What does DTK need?

[ijmorlan]

The problem is that the deterrence effect of punishment changes depending on the crime and the motivations for it.

Punishment has little effect on a persons crimes of passion or crimes of desperation (the types of crimes we're most often talking about here).

But they do have significant effect on crimes of convenience (which are the types of crimes that most people, like you and I) are almost exclusively contemplating committing. The most obvious example is traffic violations:

Another category which I believe can be affected by sentencing is economic crimes, typically although not always committed by wealthy individuals. Essentially I mean businesses whose operations depends on committing crimes. For example, bulk shoplifting, where a whole gang of people goes into a store and cleans out a section, or fraudulent educational institutions. I think well-off people who have the ability to run a business will think carefully about the penalties, and are likely to stay away from anything that has a good chance of putting them in prison.

[Bytor]

I think well-off people who have the ability to run a business will think carefully about the penalties, and are likely to stay away from anything that has a good chance of putting them in prison.

Isn't that likely to be the case, though, regardless of sentence length? I doubt any of them want to answer "yes" to the conviction question on an application or have that pop up in their background search.

[ijmorlan]

I think well-off people who have the ability to run a business will think carefully about the penalties, and are likely to stay away from anything that has a good chance of putting them in prison.

Isn't that likely to be the case, though, regardless of sentence length? I doubt any of them want to answer "yes" to the conviction question on an application or have that pop up in their background search.

I think you’re saying the sentence lengths don’t need to be excessive to get the point across? You’re probably right, and I’m not necessarily calling for heavy sentences in all cases, although repeat offences need to be handled more strictly.

My point is that these types of criminals can be assumed to think about the consequences; if they still do the crime it’s because they think they won’t get caught or because the penalties are insufficient, not because they really need that extra $1M in fraud proceeds to keep warm tonight. But it’s at least as much about the system being willing to investigate, prosecute, and convict them, and then sentence them to something real, not some nonsense suspended sentence or whatever, as it is about the de jure penalties.

[Bytor]

Well, I already gave one link showing that longer sentences do not reduce crime, specifically recidivism.

More evidence that longer sentences simply do not work:

https://www.vera.org/news/research-shows...ove-safety

https://ccla.org/criminal-justice/no-lon...uce-crime/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf...10.00680.x

and on, and on, if one simply wishes to look for it and be educated.

[ac3r]

Long prison sentences should only be reserved for specific crimes that are very severe or if the person would be at risk of doing similar offences if released. That could include violent crime (murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, slavery, non-sexual child abuse, animal abuse [we basically do nothing about this]), sexual crimes (assault, rape, voyeurism, sexual slavery, anything involving children), organized crime, high profile drug trafficking (from major local drug dealers to people who are involved in importing large amounts of drugs across the border), crimes against the state (espionage, treason etc), interfering with the judiciary system (obstruction, perjury) and so on.

Short jail sentences should be reserved for small things, essentially a "you done fucked up" and which warrants some degree of punishment that acts as a really hard slap on the wrist. It needn't be a long sentence, just enough to make things miserable for them. Enough to send the message that if you think fraud or selling vapes to kids is okay, you'll spend a few weeks or months in jail. A criminal record will follow them afterwards too. Probation and similar things can also be used after release. Interviews with social workers, psychiatrists and other professionals would also be good, in order to determine why someone committed a crime and to figure out ways to steer them away from ever doing that again.

And while it's true long imprisonments tends to not reduce crime in any way, it's evident short sentences - or no sentence - is also not helping much. Crime rates have been rising in many parts of the country. Clearly we need some changes to fix that. The causes for rising crime seems like it can often be explained by socioeconomic issues that are impacting everyone. When life gets hard - especially financially or if one's mental health completely shatters - then people are tempted to do things they think will help (stealing, fraud etc) or make irrational choices (just look at the incel crowd...heh). I think it could also be used for drug addiction, though perhaps not imprisonment in a jail, but being legally obliged to go into detox. We routinely hold people in psychiatric care when it is determined they are a harm to themselves or others, so why not drug addiction? That is an even greater harm to the individual, but also the general public because it has created a widespread, complex public health issue. It also costs the nation millions of dollars per year. I don't see why we just turn a blind eye to it all and let them abuse drugs. You can't go anywhere these days without seeing an addict. We need to find a way to fight that, but unfortunately we are stuck with this hands off let them do what they want approach thanks to the bleeding heart liberal crowd hijacking public policy. That bullshit isn't working.

As for public safety - or rather the perception of it - police patrols may help. Have more beat cops downtown/uptown. Have police do patrols of neighbourhoods, even if it doesn't really do much. Feels like the only time you see a cop is when they're parked somewhere doing paper work, chatting with another cop or driving somewhere. All cops are bastards, but they can at least have an impact on the perception of public safety, even if ultimately they are an awful concept that exists. It sucks, but we don't have any alternatives that fill the role of public safety - yet.

[Kodra24]

I heard it's difficult to reoffend if you're behind bars

[danbrotherston]

I heard it's difficult to reoffend if you're behind bars

This is only useful if you intend to lock people up forever. For serious crimes like premediated murder, this is perhaps a solution.

For petty crimes, this isn't a real solution, both in that it's like, stereotypically fascist, and also that it's immensely expensive. Incarcerating people isn't free.

Of course, regimes that do this kind of thing usually just go full fascist and start working their prisoners to death.

In any case, assuming we would would actually like a free society, we need to plan for releasing people sometime, and if that's the case, minimizing recidivisim should be our goal.

I find it disturbing when I need to point this kind of thing out.

[tomh009]

Is crime rising? Yes, about 5% if you look at the past two years (2021 and 2022), but there is the pandemic effect as well so it's dangerous to assume it's a long-term trend.

Here is the actual long-term trend from StatCan. You can see that property crime is down about 60% over the past 30 years, with a bit of an uptick before the pandemic. Violent crime is down about 15% over the same time period.

   

[Kodra24]

I heard it's difficult to reoffend if you're behind bars

This is only useful if you intend to lock people up forever. For serious crimes like premediated murder, this is perhaps a solution.

For petty crimes, this isn't a real solution, both in that it's like, stereotypically fascist, and also that it's immensely expensive. Incarcerating people isn't free.

Of course, regimes that do this kind of thing usually just go full fascist and start working their prisoners to death.

In any case, assuming we would would actually like a free society, we need to plan for releasing people sometime, and if that's the case, minimizing recidivisim should be our goal.

I find it disturbing when I need to point this kind of thing out.

I find it disturbing that we need to point out that we do have jails and need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending

[danbrotherston]

This is only useful if you intend to lock people up forever. For serious crimes like premediated murder, this is perhaps a solution.

For petty crimes, this isn't a real solution, both in that it's like, stereotypically fascist, and also that it's immensely expensive. Incarcerating people isn't free.

Of course, regimes that do this kind of thing usually just go full fascist and start working their prisoners to death.

In any case, assuming we would would actually like a free society, we need to plan for releasing people sometime, and if that's the case, minimizing recidivisim should be our goal.

I find it disturbing when I need to point this kind of thing out.

I find it disturbing that we need to point out that we do have jails and need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending

This is just dishonest rhetoric. I already acknowledged the need for long term confinement of individuals guilty of extremely serious crimes.

Do you intend to lock up every offender indefinitely, no matter how minor their crimes?

[ijmorlan]

This is only useful if you intend to lock people up forever. For serious crimes like premediated murder, this is perhaps a solution.

For petty crimes, this isn't a real solution, both in that it's like, stereotypically fascist, and also that it's immensely expensive. Incarcerating people isn't free.

Of course, regimes that do this kind of thing usually just go full fascist and start working their prisoners to death.

In any case, assuming we would would actually like a free society, we need to plan for releasing people sometime, and if that's the case, minimizing recidivisim should be our goal.

I find it disturbing when I need to point this kind of thing out.

I find it disturbing that we need to point out that we do have jails and need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending

Not to speak for Dan, but he said “For serious crimes like premediated murder, [locking people up forever] is perhaps a solution”, and then says that’s not a good solution for lesser crimes. Now you say that we “need to house violent inmates that are at risk of reoffending”. So what exactly is the difference between what you are saying?

It sounds to me like you’re enthusiastic about imprisoning lots of people, but when challenged retreat to talking only about violent offenders.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a discussion to be had (in particular, what exactly do we do with somebody who keeps shoplifting again and again, including after being imprisoned for a short period? drunk driving, same question?), but I think overall we could do with a little less enthusiasm to lock people up for long periods of time.

[nms]

For nearly a quarter-century, Ontario's prisons have been overcrowded (and likely before that too).  From a government report 24 years ago (Corrections Population Report: Public Safety Canada (2000))

Ontario reports that remand offenders comprise approximately 40% of the daily count and that this has been approximately a 10% increase in the past 10 years. In addition, the length of stay has increased by 2 to 3% during that same time period. The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General has established "Video Remand Programs" in several communities. This allows the offender to attend their remand hearing without having to be transported to court. Involvement in this program is voluntary.

11 years ago (2013) nearly half of Ontario's prisons were overcrowded (CBC). (14 of 29 prisons)

The new [in 2013] facilities will bring in 280 net new beds to what is currently a 9,020-bed system that last year housed an average 8,806 people each day.

The province says most of those inmates were held on remand — awaiting a bail hearing or trial. It's a cohort which has surged to nearly two-thirds of the provincial penal population today from one-third back in 1996.

In 11 years, with 7 years of Conservatives in power, and 5 years of Liberals in power before that, the prison system had a net loss of 1452 beds.  By last year (2023) (Toronto Star), most jails were overcapacity.

As of Sept. 30, 2023, there was an average of 8,889 people in provincial jails, well over the 7,848-person capacity. Overall, the jails were operating at 113 per cent capacity at that time.

Most of Ontario's institutions were over capacity in 2023, the data shows.

Maplehurst Correction Complex in Milton, Ont., was the most overcrowded last year, with an average inmate population of 1,188 but official capacity for 887 – meaning it was operating at 134 per cent capacity in 2023.

 

What has led to this? (from the same Toronto Star article) Delayed bail hearings brought on by a justice system which has not found enough "like-minded judges" to fill the benches and more conservative Crown attorneys arguing against bail:

Meanwhile, an overwhelming number of inmates held – 81 per cent, the government said – are awaiting trial and presumptively innocent.

Also buried in that Toronto Star article, reducing the prison population doesn't actually produce a general increase in crime:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a concerted effort to reduce jail numbers when it became clear by April 2020 that the novel coronavirus spread rapidly in congregate settings.

The average number of inmates dropped to 6,661 in 2020, from an average of 8,049 in 2019, the data shows.

Bytensky, of the Criminal Lawyers Association, said there wasn't a subsequent jump in crime rates. In fact, he said, there was a significant drop in crime during the pandemic with a few exceptions like a surge in domestic violence charges.