chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

Make the criminals cover the costs

A temp program has been ended where violents exes wore GPS bracelets so they could be monitored if they got too close.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/end-of-gps-bracelet-program-for-vi...

 

This is just one example where I feel like there is a simple solution to the funding (or at least partial funding):

 

Get the criminals to cover it.  If someone needs to wear a bracelet because they were abusing someone else, make them cover the cost.

 

Instead of insurance rates rising due to a bunch of breakins, get those who were caught to pay money to those who had damages/stuff stolen or to the insurance companies.

 

I know it's not going to be perfect, and not all costs can be covered this way, but isn't it a step in the right direction?

Share this

Comments

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi chemgal,

 

chemgal wrote:

I know it's not going to be perfect, and not all costs can be covered this way, but isn't it a step in the right direction?

 

It would be similar to the model around costs that is prevalent in our civil law.  Where costs are often attributed to the losing party in the dispute.

 

Of course in a civil trial it is often a matter between private interests and not a matter involving the crown.

 

Criminal proceedings always have the crown involved.  I suspect the costs are eaten by the tax payer simply because the crown is already funded by the tax-payer and a loser pays model would mean that the crown, funded by the tax-payer would have more resources to invest in a criminal trial than would most defendants.

 

And every time the crown won a case their war-chest to prosecute criminals would grow and grow since they would have tax revenues devoted to a successful prosecution effectively matched by an unsuccessful defence.

 

If poverty truly is a catalyst for criminal activity I cannot imagine many criminals having deep enough pockets to reimburse the tax-payer for the cost of their trial and adding that debt would exacerbate whatever part is played by poverty.

 

I know that trials can be expensive.  I would imagine actual incarceration costs more in the long run.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi chemgal,

 

It will be interesting to see what the final report from the pilot project looks like.

 

If the gps bracelets actually kept violent exes away from their former partners (how many times were police alerted to potential contact?) then they would be of tremendous value.  If all they showed was that the violent exes never came near enough to their former partners to trigger an alert are they actually being a deterant?

 

Abused women feel safer when their abusive exes are wearing them.

 

Are they actually safer though?

 

One woman in the story had a violent dream about her ex murdering her even while he had the gps bracelet on so they are not perfect in providing feelings of safety.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

That woman learned the next day that the program was ending.  It was the first time in months that she had not felt safe.  I see the problem in general of getting criminals to pay restitution.  On the other hand, I believe it would be fair to say to an abusive partner, "You can either stay in jail to provide safety for your ex-partner, or you can pay this amount per month for this bracelet which will allow you to live a normal life except you will not be allowed to be within this distance of that ex-partner."

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Is the concept similair to the requirement to pay for a breathalyzer machine on your car when you have had an impaired?

graeme's picture

graeme

image

The problem with this sort of thing is that it turns into a pure, hate reaction.

A person in prison should be there for treatement that will prevent re-offending. The US doesn't do that - which is why it has such a high crime rate. Punishment sometimes works. More often, it makes the offender worse.

If the person is prison for treatment, then giving him the option of paying to get out doesn't make sense.

Revenge is appealing to politicians trying to get votes  (like Harper). It doesn't do a whole got of good in cutting down on crime.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

There is a reason why Jesus gave the advice h e did.

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

Pinga, I didn't know that people had to pay for the gadgets themselves, but yes, that's the type of thing that I'm talking about.

 

Graeme, if I hit someone accidently while driving and damage their vehicle, I am responsible.  If someone does it on purpose, should they not be responsible for their actions?  Why should the victim/tax payers/insurance customers pay for it?  I'm not proposing giving them the option between paying and jail, although it's an interesting concept.

 

John, interesting points about costs.

 

Jim and John, I agree about this being a pilot project.  If it isn't effective, or worse, creates more problems because the bracelet can be removed and there is less monitoring due to relying on the bracelet or something like that it's probably best to be dropped.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

There is a difference between an accident and a deliberate act. If it is a deliberate act, you have a social problem to deal with.

Making a criminal pay the cost of a bracelet may satisgy out taste for revenge. But it has nothing to do with dealing with the problem.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

I'm not sure that "bracelets" answer the underlying problem of the anger that must exist. May even contribute to it. Certainly removes the need for a more involved approach that would be more time consuming.

 

 

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

Women are being mrudered by abusive partners, and existing laws and systems are failing to protect them.  When the police do not have the resources necessary to follow every person who has shown the readiness to seriously harm or kill ex-partners, and our justice system lacks the tools or will to incarcerate them, then we need other tools and resources.  Graeme, the reality of prison is that it is unlikely that a physically abusive partner will get enough counseling to change them while in jail.  Please don't interpret my suggestion as implying anything more than is stated.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

Oh, I think you're right. I have seen some groups who rehabilitate well,  some that don't. And violent ones are among the don'ts. For that reason, I'm not enthusiastic about devices that track them. They're dangerous no matter who they're with. The device will protect one woman, but leave many more vulnerable.

I don't see an alternative to incarceration.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi chemgal,

 

chemgal wrote:

If it isn't effective, or worse, creates more problems because the bracelet can be removed and there is less monitoring due to relying on the bracelet or something like that it's probably best to be dropped.

 

The problem with the bracelet is not that it could be tampered with.  The problem is that once the individual has met the conditions of having to wear it the thing comes off.

 

If, for example, I am given one it is for a limited duration not for life.  Just like time in a jail cell will be for a limited duration but not for life.

 

Sooner or later the convicted criminal has paid their debt to society and is set free.

 

What then?

 

What has changed in that convicted criminal from the day before the bracelet has been removed and the day after?  How do they go from being a threat to an exe while wearing the bracelet to not being one now that it has been removed?

 

I have no doubt that knowing a violent ex can be tracked and monitored provides the victim of violence with some sense of safety.  Much of that is because the device limits mobility of the individual wearing it and the times that they can be out of the house.  Once they come off there is no monitoring or such restriction of moevement.

 

What efforts have been made to address the actual issue that is the catalyst for the violence?  How effective has that effort been?  What is the cost difference between the two approaches and how does either perform in a money for value audit?

 

Only if dangerous offender status is attached to the convicted criminal is there a chance to take them out of circulation for good.  None of those wearing these bracelets have that designation.

 

First offence may be two years less a day.  What happens in that 729 days to render them safe to be at large in public?  And if they are wearing the bracelet for a few months while out on parole what is happening to make them safe to be at large in public when the bracelet comes off and they have served their time?

 

If the answer is nothing then the bracelets didn't make anyone safe.  They only accomplished a feeling of safe.  Once the bracelet comes off a predator is set free.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

John, your post reminded me of a belief I developed years ago.  I believe all violent offenders need to be sentenced until they have demonstrated sufficient change that they are much less of a threat to re-offend.  This would require replacing the concept of punishment for crimes with the need for public safety and rehabilitation.  If all violent criminals entered incarceration with the understanding that they would remain there until they provided evidence it was safe for society to let them out, and our prisons provided access to counseling and educational resources, it would provide legitimacy for our prison system.  Non-violent criminals for the most part should not be in jail -- spending thousands of dollars on people guilty of property and other non-violent crimes seems counterproductive.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Jim Kenney,

 

Jim Kenney wrote:

I believe all violent offenders need to be sentenced until they have demonstrated sufficient change that they are much less of a threat to re-offend.  This would require replacing the concept of punishment for crimes with the need for public safety and rehabilitation.  If all violent criminals entered incarceration with the understanding that they would remain there until they provided evidence it was safe for society to let them out, and our prisons provided access to counseling and educational resources, it would provide legitimacy for our prison system. 

 

That sounds like it would be a better alternative.  I'm not sure that it would be.

 

Just this week past Richard Kachkar is back in the news.  I imagine the man will always be a lightning rod for conflict.  There is not a lot of empathy for a Not Criminally Responsible verdict.  In fact, I suspect a significant portion of the Canadian public believes such verdicts to the be result of bleeding heart liberals being soft on crime and criminal masterminds being able to play the system.

 

Even if we were to place more emphasis on rehabilitation of violent offenders retribution is too engrained and none will believe a criminal possible of rehabilitation.  Hence the red herring of tough on crime legislation.

 

I'm not saying that society cannot do better.  I'm saying that society generally won't bother to do better.  I suspect many would get behind your initiative to lock folks up until they were safer.  Though for the most part that will mean tossing away the key because nobody is investing any time into believing violent criminals can be rehabilitated.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

graeme's picture

graeme

image

sad, but true.

seeler's picture

seeler

image



And where is the ex to get the money to pay for his bracelet?  Maybe he didn't have a job.  That sometimes results in stress that leads to violence.  If he did have a job, he may have lost it.  It may be low paying - barely providing enough to support him.  And he may be paying child support. 

 

It costs money to keep a person in jail.  It costs money to monitor them if they are released.   That's the price we taxpayers pay.  

 

Maybe we need to look more closely at prevention (through education, employment, social values) and at rehibiliation rather than trying to make a troubled person pay for his own punishment.

 

graeme's picture

graeme

image

We certainly need all of thos.In this very busiess-dominated world of ours, we have adopted big business falues that only money and power count.

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

I sadly regret that not enough people in our society understand the cost of a retribution based justice system.  Many of the ones who do are employed by the system, so are unlikely to advocate for substantive change.  It is too bad we don't have a Christian mentatlity when it comes to crime and criminals.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

At the levels of government we don't have much of a Christian mentality in dealing with anything.

And I agree with every word you say. Notably, we h ave high prison populations of certain groups - as native peoples. The uneven distribution suggests that something more than human nature is causing the crime.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

graeme wrote:

And I agree with every word you say. Notably, we h ave high prison populations of certain groups - as native peoples. The uneven distribution suggests that something more than human nature is causing the crime.

 

that!

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Jim Kenney wrote:

I sadly regret that not enough people in our society understand the cost of a retribution based justice system.  Many of the ones who do are employed by the system, so are unlikely to advocate for substantive change.  It is too bad we don't have a Christian mentatlity when it comes to crime and criminals.

 

I'm wondering how we can transform? 

Would it involve dealign with lesser crimes in different ways?

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Pinga,

 

Pinga wrote:

I'm wondering how we can transform? 

 

At the risk of sounding something like a broken record I'm going to point to the Micah 6: 8 passage which exhorts the believer to:  act justly, love mercy and walk humbly.

 

To be perfectly candid I think the Church in the West tends to blow this passage and to the extent that Canada was influenced by Judeo-Christian thought this blown passage continues to misinform.

 

In practice I think the Church in the West tends towards:  loving the idea of justice, looking down its nose on mercy and ignoring successfully anything approaching humility.

 

Pinga wrote:

Would it involve dealign with lesser crimes in different ways?

 

This would be a natural outcome if we reorganized our approaches to justice, mercy and humility.  I'm not holding my breath that society in general is open to such reorganization.  We are much to enamoured with retribution to seriously consider reconciliation, restoration or reformation.

 

Our society picks winners and losers and in the justice system victims are winners and perpetrators are losers.  Unless we are dealing with huge numbers then the perpetrators win and the victims lose.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

seeler's picture

seeler

image

John - that is closely what I am trying to say in my thread about Peace. 

Without justice there can be no peace.  But justice doesn't mean judgement and punishment - it means reconciliation, restoration and reformation.  

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi seeler,

 

seeler wrote:

But justice doesn't mean judgement and punishment - it means reconciliation, restoration and reformation.  

 

In truth it can mean all of those things.  Each of those things colours the kind of justice we get though.

 

Reconciliation is only a possibility when both parties desire to be reconciled and both parties are willing to enter into a process where each is able to offer themselves toward the end of reconciliation.

 

If one party refuses to participate reconciliation cannot happen as much as we would like it to.  So, we are forced to look at alternative forms.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

Oops, sorry, I forgot about this thread for a bit.

 

I agree about public safety being the main priority when it comes to something like jail.  I'm not ready to completely stop punishment/consequences when it isn't a public safety issue though.

 

From what I've heard, teaching children there are consequences to their actions works fairly well.  If that's true, at what point does it stop working when it's extrapolated to crimes?

 

As for the story itself here's an update on the pilot being extended:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/gps-bracelet-program-for-violent-...

Back to Politics topics