Crime Do you agree that being soft on crime has SEVERE consequences?

[KnightTemplar]

Ironically Canada has worse miscarriages of justice than that. That guy is probably rehabilitated and will likely never harm anyone ever again. Meanwhile real prolific offenders are allowed roam free. Violent drugged up psychos with crazy long rap-sheets that include killing and maiming people, even strangers, and they are released after a very small number of years.

Probably isn't good enough when you're talking about someone who murdered and cannibalised an innocent person at random.

The chance of it doing the same thing again is simply not worth taking. So either put it down like a mad dog, or lock it in a cell for the rest of it's worthless life.

And yes, I'm aware that neither of these options are available under Canadian law, which if anything is even more pathetic than the UK version. And that's really fucking saying something!

 

[badascan]

Lol@you jumping in the fastest to play the race card.

White supremacists believe they're the best and that's bad! Nothing funny about it...

 

[TUFNewb]

Probably isn't good enough when you're talking about someone who murdered and cannibalised an innocent person at random.

The chance of it doing the same thing again is simply not worth taking. So either put it down like a mad dog, or lock it in a cell for the rest of it's worthless life.

And yes, I'm aware that neither of these options are available under Canadian law, which if anything is even more pathetic than the UK version. And that's really fucking saying something!

Meh. Everyone gets drawn in by the sensational aspect of this particular case. They've let worse people than this schizo out sooner. The same random stranger attacks but by people who have done it repeatedly and every other crime imaginable.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Meh. Everyone gets drawn in by the sensational aspect of this particular case. They've let way worse people than this schizo out way sooner. The same random stranger attacks but by people who have done it repeatedly and every other crime imaginable.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the decision to let Maple Syrup Hannibal roam around freely.

 

[KnightTemplar]

White supremacists believe they're the best and that's bad! Nothing funny about it...

He's just pissed you beat him to it.

 

[TUFNewb]

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the decision to let Maple Syrup Hannibal roam around freely.

Well we'd be a hell of a lot better off if they were all like Vince when they came out. He's not on anyones radar here tbh, forgotten long ago. The real story in Canada, the real takeaway from being too soft on crime, is all the prolific repeat offenders. These are the people that need to be smothered with a pillow.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Well we'd be a hell of a lot better off if they were all like Vince when they came out. He's not on anyones radar here tbh, forgotten long ago. The real story in Canada, the real takeaway from being too soft on crime, is all the prolific repeat offenders. These are the people that need to be smothered with a pillow.

He wasn't on anyone's radar until he murdered an innocent man and eat part of his brain. If there's even a 1% chance of him reoffending, that's too high a risk to take. Any properly run society would lock him up or put him down.

I agree with your statement regarding repeat offenders, especially the violent ones.

 

[TUFNewb]

He wasn't on anyone's radar until he murdered an innocent man and eat part of his brain. If there's even a 1% chance of him reoffending, that's too high a risk to take. Any properly run society would lock him up or put him down.

I agree with your statement regarding repeat offenders, especially the violent ones.

Well we modeled our society and justice system after your stupid country, so thanks for that. Right down to the clown costumes the sociopath judges wear.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I live in Montréal, Quebec.

I never said violent criminals shouldn't be locked up. I believe they should be if they commit violent crimes.

Never forget that Republicans pardon violent criminals so long as they commit crimes on their behalf or at least for their team.

 

[UberHere]

Violent crimes and sexual assaults should never have a soft response.

 

[Seano]

He's just pissed you beat him to it.

 

[Loiosh]

Never forget that Republicans pardon violent criminals so long as they commit crimes on their behalf or at least for their team.

Politicians in both parties have leaned on crime and justice in different ways to get elected. There will never be progress if they can keep citizens so divided.

For me, one silver bullet for law enforcement is CAHOOTS. It's the kind of thing I think of when I think of "defund the police". It's just shifting resources around so that police aren't responsible for EVERYTHING, and CAHOOTS has shown how it can work.

When Biden won the Democratic nomination, a lot of progressives winced. While he ended up being one of the most progressive presidents in modern memory, we remembered him passing some incredibly regressive legislation. We remember him standing in front of congress and saying he didn't care why a criminal committed a crime, he cared about locking that criminal up. That was a popular sentiment but it was catastrophic.

If locking people up is all you care about, all you're doing is addressing the symptoms and ignoring the disease itself, and you end up with the most incarcerated citizenry on the planet. Progressives care about addressing root causes, and the conservative response to that is to say progressives are soft on crime. We aren't. We agree that criminals should be prosecuted, we just think that the "why" in crime is incredibly important, and the "how" we deal with it is also in that it can perpetuate criminality.

 

[Koro_11]

So the question is basically do you agree with something obvious or are you a retard lefty.

 

[HereticBD]

Progressives care about addressing root causes

No they don't. They care about not arresting black people.

and the conservative response to that is to say progressives are soft on crime. We aren't.

Yes you are.

We agree that criminals should be prosecuted

Only certain types of criminals.

we just think that the "why" in crime is incredibly important

You're all for academic theory based approaches to crime, while ignoring how disastrous they are when put into practice, and refuse to admit you're wrong when it goes to shit.

 

[The Servant]

Are you accusing the Country who Imprisons more of its population than every other Country, and for the longest sentences on average of being "soft on crime" because a (black) guy did a heinous crime after getting a short sentence?

Absolutely wonderful comment from a mod and staff member on this site.

I guess 2.5 years for ruining someone's life is a long sentence for a person like you, but I think it should carry 5 to 10 times that length.

 

[KnightTemplar]

So the question is basically do you agree with something obvious or are you a retard lefty.

 

[Blayt7hh]

lol, we lock up such an insane number of people that if we are soft on crime than we are fucked in the head as a population

 

[Blayt7hh]

Absolutely wonderful comment from a mod and staff member on this site.

I guess 2.5 years for ruining someone's life is a long sentence for a person like you, but I think it should carry 5 to 10 times that length.

That’s not what he said. I doubt anyone thinks 2.5 years was long enough. But one example doesn’t tilt the scales. How many people do you think went to prison the year he did? I’m sure you can find countless examples of people getting absurd sentences for relatively minor offenses.

 

[nhbbear]

For starters, it rewards the rich and punishes the poor.

An innocent person is considerably more likely to accept a plea deal if he's poor. This wildly skews crime statistics.

There are a lot of arguments about bail, and most people ignore the fact that bail isn't meant to keep dangerous people behind bars. It's meant to ensure appearance at trial. If someone is considered dangerous, they aren't supposed to be released. They're supposed to get pre-trial detention. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1987 case United States v. Salerno.

Prohibitive bail is specifically anti-constitutional, as per the Eighth Amendment.

Funny, I just gave a test where one of the questions was on Salerno. I also had them write a paper on arguing for the no-cash bail push and how it benefits the poor and everyone else that is innocent until proven guilty, however, there are huge drawbacks as well. It is being used even in cases where the offense is violent and the offender has a long criminal history by progressive DAs and judges. It has led to several high profile instances where a violent offender was released on little to no bail and went on to kill like the case in Philly where they released an armed car jacker on $500 bail and he went on to murder a college student a few days later during another armed robbery.

 

[gspieler]

Being soft on violent crime can lead to bad outcomes. So can being hard on minor offenses. In other words; it's abstract and nuanced.