So we are both for the death penalty then?

It seems to me that the argument for welfare as crime prevention implies that the victims of crimes are really the culprits. It really says, "We should all feel ashamed of ourselves, not giving enough to that young man so he was forced to steal from us. Simply disgraceful." Then, once the welfare is flowing, when the next theft happens, how could anyone not say, "Ah, it's because we didn't give him enough."

Also, I ask you, would this logic apply to other crimes, for example, to excuse a rape, "Well of course he raped her, she wouldn't put out"?

Ultimately crime is (or should be) about a violation of property (I include one's own body in my definition of property). Crimes occur when one person think he or she has a right to the property of another person – or thinks that terms like "property" and "right" are meaningless.

At present, it is the trend in Canada to ignore property and rights. People think they have an increasing right to the property of others. Maclean's magazine, as I understand it, was dragged before the Human Rights Commission because it wouldn't publish some other people's articles in its own magazine. The fact that court (or commission, or whatever) would hear this case tells me that Canada is still figuring out who has a right to whom's property.

Perhaps before determining the what makes a criminal, we should first determine what is a crime.

I saw on the news that people who had to evacuate their homes in B.C. because of the advancing forest fires, were recently able to return home, just to find that their homes had been looted. We would probably have to abort the whole species to avoid this sort of thing.

Even when Opportunity's knock is sombre and tragic, people will still enthusiastically open the door, even if it requires busting the lock.

Certainly an argument that backs the "liberal" philosophy of addressing the root causes of crime, right? So I'm puzzled why you would find this statement objectionable given your clearly overwhelming belief in the liberal crime fighting philosophy? Moral questions aside, I personally found his argument and supporting evidence very compelling.

There are plenty more studies that could be posted stating the same thing, but I have no doubt that there are several studies which would find the opposite results, so there's no point in getting into a war over who can post the most studies. Studies, like polls, are often commissioned by people with agendas, on both sides of the issue.

My point is only that blanket statements that the liberal approach is "proven" to reduce crime are bogus, as are conservative claims to the contrary. Each approach may or may not have its merits, but to say that either is the proven method that works is just rhetoric.

And there is no evidence to suggest that differences between American and Canadian crime rates is caused by incarceration or sentencing. There are thousands of factors. Access to guns, etc. I agree capital punishment is not a factor and I don't advocate for it, though I wouldn't shed a tear if Bernardo or the creeps that murdered the girl in Woodstock were to meet with a fatal accident while behind bars.

Other than making certain acts that were already illegal all the more illegal (like speed racing), where have they made any effort to reduce crime?

Which means we're still waiting for your list John g.

And the Liberals are correct in supporting that same Conservative crime contral agenda unlike the NDP and the Bloc who hold to their ideological leftist feel good agenda on crime. The mantra of that agenda is that a criminal commits a crime, it's society's fault. Get with the program, like the Liberals have, when a criminal commits a crime it's the criminal's fault.

So… life sentences will delay crime indefinitely. Yay, we solved it!

Prison doesn't stop crime, it only delays it, and makes it worse when the criminal comes out. So unless you're of the mind of a "first strike, you're out" type of rule, all harsher punishments do is create harsher criminals.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have my car stolen when I'm in the store rather than car-jacked while I'm in the car.

The other thing you need to look at in those stats is crime vs. urbanization. From 1962 to 2009 a lot more people moved off the farms in Canada to the city as well. Doesn't mean it's the cause, but it's just as likely as your postulate.

Prison doesn't stop crime, it only delays it, and makes it worse when the criminal comes out. So unless you're of the mind of a "first strike, you're out" type of rule, all harsher punishments do is create harsher criminals.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have my car stolen when I'm in the store rather than car-jacked while I'm in it.

The other thing you need to look at in those stats is crime vs. urbanization. From 1962 to 2009 a lot more people moved off the farms in Canada to the city as well. Doesn't mean it's the cause, but it's just as likely as your postulate.

Think again. Canadian crime rates peaked in early 90s, according to StatsCan, and have been going down gradually since but when you compare crime rates in 1962 to 2009 the 'liberal approach' does not look so good. Property crime and violent crimes per 100,000 people have more than doubled since '62, right around the time liberal approach was starting to be implemented. And total criminal code offences have risen from 2,000 per 100,000 people to around 8,000 per 100,000.

I agree that deterrence is not that effective but putting people in jail is much more than that. It stops criminals from committing more crimes and it provides some justice to victims. Only criminologists think jail does not work because they seem to be more concerned with criminals self-esteem and how to turn them into suburban dads than they are with justice.

Your turn!

it is also completely consistent with Brodie's bragging back in May about considerations of evidence about impacts in making the GST decision.

So I guess it's up to me. From Stephen Levitt.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6191.html

Over the last two decades the punitiveness of the juvenile justice system has declined" substantially relative to the adult courts. During that same time period juvenile violent crime" rates have grown almost twice as quickly as adult crime rates. This paper examines the degree to" which those two empirical observations are related, finding that changes in relative punishments" can account for 60 percent of the differential growth rates in juvenile and adult violent crime" between 1978 and 1993. Juvenile offenders appear to be at least as responsive to criminal" sanctions as adults. Moreover, sharp changes in criminal involvement with the transition from" the juvenile to the adult court suggest that deterrence, rather than simply incapacitation important role.

So I guess it's up to me. From Stephen Levitt.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6191.html

Over the last two decades the punitiveness of the juvenile justice system has declined" substantially relative to the adult courts. During that same time period juvenile violent crime" rates have grown almost twice as quickly as adult crime rates. This paper examines the degree to" which those two empirical observations are related, finding that changes in relative punishments" can account for 60 percent of the differential growth rates in juvenile and adult violent crime" between 1978 and 1993. Juvenile offenders appear to be at least as responsive to criminal" sanctions as adults. Moreover, sharp changes in criminal involvement with the transition from" the juvenile to the adult court suggest that deterrence, rather than simply incapacitation important role.

So I guess it's up to me. From Stephen Levitt.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6191.html

Over the last two decades the punitiveness of the juvenile justice system has declined" substantially relative to the adult courts. During that same time period juvenile violent crime" rates have grown almost twice as quickly as adult crime rates. This paper examines the degree to" which those two empirical observations are related, finding that changes in relative punishments" can account for 60 percent of the differential growth rates in juvenile and adult violent crime" between 1978 and 1993. Juvenile offenders appear to be at least as responsive to criminal" sanctions as adults. Moreover, sharp changes in criminal involvement with the transition from" the juvenile to the adult court suggest that deterrence, rather than simply incapacitation important role.

Your turn!

http://www.dangardner.ca/Archapr2802.html

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/we-don&r…

Cause I guarantee you that for every study you dig up, I can dig one up that shows a correlation between increasing the likelihood of going to prison or increasing the sentence, and a reduction in crime rates.

How on Earth did we get saddled with these primitives?

It has? I must have missed it. Who proved it?