Seriously, Serious Crime

(update: whoops, had some formatting issues with the graphs - should be fixed now)

(update II: okay, is everyone else having trouble seeing the graphs? they show up in my TypePad editor, but don't appear on-screen at the blog itself... hmmm...)

(update III: I'm sure these editorial digressions are fascinating for y'all - all fixed now)

July.  I love July.  Why? Because July is the month in which Statistics Canada usually releases its annual crime rate reports, which sets off a furious round of lies, misdirection and obfuscation from editorial writers, op-ed columnists and "straight news" reporters.  What are they lying, misdirecting and obfuscating about? Violent crime - mostly, they're trying to get you to ignore it or actively attempting to convince you that, in the face of all available evidence, it's really not such a big problem.  Happily, after a couple of weeks of travelling, I arrived back at my temporary homebase to discover that July has arrived a little bit early this year.

New statistics suggest serious criminal offences were on the decline well before the federal Conservative government launched its anti-crime campaign in Parliament.

The figures, reported by Statistics Canada on Tuesday, indicate police-reported crime was less serious overall in 2007, the year after the Tories took office, than it was a decade earlier. The agency says the crime rate had also dropped, but to a lesser degree.

That's a direct quote from a Canadian Press story published by the Toronto Star - which is under the apropos-of-nothing headline "Crime rate hit 30-year low in 2007" (apropos of nothing because (a) that the crime rate hit a 30-year low in 2007 was reported in July 2008 and (b) the StatsCan report on which the news story is based is not about overall crime rates, but about a new ranking called a "crime severity" index).  It all sounds very impressive: "serious" criminal offences declining, crime is "less serious" than before... it's all very soothing.  Heck, they even came up with a fancy graph which resembles a fun little ride on a downhill slope to hunkydory land.  "Serious" crime is down!  What the heck all you knuckle-dragging conservatives so worried about, huh?

How nice things would be if journalists and commentators could manage to make it through to, say, the third friggin' sentence of the StatsCan press release on which they are basing their reports and posts:

However, the seriousness of police-reported violent crime did not follow this downward trend and remained stable.

In other words, the new, arbitrary, entirely-made up category of "serious" crime declined over the last ten years.  Unfortunately, violent crime did not - it stayed stable.

Here's the graph which fits the narrative:

  

Here's the graph you should actually be concerned about (available here):

Here are the numbers which back up the graph you should actually be worried about.

But, as I've said elsewhere, even to diddle about with the intricacies of the "serious" crime rate over the last ten years, or the "severity" index of the last ten years, or even the "violent crime" rate of the last ten years is to be distracted from the more important (indisputable, incontrovertible) fact that our violent crime rate is vastly greater than it was 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago (source here - see also page 16 of this StatsCan report):

Has the violent crime rate been "stable" over the last ten years?  Kind of.  If you ignore little things like the fact that the most serious assaults have increased over the past ten years by rates of, oh, 32.3% (assault level 2 - involving use of a weapon/bodily harm) or 18.6% (assault level 3 - aggravated), or that forcible confinement/kidnappings have increased more than 100% over the last 10 years.  But that ten year period of "stability" is rather thin gruel when you realize that we're holding "stable" at an insanely high violent crime rate - one which is roughly quadruple what it was when comprehensive statistics began to be maintained.  But the news reports won't mention that, nor will many of the sneering editorials, nor will many of the glib op-ed writers - it will all be about that first, misleading, untruthful, largely irrelevant headline - yes, "crime", a concept massaged, manipulated and interpreted so as to be largely rendered meaningless is "down", but violent crime, the kind that results in you or someone you love being attacked, raped, robbed, murdered, is nowhere near "down" enough.

Comments

[Chris Taylor]

Superlative work, Bob. The last graph in particular is stunning.

[Mike H]

"Why? Because July is the month in which Statistics Canada usually releases its annual crime rate reports, which sets off a furious round of lies, misdirection and obfuscation from editorial writers, op-ed columnists and "straight news" reporters."

Sadly, these Leftist activists masquerading as journalists often get away with it. Thanks for exposing them, Bob.

By the way, at the risk of being labelled a fear mongerer by the "experts," I see B.C. posted its highest ever murder total last year.

[Joel Kropf]

While it's good that you're raising some questions about the authorized narrative here, you also need to admit that the crime rate in 1962 (the starting point of your last graph) may very possibly have been lower than in some earlier periods in Canadian history. I have heard (sounds somewhat reasonable but I don't know how widely accepted the idea is) that trends in the homicide rate are actually a pretty good proxy for overall violent crime trends. The trends in *reported* violent crimes (i.e. the numbers that the police and Statscan provide), on the other hand, may vary substantially over time as a result of (cultural) changes in citizens' proclivity to report offences committed against them. If that hypothesis is even partially true, we can observe that the criminal homicide rate in 1962 was at 1.17 per 100,000 population, and that it appears to have been over 2 per 100,000 in at least some years in the interwar period, for example (I can't remember whether this was the case for the entire interwar period or only some parts thereof). For 2005-2007, by comparison, it was at 2.05, 1.86, and 1.80, respectively.

Of course the data prior to 1962 isn't comparable to that compiled afterwards with the Uniform Crime Reporting program. But it seems probable that the estimates for the pre-WWII period would have been underestimates rather than overestimates, since data reported to police will be higher than court-derived stats, and since part of the problem with pre-UCR data, IIRC, was that this data did not consistently include data from all police departments, or from all regions. I'm going off a shaky memory here (I don't have my sources with me at the moment), so I could be speaking erroneously. But this is just one of the important issues that you have to consider if you want to make a strong point in comparing the present with the past.

[Bob Tarantino]

you also need to admit that the crime rate in 1962 (the starting point of your last graph) may very possibly have been lower than in some earlier periods in Canadian history

It almost certainly was. The only comprehensive resource I'm aware of which surveys pre-1962 Canadian crime rates is Owen Carrigan's Crime and Punishment in Canada (which is an excellent book if anyone's interested) - which shows relatively low rates until the 1930s, when crime spiked for much of the decade, then a return to low crime rates through the 1940s and 1950s, and then the astounding eruption in crime rates which began in the mid-1960s, far outpacing even the heights of the 1930s. So, was 1962 the lowest ever recorded? No. But that doesn't have much impact on the salient point: that beginning in the mid-1960s we experienced a massive, sustained and continuing increase in violent crime rates.

this is just one of the important issues that you have to consider if you want to make a strong point in comparing the present with the past

I agree completely, but since we're comparing rates using solely post-UCR data, I don't think it impacts the analysis to any great extent. Even if we confine ourselves to the post-1962 period, what we witness is an enormous increase in violent crime, followed by a comparatively marginal decrease and stabilization over the last fifteen or so years, which does not return us to anything approaching the violent crime rates witnessed prior to the increase. As for the propensity to report crimes, while that almost certainly has some kind of impact, we can query it's impact on the types of serious violent crimes under consideration - violent robberies, major assaults, attempted murders, murders, etc. People might not be reporting it when their car gets broken into - but not reporting gunshots or physical assaults that leave the victim incapacitated? I'm skeptical about the number of such crimes which go "unreported" (and if they did, of course, that would merely indicate that the violent crime rate is even worse than the statistics indicate). As for whether such "reluctance/failure to report" had any significant impact on pre-UCR crime rates, again, colour me skeptical - in comparatively small communities, the odds of people not reporting major crimes (or of police not becoming aware of them) are, I venture, rather limited.

[Self-Loather]

So out of curiosity, what vested interest do all these leftist editorialists have in keeping the public ignorant about violent crime? What are they afraid will happen if the people know the truth?

[Bob Tarantino]

Cripes, do I have to explain everything around here? I'm doing this for free, y'know... ;o)

[Mike H]

Self-Loather, I think "Humour me Bob, 'cause I'm stupid," would have been a more appropriate opening for your comment than "So out of curiosity...."

Most Leftists, (including you, moron), argue that incarcerating violent offenders for longer periods of time not only fails to reduce crime, but somehow, incredibly, increases crime. Because they are viscerally opposed to harsher sentencing, "Leftist editorialists" attempt to convince the public that violent crime is falling/not a big deal/will get worse if hard-hearted Harperites implement tougher sentencing policies.

I'd suggest that you "try to keep up," Loather, but you can't even set yourself in the starting blocks.

[dcardno]

Mike H - as well as opposition to harsher sentencing on principle most leftists recognize that a tougher response to crime is a policy that the Tories can sell, while their preferred parties (either the Dippers or the Libs) can't - they just don't have any credibility on the issue. Leftists also know that if the public can be gulled into thinking that crime is not an issue, or that crime rates are dropping, it takes away a strong plank in the Tories' platform and covers up a weak one in their own.

[Mike H]

Good point, dcardno.

[Self-Loather]

"Leftists also know that if the public can be gulled into thinking that crime is not an issue, or that crime rates are dropping, it takes away a strong plank in the Tories' platform and covers up a weak one in their own."

But crime rates are dropping. Maybe criminals are secretly working with the NDP?

"Most Leftists, (including you, moron), argue that incarcerating violent offenders for longer periods of time not only fails to reduce crime, but somehow, incredibly, increases crime."

Moron, eh? You don't waste any time. Coming right out swinging. Actually, I don't really argue that crime rates will go up or down based on sentancing. I've seen a lot of evidence from both sides of the mandatory sentancing argument, and my sense is that the data can be manipulated to prove just about anything. My own opinion is that a good chunk of criminal justice policy in the west is simply designed to criminalize poor people. I think that if people were serious about reducing violent crime, they would look at eliminating prohobition on narcotics, which would take the gang element out of it.

I would also add that, in fact, the federal NDP came out in favour of mandatory minimums and the NDP in BC is attacking the Libs for being soft on crime.

So Mike and dcardno have managed to be factually incorrect, relying on strawman arguments, insulting and providing otherwise worthless commentary. Not bad for only 3 posts.

Just a thought Bob, but how come you never address why crime is rising in all yours posts? I mean, if you think that mandatory minimums have a deterrance value, then you must think that all criminals, on some level, respond to threats and fear of punishment. If that's the case, why stop there? Why not just bring back the death penalty? And if they don't respond to fear, if we're simply locking them up because they are unreformable and society needs protection, then why aren't the present judicial tools sufficient?

[Bob Tarantino]

Just a thought Bob, but how come you never address why crime is rising in all yours posts? I mean, if you think that mandatory minimums have a deterrance value, then you must think that all criminals, on some level, respond to threats and fear of punishment. If that's the case, why stop there? Why not just bring back the death penalty? And if they don't respond to fear, if we're simply locking them up because they are unreformable and society needs protection, then why aren't the present judicial tools sufficient?

I don't think mandatory minimums have a deterrence value - or at least whatever deterrence value they possess is outweighed by the potential for injustice implicit in mandatory minimums. I've never been in favour of mandatory minimums, nor have I ever, to the best of my recollection, argued in favor of them. Granted, I haven't spent an awful lot of time arguing against them, but you pick your battles...

you must think that all criminals, on some level, respond to threats and fear of punishment. If that's the case, why stop there?

I think the soicological evidence is fairly clear that there is at least some deterrent effect to be found in lenghty custodial sentences, but there are a variety of other considerations to be taken into account when sentencing (denunciation, incapacitation, rehabilitation, reparation and promotion of responsibility). So there are a variety of elements which speak to the limitation of custodial sentences. But for the most part I think the talk of deterrence is entirely the wrong debate to be having - it's not about deterrence, it's about levying appropriate punishments for crimes which have already been committed. If a harsh sentence handed down for a crime has deterrent value for others, I suppose that's a nice ancillary benefit, but I'm more concerned about handing down punishments which are appropriate to the crime committed.

Why not just bring back the death penalty?

Er, right. I don't know who around here is in favour of the death penalty, but it isn't me.

And if they don't respond to fear, if we're simply locking them up because they are unreformable and society needs protection, then why aren't the present judicial tools sufficient?

Some are unreformable, and society does need protection from them (which is why we have things like dangerous offender designations). The present judicial tools are in many cases sufficient - but they aren't being used properly by many judges. The judiciary has, arbitrarily, lopped the top of the sentences available to be handed down; they almost never go near the top end of the sentencing range (in fact, if you can get them to go even close to the halfway point in the range, that's pretty exceptional). In the face of persistent violent criminal activities, judges hand down startlingly light sentences. "Solving" violent crime isn't terribly complicated: there are a limited number of individuals who are violent recidivists - it's easy to spot them (there the ones getting arrested and convicted over and over and over); locking them up is relatively simple, but judges, for whatever reason, refuse to do so.

For what it's worth, I should note that decrying low sentences isn't limited to us knuckle-draggers on the right - a variety of judges (including our own former chief justice, not a man known for his "tough-on-crime" views, and the current Lord Chief Justice of England, also not a guy infamous for his "hang 'em high" attitude) have expressed the sentiment that sentences are too low. To reiterate - we're mostly talking about a limited number of violent criminals, who are easily identifiable, who wreak an enormous amount of damage, and who can be fairly easily incapacitated for extended periods of time (the Criminal Code certainly allows for it). As well, for what it's worth, I agree with you about the prohibitions on narcotics - actually, all drugs; decriminalize them, now.

[Self-Loather]

Which then begs the question: is crime increasing because judges are not handing out sentances of sufficient length? If one were to argue that, then we would need to show that the duration of sentances for certain types of violent crime started decreasing around 1962, and then started increasing around the early 1990s. We would also have to show that socioeconomic factors, from population migration from rural to urban areas, changing immigration patterns, distributions in income, poverty levels, etc., did not affect the crime rate.

Despite what our two comrades have written, I am not opposed to locking people up for the rest of their lives if necessary. Nor do I necessarily think that inside every violent criminal is a person that needs a weekend at a spa retreat in order to reform. I simply think that discussing crime should not be done in isolation from all the aforementioned socioeconomic factors.

And hear hear on the drug legalization. Every time I see some one light up a joint, I think to myself: there's a few dollars in tax revenue that could be put to use going up in smoke, so to speak.

[Bob Tarantino]

Which then begs the question: is crime increasing because judges are not handing out sentances of sufficient length? If one were to argue that, then we would need to show that the duration of sentances for certain types of violent crime started decreasing around 1962, and then started increasing around the early 1990s. We would also have to show that socioeconomic factors, from population migration from rural to urban areas, changing immigration patterns, distributions in income, poverty levels, etc., did not affect the crime rate.

Oh, good lord, no - obviously socioeconomic factors play a large role in increasing (or decreasing) crime rates. It's way too simplistic to attribute rising violent crime rates solely to sentencing patterns. But we can say, with absolute certainty, that in a significant number of individual cases lenient sentencing was a direct contributing factor to later incidents of crime - if that particular person had not been free, they would not have committed the subsequent crime. But, again, as with so much of the media coverage, our discussion is eliding a number of different issues, and collapsing everything into a single facet: deterrence. Deterrence is part of it, yes, but not the whole, or even most important part. Just as, if not more, important, is the question of justice: is a given sentence an appropriate, or just, one given the crime? Deterrence, as I said before, is an ancillary issue. What I try to focus on in covering these things is instances where the sentences are, to my sense of justice, completely, egregiously, insufficient.

[dcardno]

But crime rates are dropping. Maybe criminals are secretly working with the NDP?

The point, which was obvious to everyone but you, Self-Loather, was that the claim is rather precariously based on the time period you select. Given the general impact of demographics (older populations experience less crime overall) it is possible that the (small) drop in crime rates over the last 10-15 years is less than we would otherwise expect.

[Self-Loather]

I am in violent agreement with your last post.

I think the discussion in the media does tend to over simplify down to "how do we scare people into being good or, if not, just throw them away forever"? We are then left with the standard knuckle-dragging conservative vs. latte drinking liberal and the framework of the conversation is usually around throwing money at cops, prisons, social workers vs. after school programs, and a better social safety net. Broadly speaking, and I doubt we'll agree on this point, but I tend to think that a lot of the discussion around crime simply boils down to "how do we best keep the lower classes in their place"? Even the Liberals who argue for compassion or throwing a few more crumbs from the table are exercising, in my own opinion, a kind of deep seated fear of the poor. Not that every murderer is poor, of course. Having said that, we essentially have created a society where there is a kind of permenant underclass. If we want a society where that will always exist, we need to accept the consequences of that choice.

But I digress... sorry for the thread drift.

[Mike H]

“Actually, I don't really argue that crime rates will go up or down based on sentancing. I've seen a lot of evidence from both sides of the mandatory sentancing argument, and my sense is that the data can be manipulated to prove just about anything.”

Actually, that wasn’t your “sense” the last time you embarrassed yourself at this blog when this topic was discussed. Let me remind you:

“Again, I see no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing has a deterrent value.”

Nov 9th 2007, 12:20 am

http://bobtarantino.blogs.com/blog/2007/11/your-lying-eyes.html#comments

Contradict yourself much, Loather?

“So Mike and dcardno have managed to be factually incorrect, relying on strawman arguments, insulting and providing otherwise worthless commentary. Not bad for only 3 posts.”

That was pathetic, Much-Loathed. We have not provided straw man arguments, nor are we factually incorrect. I do plead guilty to “insulting,” you being a deserving recipient and all…

No, it is you who are “factually incorrect,” in claiming that crime is “falling.” As has been pointed out in numerous posts here over the years, the crime rate has skyrocketed since the 1960s. Claims that crime, particularly violent crime, has levelled off, or fallen slightly, is nothing more than a propaganda campaign to hoodwink the public into overlooking the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been the victim of what can best be described as “excess violent crime,” since the 1960s. In other words, had the violent crime rate remained more or less consistent in the ensuing decades, these hundreds of thousands of Canadians would not have been victimized.

“Broadly speaking, and I doubt we'll agree on this point, but I tend to think that a lot of the discussion around crime simply boils down to "how do we best keep the lower classes in their place"?”

That’s an insult to all the economically disadvantaged people in this country who are honest, law-abiding citizens. These people don’t need to be “kept in their place,” because they lead moral lives, and realize that poverty isn’t a justification for committing criminal acts.

I'll not bother parsing the rest of your crap commentary. I regret the time already spent on the above.

[Jim Whyte]

Possibly germane to the original point:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_british-crime.html

(Which, among other things, neatly disposes of the murder rate as a proxy either for the overall crime rate or for the violent crime rate.)

"Er, right. I don't know who around here is in favour of the death penalty, but it isn't me."

Let me take one for the team, Bob -- that would be me, a long-time abolitionist who has changed his mind over the years. With, pace Loather, a decidedly working-class background.

[Self-Loather]

"Contradict yourself much, Loather?"

I changed my opinion. That's what adults do.

"I'll not bother parsing the rest of your crap commentary. I regret the time already spent on the above."

For a guy who doesn't want to respond to me, you sure spent a lot of time trying to find a comment from me that was over a year old. If you don't want a discourse with me, then don't respond to my posts. Nobody's forcing you to respond. Bob and I were having a perfectly civil and interesting discussion. Go play on Free Dominion, or LGF, or Babble (you might fit in better there than you might at first realize).

"No, it is you who are “factually incorrect,” in claiming that crime is “falling.” As has been pointed out in numerous posts here over the years, the crime rate has skyrocketed since the 1960s. Claims that crime, particularly violent crime, has levelled off, or fallen slightly, is nothing more than a propaganda campaign to hoodwink the public into overlooking the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been the victim of what can best be described as “excess violent crime,” since the 1960s. In other words, had the violent crime rate remained more or less consistent in the ensuing decades, these hundreds of thousands of Canadians would not have been victimized. "

There is a graph in this chart that shows crime falling. I guess reality is trying to hoodwink people too.

"That’s an insult to all the economically disadvantaged people in this country who are honest, law-abiding citizens. These people don’t need to be “kept in their place,” because they lead moral lives, and realize that poverty isn’t a justification for committing criminal acts. "

What is insulting is pompous moralizing from uptight middle-class types. People whose experience with poverty is paying off student debt, or having to choose between a new car or a new TV. People who whine about high-taxes, then wonder why there is less money for healthcare or social services. Who, in their sense of entitlement, want access to the same type of healthcare and services that they would deny others who's only failing was being conceived in a poverty stricken family. Who support economic policies that increase the number of children living in poverty. Who support idiotic drug law policies that have the direct effect of disproportionately criminalizing the underclass in our society. Then they heap praise on the morality of those hard working types who keep their nose down, don't rock the boat, and spend their entire lives groveling, hoping that a few crumbs will fall towards them.

That, to me, is insulting. Then again, like I said, we are unlikely to agree on much.

[Self-Loather]

"Let me take one for the team, Bob -- that would be me, a long-time abolitionist who has changed his mind over the years. With, pace Loather, a decidedly working-class background."

I guess I come down on the other side of the debate. I would prefer to have my tax dollars keep a guy like Paul Bernardo alive for the rest of his life and living on my dime, than allow even one Guy Paul Morin to be executed for something they didn't do.

[Jim Whyte]

Loather:

I would not argue with you for a moment on the Morin point (and moreover, think about what might have happened to Robert Baltovich if the police had started barking up that tree instead of Bernardo's).

I'm less in the tank for capital punishment for the Bernardos and Clifford Olsons of the world than for those who kill (or conspire to kill) witnesses, police, or prison guards, and for traitors, terrorists, and the like. (I'm sorry, but my terrorist is nobody's freedom fighter.)

Olson is on record as saying he wished he could have been put to death, because life in prison is unendurable. In that event, his present situation suits me quite well.

And crank down your own pompous moralizing. It is a shoe that does not fit any of the other commenters here.

[Self-Loather]

"I'm less in the tank for capital punishment for the Bernardos and Clifford Olsons of the world than for those who kill (or conspire to kill) witnesses, police, or prison guards, and for traitors, terrorists, and the like. (I'm sorry, but my terrorist is nobody's freedom fighter.)"

So the life of a police officer is worth more than the life of all the people killed by Clifford Olson? Or would you argue that an attack on a police officer is an attack on the very fabric of our social order that must be dealt with harshley? Do you feel that the police would be just as objective in the investigation into the death of one of their as they would be in any other normal circumstance?

As for the terrorism comment, well, it is all well and good to be opposed to the use of violence for political ends and I know people that are out and out pacifists. Having said that, saying that one would never use violence for political objectives is a very easy argument to make when the biggest political problem we face is a group of people blocking a highway for a few hours.

"And crank down your own pompous moralizing. It is a shoe that does not fit any of the other commenters here."

To paraphrase, one man's pompous moralizing is another man's intelligent editorial.

[Mike H]

"I changed my opinion. That's what adults do."

Bullshit. You were caught out in an embarrassing contradiction. Rather than admit to it, you opted for damage control. That's what liars do.

"For a guy who doesn't want to respond to me, you sure spent a lot of time trying to find a comment from me that was over a year old."

One doesn't need to spend much time looking for something that one recalls, Much Loathed. I knew what your position was on the subject of minimum sentencing. All I had to do was find the thread.

"If you don't want a discourse with me, then don't respond to my posts....Go play on Free Dominion, or LGF, or Babble (you might fit in better there than you might at first realize)."

Your sanctimonious snark would play much better if it weren't for your track record here, as well as at Daimnation and SDA. You fall into that rare but highly annoying category, the combination buffoon/pretentious goof. In other words, your ego and your intellect are out of all proportion to one other.

"There is a graph in this chart that shows crime falling. I guess reality is trying to hoodwink people too."

Tough spot there, eh, Much Loathed? I mean, using "I changed my opinion," more than once in the same comment would be more than a little humiliating, wouldn't it? Better to just dishonestly avoid what you can't refute, right? I don't feel like letting you off the hook, so I'll ask you to man up, stop the snivelling, and give me a straightforward "agree or disagree answer," accompanied by some semblance of a justification, to my point:

"In other words, had the violent crime rate remained more or less consistent in the ensuing decades, these hundreds of thousands of Canadians would not have been victimized. "

"What is insulting is pompous moralizing from uptight middle-class types....hoping that a few crumbs will fall towards them."

Were you drunk when you wrote that mindless, meandering paragraph of excrement? I ask that in all sincerity, because I've had my suspicions about your state of sobriety when you've posted other comments, here and elsewhere. Remember this one, directed at me, a while back?

"I have more respect for the bloggers who, when I right a post exposing their hypocrsiy, simply stop posting and run to another thread. They are honest enough to realize when they are exposed, and govern themselves accordingly."

Back on topic. As is your custom, you've once again attempted to extricate yourself from an embarrassing faux pas by employing righteous indignation as deflection. We both know you aren't very good at it, so be a good little numpty, and just admit that you inaccurately categorized poor people as criminals. Otherwise, no more troll biscuits for you...

[dcardno]

Or would you argue that an attack on a police officer is an attack on the very fabric of our social order that must be dealt with harshley?

Ignoring the typo, yeah, I think that's fair. Just as an attack on a Judge, or on a witness is. It's not so much that it's an attack on our society - it's that it is a planned and deliberate attempt to ensure that "our society" (or at least, the judicial branch thereof) cannot function. I can understand, if not condone, a killing in passion, in blind rage, or even out of fear in the commission of another crime. I can also "understand" killing in a plot to obstruct justice - but because I understand it, I know that I cannot sympathize, and in that case I (or the society acting in my name) has to respond with the ultimate penalty.

I am entirely happy to keep Clifford Olsen alive - my only regret is that his "unendurable" life is not more so - and the same for Paul Bernardo (or Karla). For a cop-killer, or one who intimidates witnesses or threatens Judges, my only regret is that their life is not shorter.

[Self-Loather]

"Otherwise, no more troll biscuits for you... "

I just made a bet with myself, that you'll keep posting and posting as long as I keep responding. Any other takers? As to why I keep responding to you, it's simple: you're hilarious. Since you're in the habit of digging up old posts, why don't you humour me: how many times in the last year or so have you said that you're "not going to respond to me", that it's beneath you to respond to me, that I'm too stupid to respond to. And then you keep posting. I mean, for me, this is better than reality TV.

"Bullshit. You were caught out in an embarrassing contradiction. Rather than admit to it, you opted for damage control. That's what liars do."

So of like how you lie about how you're never going to respond to me again. Incidentally, have you never changed your mind about anything in your life? You've been ideologically consistent and had the same opinions for forever? As for the example in question, where I said I had changed my mind was that I was no longer as certain that evidence supported my argument that there is no relationship between mandatory minimums and reduction and crime. I haven't actually changed my opinion about mandatory minimums overall. But I have to rethink my argument in light of what I have learned.

" just admit that you inaccurately categorized poor people as criminals"

That is a lie. I said no such thing. I said that our society criminalizes poor people. Criminalizing some one, and being a criminal are not the same thing.

[Self-Loather]

"It's not so much that it's an attack on our society - it's that it is a planned and deliberate attempt to ensure that "our society" (or at least, the judicial branch thereof) cannot function."

I don't agree at all with this statement. Firstly, not all cop killings are "planned and deliberate" attempts to ensure that "our society" cannot function. With cops, most of the time, the person is just trying to get away. The most recent Toronto cop to be killed in the line of duty was murdered during a botched undercover operation by two women who thought they were robbing some random person. Before that, was Todd Bayliss, shot by a drug dealing fleeing from arrest. I think Dunmore was before Bayliss, murdered, by an ex-Canadian Forces reservist who was on his way, probably, to kill his girlfriend with an assault rifle. The only incident of a peace officer being murdered that fits into your description was Mom Boucher's killing of the two prison guards in Quebec.

However one feels about these deaths, all tragic, they do not constitute an attack on "our society". Furthermore, even looking at the Quebec example in isolation, which is the only one I can think of that fits your description, why is the murder of two prison guards an assault on society, but killing Bob, or you, or me isn't? Lawyers are extremely important to the functioning of society, as they have the training and knowledge to be able to interpret the law, and ensure that people without said knowledge and training are not taken advantage of by those in a position of power (in theory at least). All of us play a role in society, some more important than others. I don't see how the death of a police officer, who can be trained and replaced, is any more detrimental to the functioning of society than a lawyer, politician, engineer, doctor, garbage man or anything else.

[Jim Whyte]

dc:

I hardly need to show up ;o)

[Mike H]

“I just made a bet with myself, that you'll keep posting and posting as long as I keep responding. Any other takers?”

Of course I will. Remember, you’re a buffoon/pretentious goof. I’m not in the habit of conceding the last word to those who fall into that category. The tediousness of dealing with people like you is somewhat offset by the pleasure derived from watching you make a bigger fool of yourself with each successive comment.

“ Since you're in the habit of digging up old posts, why don't you humour me: how many times in the last year or so have you said that you're "not going to respond to me", that it's beneath you to respond to me, that I'm too stupid to respond to. And then you keep posting. I mean, for me, this is better than reality TV.”

I’ll leave the online research to you. Why don’t you go look that up for us? Taking a stab at it from memory alone, I’ll say “zero” to question one, (It’s that “not giving pompous idiots the last word,” hang-up I have), “every time,” to question two, and “every time,” to question three (so long as, in the interest of completeness, we add “ but I’ll attempt to educate you anyway...)

“So of like how you lie about how you're never going to respond to me again.”

Are you illiterate? As for your lie accusation, show me where I’ve ever made that statement.

“ As for the example in question, where I said I had changed my mind was that I was no longer as certain that evidence supported my argument that there is no relationship between mandatory minimums and reduction and crime. I haven't actually changed my opinion about mandatory minimums overall. But I have to rethink my argument in light of what I have learned.”

That makes absolutely no sense. If you’re no longer confident that mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime, then by inference, you are conceding that the opposing argument (that mandatory minimums do reduce crime) may be true. How then, can you say that you haven’t changed your opinion about “mandatory minimums overall?” How can you take a neutral position on whether mandatory minimum sentences are effective, yet you oppose them “overall?”

“That is a lie. I said no such thing. I said that our society criminalizes poor people. Criminalizing some one, and being a criminal are not the same thing.”

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Business as usual...

“Criminalizing” someone in our society is the same thing as being a criminal, because our society is governed by the rule of law. If you are charged with and convicted for a criminal offence, then you are considered a “criminal,” in the legal sense. I don’t see it that way personally, but such a definition is a necessary prerequisite to debunk your tired little class warfare exercise. In keeping with the above, our society does not “criminalize poor people,” by disproportionately targeting them. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are not “poor,” but who have criminal records stemming from a variety of convictions; assaults, drug offences, impaired driving, fraud, sex offences, and thefts, among others. Many behavioural scientists believe that a propensity for violence is a heritable trait. The size of one’s bank account isn’t a factor.

Police and the courts do not look the other way when the middle class and the well-to-do are found to have committed criminal offences. Other than rare, exceptional circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for looking the other way for poor offenders either. Further, my original point stands. You are insulting all the economically disadvantaged individuals in this country who do not commit criminal offences. Moral character is independent of a person’s economic status.

I see you couldn't find it in yourself to give me that "agree or disagree answer," with regard to the issue of crime rates. No surprise.

[Mike H]

"I don't agree at all with this statement. Firstly, not all cop killings are "planned and deliberate" attempts to ensure that "our society" cannot function. With cops, most of the time, the person is just trying to get away."

Yeah, like James Roszko.

[Self-Loather]

'"I don't agree at all with this statement. Firstly, not all cop killings are "planned and deliberate" attempts to ensure that "our society" cannot function. With cops, most of the time, the person is just trying to get away."

Yeah, like James Roszko.'

Another example that doesn't prove anything. Roszko wasn't trying to get away, true (notice I said, "most of the time"). But he was a sociopath. The guy was an anti-social lunatic who was stock-piling guns, intimidating neighbours and, possibly, had actually killed some one prior to the Mayerthorpe massacre. Whatever was going through his mind when he had those Mounties in the sights of his gun, I highly doubt he was thinking: "whatever else happens to me, at least society will have a harder time functioning." Frankly, I don't think he had any conception of society outside of himself, and saw everyone else around has either an enemy to be destroyed, or some one to be manipulated and used.

'If you’re no longer confident that mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime, then by inference, you are conceding that the opposing argument (that mandatory minimums do reduce crime) may be true. How then, can you say that you haven’t changed your opinion about “mandatory minimums overall?” How can you take a neutral position on whether mandatory minimum sentences are effective, yet you oppose them “overall?” '

Because I don't dramatically shift my opinion from one polar extreme to the other. I read statistics claiming that mandatory minimums don't work. I read statistics claiming they do. Even Bob concedes that they don't necessarily have any deterrant value, and is only interested in justice, which I don't disagree with. I've even said that I don't oppose locking people up for the rest of their lives if necessary. I just think there is more to crime and social policy than locking people up forever, and both Bob and I agree on that. I just think that tough sentencing, in the absence of social policy to reduce poverty, to treat substance abuse as an illness, to change our drug laws, is deeply cynical at best, and counter productive at worst.

As for the criminalizing part, well, look at who gets disproportionately locked in up the US (and Canada also) on drug charges? It's not Wall St. types snorting cocaine in their pent-houses or middle-class white kids from suburbia. Poor, non-whites. When I say that society is criminalizing them, I don't mean that they are all bad people. They are individuals put by society into a situation that increases the likelihood that they will go to jail. Not all of them will, some won't, some will even move up the social ladder. But overall, that is the effect. I agree that moral character is independent of social class. In the time that I volunteered in a homeless shelter, what struck me was the honesty of the people I dealt with. There is a forthrightness that you don't find in most other classes of people. The fact that some of them are criminals, by the way, in my opinion, isn't a comment on their character. Their behaviour, may be a perfectly rational response to the social conditions in which they were raised.

[Mike H]

“Another example that doesn't prove anything. Roszko wasn't trying to get away, true (notice I said, "most of the time"). But he was a sociopath. The guy was an anti-social lunatic who was stock-piling guns,...”

I don’t have the time to research every police death in Canada. However, I do know that in addition to the four RCMP officers killed by Roszko, five of the ten OPP officers who have been murdered during the past thirty years (Duncan McAleese, William McIntyre, Vern Miller, Tom Coffin, and Jim McFadden) were deliberately targeted by offenders who were not “trying to get away.” Four were specifically targeted, one was randomly targeted.

That being said, you’re engaging in dishonest minimization by portraying cop killers as panic-stricken, unlikely killers who were simply “trying to get away.” These scum committed their offences while armed, usually with firearms. The reason they brought the firearms with them was because they had already formed the intent to use those firearms on any police officers who attempted to stop them. Any reasonable person would conclude that these individuals constitute a serious threat to any citizen, not just police officers, and further, that these individuals have essentially declared war on society. No surprise then, that you don't see it that way.

“Because I don't dramatically shift my opinion from one polar extreme to the other. I read statistics claiming that mandatory minimums don't work. I read statistics claiming they do. Even Bob concedes that they don't necessarily have any deterrant value,...”

You’re still not making sense. What does it matter that “Bob concedes that they don’t necessarily have any deterrent value...,” when you’re on record saying that your (new) position is that YOU don’t know if they have a deterrent effect or not.

“ I just think there is more to crime and social policy than locking people up forever, and both Bob and I agree on that.”

That one takes the cake in terms of simplistic stupidity. Out of the millions of offenders with criminal convictions, only a handful of people find themselves locked up forever in this country. Sentencing has been dramatically eroded in this country over the past several decades, especially with the introduction of conditional sentences. You’re trying to portray the current justice system as an incarceration-happy system. In actuality, it’s the exact opposite.

“I just think that tough sentencing, in the absence of social policy to reduce poverty, to treat substance abuse as an illness, to change our drug laws, is deeply cynical at best, and counter productive at worst.”

More misleading generalization. Tough sentencing, targeted at the right categories of offences and offenders, is absolutely the right course for protection of the public, whether or not anything is done to reduce poverty, treat substance abuse, or any other social malaise that may contribute to crime.

“As for the criminalizing part, well, look at who gets disproportionately locked in up the US (and Canada also) on drug charges? It's not Wall St. types snorting cocaine in their pent-houses or middle-class white kids from suburbia. Poor, non-whites.”

Drug offences are but one of many classes of criminal offences that result in people winding up with criminal records. As I’ve pointed out earlier, our legal system is blind to a person’s economic status when it comes to charging people with criminal offences, and hundreds of thousands of middle class and well-to-do Canadians have the criminal records to prove it. As for your “Wall Street types” dig, where do you think Conrad Black is living these days? Same goes for your “ Poor non-whites,” stereotype. These “poor non-whites” are often arrested with more money in their jeans than you and I make in a month. You don’t know what you’re talking about...

“I agree that moral character is independent of social class. In the time that I volunteered in a homeless shelter, what struck me was the honesty of the people I dealt with. There is a forthrightness that you don't find in most other classes of people. The fact that some of them are criminals, by the way, in my opinion, isn't a comment on their character. Their behaviour, may be a perfectly rational response to the social conditions in which they were raised.”

More drivel. So you know some homeless people who have criminal records, records that may have resulted from the social conditions in which they were raised? I have friends and acquaintances, all middle class, who have criminal records. So what? Do they get to blame their transgressions on the " social conditions in which they were raised," or is that just reserved for poor people? With few exceptions, people make conscious decisions to commit criminal acts. Some are predisposed to commit acts of violence. Except in rare circumstances, money, or a lack of money, has no bearing on their decisions, and should not be trotted out as an excuse.

Still no response to my question about the crime rate. Why don’t you just admit that I’m right? Having so painfully and studiously avoided the challenge to respond, anything you offer up now will be that much more excruciatingly embarrassing for you.

[lucas law center]

This is a great article with an excellent view point.

LLC

[Self-Loather]

"Still no response to my question about the crime rate. Why don’t you just admit that I’m right? Having so painfully and studiously avoided the challenge to respond, anything you offer up now will be that much more excruciatingly embarrassing for you."

Okay fine, I admit it. Crime was lower in the 1960s. I bow to your superior intellectual genius.

"With few exceptions, people make conscious decisions to commit criminal acts. Some are predisposed to commit acts of violence. Except in rare circumstances, money, or a lack of money, has no bearing on their decisions, and should not be trotted out as an excuse."

So then how come the prison populations of our societies are disproportionately poor, non-whites? Are poor, non-whites "predisposed to commit acts of violence"?

"I have friends and acquaintances, all middle class, who have criminal records. So what? Do they get to blame their transgressions on the " social conditions in which they were raised," or is that just reserved for poor people?"

A person can have a bad upbringing in a middle-class home, you know.

"More misleading generalization. Tough sentencing, targeted at the right categories of offences and offenders, is absolutely the right course for protection of the public, whether or not anything is done to reduce poverty, treat substance abuse, or any other social malaise that may contribute to crime."

So in other words, you'd rather put a drug addict in prison then try to help them. You know, 40 years ago, this kind of crap wouldn't be called conservativism.

"these individuals have essentially declared war on society"

This is what I find so fascinating about people like you. You regard the shooting of a police officer as an all out attack on our social order, not because a person has been killed, but that a symbol of the state's authority has been killed. This isn't conservativism, it's fascism.

"You’re still not making sense"

Then learn to read.

"These “poor non-whites” are often arrested with more money in their jeans than you and I make in a month."

What makes you think that money is theirs? How do you know they aren't giving it to some one higher up the food chain.

[Mike H]

“Okay fine, I admit it. Crime was lower in the 1960s. I bow to your superior intellectual genius.”

Don’t you think your sarcasm is a little misplaced, considering you were engaging in an intellectually dishonest exercise in evasion?

“So then how come the prison populations of our societies are disproportionately poor, non-whites? Are poor, non-whites "predisposed to commit acts of violence"?

Uhh, yeah, I’m confident that many of them are. Just as many middle class and well off whites are so predisposed. To answer your question more specifically, yes, the fact that our prison populations contain disproportionately higher numbers of lower income status minorities is indicative that they are responsible for disproportionately higher rates of violent crime. Unless you want to advance the argument that a statistically significant number of these individuals were wrongfully convicted, this isn’t very complicated, and it wouldn’t be very controversial, if it weren’t for the fanatical efforts of Leftist apologists for violent offenders. People (including people who are poor, and people of colour) exercise free will, and commit acts of violence against other human beings. Often, they are identified, charged criminally, brought before the courts, and sent to jail. I don’t care what colour they are, and I don’t care what their economic status is. Did it if ever dawn on you that perhaps enablers such as you make it easier for minorities and the poor to avoid responsibility for their actions, and thereby become recidivist? No, didn’t think so…

“A person can have a bad upbringing in a middle-class home, you know.”

Or, they can be innately more aggressive and violent than most people. That would probably explain why many individuals who come from unhappy middle class homes don’t find themselves in trouble with the law. They aren’t predisposed to commit violent acts.

"More misleading generalization. Tough sentencing, targeted at the right categories of offences and offenders, is absolutely the right course for protection of the public, whether or not anything is done to reduce poverty, treat substance abuse, or any other social malaise that may contribute to crime."

“So in other words, you'd rather put a drug addict in prison then try to help them. “

Stop putting words in my mouth, and learn to read. I said “Tough sentencing, targeted at the right categories of offences and offenders.” I don’t include drug addicts picked up for possession offences. On the other hand, drug addicts who pose a danger to society as a result of violent offences committed because of their addictions belong in prison. They should receive the best possible addiction treatment programs, but they should receive them behind bars.

“This is what I find so fascinating about people like you. You regard the shooting of a police officer as an all out attack on our social order, not because a person has been killed, but that a symbol of the state's authority has been killed. This isn't conservativism, it's fascism.”

Do you recall what I said to you in an earlier post?

“The tediousness of dealing with people like you is somewhat offset by the pleasure derived from watching you make a bigger fool of yourself with each successive comment.”

You never fail to deliver, Much Loathed. I think you need to be reminded of something you said further up the page:

“Roszko wasn't trying to get away, true (notice I said, "most of the time"). But he was a sociopath. The guy was an anti-social lunatic who was stock-piling guns, intimidating neighbours and, possibly, had actually killed some one prior to the Mayerthorpe massacre. Whatever was going through his mind when he had those Mounties in the sights of his gun, I highly doubt he was thinking: "whatever else happens to me, at least society will have a harder time functioning." Frankly, I don't think he had any conception of society outside of himself, and saw everyone else around has either an enemy to be destroyed, or some one to be manipulated and used.”

My goodness. Doesn’t your description of Roszko sound like that of an individual who was engaged in an all-out attack on social order, certainly the social order of his community? Stupid question, really. Of course it does. I guess that makes you a fascist, Loather. Thanks for jumping the shark with that one, I really enjoyed it…

"You’re still not making sense"

“Then learn to read.”

I read fine, and you don’t make any sense. That explains your pathetic little attempt at a put down. Transparent evasion. Vintage Loather. Do you think you might have one more “Okay fine, I admit it,” left in you?

"What makes you think that money is theirs? How do you know they aren't giving it to some one higher up the food chain.”

Professional experience, Loather. Most street level traffickers turn a nice buck for themselves.

[Self-Loather]

"I’m confident that many of them are. Just as many middle class and well off whites are so
predisposed."

So minorities and white's are predisposed to commit acts of violence. Then how come more minorities are in prison?

"Did it if ever dawn on you that perhaps enablers such as you make it easier for minorities and the poor to avoid responsibility for their actions, and thereby become recidivist? No, didn’t think so"

Let me make sure I understand this: rich and poor people are predisposed towards violence, but poor non-whites are over-represented because "enablers" like myself tell them that they are not responsible for their actions. Did I understand that correctly? Seriously, is that what you're arguing?

"Don’t you think your sarcasm is a little misplaced, considering you were engaging in an intellectually dishonest exercise in evasion?"

You're making shit up. Seriously.

"Doesn’t your description of Roszko sound like that of an individual who was engaged in an all-out attack on social order"

No, it sounds like a guy incapable of perceiving anything beyond his own demented self-interest, maybe 5 minutes into the future.

"I guess that makes you a fascist, Loather"

Firstly, I've shown that Roszko was not engaged in an attack on the social order. Secondly, even if he were, then the fact that I wouldn't support the death penalty for him means I am not fascist. Can you explain this please?

[Mike H]

"So minorities and white's are predisposed to commit acts of violence. Then how come more minorities are in prison?"

First of all, there aren't "more minorities in prison." White offenders outnumber minority offenders by a wide margin in our provincial and federal institutions. Minorities are overrepresented on a proportional ratio, and I've already answered your really stupid question. Minorities are overrepresented in our prison system because certain ethnic groups commit more crimes, proportionally, than other ethnic and cultural groups. In Canada, the minority most responsible for skewing the percentage is the Aboriginal community. Pretty simple, isn't it Loather?

"Let me make sure I understand this: rich and poor people are predisposed towards violence, but poor non-whites are over-represented because "enablers" like myself tell them that they are not responsible for their actions. Did I understand that correctly? Seriously, is that what you're arguing?"

Seriously, I am. There are other factors, but any rational person would agree that minimizing culpability, along with parallel campaigns to minimize sentencing, encourage criminal recidivism for a percentage of offenders. Some of these offenders think people like you are fools, Loather, in the "Useful idiots" vein. They're right, of course.

"You're making shit up. Seriously."

What? You finally admitted you were wrong, after avoiding answering the question on three separate occasions. Then you got pissy and sarcastic to try and save a little face, and I'm making shit up? Have I told you that you don't make sense?

"No, it sounds like a guy incapable of perceiving anything beyond his own demented self-interest, maybe 5 minutes into the future."

You're a joke, Loather, but I do enjoy plucking the wings off you as you delve deeper and deeper into dishonest denial of your own words.

You deny Roszko was "engaged in an all-out attack on social order," yet you characterize him as follows:

"...he was a sociopath."

"...an anti-social lunatic who was stock-piling guns, intimidating neighbours and, possibly, had actually killed some one prior to the Mayerthorpe massacre."

"...and saw everyone else around has either an enemy to be destroyed, or some one to be manipulated and used."

Clearly, by your own description, Roszko was not a sociopath who had withdrawn from society and was avoiding contact with people. On the contrary, he was a proactive menace. To use your words, he "saw everyone else around as either an enemy to be destroyed, or someone to be manipulated and used." And then, to top it off, he stalked and murdered 4 police officers. And you have the gall to stubbornly deny that this man wasn't engaged in all-out attack on social order? Quit behaving like a two year old.

"Firstly, I've shown that Roszko was not engaged in an attack on the social order. Secondly, even if he were, then the fact that I wouldn't support the death penalty for him means I am not fascist. Can you explain this please?"

Loather, you go squirrely when you get flustered, don't you? What does your inexplicable introduction of the death penalty have to do with your embarrassing contradiction? Here's what you said earlier:

“This is what I find so fascinating about people like you. You regard the shooting of a police officer as an all out attack on our social order, not because a person has been killed, but that a symbol of the state's authority has been killed. This isn't conservativism, it's fascism.”

I don't see any mention of support for the death penalty making people like me fascist in your twisted logic. No, I only see us qualifying as fascist because we believe the killing of a police officer is an attack on society and social order. Can you explain, please?

I'd also like to correct yet another of your patented Leftist talking point. I realize people like you don't like the police very much, but to depict the police in our society as the iron fist of state power is really over the top, not to mention highly dishonest. The primary duty of the police in a democratic, rights oriented country like Canada is the protection of the public. For you to tar people as "fascist" for being enraged over the killing of a police officer is beyond despicable. As an side, "despicable" is the one thing you seem to do well, Loather.

The police are accountable to, and subservient to, civilian courts. The authority for police to engage in their duties comes from society, more so than the state. The state does not grant police the power to enforce laws without the general consensus of society. We live in a society where the public is very vocal in their criticism of the police when the public sees cause for same. Spare us then, your totalitarian jack boot inferences.

[Self-Loather]

'to depict the police in our society as the iron fist of state power is really over the top, not to mention highly dishonest.'

Really? Damn, all these years I've been calling 911 like a sucker.

' don't see any mention of support for the death penalty making people like me fascist in your twisted logic'

It is a fascist tendancy, because you regard the killing of a police officer, under any circumstances (unless you would like to clarify your comment) as worse than killing any number of non-peace officers. Therefore, you regard killing an agent of the state as worse than killing any one else. In other words, an attack on the ability of the state's authority to exercise control over people ought to be dealt with more harshly than anything else. Call it fascist, reactionary, whatever. That's what it is. Begin ranting in 3... 2... 1...

'have the gall to stubbornly deny that this man wasn't engaged in all-out attack on social order?'

Yup. That's right. He was a lone lunatic. Begin ranting in 3... 2... 1...

'You finally admitted you were wrong'

That was sarcasm, actually.

'There are other factors, but any rational person would agree that minimizing culpability, along with parallel campaigns to minimize sentencing, encourage criminal recidivism for a percentage of offenders. Some of these offenders think people like you are fools, Loather, in the "Useful idiots" vein. They're right, of course.'

'Let me make sure I understand this: rich and poor people are predisposed towards violence, but poor non-whites are over-represented because "enablers" like myself tell them that they are not responsible for their actions. Did I understand that correctly? Seriously, is that what you're arguing?"

Seriously, I am. '

Worthless. Simply worthless.

[dcardno]

Really? Damn, all these years I've been calling 911 like a sucker.

Which was the point Loather - you expect (as do I) the Police to protect you from other citizens, not least by their monopoly on the legitimate use of force, not to impose the will of the State upon you. An attempt to kill Police Officers (or to intimidate witnesses, kill or bribe Judges, etc) prevents them from carrying out that protective function. When Police Officers stray from that proper role (say by tasering to death the occasional would-be Polish immigrant or East-side artist) they should be dealt with harshly (and would be, if the Crown Prosecutor were up to it), as they have abused that monopoly.

[Self-Loather]

"Which was the point Loather - you expect (as do I) the Police to protect you from other citizens, not least by their monopoly on the legitimate use of force, not to impose the will of the State upon you. An attempt to kill Police Officers (or to intimidate witnesses, kill or bribe Judges, etc) prevents them from carrying out that protective function."

To which I think pose the following question: do you think mistakes by the criminal justice system, a wrongfully convicted person, over-enthusiastic police officers, a medical examiner of questionable integrity, incompetent defense, or just plain honest mistakes, are more or less likely in cases involving the murder of a peace officer than a non-peace officer? That, essentially, is my objection to executing people, with the occasional brutality of the method of execution coming a close second. If I oppose it in cases where the victims aren't peace officers, I can't see how I can support in cases where the victim is.

To address the fascist comment more specifically, the reason we have police forces (sorry, "Services") is as a response to the creation of a permenant under class following the industrial revolution. Police were specifically deployed for the purposes of controling political demonstrations and rising crime caused by poverty and unemployment at the beginning of the industrial revolution. These facts aren't in dispute. Police services in democracies are, of course, not jack-booted thugs, but to say that their purpose in life is to protect me is not entirely accurate. Why, for example, do police officers spy on anti-war groups that are simply expressing dissenting opinions about national policy? Why do police officers go to demonstrations to instigate riots? Why did police officers burn down barns, or steal the membership lists of political parties, or perform "black-bag" operations (I'm speaking of the RCMP in the early 70s, and the FBI during the COINTELPRO years). How many cops served jail time for these activities? These activities are not consistent with protecting any one, except people who's interest is in maintaining the current distribution of power in our society.

Thusly, I maintain that a person who calls for the death penalty for a peace officer, and only a peace officer is essentially saying that an attack on the state's coercive power should be dealt with more harshly than an ordinary citizen. The view that the state's ability to exercise power is more important than any other human life is, in my opinion, a fascist tendency.

Your argument is a bit different, in that you included government protected witnesses, so the preceding paragraph I don't think applies to your argument. That said, even from the perspective of punishment, I still find your argument confusing. You state that you feel that the murder of a cop, judge or witness should be dealt with severely, yet you believe that spending the rest of your life in prison is more cruel than death. From the perspective of severe punishments, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the person alive, in isolation forever?

[dcardno]

To which I think pose the following question: do you think mistakes by the criminal justice system...
A good question, but given the scrutiny accorded a case that could lead to the death penalty, I am not sure you could make a convincing argument that (undetected in more-or-less real time) mistakes are more likely in such cases.

Police were specifically deployed for the purposes of controling political demonstrations and rising crime caused by poverty and unemployment at the beginning of the industrial revolution. These facts aren't in dispute.
Well, they are actually, since police forces pre-date the industrial revolution. In any event preventing crime, whether caused by poverty or personal defects, is generally what I had in mind when I said that the function of police (particularly how that function has evolved in modern democracies) is to protect law-abiding citizens from non-law-abiding ones.

Why do police officers go to demonstrations to instigate riots? Why did police officers burn down barns...
Because Pierre Trudeau was an asshole. I am fully in agreement with severe penalties for Police Officers who abuse their authority in such a way, and for the politicians who direct them. What's your point?

Thusly, I maintain that a person who calls for the death penalty for a peace officer, and only a peace officer...
I don't - I'm all in favour of the death penalty for the guy who kills you while trying to rob your house, or who rapes my daughter. Given that the majority of my fellow citizens don't share that view, I see added protection for those whose function is to protect me from those risks, and added retribution for those who would fatally attack them, as a reasonable compromise.

From the perspective of severe punishments, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the person alive, in isolation forever?
I doubt that has quite the retributive effect or serves to sufficiently denounce such conduct. It also requires me to trust the National Parole Board not to go wobbly in ten or fifteen years.

[Mike H]

"Really? Damn, all these years I've been calling 911 like a sucker."

It's responses like these that make you such a dollar store troll, Loather. I hesitate to offer advice to someone as thoroughly detestable as you, but what the hell, you need all the help you can get. You do realize, don't you, that when you defend yourself against attack in a blog forum, your reply should actually bear some semblance of a defense? I think you do better when you just avoid responding. No, scratch that, I know you do...

"It is a fascist tendancy, because you regard the killing of a police officer, under any circumstances (unless you would like to clarify your comment) as worse than killing any number of non-peace officers..."

Before I go any further, I’d just like to point out your failure to respond concerning your dishonest insertion of the death penalty into your "fascist" accusation. However, as noted above, omission and evasion are your friends, Loather.

My comment needs no clarification, first and foremost, because I can‘t “clarify“ something you have falsely attributed to me. However, since you've once again distorted my position, I will respond. I have not said anything that could be remotely construed as " regard(ing) the killing of a police officer, under any circumstances as worse than killing any number of non-peace officers..."

I view the murders commited by James Roszko as an attack on our society, just as I do Marc Lepine's slaughter of the female students in Montreal. So much for your sleazy (and typically lame) attempt at pigeon-holing me on the subject.

“Yup. That's right. He was a lone lunatic. Begin ranting in 3... 2... 1...”

Begin ranting? Why would I do that? I know what you’re all about. “When I told you to “Quit behaving like a two year old,” you didn’t think I actually expected you would concede your intellectual dishonesty, did you? Hell, I was just baiting you, Much Loathed, so you’d repeat it again.

"That was sarcasm, actually"

Sounds like a lie to me. A really bad one, even by your standards. When you're getting beaten like a baby seal, it's hard to keep all your contortions straight, isn't it, Loather? I guess you've forgotten the fact that you painfully avoided responding to the point, even though it was put to you on three separate occasions. And now, you're trying to spin your belated concession into sarcasm? I think we'll label that one "desperately dishonest."

"Worthless. Simply worthless."

Do you remember what I said earlier, Loather? You know, the part about actually saying something that furthers your argument? "Worthless." Loather code for "I've got nuthin'."

[Self-Loather]

'A good question, but given the scrutiny accorded a case that could lead to the death penalty, I am not sure you could make a convincing argument that (undetected in more-or-less real time) mistakes are more likely in such cases.'

It may convince a lot of people. It doesn't convince me. We agree to disagree I guess.

'well, they are actually, since police forces pre-date the industrial revolution. In any event preventing crime, whether caused by poverty or personal defects, is generally what I had in mind when I said that the function of police (particularly how that function has evolved in modern democracies) is to protect law-abiding citizens from non-law-abiding ones.'

Well, the term police may have been around pre-industrial revolutoin, but modern organization of law enforcement is a relatively new phenomena.

'Because Pierre Trudeau was an asshole. I am fully in agreement with severe penalties for Police Officers who abuse their authority in such a way, and for the politicians who direct them. What's your point?'

Trudeau? Oh for God's sake... my point is that police officers behaving unscrupulously to supress legitimately political activity is a tactic that goes beyond Trudeau's years.

'I don't - I'm all in favour of the death penalty for the guy who kills you while trying to rob your house, or who rapes my daughter. Given that the majority of my fellow citizens don't share that view, I see added protection for those whose function is to protect me from those risks, and added retribution for those who would fatally attack them, as a reasonable compromise.'

Well, we agree to disagree. I also misunderstood your arguement as I thought you were arguing for the death penalty for cops, judges, etc., alone. The fascist comment is withdrawn.

[dcardno]

...my point is that police officers behaving unscrupulously to supress legitimately political activity is a tactic that goes beyond Trudeau's years
Not to go off on a tangent, but as a wide-spread tactic, suppression of legitimate political activity is associated (in Canada) with Pierre and the anti-FLQ actions in the 70s. Include, if you like, the APEC pepper-spraying by his protege Da Liddle Guy. In any event, the fact that police forces can be corrupt (or can serve corrupt or unethical politicians) does not invalidate the claim that their primary function is to protect the law-abiding amongst us.

Well, the term police may have been around pre-industrial revolutoin, but modern organization of law enforcement is a relatively new phenomena.
So if modern organization of law enforcement is a new phenomenon, how is that police forces were instituted as the attack-dogs of the robber barons in the early days of the industrial revolution? I agree that police forces have modernized since then - most things have, other than the Marxist analysis of the nature and purpose of police forces.

[Self-Loather]

"Not to go off on a tangent, but as a wide-spread tactic, suppression of legitimate political activity is associated (in Canada) with Pierre and the anti-FLQ actions in the 70s. Include, if you like, the APEC pepper-spraying by his protege Da Liddle Guy. In any event, the fact that police forces can be corrupt (or can serve corrupt or unethical politicians) does not invalidate the claim that their primary function is to protect the law-abiding amongst us."

Suppression of legitimate political activity is associated with the anti-FLQ activities because the Mounties made the mistake of going after a duly-constitued political party, the PQ, at a time when their star was on the rise in Quebec. The moment of unravelling came when one of their members, after accidentally blowing his hand apart with a bomb, casually admitted under oath to having done worse. The stealing of the PQ's membership list came out shortly after. On an aside: One should note the excellent work done by the Toronto Sun in that case.

That said, the RCMP are not a creature of any political party. Furthermore, to the extent that anyone knows what Trudeau ordered the Mounties to do, it seems that he basically gave them a blank cheque to go after Quebec separatists, then put a wall of plausible deniability around himself. Trudeau may have been a crook, he may have been worse than Nixon, but no one forced those Mounties to follow his orders. They could have said no. They didn't.

Finally, Police supression, by the RCMP or otherwise, goes back to the depression during their well-documented war against Tim Buck and the Communist Party, by the RCMP and the notable Dennis Draper of the Toronto police. One could look at the recent example of SQ members who showed up to a demonstration with rocks in their hands intent on instigating a riot, then retreated behind their riot squad when labour leaders called them out on their tactics. It is not specific to any political party. In fact, the NDP government in BC send the Mounties in, guns a blazing at Gustafson (sp?) Lake a few years back.

Yes, police officers are responsible for protecting the public. Yes, I dial 911 when I see a crime in progress. That doesn't mean that there isn't more nuance to the role peace officers play in our society.

"So if modern organization of law enforcement is a new phenomenon, how is that police forces were instituted as the attack-dogs of the robber barons in the early days of the industrial revolution? I agree that police forces have modernized since then - most things have, other than the Marxist analysis of the nature and purpose of police forces."

Simply look at the history of the labour movement, particularly in the United States. Law enforcement was exclusively used to supress organized labour (8 hour work days, being a sort of communist plot, of course). Now, in modern times, working class people are, for the most part largely disengaged from the political system. You see the odd exception, but for the most part, you can draw a fairly straight line between income, education and voter turnout. Areas that are poor, and non-white, tend to have low voter turnout, and are marginalized from the centres of power in our society. Once upon a time, such people might have been involved in the labour movement (100 years ago, say). In modern times, we don't really have a labour movement - all due respect to the brothers and sisters in the CLC.

Individuals in those situations find themselves at much higher risk for crime, drugs and imprisonment. With that risk increased, you need police officers in order to keep those people in check, in case they become criminals, or, god forbid, political activists.

In a weird way, one can almost feel sorry for cops. They're asked to essentially be the check-and-balance of a social system that is designed to keep a certain portion of the population at risk of criminal behaviour. Those liberal types who call for shorter sentances, or less racial profiling, without addressing the socio-economic factors affecting crime, are, in some ways, more deeply cynical than conservatives who call for the death penalty.

[dcardno]

...but no one forced those Mounties to follow his orders. They could have said no. They didn't."
No one is defending the RCMP for any of this, Loather - it seems you are putting a good deal of effort into debating with your own construct. What is at issue is whether such activities are the reason Police forces are established, and why they enjoy community support.

You see the odd exception, but for the most part, you can draw a fairly straight line between income, education and voter turnout...
Yes, just as you can draw a fairly straight line from personal motivation to achievement or from sense of responsibility to social engagement; the correlation you note, as always, does not demonstrate causation. Are poor, marginalized people in their condition because "the system" keeps them that way (or, in your view, requires them to be that way), and employs militarized Police to prevent them from advancing, or have they made a series of poor decisions or not been equipped with the personal attributes that lead to success in our society? I see enough movement between social classes and enough advancement between generations that I find the first analysis to be self-evident drivel. You obviously do not.

[Self-Loather]

"No one is defending the RCMP for any of this, Loather - it seems you are putting a good deal of effort into debating with your own construct. What is at issue is whether such activities are the reason Police forces are established, and why they enjoy community support."

I know you're not defending the RCMP under Trudeau (or presumably, the SQ under Charest, or the Toronto Police under Draper, or whatever). What I would suggest is that if the police behave the way they do across generations, and political parties in government, and seem to always receive different levels of punishment for their behaviour than the rest of us, then perhaps their reason for existing is different than the one you have advanced. As for community support, well, I suppose it depends on who's community you are talking about.

"I see enough movement between social classes and enough advancement between generations that I find the first analysis to be self-evident drivel. You obviously do not."

Right. So, child poverty is increasing in Canada. It is an indisputable fact that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, but because you personally know some folks that are okay as far as you know, it's all drivel.

That aside, of course, some people make bad choices. I also know some folks like that. I also know some people whose economic condition is entirely a function of chance. They worked hard, did what they were told, but were fired purely because of bad luck. Did they find new jobs? I don't know, probably. Maybe more money, maybe less. Two of those folks were fired while they, or their significant other were either pregnant or just had a child. We have an economic system that rewards a very small percentage of the population, while leaving others in circumstances such as a just described. Part of the purpose of a police force, is to keep things under control in case things become very bad economically.

The bottom line is this: if you want to live in an economic system such as the one we described, then you are going to have to accept the fact that there will be winners and losers, and not all of those losers are going to be people who lost because they are lazy or made poor decisions. They are simply victims of circumstance. If you wish to defend this system because you think it will give you a bigger swimming people or a 60" plasma screen TV, or because you think that any alternative will lead to gulags or death camps, that is fine. The consequences for this, are that you will have to have a police force to keep the flotsam and jetsam from stealing your 60" TV, or, worse yet, showing up to the legislature with pitchforks each time 6-trillion dollars goes up in flames.

[dcardno]

Right. So, child poverty is increasing in Canada.
Not according to the peopel we pay to investigate such things: "Children no more likely to be in a family vulnerable to low income in 2004 than in 1989" (see the chart on the first page - that's from the callout on page 7.

...but because you personally know some folks that are okay as far as you know, it's all drivel.
Actually, I took someone else's word for it:
"Abstract
"A framework for thinking about intergenerational mobility as it relates to the relationship between parent and child incomes as well as evidence on the degree and sources of intergenerational mobility in Canada is reviewed. The major conclusion is that Canadian society is characterized by a good deal of intergenerational mobility, and the available evidence suggests that being raised in low-income does not pre-ordain children to low-income in adulthood. Canada compares well in this regard to many other countries, being characterized on average by more mobility than the U.S. or U.K. and on a par with some of the most mobile nations. The sources for this pattern have to do with access to high quality education, and high quality non-monetary investments in children. However, there is no clear evidence linking the level of family income to the nature of these investments." (my emphasis)

Part of the purpose of a police force, is to keep things under control in case things become very bad economically.
Or to keep assholes like the Vancouver Anti-Poverty Committee from destroying public or private property or disrupting normal civic operations in the midst of an economic boom. In interviews around the time of the Library incident, Cunningham was absolutely clear that he had no interest in dialogue or in finding any solutions to the problem he champions - he was much more interested in his 'full confrontation with the State' - he and his group attended a public budget meeting with the intention of violent disruption with a goal of ensuring that the meeting had to be cancelled.

[Self-Loather]

"However, despite sustained economic growth since the mid-1990s and the implementation of a federal program in 1998 to reduce child poverty in Canada (the National Child Benefit), the rate of low-income among children was no lower in 2004 than in 1989"

"Furthermore, the severity of low income for children was the same in 2004 as 10 years prior, and since the economic situation of the well-off children in Canada improved significantly in the past decade, income inequality widened."

What this means, is that although actual wealth is increasing, it is disproportionately helping those at the higher end. That means, in relative terms, things are getting worse for poor children.

Also, I wasn't arguing that there is zero intergenerational mobility, so your second big quote has no reason to exist.

You know, dcardno, what truly disgusts me, and I mean that, about this exchange, is how much trouble you want to go in order to minimize the suffering of others. If you had said, well Self-Loather, poverty exists, but that's the way the world is and we have to accept that or else we'll have communism, I would find that stupid and naive. But trying to twist around some government report you obviously didn't read, in order to minimize what hundreds of thousands of children face every day is quite frankly sickening.

As for the VAPC thing, well, yeah. Every time I see a bunch of demonstrators demanding housing, the first thing I think is: western ivilization is going to fall unless the cops break their heads.

Seriously, if your desire for social cohesion, respect for the law and social conformity is so strong, why don't you just leave Canada and move to North Korea? You won't deal with any anti-poverty demonstrators, people are taught to respect authority at an early age, you won't have to deal with any weak-kneed liberal mush-heads or multiculturalism.

[dcardno]

You know, dcardno, what truly disgusts me, and I mean that, about this exchange, is how much trouble you want to go in order to minimize the suffering of others.
As compared to the absolute lack of effort you made to exagerate that suffering (or just make shit up©) in order to buttress the argument you were making? Yeah, I can see how that would be irritating. Don't worry about the effort, Loather - we in the reality-based community can do that kind of stuff in about 15 minutes.

As for the VAPC thing, well, yeah. Every time I see a bunch of demonstrators demanding housing...
That's the point, Loather - these assholes aren't demanding housing; they are actively preventing anyone but them from addressing the issue. Their modus operandi is to make "the perfect" the enemy of "the good" and disrupt any process or action that that might deliver "the good" by railing on about how it doesn't meet their standards - and hold homeless people hostage while they do so. They enjoy 'confronting the state' (etc), and yeah, when people disrupt public meetings by throwing chairs and tables, I think it's about time someone steps in.

...why don't you just leave Canada...
Yeah, we've now hit the true last refuge of the completely clueless, haven't we?

[Self-Loather]

"As compared to the absolute lack of effort you made to exagerate that suffering (or just make shit up©) in order to buttress the argument you were making? Yeah, I can see how that would be irritating. Don't worry about the effort, Loather - we in the reality-based community can do that kind of stuff in about 15 minutes."

You didn't even read the report you referenced. You found some line, decontextualized it, and pretended that it proved your point. The article explicitly said that although wealth was increasing, poverty levels for children weren't changing. What that means, is that wealth is getting concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It means, that in relative terms, people are getting poorer. In addition to reading comprehension, you may want to learn some math while you are at it.

"That's the point, Loather - these assholes aren't demanding housing; they are actively preventing anyone but them from addressing the issue. Their modus operandi is to make "the perfect" the enemy of "the good" and disrupt any process or action that that might deliver "the good" by railing on about how it doesn't meet their standards - and hold homeless people hostage while they do so. They enjoy 'confronting the state' (etc), and yeah, when people disrupt public meetings by throwing chairs and tables, I think it's about time someone steps in."

Maybe they think that the issue isn't being addressed to their satisfaction, and are prepared to be arrested in order to have their point made? Of course, that sort of beahviour would require a level of self-sacrifice that is, forunately, beyond most people on the right, who seem to think that political activism involves posting anonymously on blogs about the leftard-moonbat-islamo-fascist-commie-feminazis out to destroy Canada.

"Yeah, we've now hit the true last refuge of the completely clueless, haven't we?"

I was being serious. You like the death penalty. You hate liberalism, multilculturalism and seem to have no stomach for even the slightest disruption in the social order. I think Juche is probably about the right political philosophy for you. You could always try Singapore, in case watching tanks roll down the street gets too boring.

[dcardno]

You didn't even read the report you referenced.
Horseshit. I read the whole report, and on balance it easily and consistently demolished your plaintive (and entirely self-instigated) cry that childhood poverty is increasing in Canada. Sorry Loather - you'll have to come up with some facts.

Maybe they think that the issue isn't being addressed to their satisfaction...
I'm sure they do. The problem is, society isn't set up to ensure their satisfaction, Loather, nor yours nor mine. When I disagree with policy, I show up at public meetings armed with all the best facts and arguments I can find, and I try to persuade my fellow citizens of the validity of my position. When the Vancouver Anti-Poverty Coalition disagrees with policy, they try to disrupt the meeting and resort to violence to ensure that their fellow citizens are intimidated into silence. Even worse, in my mind, they claim to do this in the name of the homeless and powerless - but they deliberately act in a way that ensures that nothing is ever done to improve the lives of those people, because the VA-PC prevents the possible responses from ever coming into discussion. They are not interested in solving problems, or even moving towards a solution - they are interested in "confronting the state"

...and are prepared to be arrested in order to have their point made?
You seem somewhat confused about the non-violent tactics of Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr and a bunch of Brownshirts in a Bavarian Beerhall. Well - it's not the only thing you are confused about, I suppose.

I was being serious.
No, you were being stupid, but we're used to that.