New law in Canada: sexually assaulting a child will get you less time in jail than growing weed. Where are the priorities?
January 16, 2012 - 1:13am
"...a person growing 201 marijuana plants in a rental unit would receive a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a child to have sex with an animal. "
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/20/child-abuse-deserves-more-jail-time-th...
Sorry for saying so, but this is a profoundly wrong-headed demand:
No one should sign such a petition.
Why? How could anybody disagree with it?
1. Pot growers don't deserve jail time.
2. We don't need more jail time for child abusers, so why walk into a so-con trap?
3. Was your question serious?
I agree that pot growers don't deserve jail time. But, if you don't jail child abusers, how do you stop them? From all I've heard, they can't be reformed.
Would you have been ok with the petition if it had said "don't be tougher on pot growers than on child molesters"? I think the unfairness of treating pot growers worse than the other type of offense was the petition's point, not that pot growers SHOULD do time.
2. We don't need more jail time for child abusers, so why walk into a so-con trap?
3. Was your question serious?
I am sorry but I must ask if you are serious with your child abusers don't need more jail time?
A guy here in BC got 18 months last week and will be in less than a year. I do not think that is "okay".
I've edited the thread title to reduce the sensationalist tack.
I have to agree with Unionist. I don't want to see pot growers or child abusers in jail. I want to see the former grow pot and the latter receive the treatment they need. Prison doesn't help with either. The question is entirely wrongheaded.
Is there a treatment that is going to help? Ask this seriously as I do not know.
If there is nothing to help as was said above I think prevention of more acts by restriction from society of some type is needed.
Comparing pot smoking to child molesting is just ucky though.
I've edited the thread title to reduce the sensationalist tack.
I have to agree with Unionist. I don't want to see pot growers or child abusers in jail. I want to see the former grow pot and the latter receive the treatment they need. Prison doesn't help with either. The question is entirely wrongheaded.
I agree with the first part re: farmer. But, where would you have the child abusers go after being found guilty? Should they just be out free and attending treatment sessions? Who decides if the treatment is working and what if it isn't working?
I don't really care if jail doesn't "help" a child abuser. The purpose is to keep them from abusing other children, ie locked up. And no, less than a year is definitely not enough. The most well-researched treatment should occur, but it should be provided while they are physically restrained from abusing other children.
The scars of child sexual abuse last a lifetime. I have worked with and counselled these children. Do you know what they go through to testify against their abuser - if they have the courage? Do you know how they feel when their abuser is found guilty and gets less than a year in jail?
Catchfire, Unionist - Do you believe there are any crimes worthy of prison time?
Does prison not also serve the purpose of keeping dangerous people away from their potential victims as well.
Imprisonment has become the response of first resort to far too many of the social problems that burden people who are ensconced in poverty. These problems often are veiled by being conveniently grouped together under the category "crime" and by the automatic attribution of criminal behavior to people of color. Homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy are only a few of the problems that disappear from public view when the human beings contending with them are relegated to cages.
Prisons thus perform a feat of magic. Or rather the people who continually vote in new prison bonds and tacitly assent to a proliferating network of prisons and jails have been tricked into believing in the magic of imprisonment. But prisons do not disappear problems, they disappear human beings. And the practice of disappearing vast numbers of people from poor, immigrant, and racially marginalized communities has literally become big business.
...........
Mass incarceration is not a solution to unemployment, nor is it a solution to the vast array of social problems that are hidden away in a rapidly growing network of prisons and jails. However, the great majority of people have been tricked into believing in the efficacy of imprisonment, even though the historical record clearly demonstrates that prisons do not work. Racism has undermined our ability to create a popular critical discourse to contest the ideological trickery that posits imprisonment as key to public safety. The focus of state policy is rapidly shifting from social welfare to social control.
Black, Latino, Native American, and many Asian youth are portrayed as the purveyors of violence, traffickers of drugs, and as envious of commodities that they have no right to possess. Young black and Latina women are represented as sexually promiscuous and as indiscriminately propagating babies and poverty. Criminality and deviance are racialized. Surveillance is thus focused on communities of color, immigrants, the unemployed, the undereducated, the homeless, and in general on those who have a diminishing claim to social resources. Their claim to social resources continues to diminish in large part because law enforcement and penal measures increasingly devour these resources. The prison industrial complex has thus created a vicious cycle of punishment which only further impoverishes those whose impoverishment is supposedly "solved" by imprisonment.
Bold added.
Racism Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex by Angela Davis
This petition is profoundly misguided. It's impossible to tell whether it is aimed at cracking down on child abusers, or protesting against the repression of pot growers. Trying to combine both in one petition is a wrongheaded effort at sensationalizing at best - or as quizzical correctly termed it, "just ucky". That's why it's giving rise to a multi-faceted and directionless discussion, as above.
[Edited for clarity.]
Unionist, your last sentence reads like a personal attack. Would you care to clarify (or retract) your comment?
Maybe...
This petition is profoundly stupid. It's impossible to tell whether it is aimed at cracking down on child abusers, or protesting against the repression of pot growers. Trying to combine both in one petition is the mark of limited intelligence at best - or as quizzical correctly termed it, "just ucky". That's why it's giving rise to a stupid discussion, as above.
Sure the petition is stupid but you seemed to be interested in starting a new conversation by stating yr belief that the crime of sexaully assualting a child doesn't deserve more prison time. I think some people are looking for more of an explanation on how you came to that conclusion - if you are interested.
Sure the petition is stupid but you seemed to be interested in starting a new conversation by stating yr belief that the crime of sexaully assualting a child doesn't deserve more prison time. I think some people are looking for more of an explanation on how you came to that conclusion - if you are interested.
No problem. I don't think more prison time for categories of crime addresses any problems of crime, whatsoever. I don't know of any progressive forces pushing for locking up offenders of any kind for longer periods than at present. If, as has been said, child abusers are incurable, then perhaps we should bring back capital punishment rather than just caging them till death? I don't believe in "uncurable". And I don't believe in long sentences as "deterrents". Our goal must be to address the sources and causes of "crime", however difficult that may be. Of course, in the interim, we must protect society, but that could only mean incarceration for life, or execution. That'll protect you against recidivism by the particular individuals. I think countless studies show that it will do little or nothing to protect you against the next perp that comes along.
I am not quite sure what you are saying here with that post in the middle of all this. Sat here for the last 15 mins trying to figure why you would introduce racism by over jailing brown people which I know a lot about and have never thought about it in context to pot growers or child molesters.
Seems weird to me talking about brown people being over jailed in a context of child molesters getting little time or pot growing then so is talking about pot growers and child molesters in the same context.
The icky factor just went up more in this thread.
Well, the drug war disproportionately targets people of colour.
But, yeah, introducing race into this seems like a red herring. My understanding is that most people convicted of seual abuse of children are white males so it's not like they're being discriminated against by the justice system.
I tend to agree with most of what you're saying but your sarcastic tone makes to difficult to discern yr sincerity.
The main problem is the exception right - the person with a new undiagnosed brain tumour who seemed normal before he killed those people or molested the little girl next door. It doesn't matter that it couldn't be seen coming or that crimes such as these rare. To the victims and their loved ones who pay for the remainder of their lives, something must be done.
it's certainly easier to dismiss their emotional opinion on crime and punishment the farther distance you are from their reality.
Introducing race is "icky"?
I guess I just read Maysie's post for the bolded sections, all three of which don't mention race, but our society's fetishization of incarceration as corrective. It happened to be in an anti-racist piece, but the effect was clear. Well, to me. Perhaps not to those who hunk thinking about race is "icky".
Sorry, Catchfire. I edited my post (though I wasn't sure whom I was deemed to be personally attacking), but I have to tell the truth as I see it. This discussion is stupid.
Introducing race is "icky"?
I guess I just read Maysie's post for the bolded sections, all three of which don't mention race, but our society's fetishization of incarceration as corrective. It happened to be in an anti-racist piece, but the effect was clear. Well, to me. Perhaps not to those who hunk thinking about race is "icky".
Not a fair characterization of the objection, at all.
i see this being closed soon so one last thing.
Human beings are not rational creatures.
However, the great majority of people have been tricked into believing in the efficacy of imprisonment, even though the historical record clearly demonstrates that prisons do not work
quoted from Maysie
I don't think people have been tricked, it's much simpler - they think you can't commit crimes while you're in prison
Ya it is in this context at least to me.
White men are the main child molesters in our society and I feel talking about brown people like my dad, cousins and uncles being over jailed in the context of a discussion about child molesting incarceration is icky.
I agree it could my personal feelings mainly at play as I have no icky issues with racism discussions and how my people are overly penalized here in Canada but I don't wanna do it in this thread. Think you have mischaracterized "icky" feelings and I would like it if you didn'nt. Thanks.
I think it accidently makes a public social position that is a poor reflection of reality in the case of who are actually the child molesters in our society.
I see quizzical's post as deliberately missing the point of Maysie's post, the intent of which was clear: our infatuation with incarceration is wrongheaded. How would you characterize the objection, pookie?
@Dostoyevsky We're conditioned to think of crime in terms of punishment, as your namesake knows. So of course victims of crime (or those we call victims of crime) are usually prompted by journalists for reactions to sentencing, almost always to return verdicts that such and such a sentence is "too light". It's natural that we then associate our emotional or affectional respnse to a crime with he length of a sentence. But we also know that punishment doesn't act as a deterrent, and that there is no natural reason why a tough sentence should result in peace of mind for someone who endured real psychic trauma. So it's my contention that we need to find other ethics and values on which to base our system of justice. For me, that's what all progressives should be aiming for.
I don't think people have been tricked, it's much simpler - they think you can't commit crimes while you're in prison
And capitalists can't exploit workers - and chiefs of staff can't launch wars and slaughter people - while they're in prison either (at least, if you remove their ability to communicate...). When they're incarcerated for destroying the lives of millions upon millions of people, I'll turn my mind to the urgent necessity to lengthen the prison terms of child abusers - or, I guess, imprisoning them for life, since they're "incurable" - right?
But we also know that punishment doesn't act as a deterrent
I don't entirely agree with that. For example, the reason I don't park wherever I want or constantly drive at a high speed is because the punishment (a ticket with a fine) acts as a deterrent to me doing so. When I used to regularly smoke marijuana, the general lack of enforcement and the relatively small punishment I'd get in the unlikely event that I was caught (in my case, with a small amount), it wasn't a sufficient deterrent (not that I'm saying we need to be more vigilant in discouraging pot smoking). If the penalty for being caught with a joint was life imprisonment, I imagine that I'd decide that it simply wasn't worth the risk.
Great argument, Mr.Tea. How about we make every infraction - criminal or other - punishable by life imprisonment? We'd sleep safely at night, not be afraid of anything, have safe roads! Even the incurable offenders, once caught, would be rendered incapable of re-offending.
What's the downside? Jail all the miscreants forever! Crime and rowdiness in bars will plummet.
More seriously, the presence of arguments like these on a supposedly progressive discussion board, in 2012, shows the extent to which capitalism in our period has so degraded the level of understanding and culture that people can make arguments that were refuted in the Regina Manifesto - and that Jack Layton could discipline Bill Siksay for having voted against Harper's previous omnibus crime bill. I think, Catchfire, Maysie, and others, that we need some forum to discuss this scary phenomenon more fully. How can progressive politics and social attitudes be going backwards? How can this trend be decelerated and reversed?
Why would I deliberately miss the point of the racism post? I really wanna know that cause I am really aware of how bad the racism is in Canada..
I think it makes a wrong picture of who is being jailed for child molesting.
ETD Is making an accusation of deliberate actions about something as serious as being negative towards anti-racism a personal attack? It feels like one anyway.
Yeah, we COULD do that, unionist. Or we could can the ludicrous strawmen and think rationally about the relative seriousness of various crimes (and what should be a crime in the first place) and what penalties are appropriate to them. We can live with people parking where they shouldn't, while still punishing it sufficiently so as to discourage it. If we take a terrible serious crime, like the sexual abuse of children, we need to have punishment with sufficient deterrent effects.
In Finland, for example, there are laws against speeding, punishable by a monetary fine. However, the fine that you receive is proportional to your income. So an NHL hockey player from Finland was caught speeding and his fine ended up being over $100,000. The rationale being that for a multimillionaire hockey player a fine of $50 is utterly meaningless and amounts to pocket change so hardly serves as a deterent to speeding in the same way as it would to somebody making a low income.
Quizzical, I read your post as an oblique attack on Maysie. I apologize if that wasn't the case; perhaps I'm sensitive viz. the recent conflict on the board. I read Maysie's post not as introducing race into the discussion (although as babblers have pointed out, it certainly enters into sentencing of illegal drugs), but as using an anti-racist commenter to show how our society overvalues imprisonment as a corrective tool, when in fact there is little evidence that prisons are a public good. Instead, they serve as warehouses for the undesirable: persons of colour, the mentally ill, the poor, etc. The sensationalistic and decontextualized category of "child predator" should not be the source from which we author our crime policy. There should be a focus on reform rather than warehousing, on caring for those marginalized by society rathe than targeting them and on eliminating the root causes of crime rather than concealing them.
I agree with just bout all you say catchfire but the "oblique attack" attack and I was not deliberately doing anything and feel pretty damn shot at.
I don't know what you are talking about recent anythings here not that I need to anyway cause that is dragging your own issues with other people into another thread and topic and inflicting them on me. Is it okay to do that?
Is that the type of progressiveness that is being thrown about here by you and unionist?
I'm sorry for singling you out, quizzical. I thought you were attacking Maysie. I'm of the opinion that it is always worthwhile to introduce race into a discussion, but it appeared to me that Maysie's post was emphasizing our over-reliance on prisons as a corrective measure, not race. I retract my comment about your motivations. As for the kind of progressiveness I'm espousing, it is the one in my last post. Apparently we agree.
Is that the type of progressiveness that is being thrown about here by you and unionist?
Hi, quizzical. If you have a problem with something I post (because trust me, you don't know me except from what I post), have the courtesy to quote my post and then go at it. Otherwise, try practising what you preach. Thanks.
My post at #10 was in response to this specific point.
Does prison not also serve the purpose of keeping dangerous people away from their potential victims as well.
Perhaps I should have given the short answer to that question. No it does not.
"keeping dangerous people away from their potential victims" may be a side effect, but it's most certainly not the "purpose" of prison.
To make a thief, make an owner. To create crime, create laws.
Ursula K. Le Guin in The Dispossessed
Sorry I'm taking this to a meta place, that's how my brain works.
An alternative (not great or perfect, just an alternative) to the current criminal justice system:
Restorative Justice (Gov't of Canada link)
Restorative Justice in Canada (pdf link)
During the past 30 years, a restorative justice movement has emerged in Canada. It is a movement that finds the current justice system inadequate in terms of dealing with offenders, victims and communities in the aftermath of crime. The current criminal justice system is seen as retributive, concentrating solely on fixing blame and guilt.
.....
Restorative Justice (RJ) is not a program, but a way of looking at crime. It can be defined as a response to crime that focuses on restoring the losses suffered by victims, holding offenders accountable for the harm they have caused, and building peace within communities.
..thank you maysie.
C'mon, Maysie, how's that going to work? We all have to work together? ;)
Having spent a lovely afternoon in the company of a couple of sexual predators as a child I never thought to ask them about their issues. As for restoring the losses suffered by victims, any suggestions of what that would look like? I don't mind the idea of jail time.
I don't either. And what would we do with so-called "white" collar and war criminals? I can't think of a restorative justice model that would work for these creeps. Jail time might be the only thing they understand.
The establishment of a commission composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, socially minded jurists and social workers, to deal with all matters pertaining to crime and punishment and the general administration of law, in order to humanize the law and to bring it into harmony with the needs of the people
While the removal of economic inequality will do much to overcome the most glaring injustices in the treatment of those who come into conflict with the law, our present archaic system must be changed and brought into accordance with a modern concept of human relationships. The new system must not be based as is the present one, upon vengeance and fear, but upon an understanding of human behaviour. For this reason its planning and control cannot be left in the hands of those steeped in the outworn legal tradition; and therefore it is proposed that there shall be established a national commission composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, socially minded jurists and social workers whose duty it shall be to devise a system of prevention and correction consistent with other features of the new social order.
The Regina Manifesto, July 1933
The Criminal Code of Canada specifies six objectives of sentencing. Most people couldn't name more than two.
Note that "payback" and "revenge" are not among the official objectives.
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
718.01 — When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.
"Primary" doesn't mean "exclusive".
The Criminal Code of Canada specifies six objectives of sentencing. Most people couldn't name more than two.
Note that "payback" and "revenge" are not among the official objectives.
No?
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
I don't mind at all the thought of having such predators removed for the protection of society first, and for rehabilitation as a second consideration. In many situations perhaps it should be the state and the related institutions of state which harboured the predator that provides reparations to the victim, because of the everyday examples of predatory behaviour practiced and permitted as part of the normal functioning of society. None of that in itself bears a political consideration in the way same way justice is typically applied against marijuana users.
Evidence that prison doesn't deter crime.
Both the prospect of getting caught and the prospect of spending time in prison are supposed to deter forward-looking, rational potential offenders from criminal activity, encouraging more-constructive pursuits like staying in school or at least making French fries. More mechanically, prison also prevents crime by simply caging dangerous people. Deterrence has long been an article of faith among economic theorists and, more recently, economists who do empirical work, too. But now a series of careful studies by economists at Columbia and the University of Michigan are calling into question whether either policing or punishment successfully deters crime.
.....
Usually, empiricists infer an effect if crime is lower in circumstances with stiffer punishments or more policing. The problem is that tougher policies don't occur randomly. Cities and states add police or lengthen sentences as a frustrated response to crime waves. So, crime affects policing and punishment as much as the other way around.
The Effect of Prison on Criminal Behaviour
Fifty studies that examined the effect of imprisonment and longer sentences on recidivism were analysed. The studies described variations in the use of imprisonment and recidivism. To be included in the review the study must report a minimum follow-up period of at least six months. For example, a study may report the recidivism rates for offenders serving short prison sentences compared to offenders serving long prison sentences. In addition, statistical procedures were employed to investigate whether prison had a deterrent effect for offenders who posed different levels of risk to re-offend. For example, is imprisonment and longer sentences more effective for higher risk offenders than for lower risk offenders?
.....
The 50 studies involved over 300,000 offenders. None of the analyses found imprisonment to reduce recidivism. The recidivism rate for offenders who were imprisoned as opposed to given a community sanction were similar. In addition, longer prison sentences were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact, the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism.
An analysis of the studies according to the risk of the offender also did not show a deterrent effect. For both low risk and high risk offenders, increasing sentence length was associated with small increases in recidivism. Low risk offenders were slightly more likely to commit new offences than high risk offenders. This finding suggests some support to the theory that prison may serve as a "school for crime" for some offenders.
Regardless of the type of analysis employed, no evidence for a crime deterrent function was found.
Quite the radical findings for Public Safety Canada.
Oh, and don't worry, neither of these articles have a mean and nasty race analysis. They're safe to read.
Most of this article is people's opinions, rather than stats and data, but I found this tidbit interesting:
The survey appears to strengthen the case for sanctions requiring offenders to make restitution to victims, said University of Ottawa criminologist Irvin Waller.
In France, restitution has been the most common criminal sanction for more than 40 years, he said. "What you see is that when there's some reparation paid, people get less angry and the desire for incarceration diminishes."
Quite the radical findings for Public Safety Canada.
Oh, and don't worry, neither of these articles have a mean and nasty race analysis. They're safe to read.
And you wonder why we love you, Maysie?
Thanks so much for bringing some facts and logic to what started out quite differently.
Talking about predators involves a different conversation than talking about deterrence, rehabilitation to a certain extent, or the best way for a society to process offenders.
@ jas:
Get yourself a good dictionary. "Payback" does not mean reparation or restitution by the criminal.
It means tit-for-tat punishment of the criminal that is somehow supposed to even the score.
I don't think people have been tricked, it's much simpler - they think you can't commit crimes while you're in prison
And capitalists can't exploit workers - and chiefs of staff can't launch wars and slaughter people - while they're in prison either (at least, if you remove their ability to communicate...). When they're incarcerated for destroying the lives of millions upon millions of people, I'll turn my mind to the urgent necessity to lengthen the prison terms of child abusers - or, I guess, imprisoning them for life, since they're "incurable" - right?
I don't know enough about the science of whether they are incurable - which is why I never mentioned it. Reading between yr lines - it seems yr main issue is one of jurisdiction - international crimes committed by governments and corporations? In our world of nation states they have no one to answer to. What good would imprisoning George Bush do anyway - since the Babble Authenticators have helpfully pointed out - imprisoning people doesn't act as a deterant.
What good would imprisoning George Bush do anyway - since the Babble Authenticators have helpfully pointed out - imprisoning people doesn't act as a deterant.
It would be punishment.
When they're incarcerated for destroying the lives of millions upon millions of people, I'll turn my mind to the urgent necessity to lengthen the prison terms of child abusers - or, I guess, imprisoning them for life, since they're "incurable" - right?
How is this different than conservatives telling us that gayness is curable, or that drug addiction is curable? Is conservatism itself curable? Why not suggest the ultimate cure for what ails the world?
There is evidence that anti-social behaviour is linked to genetics and environmental factors. Poverty is a factor. And so what I do to stem the evil tide is to vote NDP as often as possible, because I am against poverty, social injustice, inequality and crime in general.
What good would imprisoning George Bush do anyway - since the Babble Authenticators have helpfully pointed out - imprisoning people doesn't act as a deterant.
It would be punishment.
Punishment only works if the offender recognizes and believes the actions they are being punished for were in fact wrong
"...a person growing 201 marijuana plants in a rental unit would receive a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a child to have sex with an animal. "
I assume the authors of the petition just wanted to point out how peaceful pot smokers are getting shafted but seriously they're playing with fire with that language. That "raping toddlers" language is a conservative trick, having been used recently to make pardons more inaccessible. If Karla Homolka can get a pardon, well let's just take that away from EVERYONE. Even though such criminal acts are rare in the extreme.
If someone were to say "I don't think building more prisons, or making it tougher to get out of prison, or once you're out making it tougher to get a pardon will serve society for the better in the long term", a typical response these days might be "So you're okay with child molesters raping your child?"
This is what it's come to. Conservatives are using the spectre of child rape to incite fear and panic in an uninformed (misinformed) populace in order to push their hard line pro prison ideology.
Without even checking the numbers I would feel quite confident in saying 99% of people in prison are NOT there for forcing "children to have sex with animals", so why use that same emotional button conservatives are so fond of, so yeah it needs to be rewritten.
There is no evidence that the petition calls for reducing prison time for growing marijuana. It could have been written by Vic Toews, as an argument to crack down on child abuse (and of course all other crime while we're at it).
What is so complicated about this? This petition is shit.
ETA: In case you're not convinced, here's the full text. It doesn't call for reducing penalties for marijuana. It does, however, trick a lot of well-meaning people into misunderstanding and signing (see many of the comments):
Tell Parliament to get its priorities straight--child rapists deserve more jail time than marijuana growers.
Under the new bill, a pedophile who forces a child to watch pornography or exposes himself to children faces a minimum 90-day sentence, only half the term for someone convicted of growing six marijuana plants in their own home. The new maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double to 14 years, four years more than the sentence for someone sexually assaulting a child without a weapon.
Sign this petition to tell Parliament that preventing and punishing violent crimes against children are more important than waging a war on marijuana growers.
Right on Unionist. Very hesitant to weigh in on this but you've made a strong case for why it's necessary along with others. (Apologies)
Folks aren't asking for child-abusers to get off easy. They're asking you to look at why our pe(nile)nal system is so skewed and what's wrong with it. Why can't "restorative justice" work? What are the flaws?
If we wholeheartedly look at the "Social Determinants of Health", why can't we ascribe to that ideal?
If we're really about the POLICY around here, why are we still playing these silly, little, games?
This petition is saying that pedophiles should get more time, yet the most vocal in this thread argue and say that people who rape toddlers should be walking around free "because jail doesn't work". [I know what would work...]
While another person claims that using a term like "raping toddlers" is a "conservative tactic"... "using the spectre of child rape to incite fear and panic in an uninformed (misinformed) populace."
LMAO - What the hell?
Dude, lonewolfbunn, do we hope to get somewhere? You're on a progressive site. We should hope to reconcile pedophiles. Do the proper social work.
And raping toddlers is a Con tactic. The word rape alone, sets off alarm bells. Please explain to me the seriousness of this issue???
What goal are you trying to achieve my friend?
This petition is saying that pedophiles should get more time, yet the most vocal in this thread argue and say that people who rape toddlers should be walking around free "because jail doesn't work". [I know what would work...]
While another person claims that using a term like "raping toddlers" is a "conservative tactic"... "using the spectre of child rape to incite fear and panic in an uninformed (misinformed) populace."
LMAO - What the hell?
The point is whether "raping toddlers" is a rational argument for the justification of more prisons, tighter controls on release conditions or introducing tougher pardon requirements.
My assessment is no, NOT BECAUSE RAPING TODDLERS IS GOOD, but because it is so RARE, that using it as a reason for the aformentioned crime controls is nonsensical and, specifically coming from conservatives, misleading.
Society doesn't call for the total elimination of Great White sharks because three people last year got killed, does it? That, from any reasonable persons view, would be an exaggeration of the problem versus the solution.
But the government KNOWS all this. They have the data. They know "raping toddlers" is exceedingly rare. But they bring it up anyway, why? Maybe because building a bunch of prisons to house those damn hippy pot smokers wouldn't engender the pro-prison hysteria they want. Thus my opinion that using the rape of children to further a political agenda is reprehensible.
This petition is saying that pedophiles should get more time, yet the most vocal in this thread argue and say that people who rape toddlers should be walking around free "because jail doesn't work". [I know what would work...]
While another person claims that using a term like "raping toddlers" is a "conservative tactic"... "using the spectre of child rape to incite fear and panic in an uninformed (misinformed) populace."
LMAO - What the hell?
The point is whether "raping toddlers" is a rational argument for the justification of more prisons, tighter controls on release conditions or introducing tougher pardon requirements.
My assessment is no, NOT BECAUSE RAPING TODDLERS IS GOOD, but because it is so RARE, that using it as a reason for the aformentioned crime controls is nonsensical and, specifically coming from conservatives, misleading.
Society doesn't call for the total elimination of Great White sharks because three people last year got killed, does it? That, from any reasonable persons view, would be an exaggeration of the problem versus the solution.
But the government KNOWS all this. They have the data. They know "raping toddlers" is exceedingly rare. But they bring it up anyway, why? Maybe because building a bunch of prisons to house those damn hippy pot smokers wouldn't engender the pro-prison hysteria they want. Thus my opinion that using the rape of children to further a political agenda is reprehensible.
So what would be the politically correct term that would please you? MAKING LOVE to toddlers?
And stevebrown, pedophiles "making love" to toddlers is NOT rare... it barely makes the news though.
Whether we speak of "raping toddlers" or "making love to toddlers" is MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!
The government has all the data whether it makes the news or not. Why have they not troted out those statistics to support their cause?
If you have an emotional connection to this issue then I am sorry. But I also ask that you recuse yourself from the debate.
More specifically, where is this epidemic of sexual assault on children that requires that we support too-clever-by-half petitions calling for Harper to build more prisons for child abusers?
This is utter bullshit. As I believe I mentioned, more politely, on January 16 above.
Whether we speak of "raping toddlers" or "making love to toddlers" is MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!
The government has all the data whether it makes the news or not. Why have they not troted out those statistics to support their cause?
If you have an emotional connection to this issue then I am sorry. But I also ask that you recuse yourself from the debate.
No normal person should need an emotional connection to be against pedophilia. Does one need an emotional connection to defend it?
And stevebrown as far as recusing from the debate I think you should be the one since you abviously got some type of unsettling bias...
The Government of Canada violates the rights of hundreds of thousands of children in Canada every day. They don't give a rat's patootey about kids, because kids don't vote.
I don't either. And what would we do with so-called "white" collar and war criminals? I can't think of a restorative justice model that would work for these creeps. Jail time might be the only thing they understand.
Thank you for this. Finally some sanity.
Whether we speak of "raping toddlers" or "making love to toddlers" is MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!
The government has all the data whether it makes the news or not. Why have they not troted out those statistics to support their cause?
If you have an emotional connection to this issue then I am sorry. But I also ask that you recuse yourself from the debate.
No normal person should need an emotional connection to be against pedophilia. Does one need an emotional connection to defend it?
And stevebrown as far as recusing from the debate I think you should be the one since you abviously got some type of unsettling bias...
Ok now we get to the crux of the matter. Not "toddler rape" or "toddler bestiality" but pedophilia in general.
Also, your implication that I am somehow in favor of these things is extremely offensive and parallels conservative ideology on this matter.
I have read some of your posts in the first nations forum and I am at\ a loss to explain why you think the govenment is honest and forthright on child sexual abuse but not with regards to first nation issues.
http://www.change.org/petitions/ontario-minister-of-justice-and-attorney-general-of-canada-devote-more-resources-to-protect-children-from-pedophiles
"More resources need to be devoted to protecting children from pedophiles.
Measures taken to protect children from child molesters should exceed the measures taken to protect the rights of suspected child molesters.
The following is one suggestion that will protect children from sexual predators and child killers. We ask that this as well as other strategies be implemented to protect children.
Mandatory screening of any individual accused of sexually abusing a child must be implimented.
Due to the difficulty involved in finding solid evidence testing is recommended in cases with little or no evidence.
The rights of children to grow up without being raped and murdered should supersede the privacy rights of suspected child rapists and murderers.
Screening should include the most advanced polygraph testing available.
The cost of testing will be a small expenditure in the war to stop sexual abuse of children and will greatly reduce the amount of missing children.
We the undersigned believe every resource must be utilized to protect children from pedophiles. For the sake of innocence lives please devote more resources to protect children from being raped and murdered."
[Now how bout this one? Lot's of scare tactics? Are you scared..?]
Okay, lonewolfbunn, you want to talk about child rapists?
Okay.
In case you don't know this, I have spent almost 15 years in the field of anti-violence against women; as a frontline worker, a manager and a consultant. And I'm a feminist.
Given the stats on sexual assault in Canada, over half of all Canadian women (sorry, there are very few stats on male victims of sexual assault) will be sexually or physically assaulted by the time she reaches age 16. This stat accounts for both reported crimes and never-reported crimes. I haven't found any sources that break it down further by age, but that stat alone should freak the crap out of us.
Who do you think these men are committing these crimes? Fanged monsters hiding in the bushes jumping out?
No, they are not.
These men, these molesters, these rapists, these criminals, are working beside you in the workplace. They are in line with you when you shop for groceries. They are running for public office, and they are walking down the street. They graduated from high school with you. They may even be among your friends. Yours, mine, everyone's.
Why is this allowed to happen?
Well it's not because of any "soft on crime" problem, but because our society teaches that sex is about power-over. Men learn this. Women learn this. Men are taught an entitlement regarding access to sex (and power). Children are smaller and physically weaker than adults. In a world defined as "whoever has the most power can do what they like", this is the inevitable result.
Until our world changes, this will not change. This will not change no matter how many laws are created to put more molesters in jail. And if more molesters are put in jail, as is your point, it will not change the rates of abuse, since we create more molesters every day, as a society.
Our society creates and nurturers many kinds of predators. Until we stop doing this, they will continue to exist.
Just because I, and others, disagree with your solution to this ill of our society, doesn't mean we think pedophiles, or any kind of violent predators, are just fine and groovy.
P.S. I guess I need to say this before I get slammed by the regular suspects: Yes we all learn this fucked-up reality, and no we all don't accept it as real. Many people, perhaps the majority (the jury's still out on that one) reject such despicable and narrow views of sex and power. Many of us relearn. But many do not. Predators are not a tiny minority, that much we know for sure.
The rights of children to grow up without being raped and murdered should supersede the privacy rights of suspected child rapists and murderers.
Worthy of Stephen Harper himself.
1. People "suspected" of misbehaviour are innocent. You got evidence? Call the cops.
2. Children (and women and racialized minorities and non-straight people and workers and colonized people etc. etc.) are not abused by individuals that can be screened out. They are abused by power structures that promote, cause, and then excuse the abuse.
The Catholic Church (Thomas Collins, for example) cynically and cruelly claims that it now submits individuals to a day-long battery of psychological testing to screen out abusers. By so doing, they seek to cover up the fact that the Church creates the abusers. They should be testing those NOT suspected of anything - the Pope and his minions at all levels.
Same goes for the Scouts.
Same goes for the residential schools and the criminal justice system and virtually every institution of the society with which Aboriginal people have to interface.
Same goes for our anti-human economic and social system as a whole.
You want to have a thread about "who really really hates child abusers the most and who wants to punish them the most"? Go see Stephen Harper. He's already got all the issues nicely framed for you.
Oh, and everything Maysie said.
Between this and an ideal circumstance where none of these things exist, in the transition that is, any developing form of justice that wishes to be referred to as such would still have to consider harm reduction measures, interventions where people who inflict harm because of all of these reasons must be stopped from doing so. They're not often persuaded by a stern talking to.
I'm having a hard time seeing how this discussion fits into a progressive website, at least under the current framing. Added to that, there are some pretty heavy feelings swirling about in this thread, which are harming the chances for a productive conversation. I'm going to close this thread. I'm open to future discussion, but I think we'd get further under a different framing question.