Time to fire some judges

[Fancy]

Maybe it's time to start electing judges and then get rid of them when they don't do their job..

When judges in every province are frustrated with this surcharge, maybe the government should take a second look.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09 ... inals.html

How does it make sense to spend money to collect nothing?

[steven lloyd]

How does it make sense to spend money to collect nothing?

It doesn’t, but we spend money in many wasteful measures, and in some cases in measures that make matters worse and leading to even greater costs requiring even more money and lots of it (enforcing our drug laws, for example). One problem, however, is that this discussion is far too complex for black and white thinkers and those who depend on outdated and erroneous rhetoric to form their opinion. For example, it is typical of our resident angst-fuelled, frothing at the keyboard uber-right storm trooping kids to look at the multiple systems in the criminal justice bureaucracy as one distinct entity and to clump all forms of criminal offenders under one explanation. This, of course, leaves no opening or hope for intelligent discussion of the many overlapping and interacting components that influence the issue of crime and criminal justice and there interplay. In fact, it is these same uber-right storm trooping kids who with no thought vote for governments that cut funding to mental health services, child protection and family intervention services, and cuts to other social infrastructure services that are, in fact, part of the problem.

Research has shown (and continues to show) that one dollar spent in prevention and intervention efforts will save ten dollars in enforcement and punishment costs (but will not eliminate all crime of course). Punishing people more harshly after they commit a crime will do nothing to prevent that crime from having already happened. It will also not deter others from committing the same crime as we have seen clearly demonstrated from actual research (not ideological assumptions) that punishment is little deterrent. With all the money we spend on enforcement and punishment, a fraction of that cost could be used to more effectively intervene in manners that would reduce crime and victims. We will never be able to prevent all crime, but demographics are changing, knowledge and best practices learned from research are changing (our programs in BC are being looked to from around the world to be modelled after) and we are currently having great success in reducing recidivism and know about the factors that support both the environment and culture of crime and criminal thinking and the behavioural progression that leads thinking to criminal action.

I will not argue changes need to be made in the way our Courts exercise their sentencing options. Our current Criminal Code as written provides for much stiffer sentences and in certain cases that is most appropriate. Those of us working in the system are often disappointed when more onerous sentences are not imposed. As stated, though, the system is necessarily very complex (while unnecessarily cumbersome due to the cuts in those positions that make it run that were replaced by more bureaucrats to simply watch it run – smaller government my *bleep*) and includes the interaction of many systems. Homicides, for example, are relatively rare, and Judges most often find themselves in a position where they still need discretion to mold sentences that consider the facts of both victim and offender, and the internal and external events that need to be addressed so sentenced offenders are most likely able to never reoffend and start really paying for their crime – in the community and contributing to society. Risk and needs assessment based Pre-Sentence Reports assist Judges in determining sentencing options and recommend appropriate conditions for offenders to be bound to follow or in place of a term of incarceration.

“We promise to get tough on crime” makes a great sound bite in a world where crime rate is already dropping due to demographic changes (not government). The income gap continues to increase, however, (we can give government some credit for that) and that is one of many factors that contributes to the increases in property crime, and now even violent property crime. Someone arguing this point will immediately suggest those who make it propose everyone get paid the same and want to push our society toward socialism or communism. These are the black and white thinkers I referenced in my first paragraph – angst-fuelled, frothing at the keyboard and unable to think outside tiny little ideological boxes. Getting back to the OP I actually support the Legislative changes to the Criminal Code and Victim Surcharge, and the idea of imposing jail time in default. What I do not support, however, is talking discretion away from Judges to be replaced by what can only be described as a universalized precept from a political ideology – that is, in this case, is that poor, marginalized and disenfranchised people do not deserve the same rights as the rest of us.