babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » crime prevention as an alternative

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: crime prevention as an alternative
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 11 March 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We have yet another discussion on the merits or lack of them regarding the re-active approach of punishment for 'criminal's. But when are we going to expend our resources on pro-active crime prevention instead?

I - and many others too - couldn't give a rat's ass what is done to the offender after the fact. The victim is still robbed, raped, murdered, brutalized and otherwise traumaitized. As is both the victim's and often the offender's, family, friends, co-workers, neighbours and the public at large.

We possess a wealth of knowledge regarding the causations of crime, with poverty and childhood abuse and/or neglect heading the list. Yet our governments continue down the reactive road of waiting until there is a victim before rsponding. Meanwhile the ranks of welfare recipients and the homeless continue to grow with children swelling the numbers of disadvantaged and marginalized members of our so-called society.

Crime prevention is a renewable form of Justice while punishment is a diminishing fossilized idea.

The Cognitive skills program iniitiated in the 80's by a Canadian researcher showed great promise as, not only a crime prevention tool if it was incorporated into the school system, but also a builder of greater social cohesion as well. Basically the program explorers the way in which people think [or do not think] and offers better, pro-active, tools for problem solving and human interactions.

But no. The cog skills program was relegated to the so-called Corrections system and languishes in an re-active environment where it is scorned by a majority of both the guards and the inmates.

Criminology 101 tells us there is no crime without FIRST there being a law to declare it so. The mayor of Vancouver says he sees drug addictions as just another handicapped not unlike his own experience with being a quadrapalegic. Yet we still see the legally drug addicted population created by pharmacuetical companies villifying the illegally addicted populations created by venture capitalists we call organized crime.

Then there is the disturbing trend to putting more and more cops on the streets. A method that consumers way more of our resources than it protects. One chief of police stated he could not hire a new officer without first budgeting close to $250,000 to cover the infrastructure costs required in terms of pay, benefits, equipment, resources and paperwork. In fact, the police are the only ones who really benefit from the current approach with their high salaries and perks galore.

As already stated, but well worth repeating, it matters not what we do after the fact, the victim is still robbed, raped, murdered, brutalized and otherwise truamatized. I vote for the pro-active model of crime prevention over that of simply reacting after the fact.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 March 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's obviously true that a great deal of crime could be prevented by striking down a few laws. We have far too many laws to regulate behaviour that isn't anti-social.

With that as a start, the prison system, even as it stands, wouldn't be so overpopulated and might be able to concentrate on rehabilitating people who actually pose some threat to society, rather than simply contain them.

But that still leaves a lot of real crime.
We could eliminate the majority of that - crimes against property - by changing society. Poverty doesn't cause people to steal: disparity does. If everyone around you has as little as you have, you're not usually tempted to take their stuff. When a few people parade around with a thousand times as much as you have, the temptation to relieve them of some it is hard to resist.

Capitalism is all about amassing wealth. Not just that it's important to have stuff, but also that the ability to get stuff defines status, makes a person successful. If you can't make lots of money, you're a loser. The winners in such a society become rich by methods which are (usually) legal but dishonest. Since they also get to decide what's legal, this is a very fine line - sometimes invisible to the losers.
So it doesn't matter what we teach in school, as long as we're teaching the young to identify themselves as winners or losers in terms of material assets.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nanuq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8229

posted 13 March 2006 04:03 AM      Profile for Nanuq   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If everyone around you has as little as you have, you're not usually tempted to take their stuff.

Er.. Theft isn't all that uncommon in homeless shelters. It's one of the reasons so many street people prefer to stay on the street.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 13 March 2006 08:28 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think restitution should be the mainstay of our sentencing system. For crimes against property this is the way to go.

Crimes against persons are difficult to assign restitution, which is why violent offenders should be locked up, and locked up for a long time.

Some laws, such as our vice laws should be "de-listed".

And maybe some infractions that we don't normally see as violent should be re-thought. For example, a person who bilks elderly people out of their life savings. The results of "non violent" crime
should be examined more closely. I'm not convinced they are always so "non violent".

Maybe there are times, too when our health and safety and environmental laws should be set aside in favour of the criminal code.

For example, next time there is a spill into the St. Clair river, maybe a charge of administering a noxious substance should be laid against the CEO and board of directors.

Putting poison in the water is surely a violent crime.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 13 March 2006 11:01 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nanuq:

Er.. Theft isn't all that uncommon in homeless shelters. It's one of the reasons so many street people prefer to stay on the street.



I hadn't considered homeless people as potential criminals. I was thinking of a normal society,
where everyone is able to work and own something - either all poor or all prosperous.

The homeless are the ultimate losers in a top-heavy, seriously skewed society. Obviously, the very first, most basic step in crime prevention would be to make sure no citizen is ever in that position.

Tommy_Paine:

quote:
Putting poison in the water is surely a violent crime.

I wholeheartedly agree. (so there!)
And i would have liked to see your post on the punishement (Gaol/Jail) thread.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca