider it the central aspect of the conservative platform. But I do consider it something that needs attention. I don't think the low Canadian crime rate has anything to do with a leniency towards offenders. I think that victims of crime deserve more consideration, and that it makes sense to put greater emphasis on preventing repeat offenses. There are literally numerous individuals who have been in and out of jail as many as 20 to 30 times. In mind that means there are dozens of offenses that could have been prevented in such cases. I have relatives employed in the justice system, and some of the shenanigans that offenders are allowed to get away with is not pleasing. They are literally in and out, in and out of the justice system over and over and over again, and nothing ever changes with some of these people who continually abuse their neighbours and the citizenry at large.
            I think this issue rings true the most for victims of crime, who are not a majority of the population, but who do deserve more consideration. Note that their crime platform does not entail introducing new crimes – so it will not be like the US where the prisons are riddled with drug offenders and DUIs. The Conservative platform involves ensuring the more serious treatment of the offenses that are already on the books, and ensuring that people who have no other intention but to live a life of crime are dealt with more harshly.

  14. God Bless you Aaron Wherry for dropping a Streets reference into your blog – no day that includes some Mike Skinner can't be all bad :)

  15. God Bless you Aaron Wherry for dropping a Streets reference into your blog – no day that includes some Mike Skinner can't be all bad :)

  16. Well that's just amusing them….what they need is education and training.

  17. Well that's just amusing them….what they need is education and training.

  18. And Harpers solution is to build more American style prisons!
    RISE UP CANADA, RISE UP and defeat these anti-democratic, tax stealing, law breaking, citizen ejecting, ballot box grabbing, anti youth thugs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBPOK9PIw-0&fe….

  19. And Harpers solution is to build more American style prisons!
    RISE UP CANADA, RISE UP and defeat these anti-democratic, tax stealing, law breaking, citizen ejecting, ballot box grabbing, anti youth thugs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBPOK9PIw-0&fe….

  20. Common sense, simple common sense.

  21. Common sense, simple common sense.

    • The Mike Harris kind ???!!?

      • haha – no, the article title is taken from a song by The Streets: "Geezers need excitement; if their lives don't excite them, they incite violence. Common sense, simple common sense."

        • Thank you. I'm currently sensitive to possible subliminal as well as overt messaging. ;0)

  22. Construction season on your bridge, eh?

  23. Why don't we ask that Tamil Tigers guy for advice?

  24. This suggests a couple of things:

    1. We need more ways of keeping the little buggers busy.
    2. Criminals don't worry about getting caught.

    The first isn't terribly predictive, but the second demonstrates why the whole push by the CPC for harsher sentences is just silly. If it does nothing to prevent the crime, why put people into our violence training system that we call prison for a minimum length of time? Unless we're trying to be sure they learn the lessons being taught there, it simply makes no sense to keep a person in beyond when they might be rehabilitated.

  25. This suggests a couple of things:

    1. We need more ways of keeping the little buggers busy.
    2. Criminals don't worry about getting caught.

    The first isn't terribly predictive, but the second demonstrates why the whole push by the CPC for harsher sentences is just silly. If it does nothing to prevent the crime, why put people into our violence training system that we call prison for a minimum length of time? Unless we're trying to be sure they learn the lessons being taught there, it simply makes no sense to keep a person in beyond when they might be rehabilitated.

    • Good point, it's only law-abiding folks who actually spend time worrying about consequences. That's why we're not criminals.

  26. This is a serious issue, and all you can do is offer some unfunny bunkum? Your guy wants to waste a lot of money on an initiative proven to do harm, and you think it's a good idea? Unlock your critical thinking, please. Harper and his crew are plain wrong on this one — and there's plenty of evidence to support how wrong he is. How can you support a guy who will throw precious tax dollars away, solely for a perceived political advantage?

  27. The Mike Harris kind ???!!?

  28. The article above references data to supports its argument.

    Got data?

    (Note: assertions based on emotion or "common sense", anecdotes and "shut up!" are NOT data).

  29. Do you honestly believe that there is no 'data' that shows children from two parent families do best? I am often amazed, not sure why because I should be used to it now, how dire and misantrhopic liberals are when it comes to human nature.

    "A variety of studies of children with divorced parents experience more adjustment problems than children who grow up in nuclear families. This research suggests that parental divorce increases the chances the child will have difficulty with school, engage in early sex, suffer depression, commit delinquent acts and use illicit substances."
    Journal of Marriage/Family, Explaining Higher Incidence of Adjustment Problems
    —-
    "Meta-analysis involved 92 studies that compared children living in divorced single-parent families with children living in continuously intact families on measures of well-being. Children of divorce scored lower than children in intact families across a variety of outcomes, with the median effect size being .14 of a standard deviation." Parental divorce and the well-being of children, Psychological Bulletin

  30. haha – no, the article title is taken from a song by The Streets: "Geezers need excitement; if their lives don't excite them, they incite violence. Common sense, simple common sense."

  31. was about to say the same thing. Gonna throw on "Original Pirate Material" now.

  32. Thank you. I'm currently sensitive to possible subliminal as well as overt messaging. ;0)

  33. Good lord, thank you for that. There is nothing illogical about putting science aside for a moment and engaging the thought. Too often in these threads I see people who are confronted with some simple logic react "violently" by requesting sources. We're a discussion thread fer gawd sake, not an academic journal.

    Lastly, my friend, reacting in this foolish way is NOT the sole domain of 'liberals'. ;)

  34. Good point, it's only law-abiding folks who actually spend time worrying about consequences. That's why we're not criminals.

  35. Personally, I think it's funny that Bergy would call someone else "dire and misanthropic".

    Has either of you ever engaged Fverhoven? If it kicks off with a motherhood statement like "There is only one understanding needed for preventing crime and it's this one: [insert motherhood statement]", the discussion isn't going anywhere. If he produced some data, like Bergy did, at least there's something to start with.

    For example: yup, not surprising that there's data linking divorce with problem children. I've been through it myself. So what's a policy that would reduce the divorce rate? I bet it doesn't include mandatory minimum sentencing or brand-new superjails. In fact, I'll bet there's nothing in the Conservative omnibus crime bill that aims to reduce divorce rates at all.

  36. This is a serious issue, but no Liberal government has ever taken it seriously, ignoring victims and allowing repeat offenders to run wild. It's about time we considered the victims of crime, rather than only the perpetrators. No amount of evidence can account for the victims' lives that are ruined by pussyfooting with serial offenders. Take your holier-than-thou elitist and arrogant attitude back to whatever cave you crawled out of. What you call critical thinking, I call neanderthal thinking. You haven't had an original thought your entire life, I'm sure.

  37. If there was an iota of evidence that what you're suggesting would reduce the number of victims in the slightest, I'd be a fairly strong supporter.

    As it stands, Harper does not appear to want to reduce the number of victims of crime, only punish the perpetrators. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of prison.

  38. Punishing the perpetrators is one way to reduce the victims. Do you know how many criminals re-offend dozens of times? For a large number, prison is a revolving door, a place for them to stay for a while until they are released to offend again.
    Of course there are other ways to reduce the number of victims, one of them being to increase the chances of catching the perpetrators, and to do this you need more law enforcement as well.
    On both counts, Harper is stepping in where Liberal governments have chosen to do nothing.

    The classic example is New York City, which was a massive crime haven in the 70s and 80s, where getting mugged was bound to happen to every resident sooner or later, until Rudy Guiliani and others decided to take a tough line on crime, and ever since it's been a completely different place. This is what works, and there has been plenty of evidence to show it, but the so-called evidence based side has chosen to ignore the most obvious evidence. This is all the evidence you need: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

  39. Yes, and others link the drop in crime to abortion legislation passed decades previous. There are certainly analyses showing that Guiliani's broken window-mending was more cosmetic than effectual.

    In any event, the United States easily persecutes the highest percentage of perpetrators. By their measure, they should have a crime rate significantly lower than Canada (and therefore fewer victims). And yet…it's not.

    I'd argue that our access to Universal healthcare is a prime reason for the difference in crime rates, as it's a great equalizer between rich and poor. When an obviously rich person is sitting next to an obviously poor person in a hospital waiting room, and both know that their children are going to receive the same level of care, it does wonders for the crime rate, in my opinion. It becomes much less of an "us versus them" mentality, as is seen so frequently in the USA.

    EDIT: Go back and look at your own link that you provided. The NY shift is replicated in almost every single state, and in the United States as a whole, when the peak crime period was around 1991 and has dropped consistently since then. Certainly, that cannot be attributed to one single mayor in New York.

  40. I have a really hard time believing that abortion reduces crime rates. I think that's pure fiction. If that were true, you would see the same phenomenon elsewhere, because abortion rates have risen worldwide in the first world. Do we see the same phenomenon in London? In Los Angeles? No. The NY shift is not replicated in every state, as you claim, that's not true. Look at Texas. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

    While there are similarities of the trend (much of that likely due to aging populations and less young adults and kids country-wide), the crime rate in Texas today is about 50% of the peak in the 1980s. The NY crime rate is about 15% of the peak. So there is a big difference. The same is true of California, and other largely urbanized states like NY, the crime rate is about half. The NY experience has not been replicated elsewhere.

    Therefore the most obvious theory is most likely the correct one.

    Additionally, the "poverty==crime" meme that you've resurrected here is also false. The two do not go hand in hand.

  41. I'm not saying abortion is the cause; it could simply be an element of the baby boomer trend, etc. I'm not a criminologist. But let's compare apples to apples; the Texas number you pulled doesn't account for the fact that the population went up by millions more.

    Texas 1991: 2,652 murders for 17,349,000 people = 15.2 per 100,000
    Texas 2009: 1,328 murders for 24,782,302 people = 5.35 per 100,000
    =65% drop

    New York 1991: 2,571 murders for 18,058,000 people = 14.2 per 100,000
    New York 2009: 778 murders for 19,541,453 people = 3.98 per 100,000
    =72% drop

    Washington DC 1991: 482 murders for 598,000 people = 80.6 per 100,000
    Washington DC 2009: 144 murders for 599,657 people = 24.0 per 100,000
    =70% drop

    When it comes to the United States as a whole:
    USA 1991: 24,700 murders for 252,177,000 people = 9.8 per 100,000
    USA 2009: 15,241 murders for 307,006,550 people = 4.96 per 100,000
    =49% drop

    So, I think we can agree that instead of Guiliani being responsible for a 72% drop in the crime rate (as predicted by homocides), his policies–if applicable–only accounted for a 23% drop above the general USA trend. And this was equalled by the performance of both Texas and Washington DC, even though Washington is still the worst of the bunch.

    Canada's peak homicide rates, around 3.0 in the 1970's, have fallen to 1.9 per 100,000 in 2006. This is lower than Europe and pretty much any other place on earth. This is why I can't, for the life of me, understand the Conservative's obsession with spending billions on additional prisons and tougher crime laws, when there are no stats showing that crime in Canada is on the increase.

  42. He's got an xxx box.

  43. Well, so there is agreement then that the NY situation is indeed different, and Giuliani did have a hand in it. Yes, I can agree with that. But I also think that focussing on the murder numbers is misleading. You can choose almost any other category and the discrepancy is huge. In fact, that makes perfect sense to me. The types of crimes you would expect to be stifled by Giulani would be lesser offences than murder – thefts, assaults, muggings, vandalism.

    "This is why I can't, for the life of me, understand the Conservative's obsession with spending billions on additional prisons and tougher crime laws, when there are no stats showing that crime in Canada is on the increase. "

    You cannot understand because you are stringing the wrong two things together, attributing the move for the wrong reasons. The conservatives have never said crime is increasing (and if they have, they are incorrect). What they've always said is they want to be tougher on crime. And that is hugely supported by myself on many other people. I've already said I find Canada's revolving door justice system appalling. The number of repeat offenses is appalling. The soft treatment of most crimes is appalling.

  44. Indeed, and the numbers when focussing on violent crime in general certainly show the New York exception. I avoided those numbers only because I wanted to compare with Canada, and cross-border comparisons of violent crime are inherently flawed because they report differently.

    This was an illuminating exercise for me, as the last time I've undertaking this analysis was a few years ago, and the USA drop has been very impressive. While it's certainly true that Guiliani could have been responsible for some of the drop, I'm still loath to attribute all of it simply because I think policy only played a small role in the overall drop. But that could simply be my perception.

    I can see your point about the revolving-door justice system. This has been both a criticism and an accolade of our criminal justice system, as we do actually try to rehabilitate offenders, allow them to serve their debt to society, and then re-enter society. I think other countries do a much poorer job of that. If we have become too lax, fair enough, we could re-examine this policy. But I do get concerned that in our zeal to deal with a few bad apples we could end up destroying what really works well for us as Canadians, in aggregate.

    I hope that makes a little bit of sense. I'm having a hard time articulating my concerns, but my main concern is that we could over-kill on this response. The discussion is so fraught with appeals to emotion that it's very easy to wreck the sort of balance we've achieved that gives us our historically-low crime rate.

    I just wonder if this energy is not better spent elsewhere, like dealing with healthcare issues and economic issues. We could waste a lot of time, money, and political capital fighting a battle that I'm not convinced needs to be fought.

  45. Well, I don't consider it the central aspect of the conservative platform. But I do consider it something that needs attention. I don't think the low Canadian crime rate has anything to do with a leniency towards offenders. I think that victims of crime deserve more consideration, and that it makes sense to put greater emphasis on preventing repeat offenses. There are literally numerous individuals who have been in and out of jail as many as 20 to 30 times. In mind that means there are dozens of offenses that could have been prevented in such cases. I have relatives employed in the justice system, and some of the shenanigans that offenders are allowed to get away with is not pleasing. They are literally in and out, in and out of the justice system over and over and over again, and nothing ever changes with some of these people who continually abuse their neighbours and the citizenry at large.
    I think this issue rings true the most for victims of crime, who are not a majority of the population, but who do deserve more consideration. Note that their crime platform does not entail introducing new crimes – so it will not be like the US where the prisons are riddled with drug offenders and DUIs. The Conservative platform involves ensuring the more serious treatment of the offenses that are already on the books, and ensuring that people who have no other intention but to live a life of crime are dealt with more harshly.

Sign in to comment.