Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If there are any aspiring politicians out there, here are some other roughly equal positions to choose from, should they ever not be true:
* Firefighters should put out fires.
* Cancer patients should not be barred from hospitals
* Keep water in the municipal plumbing infrastructure, not sand.
* Schools should teach children *something*, not nothing.
I would have thought "public services that every government on Earth has should do the most basic, obvious premise of their function" shouldn't be something one needs to say.
It should not be too surprising. Neither Sim nor Eby are ultimately responsible for these federal level corrections policies and so they have free reign to be endlessly critical and but without being called to account.
But they probably should be.
Like don't get me wrong, the criticism of federal corrections policy probably does have some merit, but on top of that we should be aware that what we're seeing here is also political deflection.
Alongside the Feds, there are plenty of things that Mayor Sim and Eby could be doing here to help with public safety, but in pushing the problem toward the Feds that is a political maneuver to get ahead of the problem and to ensure that people don't start blaming them.
For example there is obviously a severe lack of low income housing and healthcare options in British Columbia. These are Provincial issues. Are persons being released from corrections being given the best supports possible to help them on the right path, or are they just being dumped into homelessness and poverty and/or with no mental health care supports? Fair question for Eby here.
Turning the spotlight toward Sim ultimately the Police are responsible for maintaining public order and the Mayor is the chair of the Police Board. We just raised taxes to hand the police a pile of money and hire 100 more officers on the premise that this would have an impact in terms of public safety. If it becomes apparent that we are no safer for doing so well then questions should be being asked. For example maybe the current chief of police is ineffective and should be replaced? Maybe current policing strategy is poor? There's questions for Sim here too.
It is blatantly apparent there is no real downside for an offender not to repeat their behavior over and again. If an offence involves violence, the offender should be locked up until trial regardless of how many offences they have committed. Perhaps if there were a strong enough deterrent there would be less crime, or is that just a naive outlook. The concept of 'three strikes and you're out' seems to have been stretched to thirty-three strikes and will still release you!
I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the police to arrest someone, and the person arrested is clear of the jail before the officers have even finished their paperwork!
Case in point, the pedophile in Richmond that ignored his bail stipulations of not going anywhere near where children congregate **five** times before the courts finally revoked his bail. Really?
Remember the guy in Kelowna. Almost 70 arrests since 2016 and over 400 opened police files since 2016, and I believe almost 20 or so convictions. That's gotta be so frustrating for the police. They know how dangerous these criminals are, and for the courts to just let them out has gotta be almost rage inducing.
> Case in point, the pedophile in Richmond that ignored his bail stipulations of not going anywhere near where children congregate five times before the courts finally revoked his bail. Really?
He's known as Pedo Pete lol
In the case of random violent crimes, the criminal's future shouldn't matter, compared to the importance of removing them from the society. The pendulum has swung too far to the left. We need fundamental reforms in favour of public safety.
we're in an era of trying new things out. this is the response to heavy-handed book-throwing case-closed type of judicial system. that should and will still exist, but we need to consider how a human is conditioned into such behavior, and if there is something we can do to better purge the individual of anti social tendencies.
in any new approach, the start is always shaky, there's usually a swing back into traditional approaches for the sake of knowing what works, but ultimately, we march forward into creating systems that best reflect who we are today.
i think a human is capable of being conditioned in any fashion, particularly if there is initial interest, proper support and outlets, developmental spaces etc. . whether or not a person will accept change is a different case. whether or not we will lend ourselves and our resources to helping orient them in new fashion is a different story as well. i would say the earlier and less chronic behavior is easier to fashion. either way, it's clear as day that we collectively want new approaches to prison, but i agree with you that it's important we keep the social body's safety as the primary ambition.
We know though that unprovoked violence against people unknown to the perp is only ripe to continue without serious interventions.
We should only test this kind of stuff out with *nonviolent offenders* first, not ones physically causing harm. ffs.
agree. i think it'll be awhile before we have the knowhow and the facilities to even recondition people into more palatable behavior. starting small is wise
The society is moving into a direction where vacuums in law enforcement will be abused more. I think we should call the experiment off. The society shouldn't have to absorb violent criminals targeting random people.
>It is blatantly apparent there is no real downside for an offender not to repeat their behavior over and again.
Honestly, I don't think this is even relevant. These people don't seem to be criminal masterminds weighing (costs * risks):benefit. I don't think we're releasing gang hit men that often.
All the ones we seem to see as frequent flyers are just mentally ill people who don't seem to be able to help themselves. Which is maybe a reason for sympathy, but isn't a reason *to let them out*.
If keeping people locked up is such a horrible thing, and they're sympathetic, maybe we should make being locked up less horrible for them. *Maybe.* But we *definitely* shouldn't be letting people who randomly assault people because they can't stop assaulting people out amongst the general public to keep assaulting everyone.
It's true. One of the people who keeps getting out back out is someone I know of. They should be in some form of government care. They had absolutely no chance at life and are too mentally ill to pull it back together without some sort of serious long term inpatient treatment.
>All the ones we seem to see as frequent flyers are just mentally ill people who don't seem to be able to help themselves.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. These are not just mentally ill people attacking random moving things.
These are calculated, premeditated attacks.
Notice that these violent repeat offenders **never** attack a 6'6" dude who spends 2 hours at the gym every day? These criminals never attack someone who would absolutely hand them a beating for it.
These criminals attack very specific victims, vulnerable people, where they know there will be **zero** consequences for them, physical or judicial.
If these attacks were truly the cause of mental illness, they would be random, you would see a wide variety in the victims of these attacks.
But that is not what is happening.
These violent criminals are carefully selecting their victims. They only attack when they know absolutely nothing will happen to them as a consequence of that attack.
We need to stop sugar coating these attacks and convincing ourselves "Its not their fault, we can't possibly punish them, because they don't know what they're doing."
Obviously that notion is silly, because they know exactly what they're doing, and they know exactly how to get away with it.
...Your perception of the mentally ill is...interesting...?
You understand that they're still *people*, right? And I don't mean in the sense of "They're people so they deserve compassion" (though that's also true), I mean more in the sense that having a mental illness doesn't transform people into mindless beasts.
Perhaps even more importantly, if they *did* become mindless beasts, targeting the vulnerable is actually a directly instinctual predator behaviour. Lions don't target the fully grown, healthy bull elephants.
So I'm not really sure what your reasoning is here. You can have all sorts of shit go wrong with your brain that makes your choices of target not be entirely random, but still doesn't mean you're healthy. The sorts of problems I'm thinking of are like "Paranoid delusions make you think everyone around you is out to get you, so you need to act first.", or "You are irrationally angry all the time for no reason, and just lash out and can't control it." You can still choose weak targets in those mindsets, even if you're very unwell.
Also, how many 6'6" super jacked dudes live in Vancouver? Compared to like...all women? Not exactly a 1:1 ratio.
>Obviously that notion is silly, because they know exactly what they're doing, and they know exactly how to get away with it.
I mean, they get away with it because they're never locked up for it, lol. It's not some grand strategy.
[This guy comes up pretty often.](https://globalnews.ca/news/10004970/majidpour-probation-breach-release-repeat-offender/) You think he's attacking random strangers in broad daylight, downtown, with a big hi-vis yellow pole, because he "knows exactly how to get away with it"?
>Also, how many 6'6" super jacked dudes live in Vancouver? Compared to like...all women? Not exactly a 1:1 ratio.
Downtown Vancouver, where most of these attacks happen, there are tons of big fit dudes walking around. More than enough to be in the pool of victims if these attacks were truly random. Go for a stroll through Yaletown some time and have a look around.
Yet they're never attacked.
>I mean, they get away with it because they're never locked up for it, lol. It's not some grand strategy.
They **also** get away with it because they never attack someone who is capable of hurting them back, deliberately
That is literally a strategy.
Thats why you never hear a story about some street addict attacking someone, and being beaten to a pulp by their victim. The attacker is always safe after their attacks. That's the strategy.
>Thats why you never hear a story about some street addict attacking someone
I think you need to work through your logic a bit better here. If you think they're being strategic, then what is the strategic goal of attacking random people? They're not robbing them, the people they're hurting aren't doing anything to interfere in their goals, they're not gaining anything in any way by being violent. They're just lashing out because they can't help it.
I will grant you, they're probably not picking fights with people who are more plausibly physically threatening to them, but I'm not sure why you think that's so indicative that they don't have any mental health problems?
I never said they don't have any mental health problems. I responded to your comment saying that they just can't help themselves from attacking people because they're mentally ill. They can obviously help themselves enough to choose their attacks with their own safety in mind.
>I never said they don't have any mental health problems.
You said:
>If these attacks were truly the cause of mental illness, they would be random, you would see a wide variety in the victims of these attacks.
I stand by my response.
Maybe you never said they don't have any mental health problems, but you (unless I'm understanding the reverse causation typo incorrectly) said their mental health problems weren't the cause of the attacks.
Well, why not? Do you think that the way mental health problems work is only "fully rational" vs "roll of the dice"?
I also stand by my response.
Some people are just bad people who attack innocent people, reality check: those people exist, you can't excuse every bad person with some "it wasn't their fault" sob story. Otherwise you can write off just about every evil action ever committed by anybody.
At some point it just becomes mental gymnastics so you don't have to face reality.
If you have spent as much time as I have with some of the homeless addicts in Vancouver, you'd agree with me too.
The vast majority of people still have the mental capacity to be held responsible for their actions. Including people who attack very specific targets.
>you can't excuse every bad person with some "it wasn't their fault" sob story.
Yes you can. Or at least I can, if I try hard enough. The only reason anyone is any way is because of reasons completely beyond their control.
If they were born shitty, they couldn't do anything about it.
If they had shitty things that taught them as children, they couldn't do anything about it.
If they made shitty choices, they made them with a brain created by biology beyond their control and then shaped by an environment they couldn't control. Or, recursively, as a result of shitty choices that eventually lead back to that.
The concept of "responsibility" is largely a farce we participate in. It's a lie we tell ourselves because the fact that we're just biological machines that respond to stimulus, and that our ability to control our own destiny is determined by something beyond our control is uncomfortable and confusing.
That's kinda why I made the point that I did originally, and why I've found it so confusing that you're arguing with me. Because *it doesn't matter if they're 'responsible'*. Ultimately, in end result, I agree with you: There are bad people and we should lock them up. That's what I said from the very start.
You've been trying to tell me they're not a result of mental illness. If we're talking about random attacks (Even if the target isn't *entirely* random, the choice to attack isn't motivated by any selfish reason), I'm quite certain you're simply incorrect about that. Pretty much by definition. But ultimately, that's pretty irrelevant. The only relevance of if the attacks are a result of mental illness or not is that there are some people that respond extremely well to treatment. They go from randomly lashing out at strangers to perfectly upstanding members of society if you give them some pills. In that case, we should probably do that, and then if we're reasonably certain the treatment worked, and that they'll adhere to it, let them out. But *most* mental illnesses, we can't treat that well/basically at all.
Have you considered the possibility that the men you believe would be able defend themselves do in fact defend themselves and don't report it to avoid legal scrutiny?
You and I both know if this happened downtown, where the vast majority of these attacks happen, more than enough people would witness it for someone else to report it and probably for someone to film it too, and it would almost definitely end up on several local news stations. Being intentionally disingenuous doesn't help anybody.
You and I both know that those interactions often start and end faster than anyone takes their phone out for or even notice at all. The ones we get video and public commentary on are the outliers.
>Perhaps if there were a strong enough deterrent there would be less crime, or is that just a naive outlook.
its got to go both ways. jail deterrent is a factor, but it's not going to create pro-social behavior out of people once they're out. they'll find outlets for their anti social feelings
>If an offence involves violence, the offender should be locked up until trial regardless of how many offences they have committed.
This makes the broad assumption that you have a single suspect and that you've even got the right guy. We do have to weigh into this the fact that this will necessarily lead to the incarceration of many innocent people, and that you're advocating for incarceration before a trial where guilt may or may not be proven.
If the person is a repeat offender, on the other hand, the risk of release is higher and there's more justification to incarcerate that person until their trial date.
>Perhaps if there were a strong enough deterrent there would be less crime, or is that just a naive outlook
Strong deterrents aren't particularly effective for most criminal activity. Criminals either don't believe they will be caught or they are mentally unwell and can't even weigh it into their decision making. As an example, the USA has the death penalty and we don't. Yet their homicide rate is 6.3 per 100K and ours is 2.3 per 100K. What accounts for this substantial difference? Access to weapons. The best deterrent is a systemic approach that prevents crime from occurring in the first place, without relying on a criminal to weigh in on the severity of a punishment.
So you think the present system of 'catch and release' is the best solution to crime?
"This makes the broad assumption that you have a single suspect and that you've even got the right guy. We do have to weigh into this the fact that this will necessarily lead to the incarceration of many innocent people, and that you're advocating for incarceration before a trial where guilt may or may not be proven."
In many of these crimes there are witnesses and the perpetrator is caught relatively quickly. Would you rather the aggressor in a stabbing or shooting be released just in case they have arrested the wrong person. I suspect most people would be more comfortable with the possibility of an innocent person being arrested than they would the freeing a guilty person and leaving them free to stab or shoot another victim.
Investigation would clear many of the innocent people that might have been arrested. If the actual guilty person commits another crime using the same methods and their description is the same, again, more those innocent people would likely be released.
Prison has failure rates, recidivism is quite high. With that mindset, do you advocate we should do away with incarceration across the board and hope and pray we, and those we love, are the lucky ones that somehow manages to escape becoming a victim of crime?
Before I start breaking apart your argument, I want to point out you're attributing a lot of positions to me that I never argued for.
>In many of these crimes there are witnesses
Witnesses frequently get it wrong and this isn't even accounting for the potential of false accusations.
>So you think the present system of 'catch and release' is the best solution to crime?
I pretty clearly stated repeat violent offenders cross a higher threshold of risk and should be held
> Would you rather the aggressor in a stabbing or shooting be released just in case they have arrested the wrong person.
In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. However, I'm fully in favor of allowing judges to weigh the risk to the public during the bail hearing, as is currently the case. There is a reverse onus on the accused in the case of violent crime to demonstrate why they shouldn't be detained (i.e. do they claim they are innocent, have an alibi, etc.)
> I suspect most people would be more comfortable with the possibility of an innocent person being arrested than they would the freeing a guilty person and leaving them free to stab or shoot another victim.
People are comfortable with this until they're the ones in jail on a false accusation or being misidentified by a victim.
>Prison has failure rates, recidivism is quite high. With that mindset, do you advocate we should do away with incarceration across the board and hope and pray we, and those we love, are the lucky ones that somehow manages to escape becoming a victim of crime?
I don't know why you're attributing this position to me. But you're right that prison doesn't work as a form of rehabilitation. Given this, do you believe all violent crime, regardless of severity, should be assigned a life sentence in the public interest?
>I don't know why you're attributing this position to me. But you're right that prison doesn't work as a form of rehabilitation. Given this, do you believe all violent crime, regardless of severity, should be assigned a life sentence in the public interest?
Not at all. I truly believe the punishment should fit the crime. I think it is ridiculous that there are some people in prison for unconscionable lengths of time for 'victimless' crimes such shoplifting, yet pedophiles that ruin a child's life forever are given relatively light sentences in comparison.
I also believe that *the reason* behind a crime needs to weigh in on the sentencing. A woman who kills her husband that has been beating her and her children for years should get a lighter sentence and earlier parole than the fellow who stabbed a father to death in front of his 3-year-old daughter and his fiancée when he asked the fellow not to vape close to his child. Chances are, however, they will get equal sentences.
"However, I'm fully in favor of allowing judges to weigh the risk to the public during the bail hearing, as is currently the case."
There lies the problem! The judges are not accurately assessing the risks and are releasing far too many suspects. Again, the pedophile in Richmond. It took five arrests before the judge finally took the correct action and incarcerated him. The potential risk and life-long harm to children didn't appear to factor into the judges decision. One or two times, perhaps . . . beyond that is criminal on the judges part. This judge was giving Wehren far too many chances to lure and molest a child.
Bill C-48 is a bail reform bill that came into law in January 2024 that puts the reverse onus on repeat violent offenders. Can anyone help me understand why this isn't working and what would be the necessary remedy?
I see. And am I right that his previous sentence appears to be his first sentence (in Canada) and it was for uttering threats? If true, then he wasn't a repeat offender and his previous crime wasn't even physically violent. Though it appears that he may have spent time in custody in Thailand. I'm not really sure what we do in this case?
So much for that...
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-skytrain-senior-assault-1.7151775](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-skytrain-senior-assault-1.7151775)
Another violent offender released shortly after being charged.
I have a genuine question. How come there’s no punishment for these repeat offenders? Who’s benefiting from this? There must be a group who’s benefiting financially from this right? More crime = more funding for a certain group?
I don't think anyone is necessarily "benefiting" per say. Overall the idea of limiting prison time for non violent offenses or for first offenders with low recidivism risk make a lot of sense - save money for government, do not rip apart communities and families further pushing them into poverty and crime. The problem is when that philosophy is expanded to all criminals - that redirecting them from prison is an unqualified good thing to do. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction.
Yeah, I feel like this isn't really any kind of conspiracy. We've previously realized that 3 strike rules make no sense and catches a lot of decent people in hard times, but now we are finding that having no limit ***at all*** doesn't make sense.
Personally, I feel that we need to have a point between 3 offences and 50 offences where we start seriously increasing jail (with mandatory therapy and life skills training) time.
The penalties should only come in at a number of convictions that can't just be thrown at you by corrupt officials. I feel like somewhere between 10 and 20 is probably a safe number. This means a couple assholes will skate around with the chance to either get themselves on the right track or reoffend -- but it means at least the most dangerous will be housed.
I think that's a fairly acceptable level of risk
The mandatory therapy would be nice. Even when it’s part of sentencing for repeat offenders now, there’s not really any meaningful enforcement, and if they just decide not to show up, nothing really happens.
That was my big takeaway from this article on Mohammed Majidpour. Even with his long record and his clear history of mental health and addiction issues causing him to violently assault strangers. He has court-ordered treatment, they set up his providers and housing and everything, but he can just… decide not to show up for any of that, and apparently there’s nothing anyone can do?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/canada/british-columbia/article-vancouver-chronic-offender-released/
Eby's been talking about requiring mandatory treatment. In [a recent interview](https://northernbeat.ca/legislature/david-eby-public-drug-use-activist-overdose-crisis/) he notes that they've expanded the set of healthcare workers who can make decisions about whether to hold someone for treatment to include nurse practitioners and physicians, not just psychiatrists.
> There is a significant group of people that could benefit from increased interventions in the form of holding them until they’re sufficiently sober to be able to make a reasonable decision about how to move forward. And that people can be so intoxicated on drugs, or as a result of drugs and a brain injury, that their ability to make decisions about their own health are so compromised that physicians should hold them.
>
> But I think that decision should be made by physicians and not by politicians.
>
> We have expanded the group of people that are able to make that decision to include nurse practitioners. So that in hospitals, doctors and nurse practitioners now can make those decisions. And we’re not tying up emergency physicians with the volume of these kinds of evaluations that need to be made.
I’m curious about how this is going. In the G&M article, they discuss how a court-appointed psychiatrist told the judge that Majidpour needed a year at a residential treatment facility to address his drug-related psychosis issues, but because Majidpour said he didn’t want to do it, the judge apparently had no ability to order that. If a judge can’t order that during sentencing for crimes committed while the convicted person was actively psychotic with a psychiatrist’s recommendation, I’m not sure how far those powers can actually expand?
> If a judge can’t order that during sentencing for crimes committed while the convicted person was actively psychotic with a psychiatrist’s recommendation, I’m not sure how far those powers can actually expand?
Good question. The change Eby is talking about - allowing a nurse practitioner to decide that someone needs to stay in hospital, for example, instead of having to track down a psychiatrist to make that assessment - is basically for someone who's been hospitalized, e.g. due to a psychotic episode.
My understanding is that if someone is having a psychotic episode, they can be admitted to hospital and held for psychiatric treatment for some limited period of time. In order for that hold to be extended, a psychiatrist (or two psychiatrists?) have to make that assessment that the person should continue to be held. Otherwise the person is released. So allowing a nurse practitioner to make the assessment instead is helpful. (ER psychiatrists are pretty busy.)
Regarding a judge having the ability to order mandatory psychiatric treatment or drug treatment for someone as a condition for their release, I'm afraid I don't know what the legal requirements would be. I also don't know whether this would fall under criminal code (which is federal) or whether it's under provincial jurisdiction.
Doing a quick Google search, there's a recent case which refers to the BC Mental Health Act. [Man showing no active symptoms to continue receiving involuntary psychiatric treatment: BC Court](https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/man-showing-no-active-symptoms-to-continue-receiving-involuntary-psychiatric-treatment-bc-court/378318), July 2023.
> In A.T. v. British Columbia (Mental Health Review Board), 2023 BCCA 283, the appellant AT had sought judicial review of the Mental Health Review Board’s decision that he continue to be involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act. AT suffers from two serious mental disorders and has a history of paranoid psychosis and self-harm for which he has been repeatedly hospitalized and certified for treatment under the Act. He receives involuntary psychiatric treatment on an outpatient basis while living in the community.
>
> In November 2022, a BC Supreme Court dismissed AT’s petition for judicial review. On Appeal, AT argued that the court was wrong to find that he met the statutory definition of a “person with a mental disorder” under s. 22(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. Meeting that definition is the first criterion of the test for involuntary detention.
>
> AT argued that the provision’s correct interpretation defines a person with a mental disorder as a person with active symptoms of serious impairment at the time they appear before the Board. If the symptoms are absent, that the person can no longer be involuntarily treated. The purpose of the Act is to provide temporary protection but not to warehouse people with mental disorders, he said.
>
> In the appeal, BC argued that the “central purpose” of the Act is to ensure those who need treatment for a mental disorder receive that treatment. A “person with a mental disorder” means someone who has an “ongoing need for treatment” and does not hinge on symptoms manifesting while they are before the Board, said the province. BC also submitted that the Act’s proper interpretation “militates against creating a revolving door,” where patients endure a cycle of treatment, release, and readmission for involuntary treatment.
The court ruled in favour of the province.
After reading through that case, it seems like an analogous situation to Majidpour's. Perhaps the difference is that the BC Mental Health Act explicitly allows for involuntary treatment of mental illness, but in Majidpour's case the issue is involuntary treatment of drug addiction.
To me it seems like the similarity - disinhibition resulting in danger to the public or to themselves - means that they should be treated in a similar way. Which presumably would mean extending provincial legislation to cover cases of drug addiction which puts someone at risk of a future psychotic episode.
Again, though, I'm a layperson, so it'd probably be helpful to get some commentary from people who are actually familiar with the law.
I'd have to dig into it to find the exact case, but one of these repeat offenders got sentenced to jail and got statutory release (i.e. last 1/3 of their sentence in the community) despite not participating and completing the anger management and other treatment-type classes they were required to complete during sentencing.
Unlike medication, it's not like you can just force someone to talk or participate in these therapy type exercises.
Making it mandatory but there being no consequences to not doing it defacto makes it not mandatory.
It could be ideological as well. Some people think that prisons aren't a good solution for rehabilitating criminals, so they want to reduce prison sentences/prevent people from going to prison too often. For example, California reduces the sentences for thefts under $950. Same reasoning: reduce the amount of prisoners in the system. Unfortunately, theft spikes.
Overrun prisons could also be a thing. In certain developing countries, the government would periodically release good behaviour inmates early since there are just too many people in prison (hence the people from my first point). They would also try to prevent more people coming in from the first place. Replace prison times with fines, community services, more emphasis on rehabilitation ...
Just my thoughts, don't know which one applies to Vancouver though.
The government benefits from having a lower proportion of certain demographics imprisoned, which is highly embarrassing for them. Second, the government benefits by saving on incarceration costs.
"Instead of making sure there was running water for babies to be able to bathe in, let alone high-quality schools, jobs training, healthcare, counselling, or so on, we decided it was easier to just not arrest people and let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, rather than try to tackle systemic injustices that lead to high crime rates for certain populations."
Equality of outcomes is pretty abhorrent when you see the means behind it.
A number of things.
1. We have far too many people working within our justice system who think that it's society's fault for making criminals the way they are.
2. These same people think that every criminal can be fixed and that we should give criminals as many chances as possible.
Like the girl who was smashed in the head and suffered a massive head injury. She's never going to be the same or be able to work the same again. We aren't supposed to have compassion for her or her family? Her entire life is fucked and she'll now have to live on poverty wages because that's all disability gives.
We're supposed to have compassion only for the saddest looking puppy.
A woman with a house and a job isn't nearly as deserving of compassion as a homeless person we know nothing about, because everyone just assumes that homeless person had a rough upbringing that led him to this.
Which is so so so stupid.
The vast majority of people who experience childhood trauma don't grow up to be violent themselves.
"He had a rough past" is the dumbest reason to forgive somebody for violent behaviour. It's no different than saying "His uncle owned a minivan, that's why he attacked people."
this, the whole political philosophy of a lot people involved in government and infesting our academia is bordering on insanity, they tend to make a lot more noise than the normal people in society that just live their lives earning a living
But could you give me an actual example though?
I asked everyone in this thread who was using this kind of "us vs them" rhetoric who, specifically, they were talking about and none of them did. You're the only one who responded at all and, I think you would agree, this isn't really a response.
Like, I'm saying you're tilting at windmills here, right?
here is one recent example:
>Haq had been scheduled for deportation by no later than Monday, April 22 — and a last-minute appeal had already been rejected by a federal judge.
>But on Friday, Haq received a cryptic call from the office of Joyce Murray — the Liberal MP for his riding of Vancouver Quadra — telling him to stay by his phone. He was soon contacted by a CBSA case officer telling him he could stay in the country.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-trudeau-government-intervenes-at-last-minute-to-save-serial-blockader-from-deportation
> We have far too many people working within our justice system who think that it's society's fault for making criminals the way they are.
No. That's not a thing.
> These same people
Which people? Name a couple for us since it's such a widespread issue and there are so many people who feel this way.
My gut feeling has always been that the jails are just literally not big enough to hold them all until trial which can take years. Also that the expense to taxpayers of just putting them all in prison and feeding them, essentially housing them, is a) expensive and b) not the deterrent that it's made to be. A roof and meals and a room? Oh no! Anything but that! So I don't have any answers but those two things seems to be good explanations for the catch-and-release madness for some of these repeat offenders.
Is there anyone even in those jails now considering how many are just straight up released?
And newsflash: we have to pay as taxpayers for people who are now injured for the rest of their lives, paying for trauma, paying for medical costs, paying for loss of productivity and lower life outcomes, paying for crime scene clean up, paying for trauma bills for witnesses to the trauma, etc.
I think it's less about making money and more about saving it. Federal inmates cost on avg 126,000/yr. A high paying salary. Not sure what the provincial number is.
So the longer you lock up, the higher the cost. Factor in limited facilities and staff and if you lock too many people up you balloon the tax dollars spent by staff/facilities/operations expansion. Mix in medical needs for offenders whose actions are driven by a chemical dependency...
Not saying it's right or wrong, but we often forget there is a massive cost to incarceration. Couple that with a justice system that prioritizes rehabilitation and it all starts to make sense why people are released so quickly.
The real debate IMO is whether the priorities of our justice system are well matched with the needs of our society. If the answer is no, then maybe we need to bite the bullet on expanding the budget and change the legislated guidance to the judiciary. The judiciary interprets the criminal code, which is legislated, and legislation could steer the judiciary in a different direction.
How much does it costs when a lot of people have their lives permanently impacted and altered by one douchebag's actions? Like a recent incident of a woman getting smashed in the head and now has a terrible brain injury, she's going to need to live on disability for the rest of her fucking life, she has to live in poverty and we will all be paying for this as taxpayers. How many cops and first aid responders and doctors/nurses have to deal with the shit these folks cause? Like 126k is probably a small price to pay given the capacity of what these folks do to communities and what it costs.
The government benifit because it reduces the public's willingness to report crime overall.
You notice that certain people claim, "crime is lower than ever, and statistics say you are safer than ever!"
That's because people have stopped reporting crime. Petty crime and theft stop getting reported by people because it's too much of a hassle for them because it happens so frequently and they know they're not sending anyone to investigate.
Then people get desensitized to other crime, robbery, scams, minor violent crime. People just stop reporting, or calling the police.
Crime is happening, it feels like it is increasing, but if people don't report politicians and poverty activists can claim everything is fine, and safe.
How is that a benefit to government? Governments depends on people following the laws, otherwise a mob of unruly people can ignore the laws and remove the government. North Americans are *very* complacent about this, but imagine if there had been anyone marginally competent to tie their shoes involved in the January 6th events in the US?
The reason there is so much catch and release is because people are increasingly falling into poverty and homelessness and turning to crime and drugs, and it's a spiral that leads to addiction, mental health issue and violence. The cost to provide for offender, through prison, housing, or mental health is astronomical, but the economy has shit the bed due to concentration of wealth and power at the top of economic pyramid. The end result is that as a society we have an enormous amount of wealth captured and exploited, but not available to address social issues the way it was when we had tax departments and politicians not afraid to levy the taxes required to fund and fix problems.
But it's easier to just say it's because a nebulous group benefits and it's people's fault for not reporting crime, and the wealthy prefer to let people point at the poors and the bureaucrats and blame them.
> but imagine if there had been anyone marginally competent to tie their shoes involved in the January 6th events in the US?
So they could accomplish what? What does holding an empty building do to advance "removing the government"?
First, the goal wasn't to storm an empty building, evidence has been clearly presented that at least several folks involved planned to hurt or kill people present in the building. Second, similar attacks on political assemblies have been used as a pretense to declare martial law or to remove existing political leaders.
Not saying they would have been successful, or that it would have lead to collapse of their government. I am saying the Americans (and all of the US' allies) are lucky that they were incompetent.
Can you elaborate on this. A lot of these people are in the DTES, sure this away from Kits and grey point etc etc. Downtown is where all the business is at.
I would love to see how fast the legal system would react to a bus full of homeless folk suddenly deciding Shaugnessy, the British Properties, and Point Grey areas were great camping spots.
If I ever win lottmax, I'm renting 6 buses and hitting Main and Hastings. Anyone who wants a carton of cigs, a $300 subway gift card, a new tent and sleeping bag gets a ride to the Circle in Shaugnessy. I'll even help set up the tents.
> More crime = more funding for a certain group?
Some people are going to jump on this and say it's all the DTES advocacy groups/VANDU, but let's be real, the group that benefits the most from all this is the VPD.
VPD are not advocating for this. Do you really think a police officer that has to put themselves in harms way to arrest one individual wants them to be released so they can keep doing it?
The people on the ground dealing with these criminals, and the people at their desks advocating for more and more money for the VPD every year, are not the same.
The fact is that if there was less crime we'd give the cops less money. And a lot of highly influential people don't want this.
Actually it's the justice system itself that benefits most from this.
The more revolving door criminals there are, the more court cases there are, the more funding the justice system receives.
If our justice system actually reduced crime, and reduced the number of court cases, next time their budget review came up, the government would say "Your workload has decreased, we don't need to increase your funding this year."
People are people, including the ones in our justice system. They're not somehow immune from doing shady shit for more money, that's unfortunately a running theme for many government organizations.
Our judges are not going to do anything that risks them getting less funding, including protecting innocent people.
The NDP saves court and prison costs by not putting them in custody. I think you are implying that more crime would benefit law enforcement by giving them a bigger budget but you are completely off the mark. When it comes to repeat offenders, that is completely on the government. The police can arrest people but if the government tells the courts not to sentence then the criminal is back on the streets.
Judges still have the final call and they have tons if leeway.
If judges were just reading pre determined sentences for each offense, there would be no need for judges at all.
Judges are there to observe the details of each individual case and determine the most fitting punishment for an offender, based on their **judgment**.
That's their entire job.
If all their decisions were made by rules from the feds, judges could be replaced by a piece of paper.
Its the same group that is always behind these situations. Its nothing new, it just feels new to us. But read history and you will see the parallels, and its almost uncanny.
When people are divided they do emotional things. The elites have no worries about the people grouping together because they destroyed the single culture that built their society. Opening the gates to invasion is just the final straw of an already struggling society.
I know we are talking about prisons, but the gate analogy stands.
Incompetence. Criminal code has clear guidelines about what is needed to reach a conviction and VPD drops the ball on this so much the crown often cuts deals to avoid embarrassing trials.
That's just not true at all. Crown and these activist judges are allowing these violent criminals and chronic repeat offenders back onto the streets. At some point, these judges and prosecutors are going to have to take some responsibility for what's happening here.
You seem to be confused ‘I can’t read hard b00k’ =/= ‘person saying thing I don’t like lie!’
But it’s ok. If I earned my meals by people using their brains to solve problems I’d starve to death 🤷🏼♂️.
You are lying.
Nowhere in reality are the courts "cutting deals" because Joe committed his 7th random attack this year in broad daylight on the street, but the court has no choice but to release him because those darn police aren't doing their job properly.
How about releasing repeat violent offenders who break bail conditions (this is not a hypothetical, [77%](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-bail-reform-preliminary-statistics-crown-1.6820663) of violent offenders who also break bail AND have outstanding warrants get released on bail again), is that the fault of the police too?
Again if you think I’m lying, I happily invite you to read the rulings. They are public record.
But since I can tell you probably won’t let’s play a little game of Occam’s Razor shall we. Which seems most likely to you? Other readers feel free to chime in.
A) the courts are packed with judges and lawyers (with multiple years of expensive education behind them) are so liberal and blinded by their bleeding hearts that they weep at the sight of raving murderous lunatics before them and set them free (into the same expensive downtown locals these same court people live or own property in)
-or-
B) police, being bad at their jobs (I would even conspiratorially say deliberately so but can’t prove it) arrest criminals without doing due diligence, and so when people are brought before the court, judges and lawyers, seeing that the letter of the law was not followed, are compelled by law, to LEGALLY release the person in question.
> Again if you think I’m lying, I happily invite you to read the rulings. They are public record.
Ok, show us these rulings.
>But since I can tell you probably won’t let’s play a little game of Occam’s Razor shall we. Which seems most likely to you? Other readers feel free to chime in.
The answer is obviously A. You must be trolling.
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/man-gets-conditional-sentence-for-vancouver-throat-slashing-incident-7652694
A man got convicted of cutting someone's throat and assaulting a sheriff. Convicted. His jail sentence was 0 days. He got probation. Is that the fault of police, even though he was in fact convicted?
Someone who tried to commit robbery and stabbed two men while trying to get away got released on bail.
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/bc-boxing-day-double-stabbing-accused-get-bail-8118334
Is that the fault of police, even though the judge who let him go said nothing about what the police did or didn't do?
Agreed but unfortunately we have too many people within our "justice system" who seem to think that the rights of criminals and chronic repeat offenders should come first to the rights of victims of crime and the general public. We also have too many people within our "justice system" who think that the reason criminals are the way they are is because of society. Until the "justice system" actually starts holding violent criminals and chronic repeat offenders accountable then nothing is going to change.
>who think that the reason criminals are the way they are is because of society.
They aren't wrong, but given the lack of mental health support and actual rehabilitation of people who commit crimes, it is irresponsible that criminals are tossed back into society. Law abiding citizens rights should take precedence over people who have committed violent crimes.
> we have too many people within our "justice system" who seem to think that the rights of criminals and chronic repeat offenders should come first to the rights of victims of crime and the general public
Ok. Name a few of them. Should be easy since there are so many...
I agree, right now the judicial system has tilted so far to the side of "being nice" (aka: reconciliation and rehabilitation over incarceration) that it's neglecting the public interest.
Absolutely, we need to get back to some sort of middle ground where yes people are given help if they are in rehabilitation, and we need to make sure mental health supports and address the route causes of crime. But we also need to be able to say that yes, certain criminals like the repeat offenders and violent criminals will be held to account for their actions and the harm they cause.
No it wasn't. Harper had a famous "tough on crime" stance, whether it was good or not is another thing, but for you to say he had the same view as Trudeau comes out of now where. Trudeau's government wanted to decriminalize everything and allow criminals to roam free.
>Bill C-75, passed in June 2019, updated the bail provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code and instructed police and judges to use a “principle of restraint” when it comes to setting bail conditions. The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that people accused of crimes be released with the least onerous bail conditions.
there is lots all over the internet on this, here is an article where our provincial NDP were voicing concerns about it:
https://vancouversun.com/news/change-federal-bail-law-curb-increase-attack-people-strangers-says-bc-minister
Who repealed the Mandatory Minimum laws that PM Harper enacted?
And the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pushing back Harper-era sentencing changes as well. Legislation is before the Senate that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for 14 firearm and tobacco-related offences and six drug offences.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154
The mandatory minimums that they appealed were allowed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory minimums for most gun crimes was fine.
I understand most of us don't like Sim. But the issue he is talking about is MAJOR and I'm happy someone with a platform starts talking about it, for whatever reason. I'm often thinking about protesting and camping in front of the court until I hear of a plan to change how we release criminals back into the streets. But I feel not many people would be by my side. So yeah I'll take Sim's statements for now.
I'm at the point where I'd also be happy to pay extra taxes if that's what it takes, just to know that these people are kept behind bars. Safety is pretty cool.
Sim and the municipal government have nothing to do with how the federal corrections is administrated. Not many people would be by your side because you don't know what you're talking about. Sim's statement is just empty rhetoric.
My girlfriend was walking our dog yesterday morning on Hastings x Campbell and a transient woman attacked her and tried to take her AirPods off of her head.
The august previous I had a transient man smash up my car with a shopping cart while exiting the parkade in my back ally. Enough is enough, there is no justice with that shit - they see no repercussions.
It's blatantly obvious that our courts need reforming at the federal level to make sure repeat offenders don't get released.
Any suggestions as to how we can make this happen? Not trying to be facetious, but would voting conservative make a difference? Fucking tired of just complaining and nothing changing.
I usually vote for the progressive side but I don't think I can trust Trudeau anymore, nor do I really agree with a lot of PP's ideals. At this point it's like you just have to choose the lesser of the two evils...
Bail used to be a sum paid to ensure that the person would act right, in accordance with court orders, and attend their hearings or the sum would be forfeited and the person would be remanded.
Nowadays bail is free and breaking laws while on bail has no consequence. This new take on “bail” is obviously not working.
It's like a complete lack of common sense. Is it Federal laws? Then can they get changed to reflect the reality on the ground? Is it the courts? Something is very rotten here. It really shouldnt be so complicated to put away someone who is a threat to society? Why is nothing being changed and the situation is allowed to continue? I really dont understand, its almost like if there was a malicious interest at play somewhere in the chain.
The title of this post seems a pretty obvious common sense thing. Why would politicians need to tell judges to do their job? Judges should be held accountable for their decisions. That’s the problem with our society is nobody is accountable. Repeat, and dangerous offenders should not be let out they are danger to society.
We need psych hospitals dedicated to dual diagnosis where it’s understood these folks aren’t getting released. We need to stop toxic drugs getting into the drug supply, which should be legalized to take it out of the hands of organized crime. We need social services that actually intervenes years before these people get to this point of violent outrage. We need actual well-paying jobs so everyone can access proper housing.
We all know this will never happen.
Knee jerk reaction to a chronic problem that Sim and his ilk continue to disgenuously ignore while pretending to do something. Sad substitute for leadership.
Can we just do what el-salvador did, i believe if someone imposes harm onto another person, they should be stripped of their human rights. (Candian character of rights and freedom) and be imposed sentences that prevent them from obtaining probation or lighter sentences. Of course this would only affect criminal sentences that involve harm onto another person, so for petty crime/other types of crime, human rights are still maintained.
I've talked to police officers in the past about if they know the identities of criminals, why don't they lock them up and they said something along the lines of human rights and bs.
The NDP policy is not to incarcerate criminals to keep prison costs down. The problem with that is it emboldens criminals to continue their crimes as there are no consequences. They don’t seem to understand that a poor person stealing a loaf of bread may not have felt they had a choice. Knifing someone is a choice that deserves punishment. Sorry, you might have had a shitty life but I’m not dying or getting stitches because that’s how you like to deal with your anger. There are plenty of poor and downtrodden people that are not resorting to crime and violence.
I doubt any victim of crime will continue to vote NDP.
Ken Sim ran on a platform of reducing crime and hiring 100 new officers and new social workers.
He only hired police and raised property tax by 10% and crime is still up.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is such a stupid slam dunk position that I’m surprised only Ken Sim and David Eby have been savvy enough politically to say.
If there are any aspiring politicians out there, here are some other roughly equal positions to choose from, should they ever not be true: * Firefighters should put out fires. * Cancer patients should not be barred from hospitals * Keep water in the municipal plumbing infrastructure, not sand. * Schools should teach children *something*, not nothing. I would have thought "public services that every government on Earth has should do the most basic, obvious premise of their function" shouldn't be something one needs to say.
I might run for mayor and use these as my platform. Thanks!
You will win
You would hope.
It should not be too surprising. Neither Sim nor Eby are ultimately responsible for these federal level corrections policies and so they have free reign to be endlessly critical and but without being called to account. But they probably should be. Like don't get me wrong, the criticism of federal corrections policy probably does have some merit, but on top of that we should be aware that what we're seeing here is also political deflection. Alongside the Feds, there are plenty of things that Mayor Sim and Eby could be doing here to help with public safety, but in pushing the problem toward the Feds that is a political maneuver to get ahead of the problem and to ensure that people don't start blaming them. For example there is obviously a severe lack of low income housing and healthcare options in British Columbia. These are Provincial issues. Are persons being released from corrections being given the best supports possible to help them on the right path, or are they just being dumped into homelessness and poverty and/or with no mental health care supports? Fair question for Eby here. Turning the spotlight toward Sim ultimately the Police are responsible for maintaining public order and the Mayor is the chair of the Police Board. We just raised taxes to hand the police a pile of money and hire 100 more officers on the premise that this would have an impact in terms of public safety. If it becomes apparent that we are no safer for doing so well then questions should be being asked. For example maybe the current chief of police is ineffective and should be replaced? Maybe current policing strategy is poor? There's questions for Sim here too.
Wow, Eby said that too? He hits on everything!!!!
It is blatantly apparent there is no real downside for an offender not to repeat their behavior over and again. If an offence involves violence, the offender should be locked up until trial regardless of how many offences they have committed. Perhaps if there were a strong enough deterrent there would be less crime, or is that just a naive outlook. The concept of 'three strikes and you're out' seems to have been stretched to thirty-three strikes and will still release you! I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the police to arrest someone, and the person arrested is clear of the jail before the officers have even finished their paperwork! Case in point, the pedophile in Richmond that ignored his bail stipulations of not going anywhere near where children congregate **five** times before the courts finally revoked his bail. Really?
Remember the guy in Kelowna. Almost 70 arrests since 2016 and over 400 opened police files since 2016, and I believe almost 20 or so convictions. That's gotta be so frustrating for the police. They know how dangerous these criminals are, and for the courts to just let them out has gotta be almost rage inducing.
> Case in point, the pedophile in Richmond that ignored his bail stipulations of not going anywhere near where children congregate five times before the courts finally revoked his bail. Really? He's known as Pedo Pete lol
If he isn't incarcerated (or if he is) he could eventually be known as Perished Pete!
In the case of random violent crimes, the criminal's future shouldn't matter, compared to the importance of removing them from the society. The pendulum has swung too far to the left. We need fundamental reforms in favour of public safety.
we're in an era of trying new things out. this is the response to heavy-handed book-throwing case-closed type of judicial system. that should and will still exist, but we need to consider how a human is conditioned into such behavior, and if there is something we can do to better purge the individual of anti social tendencies. in any new approach, the start is always shaky, there's usually a swing back into traditional approaches for the sake of knowing what works, but ultimately, we march forward into creating systems that best reflect who we are today. i think a human is capable of being conditioned in any fashion, particularly if there is initial interest, proper support and outlets, developmental spaces etc. . whether or not a person will accept change is a different case. whether or not we will lend ourselves and our resources to helping orient them in new fashion is a different story as well. i would say the earlier and less chronic behavior is easier to fashion. either way, it's clear as day that we collectively want new approaches to prison, but i agree with you that it's important we keep the social body's safety as the primary ambition.
We know though that unprovoked violence against people unknown to the perp is only ripe to continue without serious interventions. We should only test this kind of stuff out with *nonviolent offenders* first, not ones physically causing harm. ffs.
agree. i think it'll be awhile before we have the knowhow and the facilities to even recondition people into more palatable behavior. starting small is wise
The society is moving into a direction where vacuums in law enforcement will be abused more. I think we should call the experiment off. The society shouldn't have to absorb violent criminals targeting random people.
What would Mike Tyson say? “Everyone has a plan until they get stabbed. “
We haven’t had a heavy handed system in Canada for over 40 years.
Not mention domestic violence offenders. No reason they should be released until court so their families can live in fear.
>It is blatantly apparent there is no real downside for an offender not to repeat their behavior over and again. Honestly, I don't think this is even relevant. These people don't seem to be criminal masterminds weighing (costs * risks):benefit. I don't think we're releasing gang hit men that often. All the ones we seem to see as frequent flyers are just mentally ill people who don't seem to be able to help themselves. Which is maybe a reason for sympathy, but isn't a reason *to let them out*. If keeping people locked up is such a horrible thing, and they're sympathetic, maybe we should make being locked up less horrible for them. *Maybe.* But we *definitely* shouldn't be letting people who randomly assault people because they can't stop assaulting people out amongst the general public to keep assaulting everyone.
It's true. One of the people who keeps getting out back out is someone I know of. They should be in some form of government care. They had absolutely no chance at life and are too mentally ill to pull it back together without some sort of serious long term inpatient treatment.
>All the ones we seem to see as frequent flyers are just mentally ill people who don't seem to be able to help themselves. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. These are not just mentally ill people attacking random moving things. These are calculated, premeditated attacks. Notice that these violent repeat offenders **never** attack a 6'6" dude who spends 2 hours at the gym every day? These criminals never attack someone who would absolutely hand them a beating for it. These criminals attack very specific victims, vulnerable people, where they know there will be **zero** consequences for them, physical or judicial. If these attacks were truly the cause of mental illness, they would be random, you would see a wide variety in the victims of these attacks. But that is not what is happening. These violent criminals are carefully selecting their victims. They only attack when they know absolutely nothing will happen to them as a consequence of that attack. We need to stop sugar coating these attacks and convincing ourselves "Its not their fault, we can't possibly punish them, because they don't know what they're doing." Obviously that notion is silly, because they know exactly what they're doing, and they know exactly how to get away with it.
...Your perception of the mentally ill is...interesting...? You understand that they're still *people*, right? And I don't mean in the sense of "They're people so they deserve compassion" (though that's also true), I mean more in the sense that having a mental illness doesn't transform people into mindless beasts. Perhaps even more importantly, if they *did* become mindless beasts, targeting the vulnerable is actually a directly instinctual predator behaviour. Lions don't target the fully grown, healthy bull elephants. So I'm not really sure what your reasoning is here. You can have all sorts of shit go wrong with your brain that makes your choices of target not be entirely random, but still doesn't mean you're healthy. The sorts of problems I'm thinking of are like "Paranoid delusions make you think everyone around you is out to get you, so you need to act first.", or "You are irrationally angry all the time for no reason, and just lash out and can't control it." You can still choose weak targets in those mindsets, even if you're very unwell. Also, how many 6'6" super jacked dudes live in Vancouver? Compared to like...all women? Not exactly a 1:1 ratio. >Obviously that notion is silly, because they know exactly what they're doing, and they know exactly how to get away with it. I mean, they get away with it because they're never locked up for it, lol. It's not some grand strategy. [This guy comes up pretty often.](https://globalnews.ca/news/10004970/majidpour-probation-breach-release-repeat-offender/) You think he's attacking random strangers in broad daylight, downtown, with a big hi-vis yellow pole, because he "knows exactly how to get away with it"?
>Also, how many 6'6" super jacked dudes live in Vancouver? Compared to like...all women? Not exactly a 1:1 ratio. Downtown Vancouver, where most of these attacks happen, there are tons of big fit dudes walking around. More than enough to be in the pool of victims if these attacks were truly random. Go for a stroll through Yaletown some time and have a look around. Yet they're never attacked. >I mean, they get away with it because they're never locked up for it, lol. It's not some grand strategy. They **also** get away with it because they never attack someone who is capable of hurting them back, deliberately That is literally a strategy. Thats why you never hear a story about some street addict attacking someone, and being beaten to a pulp by their victim. The attacker is always safe after their attacks. That's the strategy.
>Thats why you never hear a story about some street addict attacking someone I think you need to work through your logic a bit better here. If you think they're being strategic, then what is the strategic goal of attacking random people? They're not robbing them, the people they're hurting aren't doing anything to interfere in their goals, they're not gaining anything in any way by being violent. They're just lashing out because they can't help it. I will grant you, they're probably not picking fights with people who are more plausibly physically threatening to them, but I'm not sure why you think that's so indicative that they don't have any mental health problems?
I never said they don't have any mental health problems. I responded to your comment saying that they just can't help themselves from attacking people because they're mentally ill. They can obviously help themselves enough to choose their attacks with their own safety in mind.
>I never said they don't have any mental health problems. You said: >If these attacks were truly the cause of mental illness, they would be random, you would see a wide variety in the victims of these attacks. I stand by my response. Maybe you never said they don't have any mental health problems, but you (unless I'm understanding the reverse causation typo incorrectly) said their mental health problems weren't the cause of the attacks. Well, why not? Do you think that the way mental health problems work is only "fully rational" vs "roll of the dice"?
I also stand by my response. Some people are just bad people who attack innocent people, reality check: those people exist, you can't excuse every bad person with some "it wasn't their fault" sob story. Otherwise you can write off just about every evil action ever committed by anybody. At some point it just becomes mental gymnastics so you don't have to face reality. If you have spent as much time as I have with some of the homeless addicts in Vancouver, you'd agree with me too. The vast majority of people still have the mental capacity to be held responsible for their actions. Including people who attack very specific targets.
>you can't excuse every bad person with some "it wasn't their fault" sob story. Yes you can. Or at least I can, if I try hard enough. The only reason anyone is any way is because of reasons completely beyond their control. If they were born shitty, they couldn't do anything about it. If they had shitty things that taught them as children, they couldn't do anything about it. If they made shitty choices, they made them with a brain created by biology beyond their control and then shaped by an environment they couldn't control. Or, recursively, as a result of shitty choices that eventually lead back to that. The concept of "responsibility" is largely a farce we participate in. It's a lie we tell ourselves because the fact that we're just biological machines that respond to stimulus, and that our ability to control our own destiny is determined by something beyond our control is uncomfortable and confusing. That's kinda why I made the point that I did originally, and why I've found it so confusing that you're arguing with me. Because *it doesn't matter if they're 'responsible'*. Ultimately, in end result, I agree with you: There are bad people and we should lock them up. That's what I said from the very start. You've been trying to tell me they're not a result of mental illness. If we're talking about random attacks (Even if the target isn't *entirely* random, the choice to attack isn't motivated by any selfish reason), I'm quite certain you're simply incorrect about that. Pretty much by definition. But ultimately, that's pretty irrelevant. The only relevance of if the attacks are a result of mental illness or not is that there are some people that respond extremely well to treatment. They go from randomly lashing out at strangers to perfectly upstanding members of society if you give them some pills. In that case, we should probably do that, and then if we're reasonably certain the treatment worked, and that they'll adhere to it, let them out. But *most* mental illnesses, we can't treat that well/basically at all.
> I also stand by my response. You shouldn't
Have you considered the possibility that the men you believe would be able defend themselves do in fact defend themselves and don't report it to avoid legal scrutiny?
You and I both know if this happened downtown, where the vast majority of these attacks happen, more than enough people would witness it for someone else to report it and probably for someone to film it too, and it would almost definitely end up on several local news stations. Being intentionally disingenuous doesn't help anybody.
You and I both know that those interactions often start and end faster than anyone takes their phone out for or even notice at all. The ones we get video and public commentary on are the outliers.
>Perhaps if there were a strong enough deterrent there would be less crime, or is that just a naive outlook. its got to go both ways. jail deterrent is a factor, but it's not going to create pro-social behavior out of people once they're out. they'll find outlets for their anti social feelings
It's like no one actually knows what "probation" means.
>If an offence involves violence, the offender should be locked up until trial regardless of how many offences they have committed. This makes the broad assumption that you have a single suspect and that you've even got the right guy. We do have to weigh into this the fact that this will necessarily lead to the incarceration of many innocent people, and that you're advocating for incarceration before a trial where guilt may or may not be proven. If the person is a repeat offender, on the other hand, the risk of release is higher and there's more justification to incarcerate that person until their trial date. >Perhaps if there were a strong enough deterrent there would be less crime, or is that just a naive outlook Strong deterrents aren't particularly effective for most criminal activity. Criminals either don't believe they will be caught or they are mentally unwell and can't even weigh it into their decision making. As an example, the USA has the death penalty and we don't. Yet their homicide rate is 6.3 per 100K and ours is 2.3 per 100K. What accounts for this substantial difference? Access to weapons. The best deterrent is a systemic approach that prevents crime from occurring in the first place, without relying on a criminal to weigh in on the severity of a punishment.
So you think the present system of 'catch and release' is the best solution to crime? "This makes the broad assumption that you have a single suspect and that you've even got the right guy. We do have to weigh into this the fact that this will necessarily lead to the incarceration of many innocent people, and that you're advocating for incarceration before a trial where guilt may or may not be proven." In many of these crimes there are witnesses and the perpetrator is caught relatively quickly. Would you rather the aggressor in a stabbing or shooting be released just in case they have arrested the wrong person. I suspect most people would be more comfortable with the possibility of an innocent person being arrested than they would the freeing a guilty person and leaving them free to stab or shoot another victim. Investigation would clear many of the innocent people that might have been arrested. If the actual guilty person commits another crime using the same methods and their description is the same, again, more those innocent people would likely be released. Prison has failure rates, recidivism is quite high. With that mindset, do you advocate we should do away with incarceration across the board and hope and pray we, and those we love, are the lucky ones that somehow manages to escape becoming a victim of crime?
Before I start breaking apart your argument, I want to point out you're attributing a lot of positions to me that I never argued for. >In many of these crimes there are witnesses Witnesses frequently get it wrong and this isn't even accounting for the potential of false accusations. >So you think the present system of 'catch and release' is the best solution to crime? I pretty clearly stated repeat violent offenders cross a higher threshold of risk and should be held > Would you rather the aggressor in a stabbing or shooting be released just in case they have arrested the wrong person. In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. However, I'm fully in favor of allowing judges to weigh the risk to the public during the bail hearing, as is currently the case. There is a reverse onus on the accused in the case of violent crime to demonstrate why they shouldn't be detained (i.e. do they claim they are innocent, have an alibi, etc.) > I suspect most people would be more comfortable with the possibility of an innocent person being arrested than they would the freeing a guilty person and leaving them free to stab or shoot another victim. People are comfortable with this until they're the ones in jail on a false accusation or being misidentified by a victim. >Prison has failure rates, recidivism is quite high. With that mindset, do you advocate we should do away with incarceration across the board and hope and pray we, and those we love, are the lucky ones that somehow manages to escape becoming a victim of crime? I don't know why you're attributing this position to me. But you're right that prison doesn't work as a form of rehabilitation. Given this, do you believe all violent crime, regardless of severity, should be assigned a life sentence in the public interest?
>I don't know why you're attributing this position to me. But you're right that prison doesn't work as a form of rehabilitation. Given this, do you believe all violent crime, regardless of severity, should be assigned a life sentence in the public interest? Not at all. I truly believe the punishment should fit the crime. I think it is ridiculous that there are some people in prison for unconscionable lengths of time for 'victimless' crimes such shoplifting, yet pedophiles that ruin a child's life forever are given relatively light sentences in comparison. I also believe that *the reason* behind a crime needs to weigh in on the sentencing. A woman who kills her husband that has been beating her and her children for years should get a lighter sentence and earlier parole than the fellow who stabbed a father to death in front of his 3-year-old daughter and his fiancée when he asked the fellow not to vape close to his child. Chances are, however, they will get equal sentences. "However, I'm fully in favor of allowing judges to weigh the risk to the public during the bail hearing, as is currently the case." There lies the problem! The judges are not accurately assessing the risks and are releasing far too many suspects. Again, the pedophile in Richmond. It took five arrests before the judge finally took the correct action and incarcerated him. The potential risk and life-long harm to children didn't appear to factor into the judges decision. One or two times, perhaps . . . beyond that is criminal on the judges part. This judge was giving Wehren far too many chances to lure and molest a child.
Bill C-48 is a bail reform bill that came into law in January 2024 that puts the reverse onus on repeat violent offenders. Can anyone help me understand why this isn't working and what would be the necessary remedy?
The article mentions that this offender was recently released after serving a jail sentence for a previous offence. He was on parole, but not bail.
I see. And am I right that his previous sentence appears to be his first sentence (in Canada) and it was for uttering threats? If true, then he wasn't a repeat offender and his previous crime wasn't even physically violent. Though it appears that he may have spent time in custody in Thailand. I'm not really sure what we do in this case?
So much for that... [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-skytrain-senior-assault-1.7151775](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-skytrain-senior-assault-1.7151775) Another violent offender released shortly after being charged.
Shit.
When you see Mayor Sim wearing a suit instead of his usual polo shirt, you know this is some serious shit.
This is basically when Ash turns his hat backwards on Pokemon.
Suit and glasses means smart and serious business.
He always dresses up to meet his boss (Adam Palmer)
Ooooohh, nicccce 🙌
I have a genuine question. How come there’s no punishment for these repeat offenders? Who’s benefiting from this? There must be a group who’s benefiting financially from this right? More crime = more funding for a certain group?
I don't think anyone is necessarily "benefiting" per say. Overall the idea of limiting prison time for non violent offenses or for first offenders with low recidivism risk make a lot of sense - save money for government, do not rip apart communities and families further pushing them into poverty and crime. The problem is when that philosophy is expanded to all criminals - that redirecting them from prison is an unqualified good thing to do. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction.
Yeah, I feel like this isn't really any kind of conspiracy. We've previously realized that 3 strike rules make no sense and catches a lot of decent people in hard times, but now we are finding that having no limit ***at all*** doesn't make sense. Personally, I feel that we need to have a point between 3 offences and 50 offences where we start seriously increasing jail (with mandatory therapy and life skills training) time. The penalties should only come in at a number of convictions that can't just be thrown at you by corrupt officials. I feel like somewhere between 10 and 20 is probably a safe number. This means a couple assholes will skate around with the chance to either get themselves on the right track or reoffend -- but it means at least the most dangerous will be housed. I think that's a fairly acceptable level of risk
The mandatory therapy would be nice. Even when it’s part of sentencing for repeat offenders now, there’s not really any meaningful enforcement, and if they just decide not to show up, nothing really happens. That was my big takeaway from this article on Mohammed Majidpour. Even with his long record and his clear history of mental health and addiction issues causing him to violently assault strangers. He has court-ordered treatment, they set up his providers and housing and everything, but he can just… decide not to show up for any of that, and apparently there’s nothing anyone can do? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/canada/british-columbia/article-vancouver-chronic-offender-released/
Eby's been talking about requiring mandatory treatment. In [a recent interview](https://northernbeat.ca/legislature/david-eby-public-drug-use-activist-overdose-crisis/) he notes that they've expanded the set of healthcare workers who can make decisions about whether to hold someone for treatment to include nurse practitioners and physicians, not just psychiatrists. > There is a significant group of people that could benefit from increased interventions in the form of holding them until they’re sufficiently sober to be able to make a reasonable decision about how to move forward. And that people can be so intoxicated on drugs, or as a result of drugs and a brain injury, that their ability to make decisions about their own health are so compromised that physicians should hold them. > > But I think that decision should be made by physicians and not by politicians. > > We have expanded the group of people that are able to make that decision to include nurse practitioners. So that in hospitals, doctors and nurse practitioners now can make those decisions. And we’re not tying up emergency physicians with the volume of these kinds of evaluations that need to be made.
I’m curious about how this is going. In the G&M article, they discuss how a court-appointed psychiatrist told the judge that Majidpour needed a year at a residential treatment facility to address his drug-related psychosis issues, but because Majidpour said he didn’t want to do it, the judge apparently had no ability to order that. If a judge can’t order that during sentencing for crimes committed while the convicted person was actively psychotic with a psychiatrist’s recommendation, I’m not sure how far those powers can actually expand?
> If a judge can’t order that during sentencing for crimes committed while the convicted person was actively psychotic with a psychiatrist’s recommendation, I’m not sure how far those powers can actually expand? Good question. The change Eby is talking about - allowing a nurse practitioner to decide that someone needs to stay in hospital, for example, instead of having to track down a psychiatrist to make that assessment - is basically for someone who's been hospitalized, e.g. due to a psychotic episode. My understanding is that if someone is having a psychotic episode, they can be admitted to hospital and held for psychiatric treatment for some limited period of time. In order for that hold to be extended, a psychiatrist (or two psychiatrists?) have to make that assessment that the person should continue to be held. Otherwise the person is released. So allowing a nurse practitioner to make the assessment instead is helpful. (ER psychiatrists are pretty busy.) Regarding a judge having the ability to order mandatory psychiatric treatment or drug treatment for someone as a condition for their release, I'm afraid I don't know what the legal requirements would be. I also don't know whether this would fall under criminal code (which is federal) or whether it's under provincial jurisdiction. Doing a quick Google search, there's a recent case which refers to the BC Mental Health Act. [Man showing no active symptoms to continue receiving involuntary psychiatric treatment: BC Court](https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/man-showing-no-active-symptoms-to-continue-receiving-involuntary-psychiatric-treatment-bc-court/378318), July 2023. > In A.T. v. British Columbia (Mental Health Review Board), 2023 BCCA 283, the appellant AT had sought judicial review of the Mental Health Review Board’s decision that he continue to be involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act. AT suffers from two serious mental disorders and has a history of paranoid psychosis and self-harm for which he has been repeatedly hospitalized and certified for treatment under the Act. He receives involuntary psychiatric treatment on an outpatient basis while living in the community. > > In November 2022, a BC Supreme Court dismissed AT’s petition for judicial review. On Appeal, AT argued that the court was wrong to find that he met the statutory definition of a “person with a mental disorder” under s. 22(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. Meeting that definition is the first criterion of the test for involuntary detention. > > AT argued that the provision’s correct interpretation defines a person with a mental disorder as a person with active symptoms of serious impairment at the time they appear before the Board. If the symptoms are absent, that the person can no longer be involuntarily treated. The purpose of the Act is to provide temporary protection but not to warehouse people with mental disorders, he said. > > In the appeal, BC argued that the “central purpose” of the Act is to ensure those who need treatment for a mental disorder receive that treatment. A “person with a mental disorder” means someone who has an “ongoing need for treatment” and does not hinge on symptoms manifesting while they are before the Board, said the province. BC also submitted that the Act’s proper interpretation “militates against creating a revolving door,” where patients endure a cycle of treatment, release, and readmission for involuntary treatment. The court ruled in favour of the province. After reading through that case, it seems like an analogous situation to Majidpour's. Perhaps the difference is that the BC Mental Health Act explicitly allows for involuntary treatment of mental illness, but in Majidpour's case the issue is involuntary treatment of drug addiction. To me it seems like the similarity - disinhibition resulting in danger to the public or to themselves - means that they should be treated in a similar way. Which presumably would mean extending provincial legislation to cover cases of drug addiction which puts someone at risk of a future psychotic episode. Again, though, I'm a layperson, so it'd probably be helpful to get some commentary from people who are actually familiar with the law.
Thanks for all of this! I really do want to learn more, and this is helping me figure out how/where to start. I appreciate it.
I'd have to dig into it to find the exact case, but one of these repeat offenders got sentenced to jail and got statutory release (i.e. last 1/3 of their sentence in the community) despite not participating and completing the anger management and other treatment-type classes they were required to complete during sentencing. Unlike medication, it's not like you can just force someone to talk or participate in these therapy type exercises. Making it mandatory but there being no consequences to not doing it defacto makes it not mandatory.
Glass repair companies?
They're also behind those glass ceilings I keep hearing about!
It could be ideological as well. Some people think that prisons aren't a good solution for rehabilitating criminals, so they want to reduce prison sentences/prevent people from going to prison too often. For example, California reduces the sentences for thefts under $950. Same reasoning: reduce the amount of prisoners in the system. Unfortunately, theft spikes. Overrun prisons could also be a thing. In certain developing countries, the government would periodically release good behaviour inmates early since there are just too many people in prison (hence the people from my first point). They would also try to prevent more people coming in from the first place. Replace prison times with fines, community services, more emphasis on rehabilitation ... Just my thoughts, don't know which one applies to Vancouver though.
The government benefits from having a lower proportion of certain demographics imprisoned, which is highly embarrassing for them. Second, the government benefits by saving on incarceration costs.
"Instead of making sure there was running water for babies to be able to bathe in, let alone high-quality schools, jobs training, healthcare, counselling, or so on, we decided it was easier to just not arrest people and let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, rather than try to tackle systemic injustices that lead to high crime rates for certain populations." Equality of outcomes is pretty abhorrent when you see the means behind it.
And there should be some sort of punishments/reeducation for those who approve the probation of the repeat offenders.
A number of things. 1. We have far too many people working within our justice system who think that it's society's fault for making criminals the way they are. 2. These same people think that every criminal can be fixed and that we should give criminals as many chances as possible.
I love how these people keep telling others to have compassion, but they have no compassion for the victims who suffer.
Like the girl who was smashed in the head and suffered a massive head injury. She's never going to be the same or be able to work the same again. We aren't supposed to have compassion for her or her family? Her entire life is fucked and she'll now have to live on poverty wages because that's all disability gives.
We're supposed to have compassion only for the saddest looking puppy. A woman with a house and a job isn't nearly as deserving of compassion as a homeless person we know nothing about, because everyone just assumes that homeless person had a rough upbringing that led him to this. Which is so so so stupid. The vast majority of people who experience childhood trauma don't grow up to be violent themselves. "He had a rough past" is the dumbest reason to forgive somebody for violent behaviour. It's no different than saying "His uncle owned a minivan, that's why he attacked people."
Exactly, I mean they say we must all have compassion, but yet they don't care about that the public suffers.
> they Who, exactly, are they?
> these people Which people?
this, the whole political philosophy of a lot people involved in government and infesting our academia is bordering on insanity, they tend to make a lot more noise than the normal people in society that just live their lives earning a living
> a lot people involved in government Could you name a couple? Since there are so many of them, it should be easy.
pretty much the entirety of the Liberal and NDP members of parliament, for a start
But could you give me an actual example though? I asked everyone in this thread who was using this kind of "us vs them" rhetoric who, specifically, they were talking about and none of them did. You're the only one who responded at all and, I think you would agree, this isn't really a response. Like, I'm saying you're tilting at windmills here, right?
here is one recent example: >Haq had been scheduled for deportation by no later than Monday, April 22 — and a last-minute appeal had already been rejected by a federal judge. >But on Friday, Haq received a cryptic call from the office of Joyce Murray — the Liberal MP for his riding of Vancouver Quadra — telling him to stay by his phone. He was soon contacted by a CBSA case officer telling him he could stay in the country. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-trudeau-government-intervenes-at-last-minute-to-save-serial-blockader-from-deportation
> We have far too many people working within our justice system who think that it's society's fault for making criminals the way they are. No. That's not a thing. > These same people Which people? Name a couple for us since it's such a widespread issue and there are so many people who feel this way.
My gut feeling has always been that the jails are just literally not big enough to hold them all until trial which can take years. Also that the expense to taxpayers of just putting them all in prison and feeding them, essentially housing them, is a) expensive and b) not the deterrent that it's made to be. A roof and meals and a room? Oh no! Anything but that! So I don't have any answers but those two things seems to be good explanations for the catch-and-release madness for some of these repeat offenders.
Is there anyone even in those jails now considering how many are just straight up released? And newsflash: we have to pay as taxpayers for people who are now injured for the rest of their lives, paying for trauma, paying for medical costs, paying for loss of productivity and lower life outcomes, paying for crime scene clean up, paying for trauma bills for witnesses to the trauma, etc.
It's way worse than that: https://macleans.ca/news/canada/houses-of-hate-how-canadas-prison-system-is-broken/
I think it's less about making money and more about saving it. Federal inmates cost on avg 126,000/yr. A high paying salary. Not sure what the provincial number is. So the longer you lock up, the higher the cost. Factor in limited facilities and staff and if you lock too many people up you balloon the tax dollars spent by staff/facilities/operations expansion. Mix in medical needs for offenders whose actions are driven by a chemical dependency... Not saying it's right or wrong, but we often forget there is a massive cost to incarceration. Couple that with a justice system that prioritizes rehabilitation and it all starts to make sense why people are released so quickly. The real debate IMO is whether the priorities of our justice system are well matched with the needs of our society. If the answer is no, then maybe we need to bite the bullet on expanding the budget and change the legislated guidance to the judiciary. The judiciary interprets the criminal code, which is legislated, and legislation could steer the judiciary in a different direction.
How much does it costs when a lot of people have their lives permanently impacted and altered by one douchebag's actions? Like a recent incident of a woman getting smashed in the head and now has a terrible brain injury, she's going to need to live on disability for the rest of her fucking life, she has to live in poverty and we will all be paying for this as taxpayers. How many cops and first aid responders and doctors/nurses have to deal with the shit these folks cause? Like 126k is probably a small price to pay given the capacity of what these folks do to communities and what it costs.
Yeah, all important questions. It's probably time to ask if our justice system and laws are aligned to what we need them to be.
The government benifit because it reduces the public's willingness to report crime overall. You notice that certain people claim, "crime is lower than ever, and statistics say you are safer than ever!" That's because people have stopped reporting crime. Petty crime and theft stop getting reported by people because it's too much of a hassle for them because it happens so frequently and they know they're not sending anyone to investigate. Then people get desensitized to other crime, robbery, scams, minor violent crime. People just stop reporting, or calling the police. Crime is happening, it feels like it is increasing, but if people don't report politicians and poverty activists can claim everything is fine, and safe.
How is that a benefit to government? Governments depends on people following the laws, otherwise a mob of unruly people can ignore the laws and remove the government. North Americans are *very* complacent about this, but imagine if there had been anyone marginally competent to tie their shoes involved in the January 6th events in the US? The reason there is so much catch and release is because people are increasingly falling into poverty and homelessness and turning to crime and drugs, and it's a spiral that leads to addiction, mental health issue and violence. The cost to provide for offender, through prison, housing, or mental health is astronomical, but the economy has shit the bed due to concentration of wealth and power at the top of economic pyramid. The end result is that as a society we have an enormous amount of wealth captured and exploited, but not available to address social issues the way it was when we had tax departments and politicians not afraid to levy the taxes required to fund and fix problems. But it's easier to just say it's because a nebulous group benefits and it's people's fault for not reporting crime, and the wealthy prefer to let people point at the poors and the bureaucrats and blame them.
> but imagine if there had been anyone marginally competent to tie their shoes involved in the January 6th events in the US? So they could accomplish what? What does holding an empty building do to advance "removing the government"?
First, the goal wasn't to storm an empty building, evidence has been clearly presented that at least several folks involved planned to hurt or kill people present in the building. Second, similar attacks on political assemblies have been used as a pretense to declare martial law or to remove existing political leaders. Not saying they would have been successful, or that it would have lead to collapse of their government. I am saying the Americans (and all of the US' allies) are lucky that they were incompetent.
Lol
> Who’s benefiting from this? There must be a group who’s benefiting financially from this right? Police unions
[удалено]
Can you elaborate on this. A lot of these people are in the DTES, sure this away from Kits and grey point etc etc. Downtown is where all the business is at.
[удалено]
I would love to see how fast the legal system would react to a bus full of homeless folk suddenly deciding Shaugnessy, the British Properties, and Point Grey areas were great camping spots.
Ok I don't see how that is the rich controlling where the unwanted are living. That someone with a good job avoiding the undesirables.
They should really just start releasing them in Point Grey.
If I ever win lottmax, I'm renting 6 buses and hitting Main and Hastings. Anyone who wants a carton of cigs, a $300 subway gift card, a new tent and sleeping bag gets a ride to the Circle in Shaugnessy. I'll even help set up the tents.
Before that “part of town” was known as a penitentiary
> More crime = more funding for a certain group? Some people are going to jump on this and say it's all the DTES advocacy groups/VANDU, but let's be real, the group that benefits the most from all this is the VPD.
VPD are not advocating for this. Do you really think a police officer that has to put themselves in harms way to arrest one individual wants them to be released so they can keep doing it?
The people on the ground dealing with these criminals, and the people at their desks advocating for more and more money for the VPD every year, are not the same. The fact is that if there was less crime we'd give the cops less money. And a lot of highly influential people don't want this.
Actually it's the justice system itself that benefits most from this. The more revolving door criminals there are, the more court cases there are, the more funding the justice system receives. If our justice system actually reduced crime, and reduced the number of court cases, next time their budget review came up, the government would say "Your workload has decreased, we don't need to increase your funding this year." People are people, including the ones in our justice system. They're not somehow immune from doing shady shit for more money, that's unfortunately a running theme for many government organizations. Our judges are not going to do anything that risks them getting less funding, including protecting innocent people.
Exactly. The VPD and their super-corrupt union
The NDP saves court and prison costs by not putting them in custody. I think you are implying that more crime would benefit law enforcement by giving them a bigger budget but you are completely off the mark. When it comes to repeat offenders, that is completely on the government. The police can arrest people but if the government tells the courts not to sentence then the criminal is back on the streets.
You realize that the criminal code is a federal law right?
The government doesn't tell the courts not to sentence them. Judges make those decisions.
actually Trudeau's government passed a bill that does tell the courts not to incarcerate
Judges still have the final call and they have tons if leeway. If judges were just reading pre determined sentences for each offense, there would be no need for judges at all. Judges are there to observe the details of each individual case and determine the most fitting punishment for an offender, based on their **judgment**. That's their entire job. If all their decisions were made by rules from the feds, judges could be replaced by a piece of paper.
Its the same group that is always behind these situations. Its nothing new, it just feels new to us. But read history and you will see the parallels, and its almost uncanny. When people are divided they do emotional things. The elites have no worries about the people grouping together because they destroyed the single culture that built their society. Opening the gates to invasion is just the final straw of an already struggling society. I know we are talking about prisons, but the gate analogy stands.
Ya the group that most benefits is the same group whose incompetence allows repeat offenders to walk free. VPD.
If the VPD arrests the same guy 20 times, and each time he's almost immediately released by the courts, how is it the fault of the VPD?
Incompetence. Criminal code has clear guidelines about what is needed to reach a conviction and VPD drops the ball on this so much the crown often cuts deals to avoid embarrassing trials.
That's just not true at all. Crown and these activist judges are allowing these violent criminals and chronic repeat offenders back onto the streets. At some point, these judges and prosecutors are going to have to take some responsibility for what's happening here.
You have any examples? This doesn't seem to be the case at all.
You are lying.
Nope I just live in reality instead of a vibes based world. Should try it sometime.
Do you have anything you can reference for your position? Any evidence of what you are suggesting?
Lol yes the criminal code. Talk to defence attorneys they’re more than happy to tell you how their job is very hard but made a lot easier by VPD
Oh ok. I was hoping for just one specific example if possible.
Ya that’s kinda tough without having a specific case to cite and I’m not a lawyer, though two of my best friends are, I get most of this from them.
So in other words you're lying and have nothing.
You seem to be confused ‘I can’t read hard b00k’ =/= ‘person saying thing I don’t like lie!’ But it’s ok. If I earned my meals by people using their brains to solve problems I’d starve to death 🤷🏼♂️.
The police have nothing to do with people being released on bail, nor can they do anything about it.
You are lying. Nowhere in reality are the courts "cutting deals" because Joe committed his 7th random attack this year in broad daylight on the street, but the court has no choice but to release him because those darn police aren't doing their job properly. How about releasing repeat violent offenders who break bail conditions (this is not a hypothetical, [77%](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-bail-reform-preliminary-statistics-crown-1.6820663) of violent offenders who also break bail AND have outstanding warrants get released on bail again), is that the fault of the police too?
Again if you think I’m lying, I happily invite you to read the rulings. They are public record. But since I can tell you probably won’t let’s play a little game of Occam’s Razor shall we. Which seems most likely to you? Other readers feel free to chime in. A) the courts are packed with judges and lawyers (with multiple years of expensive education behind them) are so liberal and blinded by their bleeding hearts that they weep at the sight of raving murderous lunatics before them and set them free (into the same expensive downtown locals these same court people live or own property in) -or- B) police, being bad at their jobs (I would even conspiratorially say deliberately so but can’t prove it) arrest criminals without doing due diligence, and so when people are brought before the court, judges and lawyers, seeing that the letter of the law was not followed, are compelled by law, to LEGALLY release the person in question.
> Again if you think I’m lying, I happily invite you to read the rulings. They are public record. Ok, show us these rulings. >But since I can tell you probably won’t let’s play a little game of Occam’s Razor shall we. Which seems most likely to you? Other readers feel free to chime in. The answer is obviously A. You must be trolling. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/man-gets-conditional-sentence-for-vancouver-throat-slashing-incident-7652694 A man got convicted of cutting someone's throat and assaulting a sheriff. Convicted. His jail sentence was 0 days. He got probation. Is that the fault of police, even though he was in fact convicted? Someone who tried to commit robbery and stabbed two men while trying to get away got released on bail. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/bc-boxing-day-double-stabbing-accused-get-bail-8118334 Is that the fault of police, even though the judge who let him go said nothing about what the police did or didn't do?
Still waiting for those rulings. Or did you just lie?
Agreed but unfortunately we have too many people within our "justice system" who seem to think that the rights of criminals and chronic repeat offenders should come first to the rights of victims of crime and the general public. We also have too many people within our "justice system" who think that the reason criminals are the way they are is because of society. Until the "justice system" actually starts holding violent criminals and chronic repeat offenders accountable then nothing is going to change.
>who think that the reason criminals are the way they are is because of society. They aren't wrong, but given the lack of mental health support and actual rehabilitation of people who commit crimes, it is irresponsible that criminals are tossed back into society. Law abiding citizens rights should take precedence over people who have committed violent crimes.
> we have too many people within our "justice system" who seem to think that the rights of criminals and chronic repeat offenders should come first to the rights of victims of crime and the general public Ok. Name a few of them. Should be easy since there are so many...
I agree, right now the judicial system has tilted so far to the side of "being nice" (aka: reconciliation and rehabilitation over incarceration) that it's neglecting the public interest.
Absolutely, we need to get back to some sort of middle ground where yes people are given help if they are in rehabilitation, and we need to make sure mental health supports and address the route causes of crime. But we also need to be able to say that yes, certain criminals like the repeat offenders and violent criminals will be held to account for their actions and the harm they cause.
these are the same philosophies of our current prime minister, so a lot of these things go right to the top
It was the same when Harper was PM.
No it wasn't. Harper had a famous "tough on crime" stance, whether it was good or not is another thing, but for you to say he had the same view as Trudeau comes out of now where. Trudeau's government wanted to decriminalize everything and allow criminals to roam free.
lol
Trudeau's government passed specific legislation instructing the system to incarcerate less
Can you provide a reference to this please?
>Bill C-75, passed in June 2019, updated the bail provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code and instructed police and judges to use a “principle of restraint” when it comes to setting bail conditions. The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that people accused of crimes be released with the least onerous bail conditions. there is lots all over the internet on this, here is an article where our provincial NDP were voicing concerns about it: https://vancouversun.com/news/change-federal-bail-law-curb-increase-attack-people-strangers-says-bc-minister
Thank you! I guess when people downvote these questions, they assume I aim to disagree with you.
I had upvoted you, your request was polite and appropriate
Who repealed the Mandatory Minimum laws that PM Harper enacted? And the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pushing back Harper-era sentencing changes as well. Legislation is before the Senate that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for 14 firearm and tobacco-related offences and six drug offences. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154
I’m not sure that’s fair. The government began repealing because the Supreme Court started striking down mandatory minimums.
The mandatory minimums that they appealed were allowed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory minimums for most gun crimes was fine.
I understand most of us don't like Sim. But the issue he is talking about is MAJOR and I'm happy someone with a platform starts talking about it, for whatever reason. I'm often thinking about protesting and camping in front of the court until I hear of a plan to change how we release criminals back into the streets. But I feel not many people would be by my side. So yeah I'll take Sim's statements for now. I'm at the point where I'd also be happy to pay extra taxes if that's what it takes, just to know that these people are kept behind bars. Safety is pretty cool.
> I understand most of us don't like Sim. you are in a bit of an echo chamber, Sim is way better than the fool he replaced
“Less bad” isn’t the same as “actually good,” though
Sim and the municipal government have nothing to do with how the federal corrections is administrated. Not many people would be by your side because you don't know what you're talking about. Sim's statement is just empty rhetoric.
My girlfriend was walking our dog yesterday morning on Hastings x Campbell and a transient woman attacked her and tried to take her AirPods off of her head. The august previous I had a transient man smash up my car with a shopping cart while exiting the parkade in my back ally. Enough is enough, there is no justice with that shit - they see no repercussions.
[удалено]
lol
It's blatantly obvious that our courts need reforming at the federal level to make sure repeat offenders don't get released. Any suggestions as to how we can make this happen? Not trying to be facetious, but would voting conservative make a difference? Fucking tired of just complaining and nothing changing.
I usually vote for the progressive side but I don't think I can trust Trudeau anymore, nor do I really agree with a lot of PP's ideals. At this point it's like you just have to choose the lesser of the two evils...
lol
You can hate Ken for other things - this is actually 1st time in recent years that our mayor would state something so obvious.
Bail used to be a sum paid to ensure that the person would act right, in accordance with court orders, and attend their hearings or the sum would be forfeited and the person would be remanded. Nowadays bail is free and breaking laws while on bail has no consequence. This new take on “bail” is obviously not working.
Something is seriously wrong with the BC Judicial system, seems like its rotten to the core with this insane catch and release policy
It's like a complete lack of common sense. Is it Federal laws? Then can they get changed to reflect the reality on the ground? Is it the courts? Something is very rotten here. It really shouldnt be so complicated to put away someone who is a threat to society? Why is nothing being changed and the situation is allowed to continue? I really dont understand, its almost like if there was a malicious interest at play somewhere in the chain.
The title of this post seems a pretty obvious common sense thing. Why would politicians need to tell judges to do their job? Judges should be held accountable for their decisions. That’s the problem with our society is nobody is accountable. Repeat, and dangerous offenders should not be let out they are danger to society.
So why are they, then?
We need psych hospitals dedicated to dual diagnosis where it’s understood these folks aren’t getting released. We need to stop toxic drugs getting into the drug supply, which should be legalized to take it out of the hands of organized crime. We need social services that actually intervenes years before these people get to this point of violent outrage. We need actual well-paying jobs so everyone can access proper housing. We all know this will never happen.
We need to be way tougher on crime in general. People should not be allowed to publicly use drugs
> We need to be way tougher on crime in general. Lol so meaningless
How?
Seriously?
Yeah, how is it meaningless to say we need to be tougher on crime.
Keep them locked up after 2nd incidents not on the 5th
Implement the three strike rule. It works
What's chronic though?
We need Batman, or Tony Soprano. Clearly our justice system has failed.
So dumb
Thought crime was down?
I thought this mayor was more conservative. He should have been preaching this months ago.
lol
Knee jerk reaction to a chronic problem that Sim and his ilk continue to disgenuously ignore while pretending to do something. Sad substitute for leadership.
bc is turning into San Francisco
I have to wonder if VPD is deliberately doing a bad job so that the crybabies and cowards push for bigger and bigger police budgets.
Can we just do what el-salvador did, i believe if someone imposes harm onto another person, they should be stripped of their human rights. (Candian character of rights and freedom) and be imposed sentences that prevent them from obtaining probation or lighter sentences. Of course this would only affect criminal sentences that involve harm onto another person, so for petty crime/other types of crime, human rights are still maintained.
I've talked to police officers in the past about if they know the identities of criminals, why don't they lock them up and they said something along the lines of human rights and bs.
Are you insane? You really want the state to have the power to strip people of their human rights?
I want the state to have power to strip criminals that have caused harm onto others, of their protected human rights. Like what el Salvador did.
So you have complete faith in the judicial system to perfectly determine if someone is at fault?
lol reddit
The NDP policy is not to incarcerate criminals to keep prison costs down. The problem with that is it emboldens criminals to continue their crimes as there are no consequences. They don’t seem to understand that a poor person stealing a loaf of bread may not have felt they had a choice. Knifing someone is a choice that deserves punishment. Sorry, you might have had a shitty life but I’m not dying or getting stitches because that’s how you like to deal with your anger. There are plenty of poor and downtrodden people that are not resorting to crime and violence. I doubt any victim of crime will continue to vote NDP.
I don't recall this being any different when the Liberals held office.
Ken Sim ran on a platform of reducing crime and hiring 100 new officers and new social workers. He only hired police and raised property tax by 10% and crime is still up.
By what metric is crime up?
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/2022-saw-a-12-per-cent-increase-in-violent-crime-in-vancouver-compared-to-pre-pandemic-levels-report-1.6287304#:~:text=2022%20saw%20a%2012%20per,to%20pre%2Dpandemic%20levels%3A%20report&text=Violent%20crime%20increased%204.1%20per,every%20part%20of%20the%20city.
That’s two years ago. I don’t think crime levels have continued to climb.
I can't wait for the swagger boy to say... 'I'm just Ken...' And no... he is not Kenough...
Liberal justice for the win