Yesterday Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty announced his new (but very old Liberal response) initative of pouring more money into the ongoing trend and uprise of gun violence in our Canadian cities. He plan's on spending an amount of fifty one million dollars to address this situation.
Now I do not want to knock a guy for trying but this was a very predictable response by Governments. So predictable in fact that I kicked myself for not writing it into my previous blog entry. One thing you can count on when it comes to a Liberal government, whether it be Federal or Provincial, is they can never come up with any new or innovative ideas when it comes to tackling the serious issues such as gun violence. Whenever they want to "appear" like they are addressing the issue to the electorate they simply rely on their typical band-aid solution...."Let's just throw money at the problem and it will go away."
Money is not necessarily a bad thing to invest, when you know where to put it. But when you continue to funnel money into the same areas and the problem continues to escalate it is time to re-evaluate and look at different options. Maybe the money is going into the wrong areas or maybe financial investment has nothing to do with addressing the core root of the problem.
My bloggin' buddy and dear friend Jeff pointed out something to me in my previous blog. It was that I seem to have alot to say about the ongoing problem of gun violence but that I offered no real alternative's or solution's. He makes a very important statement and challenge. One that I take to heart.
So what exactly would I do if had the authority to change things? Well I do know that I do not have the perfect solution, in fact I do not believe anyone does. However, my focus would be on reducing the amount of gun violence, not thru punishing law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners(gun registery) but by tightening up the criminal justice system overall. Making the criminal not only accountable for his/her crime but paying the full price for it and making their time of incarceration one they would not want to expeirence over again.
Dalton Mcguinty, like every other Liberal before him, has decided to put more police on the streets. Noble but will this reduce the gun crimes? No it will not. In Canada today, even if you had one police officer per person this would still fail. Why? Because the police have already been doing their jobs and doing them quite well when it has come to arresting criminal offenders and getting them off the street. The problem has been in judges allowing violent offenders out on bail or when keeping them incarcerated while awaiting trial, multiplying their time served anywhere from double and even triple. (I.E. a criminal sitting in jail for 6 months waiting for his trial a judge will count this as 18 months served towards his/her sentence.)
The other problem is the plea bargain. Violent offenders can barter with the courts to have sentenced reduced by pleading guilty. Huh!!! Does this make logical sense? You are guilty of second degree murder but because you admit to the crime the courts will reduce it to manslaughter and a potential 15 year sentence can now become 2 years less a day. This will not even get you into a Federal Penitentary but a minimum security facility. A more accurate definition would be a country club. Here is the clincher...with "good behaviour" they could be out on the streets in 18 months.
Good old Canadian justice. We are so loving, friendly, and tolerant. Our problem is not in the lack of law enforcement on the streets but our lack of law enforcement in the courts. The pampering of criminals with lenient sentences in no way acts as a deterrent. If they know they can get away with it with a relatively light sentence the trend will continue.
So here is my 6 point solution:
1.) If, for example, you are guilty of second degree murder and the evidence is already stacked against you. That is what you will be tried for. No pleading to a lesser charge. It undermines the victim, the justice system, and the accountability of the perpitraitor.
2.) If you are in custody waiting for trial for a period of six months...then six months is what will be taken off from your final sentence, NOT 18 months.
3.) If your sentence is for 15 years then that is what you will serve! Not serve 9 years and then get released early for "good behaviour". Only with good behaviour will you get out at the end of those 15 years.
4.) If you show absolutely no remorse for your crime, refuse to take part in any rehabilitating programs, and are still considered a "high risk" to re-offend once released into the public then your stay in jail will be extended indefinite.
5.) Prisoners would NOT have certain "rights" attributed to them. They gave up those rights when they took the life of another. Convicts will not have the right to vote(as they do today). They will not have the "right" to color TV's, satellitte cable, their own tattoo parlours, access to pornography, and a fully "paid for" university education. Covered by you the taxpayer, of course.
6.) Strong measures in place to hold judges accountable for handing down lenient sentences where there is already evident history of a violent past.
In conclusion, jail was never meant to be a "FUN" place to be. It was meant to serve as a deterrent. It is meant to be remembered as a place that one does not want to go back to. Until there is a factor in place that holds criminals responsible for their actions(and the judges who put them back out on the streets) sadly we will see this terrible trend continue to escalate regardless of how many police officers are out there. If it were you...what would you do?
16 comments:
I agree whole-heartedly, with one exception, if it takes six months to get to trial, then it takes six months...no time off for time served while awaiting trial. IF YOU CAN"T DO THE TIME, DON'T DO THE CRIME!
Especially agree with holding judges to account. To often now, especially at the highest court level, judges are making law, not enforcing law.
I do not know much about the Canadian judicial system, however, the US has harsh punishments that include death penalty and crime is rampant. What would the solution be then?
Visit me at Multi Sententiae
i realize this question was for the intolerant one but... if they have the death penalty they only do it once. In canada those guys are out in 5 years and back on the street. There is no deterent in canada, unless you're very afraid of slaps to the wrist. lol
Marco: I think you raise an interesting point here. It is the other half of the equation that would need to be adddressed.(as well)
That is...why such callousness in society towards human life? I think that lies, in part, with our cultural shift of moral absolutes to moral relativism. Society is rapidly losing it's concept of right and wrong. Nobody can agree on it(for some reason) any longer.
For example, today we would sooner jump in front of a logging truck about to "kill" some tree's or stand in front of a weapon about to "kill" a baby seal, but we do not even blink when it comes to removing life from ourselves willingly (i.e. abortion).
Not to mention blatant exposure(mostly thru media) that life is a "game". Often our younger generations are exposed to extreme violence to the point of them becoming de-sensitised to it.
If we cannot teach our youth to respect life then how can we actually expect them too?
The other angle is that word I just used..respect. Their is no repect towards one another. Respect starts by being taught in the home on a solid foundation of core values that society overall agrees to adhere to.
You do not have to be a person of faith to agree that murder is wrong. However, with moral relativism increasing it teach's a mentality of "Just because you think it is wrong does not make it wrong for me"
This, in effect, leaves us with a self centered attitude of individualism.
I would compare it to a group of best friends getting together for their favourite board game. Only this time they throw away the rule book. Eventually everyone's own personal views on how the game should be played interfere's with any kind of order. The end result is that chaos ensues and nobody is friends anymore.
Instead they all want to throttle each other.
Bonjour Intolerant One,
Can't remember now how I came across your blog, but I kind of like your right wing stand. It seems to breathe fresh air compared to the usual fascist stuff we are running into daily :-]
For some reason someone decided that "moral relativism is wrong" and that "moral absolutism is right" Take a look at the world. The people who condemn abortion, accept the killing people in Iraq. The people who claim to be "moral absolutists", are involved in corruption scandals. The people who claim to be good Christians, accept torture. I believe that there should be a set of very basic rules accepted by everyone, which should rule our behavior. I see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the best document of that sort to be created by mankind. And itself can be interpreted in different ways. What you call "moral relativism" in a negative way is the product of the complexities of society. I see "moral absolutism" as more dangerous because it leads to the appearence of people who will always claim to be right and will dictate their will to others.
I find it absurd to compare the killing innocent unborn children with the killing of murderers and torturers.
Whynot: Thank you for the kind words. I hope you will continue to visit.
When you make reference to the
"...usual fascist stuff we are running into daily"
I assume you were making reference to the "right" which I find amusing because I feel the same way about the "left"!
Marco: I agree with you with regards to the abuses of moral absolutes but that does not make the concept a bad idea. Relativism has also been abused to the point where, as I stated, that these days "anything goes" which is a very dangerous line to walk.
I must say I found your "claims" to be rather broad. These could apply to both parties on either side of the fence. For example, those who condemn abortion do not necassarily support killing innocent people in Iraq in as so much as they do support the removal of a ruthless dictator.
I also noted that you would find the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the best document for some sort of moral compass where as I would argue that the Bible is.
However, in reading your response I discovered that to some degree we are somewhat on the same page considering we both lean the other way. You stated:
" I believe that there should be a set of very basic rules accepted by everyone, which should rule our behavior."
...and I stated:
" Respect starts by being taught in the home on a solid foundation of core values that society overall agrees to adhere to."
We are not as far apart as we sometimes think we may be.
Very basic means a short document. That is why I like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Bible has good examples, however, it is too long. The 10 commandments are too simple, they dont mention social justice and they ask us to love a deity.
Marco: I have one question for you...if the 10 commandments are so simple then why do people, including Christians, have such a difficult time following them?
Just think about it for moment, if the human race applied these very basic and "simple" laws and actually lived by them would the world not be a better and safer place to be?
Our forefathers in both Canada and the United States applied these laws to their constitutions. Although crime and immorality still existed in their day I think we could both concede that it was nowhere near what we see today.
Since both our nations have been drifting away from these laws by essentially removing them from society little by little we have witnessed an intense increase in violence and other dangerous behaviours. There is no longer a solid structure to follow or guide us.
This is why I would support "Moral Absolutes". Black is black, right is right, wrong is wrong, and a lie is not a different perspective it is a lie! I know you would disagree but this is where I feel "relatavism" has removed any sense of accountability in society overall.
Two more things Marco..the Bible does actually address social issues on every scale and they are administered to this very day by Christians. For example, many homeless people are clothed, sheltered, and fed thru many different Christian organizations not always the Government or society in general. In keeping with the teaching's of Christ this is one small example of the Bible's take on social issues.
While I do agree with your final statement that the Bible does ask us to love a deity notice it "ask's" and does not demand. God wants a person's love by "choice" not by "force".
I feel the same way about the 10 commandments as you would about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However I would suggest that the commandments are a short document that get's to the point and does not leave anything to question. On the other hand the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in my opinion, is to complicated. As "rights" seem to be constantly changing. Someone somewhere always seems to be having an issue with "their" rights being violated. This allows the Declaration to be under constant challenge and change. (Unless they have enshrined it)
Intolerant One:
For the record, moral relativism, from answers.com:
ethical relativism
"In ethics, the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period."
Now, let's take a few examples from history, to illustrate the point:
Once, slavery was considered fine. Even in biblical times.
Once, people of a different color were considered to be inferior.
Once, women were considered to be inferior to men.
Once upon a time, a girl's marriageable age was 9 or 10. 14 at the max.
Or maybe you want to go back to the times when 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' was actually literal.
You wanna lock everything in stasis?
Be my guest.
You'll lose that battle. Hands down. Bet the rent on it, I would.
Life is fluid. Change is inevitable.
Get used to it.
P.S, I'd say your monicker is an apt one.
RA, you're 'examples' are not only pointless but ridiculous. The intolerant one was using the 10 commandmants as his gauge for determining right and wrong. Please show me how any of your examples would be tolerated by the 10 commandments. Just because there was slavery doesn't mean it was condoned. "Love your neighbour as yourself"
Your other examples are even more ridiculous. What do sins of the past have to do with the 10 commandments. They were sins back then and continue to be today. Sin is sin. Black is black and white is white. 2+2 is always 4. Your right that Life is fluid. Change is inevitable, however that has nothing to do with right and wrong.
haksaw:
I was responding to this:
"However, with moral relativism increasing it teach's a mentality of "Just because you think it is wrong does not make it wrong for me" in an earlier post. My pardon for not qualifying it properly.
"Just because there was slavery doesn't mean it was condoned."
Now this IS ridiculous, as there are numerous instances of slavery in both New & Old testaments. There were even rules for how long a slave was kept.
The 10 C's, BTW, were for the Israelis.The Noahide laws are for Gentiles.
You can find numerous instances of commandments 6-10 in other non-Xtian countries, w/o any interference from the bible.
"Black is black and white is white."
Positing absolutes, are we? The bible breaks most of its own rules, thanks to moral relativism, which is the excuse we hear from the religious: "It was a sign of the times."
Which 10 C's are we using here? Catholic? Protestant? Hebrew? There are 3 sets, you know.
"Please show me how any of your examples would be tolerated by the 10 commandments."
Very well, since you asked so politely:
Exodus 20:17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
Which clearly relegates all people in the household to be the property of the man. The wife, & slaves.
But right is right, & wrong is wrong. I'll go along w/that.
I'm an atheist, but I hold that to 'do no harm' is the goalpost in life.
If I may interject at this point...first I thank you Haksaw for seeing my point the way it was intended.
Now to ra: Thank you for the definition of relativism, however in your response to my comment:
"with moral relativism increasing it teach's a mentality of "Just because you think it is wrong does not make it wrong for me"
From my perspective this was the condensed and slang version of your definition.
Your next statement:
"there are numerous instances of slavery in both New & Old testaments. There were even rules for how long a slave was kept"
I agree. But again, as Haksaw pointed out, nowhere in scriptures do you find God condoning slavery. It was a reality of the time so you find that God's "rules" on slavery were for the masters to treat them fairly and not harshly. To be kind to them and once they had served their time (7 years) they were to release them with a blessing. Many slaves became endeared to their masters and CHOSE to stay with them for life becoming their bondservants.
If you will recall in Exodus, Pharoah did not follow God so his treatment of the slaves was extreme and we see how God dealt with his defiance.
Next:
"Once, people of a different color were considered to be inferior.
Once, women were considered to be inferior to men."
Sadly, these are still true today in many nations. I would not consider it "once" upon a time.
Second last:
"Life is fluid. Change is inevitable.
Get used to it."
This statement exude's attitude. One I will not dignify with a response. What I read into this and the rest of what you have said so far leaves me with an impression that, for an atheist...you sure are angry with God!
And finally:
"P.S, I'd say your monicker is an apt one."
Indeed it is. You see it was a name given to me by people like yourself. I say this based on the tone of your responses. I am an individual human being whose beliefs and values do not line up with yours (obviously!) I have opinions and things to say on many differing subjects and I am open to hearing other perspectives respectfully without always agreeing but open to reconsidration. But my views are not swept up into mainstream views like your's and therefore because my view does line up with yours I am deemed Intolerant.
Yet by the tone of your responses and lack of "tolerance" for differing view's you display your own Intolerance. If you had "Tolerance" for a differing view you would be capable of responding and disagreeing in a respectable manner.
In the future I would still like to welcome you to this site and by all means disagree if it is how you feel or what you believe to be true. But leave the attitude at your own site. I seek to have respectable dialogue/debates not arguements.
Intolerant One:
My apologies for being a poor guest. I assumed perhaps too much, from your weighing in on moral absolutism & your monicker.
I'm a proponent of tolerance, so perchance my knickers got up in a bit of a twist.
Some points:
"But again, as Haksaw pointed out, nowhere in scriptures do you find God condoning slavery."
Seeing as most believe it to be dictated by god to moses, the condoning is pretty much inferred.
"To be kind to them and once they had served their time (7 years) they were to release them with a blessing."
That applies to Israelite slaves. Gentiles had different rules.
"If you will recall in Exodus, Pharoah did not follow God so his treatment of the slaves was extreme and we see how God dealt with his defiance."
There are so many things wrong w/this sentence, I don't know where to begin.
1st: Pharoah wasn't a worshiper of YHVH.
2nd: There's no archeological evidence of said Exodus.
3rd: We see repeatedly that 'god hardened his heart'.
4th: the records of the Egyptian (outside of some obscure references to Hyksops) don't tabulate any such occurrence whatsoever.
"Sadly, these are still true today in many nations. I would not consider it "once" upon a time."
Note that I used the 'once upon a time' in re: the marriageable age of young girls, not for the preceding examples.
"This statement exude's attitude."
My apologies.
"One I will not dignify with a response. What I read into this and the rest of what you have said so far leaves me with an impression that, for an atheist...you sure are angry with God!"
You say you won't dignify it w/a response, & then you respond?
Not angry w/the deity. Angry at men. Can't be angry at something that doesn't exist, can I?
"If you had "Tolerance" for a differing view you would be capable of responding and disagreeing in a respectable manner."
Understood.
"I seek to have respectable dialogue/debates not arguements."
Ummm...debate is a synonym for argument, & vice versa, last I checked.
RA: I am glad to see you returned. In the words of Tony Soprano "Fugeddaboutit!"
I would be a liar if I said that I have never gotten my own knicker's in a knot before. Probably will again in the future. That is called humanity.
I have taken your points into consideration. However I will address them another time.
As far as arguement/debate is concerned....I guess I compared it to marriage. My wife and I either discuss or we argue. But we have never(in our view) debate! But I understand now what you mean. I guess I had my own interpetation.
I will, sincerely, look forward to more of your input in the future.
Post a Comment