Oh, we’re going to do this again? We’re going to try to pass the same unconditional laws that Stephen Harper tried to pass then spent years and tens of millions of dollars defending all the way to the Supreme Court only to lose because everyone, including Harper, knew from the very beginning that they were unconstitutional?
Just fucking great. Can we not? Can you just roll your neo-fascist lack-of-virtue signalling into a cylinder and shove it up your fucking at instead?
Do violations of Election Canada’s rules count as a strike?
*Asking for an (Indian friend).
Not only has this not worked, but I can’t understand how anybody ever thought it could work.
“You know what our justice system needs?! A way to prevent judges from using their judgment!”
Yes, it’s working so well in Murca with their biggest incarcerated population in the world. Here come those jobs the Cons want to provide.
Want to fight this? Look up what happened with three strikes in the US. Big hint: the creator later turned on the idea and helped crush it in most states.
Don’t repeat our mistakes.
It is neo-fascist lack-of-virtue signalling. The US has spent $2 trillion losing the war on drugs. That money could have eliminated poverty in the US which would have greatly improved the crime and drug use situations (one and the same, really) but that doesn’t satisfy the braying white supremacists and class supremacists in the right wing base.
That’s the winning right wing playbook. Tell you to be afraid. Tell you that the people who make you feel bad for being dumb (the intellectual elitists), racist and ignorant (the woke), backwards (progressives) are bad and that you are right to feel resentful and angry instead of trying to improve yourself and that crime is running rampant because of those people and white people are going to be replaced because of those people, and immigrants are invading the country because of those people, and they are the only ones who can protect you by letting you have military style weapons to protect yourself and your family, by being tough in crime with three strikes and mandatory minimum sentences, and by stopping immigrating and deporting non-whute people. The racist, ignorant, backward folks eat that alternate reality up.
Apart from the fact that this obviously is against the charter - how does this work? Is it three separate convictions at different times? What if you’re charge with multiple serious offenses during a single crime?
This has been tried and repealed in a lot of other places. If memory serves, it also led to a significant increase in homicides. (If there’s no difference between robbery and murder, there is no incentive to leave witnesses.)
And Trailer Park Boys notwithstanding, it’s not like the usual addict criminal is really thinking “well, I’ll only get a couple years, no biggie” before committing a crime.
I think this is the key thing to remember about those that commit crimes. The penalty is never in their minds when they’re considering committing a crime. Either they’re presuming that they’ll get away scott-free, or that the alternative of not committing the crime is worse than any penalty that could come.
Find me a single person who debates if they’ll get two years or five for doing something. Most criminals are completely unaware of what the penalties are in the first place. It could be life for anything worse than shoplifting, and they’ll still do it because the penalty was never in their minds in the first place. This is why putting the entire burden of crime prevention on punishments don’t work.
Not saying that punishments don’t work, but they don’t prevent serious crimes in the first place, only minor ones. Punishments only deal with criminals by preventing them from having any opportunities to commit crimes because they’re in jail. It’s having people be in a good enough position in life that the prospect of ANY jail time enough of a detriment to avoid committing the crime. Having too much to lose is a far better way to prevent crime than guarantee the destruction of a life when you’re already destroying their life via other means.
Either way, people who commit violent crimes are never thinking about the punishment before doing so. It’s only those that do minor ones like speeding that think about it. Though that said, if you get jail time for speeding, maybe people would actually stop doing 80 in a 40 school zone.
Certain parts of America tried this. It’s what put record numbers of non-violent “criminals” permanently in prison for such things like stealing a loaf of bread.
Tens of thousands spend per prisoner for having stolen a loaf of bread.
If that same money were spent in giving low-income people more economic opportunities, none of those crimes would happen and the country as a whole would be far wealthier.
In Dare Devil they touch this topic and the guy getting arrested for stealing some popcorn or something like that says they want to spend thousands of dollars to jail me for a month, rather than feed me for thousands less.
Reducing recitivism should the the top priority. Having better therapy and support in prison is step one. Offering those supports to high risk people before they go to prison is a good second step.
Call me crazy but maybe waiting for someone’s third crime to do something meaningful seems lazy.
There’s gotta be a cooldown right? This is why I space out activations of my ult “Do A Crime”.
There is sufficient evidence to decisively conclude that no, it won’t work. It will result it severe crowding of jails based on inconsequential crimes. Period.
We need a story to handle repeat offenders. They aren’t wrong to say that the current approach isn’t working great. But they are massively wrong about the solution, and are again showing the dangers of having an incompetent populist run a major party.
This is bad policy.
When will people realize that any policy you could think of after 3 beers might not be well thought out?
Are we building more prisons? Is he backed by big prison?
Do we want people to do insanely deadly things if they think they might get caught the third time? Would it be cheaper to take care of people so they don’t have to do seperate things?
Harper spent a couple of billion dollars building new prison beds that CSC didn’t want or need because he was going to be tough on crime. Governors and former governors from states that had tried tough on crime told him that it didn’t work and not to do it. He did it anyway to lack-of-virtue virtue signal to his angry, hateful, moronic base. Then, one by one after spending years in court and hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax dollars, those unconstitutional laws were struck down by the Supreme Court.
The justice system isn’t a game of baseball, so let’s not treat it like one. This is just more evidence that PP has the maturity and political outlook of an angry teenager, which matches quite well with his recent bragging that he’s never changed his mind.
Conservatives will see direct evidence of this not working (the USA) and evidence of compassion and humanity working and helping criminals to become rehabilitated to become productive members of society (Norway) and instead choose to go the USA route. Even though it’s more expensive and completely inhumane AND actually against the teachings of Jesus lol
CANADA DOESN’T NEED A SMALL pp
He’s taking a big risk copying the U.S. system while he’s trying to distance himself from them.
I think he says those two ideas in separate breaths so they’re far apart enough that his voters don’t notice the dissonance.
Can’t we just throw him out? Surely he’s had more than three strikes by now… Maybe he should show us how good of a leader he is, and lead by example here.
