Just saw a clip on Global news. Poverty blamed.
Video at the Star.
More here regarding Montreal gang recruitment.
Then there's this idea.
And Lemon wonders if racial profiling is the answer.
* * * *
Well, I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't have any answers. I'm quite sure that we will never solve this problem, because human nature being what it is, there will always be crime.
Hopefully we will somehow be able to protect our children from the worst of it.
13 comments:
Liberals and the NDP blame any social ill on "poverty" and ignore the fact that there are many poor people that never commit crime. Some people will just be scumbags regardless of wether they are rich, middle-class, or poor because they can be, and that is what they want to be.And there is nothing the left wing bleeders can say to counter that.
What we should do is build more basketball courts as that idiot Miller advocates. That will surely clean up the gang problem. And hey, guns are already illegal, but lets make them even MORE illegal, because you know, murdering criminal thugs are concerned with gun registration.
Anon, I hear your frustration. I think this is a good first step - arresting the gang leaders. My concern is how long will it take before they're out on bail, or serving time on house arrest?
"Liberals and the NDP blame any social ill on "poverty" and ignore the fact that there are many poor people that never commit crime. Some people will just be scumbags regardless of wether they are rich, middle-class, or poor because they can be, and that is what they want to be.And there is nothing the left wing bleeders can say to counter that."
You are missing the point. Poverty does not cause crime, but a disproportionate number of poor people commit crimes. The question is why.
I think we have to look beyond poverty. Why are people poor? Many of the youths I work with grew up as wards of the government, which means they grew up in institutions, without people to model behaviour or teach morals. These youth may have been abused, or may be mentally ill or developmentally delayed. They often run from their group homes and end up on the streets. They then turn to crime to survive. Violence is normalized and necessary for survival.
What I just wrote is a very simplified synopsis of a very complex issue. The point is that poverty may not "cause" crime, in the technical meaning of the word, however addressing poverty may prevent crime. I doubt you will find many people who deal with criminals on a regular basis, including cops, who would disagree with that.
joanne - I was happy to hear about the raids this morning. One thing that has been proven is that the risk of being caught is a good crime prevention tool. More cops on the streets and more raids like this one are good steps.
To give an example, several years ago in Edmonton the police arrested a large number of people alleged to be involved with a huge drug trafficking ring. The arrests and trial process cost millions of dollars, and to be honest at least half the arrestees were acquitted, however the operation was deemed a success because it put a very powerful crime ring out of business.
Everyone economizes all the time, make crime's rewards not worth the risks - long miserable jail sentences - and crime will go down. Of course that cuts into the profits of those who benefit from high crime rates - lawyers, various 'social service' agencies, entire government departments etc. So the extreme opposition to making crime not pay is understandable.
"Hopefully we will somehow be able to protect our children from the worst of it."
Our children will be protected from it. At least far more today than ever were in the past. The left has a tendency to believe that indigenous peoples lived peacefully and at one with the environment prior to the white European male imposing society and capitalism destroying a perfect world. The right has a tendency to believe that past things were better (in the leave it beaver or waltons time). I have studied a lot of history and to me ALL evidence points to both groups looking at the past with heavily rose-coloured glasses. Hobbes was right when he said that life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
The truth is that children born in the west today have a better chance than ever before in the history of the world of reaching adulthood unscarred by death, illness, injury, violence, poverty etc and with a much greater chance of possessing the benefits of education and opportunity. Children are much less likely to grow up in fear or forced to do labour through necessity and the chances of a western born person dying from murder or war are far lower than had we been born anywhere else at any other time.
Part of this advantage we face is due to increasing wealth brought to us through capitalism (the very thing the left blames for our "ills") and part of it due to safety net and social programs (that the right loves to disparage). Both groups appear to arguing based solely on bias instead of facts.
It is true that crime can be committed by people from any socio-economic background and that most poor people are not criminals. But at the same time a simple study of the prison population shows a positive correlation.
Finally there are gun-control advocates and those who argue against any controls. But the simple reality is that both groups need to take a deep breath. Gun controls will not solve everything. At the same time gun control laws exist in every country that I know of. Yes even the freedom loving, second amendment screaming USA has many gun control laws: The National Firearms Act, The Gun Control Act and so on. Most of the States have several additional gun control laws. The laws exist for a reason, but it is very hard to know how effective they are as groups from both sides with agendas cherry pick data and statistics, spin and flat out lie.
One of my favorites from the NRA (or similar organizations) that I have heard a half dozen times in the last week:
"The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was take away all the guns from the German people."
That is repeated all the time and it is very effective. The only problem is it is completely wrong. Guns were taken away from German people after world war I as part of the agreements from the Treaty of Versailles. Those laws were relaxed slightly in 1928 and relaxed significantly more under Hitler (unless you were Jewish). Many times more Germans could legally own any type of firearm under the Nazis then in the years before.
The arrests and trial process cost millions of dollars, and to be honest at least half the arrestees were acquitted, however the operation was deemed a success because it put a very powerful crime ring out of business.
Gayle, I'm not trying to argue with you here; just asking - How was the crime ring put out of operation with at least half getting acquitted? What did these guys do afterwards?
oi!
I read the article in the star (did not watch the video) and I honestly do not even know what to say at this point.
I do know I do not want to repeatedly bang my head against a brick wall.
But to sum up in one sentence, I am so sick of people blaming everything else under the sun as to why they are involved in crime...except themselves.
"Of course that cuts into the profits of those who benefit from high crime rates - lawyers, various 'social service' agencies, entire government departments etc."
Are you kidding me? Just how much do you think longer sentences are going to cost the taxpayers?
LEt's see - lawyers will be happy with minimum sentences because that will mean more of their clients will want to fight the charges (because if they are going to get a long sentence anyway, why bother with a guilty plea). This means more money for the lawyers. (and since longer sentences have been proven not to reduce the crime rate, there will be no shortage of clients).
More trials means we need more judges, and more prosecutors.
Government departments like the Department of Corrections will find their costs increasing substantially - what with all the new prisons that will have to be built, staff to be hired etc.
Are you not aware the conservatives have costed their tough on crime agenda in the billions of dollars?
Joanne - I am only repeating with the police and the crown said.
I can guess that the drug dealers stopped dealing because they knew the police were on to them. The police have ways to make the drug enterprise difficult. They hassle the street level drug dealers, offer them deals to testify against the big guys, put surveillance on the big guys etc. People do not want to be caught, and the police make it clear they are able to catch them.
People do not want to be caught, and the police make it clear they are able to catch them.
It may be a deterrent for a while, but I read somewhere (maybe the Post), that the feeling is that it will only open up the territory for smaller gangs.
But at least it's something tangible. Funny how some of the residents reacted though in the Jane-Finch area - almost as if they felt they were being profiled or something.
Gayle, Darcey found the quote.
*
"human nature being what it is, there will always be crime"
as long as we keep pretending there is no cultural component to violent crime... the problem will never be addressed.
you can't be politically correct... and safe... at the same time.
*
More cops on the streets and more raids like this one are good steps.
Gayle, you are bang on with this. This is my biggest problem with the long-gun registry. Instead of spending over a billion dollars on it, that money could have been put to a better use, like more cops on the street. Contrary to what many supporters of the registry say, the registry's accuracy and practicality are important and relevant factors. We must balance what practical good the registry actually achieves against the money we're spending on it. It's called getting the most bang for our crime-fighting buck.
Post a Comment