|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:If you're going to make this claim in regard to Takahashi then I'd like to see some numbers on the number of serial sex (or otherwise) offenders that re-offended after age 60. Especially after serving 30+ years in jail. It's probably almost as low as the number of pig-farming serial killers that re-offend after age 60. Free Pickton now!
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:If you're going to make this claim in regard to Takahashi then I'd like to see some numbers on the number of serial sex (or otherwise) offenders that re-offended after age 60. Especially after serving 30+ years in jail. I wasn't making it particularly in regards to Takahashi, as he really doesn't fit the profile. But according to the professional working around him before, he was seen as moderate to high risk to re-offend . Theres a lot of argument in the study of recidivism of persons convicted of sexual crimes, and the numbers vary wildly depending on how the numbers are recorded (if you included just convictions and not charges etc) which can make the rates vary from 5% to 40%. In particular the rates of recidivism of child sex offenders are staggering. And thats just for the people that are caught, as child sex crimes are hugely under reported. Just take a look at this paper and try to not feel disgusted or scared. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jr13/p5d.html I'm sure you've read countless stories in the media about serial child sex offenders committing crimes after release. I'd be fine with a 2 strikes you're in custody for life policy. You had your chance to attempt rehabilitation. Now you are stuck in the box to not hurt more people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:How tiny? Given how small that population must be, even a single reoffender probably impacts the numbers a noticeable amount. quote:There were very few recidivists among the sexual offenders released after age 60 (5/131 or 3.8%). The "over-60" recidivists included 2 extrafamilial child molesters (2/45 or 4.4%) and 3 unclassified offenders (3/37 or 8.1%). None of the incest offenders (n = 39) or rapists (n = 10) who were over 60 at time of release recidivated. The oldest recidivist in the sample was released at age 72 and was reconvicted for a sexual offence the following year. from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sxl-rcdvsm-cmprsn/index-en.aspx
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
If you want to take a bite out of crime then go after poverty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
zapplez posted:from Those aren't serial rapists. I for one wouldn't mind seeing an actual life sentencing option for serial killers and serial rapists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:How tiny? Given how small that population must be, even a single reoffender probably impacts the numbers a noticeable amount. I'm not trying to diminish anyone's pain but government makes decisions about positive aggregate outcomes that affect individual people's lives in a negative way everyday. The justice system is no different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:If you want to take a bite out of crime then go after poverty. Agreed, we should be doing so much more for poverty and the affect that has on crime in general. Of course its tied in immensely with theft, robbery, drug crimes and domestic violence. Not sure what this has to do with serial sex offenders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:Those aren't serial rapists. I agree, I don't know if the numbers have ever been counted that way before. Maybe in the USA. But they are in general much tougher sentencing then we are in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:I'm not trying to diminish anyone's pain but government makes decisions about positive aggregate outcomes that affect individual people's lives in a negative way everyday. The justice system is no different. Serial rapists and serial killers are so rare that we could torture them all to death without having any "aggregate outcome" on society whatsoever. Criminal justice is not the place for robotic rational utility-maximization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:If you want to take a bite out of crime then go after poverty. Bu-bu-but what about my thinly veiled hard on for human suffering masked behind my righteous indignation towards criminals? Guy DeBorgore posted:Those aren't serial rapists. While rehabilitation should be the primary goal of our prison system, there are certain people who are a threat to public safety and will never change. One of those people was let out of prison on probation despite the warnings of prison psychologists and almost killed two family members of mine because they had the nicest car on the street where this person's cab fare ran out. They let him out again a few years after almost killing my family members and that time he made it all the way to BC before doing it again. In these cases, lock them up and keep them locked up but there's no harm in treating them like human beings while doing so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
zapplez posted:But they are in general much tougher sentencing then we are in Canada. and look how much lower their violent crime rate isn't
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
zapplez posted:I agree, I don't know if the numbers have ever been counted that way before. Maybe in the USA. But they are in general much tougher sentencing then we are in Canada. Safest country on Earth those Americans are in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Summarily execute all criminals. Everyone knows rehabilitation is impossible
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
To change the subject http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/property-transfer-tax-chinese-student-1.3719106 quote:She said she felt entrapped by the government when it announced the tax.  Maybe try renting?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Maybe not buy a piece of property in a country where you're not a permanent resident or citizen? Like I keep seeing cheap deals on ocean front property in Costa Rica but wouldn't dare buy it because as a non-citizen it's easy to lose title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
quote:Jing is not a permanent resident in Canada, so the tax adds $84,000 to the home's cost, something she's certain she can't afford. But if she backs out of the deal, she would lose her deposit of about $56,000. It is kinda lovely to change the rules while people are still playing. Here's another one quote:
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It is kinda lovely to change the rules while people are still playing. I'm not losing any sleep over it tbh
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
I would think the primary goals of the criminal justice system should be, in order: 1. Rehabilitate criminals and send them back to society all productive and good. 2. Protect society by storing away dangerous folks who cannot be rehabilitated. 3. Punish people to frighten people away from future offenses. I expect #3 is useless, probably always has been, and should be dropped. The Takahashi bit is a reminder that sometimes #1 isn't possible and, for whatever reason at the same time, #2 is totally ignored by the people who should be most concerned. I don't find it surprising that people immediately go into wishes of violent retribution when the other options are ignored.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:To change the subject brb just going to cobble together 56 thousand dollars for my Vancouver townhouse. I cobble together my morning coffee money, not my loving house downpayment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Summarily execute all criminals. Everyone knows rehabilitation is impossible Makes about as much sense as letting a child molester on parole for the 2nd or 3rd time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
I mean it probably would have been better for them to announce exactly what the rules were going to be far enough in advance that you could either back out of your house deal or buy before you were subjected to the tax. I have a ton of sympathy for people who just scraped together enough for a house, then got smacked with a tax that's a solid chunk of their annual income. e: note that that does not necessarily apply to people who decided they wanted to buy a house and therefore borrowed the money they needed to give the bank so that the bank would let them borrow more money because that's loving retarded and I somehow skimmed over that particular bit from that first article. ChickenWing fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Become a citizen before you buy a house in Vancouver Rent until you are a citizen or take the 15% hit on your laundered money
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:I mean it probably would have been better for them to announce exactly what the rules were going to be far enough in advance that you could either back out of your house deal or buy before you were subjected to the tax. I have a ton of sympathy for people who just scraped together enough for a house, then got smacked with a tax that's a solid chunk of their annual income. Fried Watermelon posted:Become a citizen before you buy a house in Vancouver This right here. I'm just having trouble feeling sympathy for any of these cases. No one is loving "scraping together" 50-100 thousand loving dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Or at least become a permanent resident. I mean, assuming she can has a job with that work permit and qualifies for Express Entry (I mean, young person with a Masters Degree gained in Canada has to have a good number of points), it takes what 6 months to a year? But nope gotta buy a house in the most expensive city in the country RIGHT NOW 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
if you 'just scraped enough for a house' then you can't actually afford that house, hth
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
It is idiotic as hell to buy a permanent residence in a country where you do not have on paper the expectation of being a permanent resident.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
I really want to know why these people are putting $50k deposits on their offers. That's insane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:07
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:I really want to know why these people are putting $50k deposits on their offers. That's insane. That's 10%, but when it's $50,000 borrowed from someone who borrowed it from someone else, maybe that's a sign you shouldn't be using it to do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Because otherwise it can be trivially sold to someone else as you finalize the financing for the whole amount. This applies even in a non-bubbled market. Sellers, on the other hand, want the deposit because they want some kind of guarantee they're not being hosed around by the buyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Because otherwise it can be trivially sold to someone else as you finalize the financing for the whole amount. This applies even in a non-bubbled market. Not that a deposit is any kind of guarantee of course
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I've had a thesis (untested) for a long time that people are genuinely unhappy with sentencing in general because of the perceived (perhaps falsely) discrepancy between the sentence and actual time served. So indirectly it's a swipe at the parole board for releasing criminals earlier, without knowing (or caring) about the particular circumstances. A lot of times on the radio these days (listening to the lawyer they bring in to discuss legal issues) there is a lot of talk about how soon convict X can be out relative to their sentence that just got passed down (Fursillo was sentenced for 6 but will likely be out in 3). There seems to be a growing dissent in the country about how long time is served versus the original sentence (regardless of reality or individual circumstances). I often wonder if we could get around it by issuing minimum sentences and making parole and extremely high hurdle to get over. I think the same people who decry someone serving 6 years of a 10-year sentence would be totally okay the same person serving 5 years of a 3-year sentence. "Look, they had to stay in jail even longer - justice is served!" But I'm sure there are many problems with this proposition that I haven't considered. Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:That's 10%, but when it's $50,000 borrowed from someone who borrowed it from someone else, maybe that's a sign you shouldn't be using it to do that. As a down payment that would be fine, but as a deposit? I put a 1.5% deposit on my offer, but of course I was buying in not-as-bubbly Calgary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Aagar posted:I often wonder if we could get around it by issuing minimum sentences and making parole and extremely high hurdle to get over. ConservativePartyPlatform.txt
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Because they almost got my favourite uncle killed. Thats why.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Aagar posted:I've had a thesis (untested) for a long time that people are genuinely unhappy with sentencing in general because of the perceived (perhaps falsely) discrepancy between the sentence and actual time served. So indirectly it's a swipe at the parole board for releasing criminals earlier, without knowing (or caring) about the particular circumstances. A lot of times on the radio these days (listening to the lawyer they bring in to discuss legal issues) there is a lot of talk about how soon convict X can be out relative to their sentence that just got passed down (Fursillo was sentenced for 6 but will likely be out in 3). There seems to be a growing dissent in the country about how long time is served versus the original sentence (regardless of reality or individual circumstances).  This has changed since Google last had it up--it now says "BC Judges--the strongest and weakest link" with chains. There is an unfortunate growing sentiment amongst Canadians that our criminal justice system is in shambles--in reality it has just been posturing by the Tories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Because "the government is soft on criminals" is right up there with "immigrants are all on welfare" and "governments are wastefully inefficient" in terms of right wing talk radio tropes. It's lowest common denominator political garbage, palatable to idiots. Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:Because "the government is soft on criminals" is right up there with "immigrants are all on welfare" and "governments are wastefully inefficient" in terms of right wing talk radio tropes. It doesn't help in trying to get them onboard when you label those who fall for this as "idiots".
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
A female friend of mine was incensed about this and I looked into it. I was surprised that someone with 3 life sentences was capable of getting parole. I believe in rehabilitative justice but I also have very little understanding of how the law actually functions. My friend was especially angry that a violent sex offender with a moderate risk to reoffend was granted parole after failing twice before. I think I understand why this was done, but I also know that the state has failed many rape victims in the past so I also understand why my friend doesn't trust this decision. Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Yeah I think in the mind of Joe Average, no matter the restrictions on your life once paroled, you are still out in the world rather than locked behind bars. No matter how small the risk to reoffend, that's still a risk that didn't apply to you when the person was in jail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:19
|
|