The road to hell is paved with good intentions
In today's National Post, David Frum writes that Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than that of the US. He also says that you are more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City these days. I would have to see the stats for myself to decide, because there's no doubt that crime stats are often played with to suit the position of the person making the argument. Per capita crime rates broken down by urban/rural populations would provide the most accurate comparison.
Nonetheless, I think that Rudy Giuliani's "zero tolerance" approach as outlined by the "Broken Windows" theory (whereby even the smallest crimes are punished so as to engender a sense of respect and order) needs to be taken by Toronto police. Click on the graph above, taken from the Giuliani entry on Wikipedia. Even if it's an American idea, and one that is a (gasp!) Republican success story at that, it works - even if the Al Sharpton crowd says it's too hard on blacks. Besides, I think that we should judge criminals as criminals instead of as members of a certain race. And instead of making policy based on how good or bad it makes some people feel, shouldn't we be making it based on results?
posted by Road Hammer @ 10:53 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Although I voted for him, the current mayor and publicity-hound police chief are not the guys to get tough on crime. The Attorney-General isn't either, having proven his mettle with pitbulls.
Banning already illegal handguns and preventing bail aren't going to do anything. You have to catch people BEFORE they commit violent crimes.
Hammer's absolutely right, you have to start arresting people and jailing them. You also have to do something about an immigration policy that imports gang and drug violence. Does anyone have the guts to actually say that we'll stop immigration from Jamaica and Sri Lanka?
You're right about Miller not being the guy. He's too busy blaming Americans for exporting crime when none of the shooters actually came from the US. I also agree that banning guns is pointless. Prohibition worked well in the 20's didn't it? Banning street drugs has worked well too right?
While catching criminals before they commit crimes is essential, we need to talk more about rehabbing people already in prison. Why are so many inmates repeat offenders? One thing I would start with is any prisoner who doesn't have a high school education should attain an equivalency before he is let out.
Careful with using "broken windows" as proof that anything Guliani did works. The single biggest reason crime went down in places like NY and LA in the early 90's is because of a decision 18 years earlier - Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Politically incorrect, yes. The truth - yes.
Ah, the Freakonomics theory. Forgot about that. However, I wonder how many lower-income women were REALLY having abortions in the mid-70s? I would say that abortion, esp at that time, was not something that black women were morally in favour of, or could financially afford to do, by and large. Most low income women were and continue to be African-American and most violent crime in the US is carried out by predominantly African American gangs ... at least that's how I see it.
I think there may be some truth to the Roe v Wade theory but I also think that getting tough on crime has been a major factor in the decline as well.
The Florida "10-20-Life" program is a good example of the type of hard-ass reponse that should be taken to crime.
Read about its effectiveness here.
The abortion theory was well accepted before Freakonomics came out. Many low income women were in fact getting abortions because it was cheaper than having kids. A lot of work was abortions were also performed pro bono. Statistically speaking, it was the single biggest factor crime rates dropped in the early 90's.
I do agree with being tough on crime and I never suggested that I didn't. What I said was that we need to start rehabilitating people when they are in prison. I fully agree with tougher sentences, and keeping dangerous offenders off the streets.
I kind of like a state law that took affect in Tennessee on January 1st. Convicted drunk drivers have to big up garbage at the side of the road wearing a marker that says "I'm a drunk driver". I think shaming people smartens them up.
The majority of those who set corrections policy are already bleeding heart ideologues who, I believe, over-focus on the potential of rehabilitation. Clearly, it works for some, but not all, violent offenders but the sociologist bureaucrats who are the "experts" are loathe to admit that other, tougher approaches may have merit. I know for a fact that are all fearing a Harper government - much like the prisoners in the article I posted yesterday are.
My own preference would be a middle-ground between conditional release (where you get out before your sentence is up, but with conditions ... in other words, parole) and statutory release (where you are denied parole until your sentence is up but then you are free to walk, with no follow up or support structure put into place). I think that offenders should serve their ENTIRE sentence and then have to follow certain conditions.
The way it is now, you either serve time and walk completely free or you get out on parole serving only one-third. This arrangement obviously puts those who want to see the reform of the parole system at a disadvantage because if you abolish parole, there is no other support structure under the legislation. You should have to serve the entire sentence and THEN be free to go but only under certain conditions.
Post a Comment
<< Home