The more I get to know this Mark Holland guy, the more I am exposed to a ludicrous brand of partisan politics. Today's enlightenment comes on the issue of funding prisons, and the beautiful theory that prisons create crime; ergo funding prisons creates more criminals. Ergo we should spend less money incarcerating criminals and instead shift funding to support payments to the victims of crimes. I am not without empathy for the victims of crimes, but how is it wrong to service them by funding the incarceration of the criminal who harmed them? It was an odd quandary watching Holland say that by funding prisons, the federal government was creating crime.
The moral hazard in that strategy of course is that if you decrease incarceration funding, then there will be less vacancy for dangerous offenders meaning more will be released in a shorter period of time. Increasing the number of dangerous offenders on the streets will create more victims, which increases the probability of society incurring a substantial loss. It seems odd that Soloman can turn this into a debate. Mark Holland is a douche and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The question of the day on the Soloman Show: "Should the government spend more on incarcerating prisoners than it does on the victims of crimes?"
How did Evan Soloman's 200 or so fans respond?
No 72% (186 votes)
Yes 22% (56 votes)
Considering our prison budget is well over a billion dollars and victim support is a fraction of that, Evan's fans are asking for a rather dramatic shift in incarceration funding.
I used to teach the sociology of deviance and there is some truth to Mark Holland's claim if you come from the position that you only incarcerate the worst offenders and parole the rest -- and that jail is only for rehabilitation, not punishment. Because, once inside, so the theory goes, they turn worst than they were already.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Then, we could ask, why consider jail time rehabilitation if they only get worse?
Whatever the case, there should be some recourse/compensation for victims but it can't possibly be as much as it costs to incarcerate someone.
And, of course, for murder, there is no recourse for the victim. So, its punishment and keeping them out of society so they don't kill someone else.
But, yes, when I read your first few lines I too was scratching my head. You can't make this stuff up.
I understand that while in prison a prisoner can often learn how to become a more effective criminal, but unless you segregate the entire prison population that will be unavoidable. I am not prepared to underfund penitentiaries on the grounds that rehabilitation is a lost cause.
ReplyDeleteMy concern with funding is the total number of beds behind bars, and I am certain there is a direct link between number of beds and cost. It fine to set sentencing guidelines for various crimes, but that's all for not if there is no cell to keep the convict.
Mark Holland and the rest of his hug-a-thug social misfits create more crime.
ReplyDeleteRehabilitation is a fucking myth.
ReplyDeleteAn ex-con is never going to recover their status as a human being.
Background checks make sure of that.
So why pretend?
Don't forget that the socialists closed mental hospitals, so the prisons are doing double duty.
ReplyDeleteMark Holland is just another parliamentary buffoon who speaks out of both sides of his mouth and he does it constantly. Has this liberal public safety critic said anything about the one billion dollars being spent on security to host a bunch of international failures attending all these parties (G8-20) hosted in his transfer payment dependent province of Ontario? (Ajax-Pickering).
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day
ReplyDeleteThis change in law to punish a few bad apples with harsher punishment is unfair to the remaining people who repent their crimes and want to live properly.