What you don’t know


A former Progressive Conservative MP and Justice Department advisor says the government’s crime legislation will lead to worsening conditions in prisons.

Mr. Daubney said that, since the mid-2000s, the Justice Department has asked for less and less research to be undertaken and typically ignores recommendations against policies such as mandatory minimum sentences or prison expansion. “It is kind of sad that I have to do this, but somebody has to take the risk of talking,” Mr. Daubney said. “I feel sad for my colleagues who are still there. It was clear the government wasn’t interested in what the research said or in evidence that was quite convincingly set out.”

The prison ombudsman adds his concerns. A study by the Quebec Institute for Socio-economic Research and Information projects a total cost of $19 billion to build and expand prisons.


What you don’t know

  1. We’ll all soon be in debtor’s prison with this spendthrift PM.

  2. I would like to see some evidence that criminologists know wtf they are talking about. Have yet to see any proof that criminologists and their vacuous policies don’t lead to more crime. 

    And someone should remind/inform? Mr Daubney that elections have consequences. 

    Theodore Dalrymple ~ Salisbury Review:

    “Perhaps the most important is that intellectuals live in a costless world in which there is every incentive to devise other theories that defy common sense …. 

    Intellectuals, like everyone else, live and work in a marketplace. In order to get noticed they must say things which have not been said before, or at least say them in a different manner. 

    No one is likely to obtain many plaudits for the rather obvious, indeed self-evident, thought that a street robber cannot commit street robberies while he is in prison; but an intellectual who first demonstrates that the cause of an increase in street robbery is the increase in the amount of property that law-abiding pedestrians have on them as they walk in the streets is likely to be hailed, at least until the next idea comes along. 

    Thus, while there are no penalties for being foolish, there are severe penalties (at least in career terms) for being obvious.

    • I would like to see some evidence that those who aren’t criminologists know wtf they are talking about.  Have yet to see any proof that non-criminologists and their vacuous policies don’t lead to more crime.

      P.S. rich as always with your comments that you simultaneously bash intellectuals and then quote an intellectual to support your opinions.

      • It’s also important to note that the criminologists aren’t the ones who are about to spend $19 billion. 

    • We have a real example of the negative results of this approach to the treatment of crime just south of us.  Toews and Nicholson have been repeatedly asked if they can cite any jurisdictions where their approach is successful in reducing crime.  They have been unable and/or unwilling to come up with one.

  3. We sure don’t need more petty criminals…why don’t we train them to be honest investment bankers or politicians?

  4. Don’t worry about it. The bill’s never going to make it through the Conservative senate anyway. They couldn’t campaign on it if it ever got passed.

  5. I actually made a bet with a friend yesterday that C10 won’t receive royal assent before the end of this session.

    • I think you might win that bet.

      I’m not sure it’ll receive royal assent before the end of this DECADE.

      Thank God.

  6. “A former Progressive Conservative MP and Justice Department advisor says the government’s crime legislation will lead to worsening conditions in prisons.”


    • Isn’t this where some Conservative usually says, “If you want more spending on government services, why don’t you wirte a cheque?”

    • Yet another assinine comment.  The vast majority of criminals will eventually leave prison.  And under this bill they will leave more disturbed, anti-social, violent and likely better criminals.  You may think this is “good” – I don’t!

  7. Like with those superheroes who are videotaping men who come to meet 15 yr old females.  There are some who aren’t for intimacy with an adult.  There are some who are at risk of abuse but could be ready at 15 with the right safeguards.  And there are some 15 yr olds who are more mature than adult me.  The younger a person is, the more likely not to be ready or at risk of abuse.  So a hard mandatory sentencing penalty for sex with 11 or maybe 12 year olds (I’m not a psychologist).  And probably completely legal relationships with 14 or 15 yr old high schoolers, P.Martin knew, makes sense.  In between some sort of paretnal consent or high school nurse administered “test” would be healthy.  And if someone gets traumatized that could be a crime: a bad breakup.  Every woman I’ll ever meet seems retarded on an intellectual level.  Is a generation gap with older women.  A lot of teens are high-pitched cellphone addicts.  My age women expect a career or family.  Late HS and early college aged is best for me because not yet socialized to make AGW worse and such forth.  But am flexible in either age direction.
    Mandatory sentencing for 7 plants.  Is that male plants too (can’t tell until late)?  3.5 plants grown four times a year is maybe $20000.  The dealer might not be making minimum wage.  Notice how Vancouver hasn’t gone to $#!^ despite so many grow ops.  They even turned blue.  If the dealer can only afford a fortnight of pot heads, how the hell am I supposed to find a dealer if I spend my time reading important stuff instead of making friends?

Sign in to comment.