"vitriol, anger and ad hominem sentiment"

Everybody's a critic...

Neil Boyd and I debate the morality and practicality of the faint hope clause over at The Mark.  Mr. Boyd is, shall we say, something less than a fan of your intrepid correspondent.

Comments

[Mike H]

Most Canadian criminologists would be quite comfortable sitting on the board of directors for The John Howard Society.

These people do not approach the issues of sentencing and parole with objectivity. Given their obvious ideological bias against locking up bad people, one wonders how Boyd and his ilk have any credibility.

I've asked this question before, directing it at people who think like Boyd, and I've yet to receive a reply that does anything other than confirm the moral and factual rot underlying their position:

If incarceration is so counterproductive to reducing crime in our society, then shouldn't Boyd and company be right there along with the few fringe Leftist lunatics who oppose virtually all state-imposed incarceration? Now, I realize that Boyd would disavow any support for such a position, but he clearly is in the camp that constantly attacks any move to toughen sentencing and parole. Therefore, I'd really like to hear Boyd go on the record with what he feels are appropriate actual periods of incarceration for a wide range of criminal offences. Then, I'd want to hear how he came up with the numbers. It puzzles me that such questions are not put to our inmate advocates masquerading as criminologists. Why do we allow them to push this endless propaganda that "less" incarceration is better, without pinning them down as to what their definition of "less" is?

[dcardno]

Mike, I would agree with your question - I would also like to see Professor Boyd's research that supports his position vis-a-vis sentencing, or in the alternate, his explanation of why he belongs in a tax payer-funded research institution if he is willing to espouse conclusions in the absence of empirical evidence.

[Mike H]

The "Hug-a Thug Crowd." That's what Lorrie Goldstein calls the inmate-enablers, in his column in The Sun yesterday, dcardno.

This passage, plucked from the Trudeau era, really says it all about the mentality of these people:

"Back before then Liberal solicitor-general Jean-Pierre Goyer, complaining about the high cost of keeping criminals in prison, advised Parliament in 1971 that: "The present situation results from the fact that (the) protection of society has received more emphasis than the rehabilitation of inmates. Consequently, we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of offenders, rather than the protection of society."

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/10/22/11485421-sun.html

Goyer's candour is refreshing, although I suspect Neil Boyd would be rather annoyed with comments of that nature. Not very helpful to the propaganda campaign, is it?

[Jim Whyte]

Finally got around to this, Bob -- gee, you did not bad for an "entertainment lawyer" ;o)

I do hope Boyd will provide a list of the most civilized countries of Western Europe for us. I will know where it is I'm unworthy to travel.