There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked before making any conclusions in areas of social policy such as this. That question is, "Has the amount of crime increased, or has it decreased, or has it remained the same?" It is important that the answer to that question be accurate, because the underpinnings to the cry for harsher penalties are based on the assumption that crime is on the rise.

The facts, not the assumption, are that the crime rate is lower now than in the past, and that calls into question the basis for Ben's statement that, "all hell broke out." The fact, not the assumption, is that all hell has not broken out, and crime has diminished.

The following quote is from a Canadian government site at http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm, where it says, "Except for an increase in 2003, the crime rate has generally been falling since 1991 when it peaked. Police reported about 2.6 million offences in 2004, resulting in a crime rate that was 12% lower than a decade ago."

Now, admittedly, some crimes have increased, but even for these the rate is lower than in the past. As the report says, "Canada's homicide rate rose 12% in 2004 after hitting a 36-year low the year before." So, despite the increase, the murder rate is still lower than it was in 1967. That hardly constitutes a situation in which "all hell broke out".

If the basis of an argument is false, the conclusion reached is also false. Canada's justice system is indeed working as shown by a steady decline in crime rates, despite perceived faults.

Read also Canada. http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072100a.htm

My apologies, that's:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm
and
http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072100a.htm

I have no training in the humanities but I find our social attitudes very interesting.

Since the second world war our society has completely changed. We went from an agricultural nation to an industrial nation and into that mix came thousands of war veterans and that changed our direction forever because it changed our economic outlook which to this day is our main objective. Our main concern is the “good life. “

With the good life came consumerism and a quest for the need of more dollars and with that came our greed. We lost a sense of direction. And now if it doesn’t work we simply say it cost to much money for example our social programs.

Those blessed with a good income are generally not the problem but take a growing family were both parents have to work and in many cases they have two jobs the family is left to find it’s own direction and often it is the wrong one.

Our system has failed us. Instead of staying with a free enterprise system we have gone to pure capitalism which is survival of the fittest.. When you look at the definition of the free enterprise system it states that profits must provide for our social programs. Ask yourself where do the profits from our natural resources go and you will understand why we no longer have funds for social programs. One can say it’s a jungle out here

And as Ben would say this is one mans opionion

Kimbo says: "...and you will understand why we have no longer funds for social programs."

I go to work and pay my taxes. Some of those go to service the national debt, some go to running the government etc. Some go to the many different social programs and so forth.

I am not aware of the notion that there are "no longer any funds for social programs."

When did that happen?

Many funds, not all by any means, for social programs = gaming funds = service club funds = generosity of individuals and corporations.

If you read the linked speech from the Mayor of Toronto last year, you will see what is of concern to the cities in this country. Cities are where the social problems are dealt with.

http://www.toronto.ca/mayor_miller/speeches/jointogether_speech.htm

BTW no funds for highways, city roads, education, and mnost of health are received through gaming, service clubs and the generosity of individuals.

Can anyone tell me a good reason why social services are not funded fully in the same way?

Ammonra and kimbo, you are both bang on the money. Perception is not always a good indicator of the truth.

Diplomat, did you not read Bens words when he states that putting people in prison was costing to much money. and perhaps I was wrong when I said there is no money when I should of said there is not enough money. We all pay taxes but remember the 2 billion dollar tax break that the province gave to the business community a few years back.

It is not my point to make this topic a solution for our political problems. I just made a statement of where we were and were we are going. Having said that I do have to make another statement and that is that those who believe in the capitalist system often have a very focused vision of how our society should work.

Further where we need more then tax dollars to solve our social problems it is the responsibility of our corporations to provide more then just lip service to our society. Presently we are screaminfg for more trained works and that is because the employers have let us down and did not participate in traing programs because they are to expensive.

To reduce our crime rates even further would be to encourage our young people for a better education. We owe it to them we brought them into this world so why not give them a break. There are a few countries out there that provide education at no cost to the student and this includes university education.

So you think I"m one of those silly socialist as as some one refered to them in another post. This is not socialism its free enterprise at its best.
The late John Kenneth Galbraith refered to our present economy as the Horse Manure Economy when he said if you feed enough oats to a horse some of it will pass through and that is the portion that our society will get for its social progrms.

Have a nice day.

Kimbo, relax a bit. I didn't say that you are one of those silly socialists (I don't think that socialists are silly). Always remember that corporations are business entities, devoid of any personal compassion and conscience. Do yourself a favour and do a search on Wikipedia using the keywords "free enterprise system." Then you will find that people have wrestled with these controversies for centuries.

Government taxes the corporations in every country, more or less successfully. Sometimes they close shop and move to greener pastures, wherever they are, China, Korea, and so forth.

The trick is to pluck the goose without killing it. For instance: GM is getting rid of 50,000 employees and Ford is doing the same. Together with the jobs the best benefits in the auto industry will disappear.

New employees are hired to work at a lower pay and the union has agreed to go along with it.

The world market for vehicles consists of a certain total number. Only those manufacturers who operate mean and lean will survive. Every auto workers job represents another seven jobs in the community.

There is global competition and that complicates matters a lot, no matter how idealistic one wants to be.

Alcan says it is going to modernize the smelter in Kitimat. Fine. The modernized smelter will use less electricity for the same tonnage of aluminum produced (Alcan will sell the surplus power!) and it will reduce the workforce from 1,500 to 1,000.

There will be 500 less employees paying taxes to support social programs and there will be less people employed in the community - facts of life.

We may not like it, but "free enterprise" doesn't set aside a certain amount for social programs, automatically.

I have no problem with what you are expressing in respect to young people, the need for more social spending and that the corporations should behave more responsibly.

Mexico has free university education but only the very top performers in entrance exams are admitted.

The Mexican students still must buy all their study materials and pay for their own room and board.

In 1938 Mexico nationalized the petroleum industry and the country lingered on the economic sidelines for the next 50 years as it was being punished for having done so.

So, back to the crime rate. Shouldn't we regulate who is allowed to have children? Is that a bit harsh? Parents who are unable or unwilling to teach their children the concepts of boundaries, ethics, and values should be held accountable for the crime rate. I know that multiple children in my community are being parented at a sub-standard or very minimal level. Children who emerge from disorganized and damaged families have little chance of breaking the cycle of mental illness, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), poor school attendance/performance, etc. Crime ends up paying very well for those who perceive themselves to have no other options in life and the punishment rarely fits the crime.
The word "poverty" gets thrown around frequently in our society as a crutch or excuse for inattentive parenting. I don't think there is true poverty in Canada. Sure, there's poor folks, but poverty, I don't think so. I heard a doctor speak a number of months ago about her experience in a third world country. She said, "there's no real poverty in Canada, but there is a poverty in spirit." My take on what she said was that there's a social safety net that catches anyone who's willing to participate and that no one really goes hungry here. I completely agree with that theory of our society. I think that people in the system refuse to or have no motivation to get out. People who collect Gov't benefits/assistence month in and month out are dependant on this safety net and there is no real incentive to work and become an example for young people to do the same. As a result, the cycle of dependancy will only grow and with that cycle will come depression, addictions, unemployment, lousy parenting, zero accountablility, and the cycle will just continue. I don't pretend to have any answers but I think that accountablility is where we should start. People who have children should have to ensure that there is a real plan to ensure that the child has a fighting chance to blossom without the hinderences of poor planning/parenting.
How about National Child Care/Parenting Standards enforced by the provinces who already have protections services. If we did something like this, would there be less crime. What are the implications? Parenting and child care should be a comprehensive course in every high school.

Thoughts?

Great thoughts folks. I am pleased to agree with much of what has been shared in the above two articles.

If a child has never had any parents or comes from a disfunctional family model, how would he or she know how a parent should raise a child?

If a child was raised in a welfare environment all their lives and their parents never worked, why would we expect anything more from the children?

We all are aware of educating people who are unemployable. The purpose of a University is to teach people how to learn, not produce employable people. So, why would we provide free education if the result was not a person who was then able to provide for themselves and their families? Chester

"If a child has never had any parents or comes from a disfunctional (sic) family model, how would he or she know how a parent should raise a child?"

That is an example of one of the most common categories of questions posed by those who forget that there is a whole spectrum of learning methods. Personal experience is only one of them. If all we had to rely on to transfer information was personal experience, we would still be sitting in caves. Humans have this wonderful ability to conceptualize and communicate.

From my observations there is a stronger relationship of "dysfunctional" children with lax upbringing in a newly "rich" family than there is in a family which is not as well off.

As far as the purpose of a University education goes, that varies with the program. Some programs are much more theory based than others. Others are very much application oriented. Professional programs such as dentistry, medicine, forestry, engineering, architecture, criminology, and a host of others fit into that category.

What is true of University education is that it puts students into an environment where they should be learning how to problem solve based on first order approaches. Other types of post secondary education is much more skills training oriented, training students to follow traditional rote methods of doing things. They learn by repetition, very much a method following the system used in high school.

College students are much more apt to say to an instructor: "that was an unfair exam question because you never gave us an example like that in class". Those students will likely pass in a College but will have to learn handling new situations on the job. Some will manage, some will not.

The typical University graduate is the exact opposite. The good ones excel at applying their knowledge to new skills they will learn on the job. Hire a College Graduate and you will have an individual who will very quickly be an asset to the company and will quickly be capable of managing longer periods without supervisory input. Hire a University graduate and it will take one or two years to catch up with the College graduate, but in most cases, that person will surpass the College graduate in value to the company and will typically outpace the College grad with respect to length of time without supervision.

When employers are asked what they are looking for in a young employees, they will typically respond with - good communications skills, able to get along well with others, able to problem solve, able to work with little supervision.

So, Chester, statistics simply do not support your theory that university grads cannot provide for their families. It is a well known fact that on average, the higher the education level, the higher the rate of pay. As with everything in life, there are exceptions to the rule. So you may know a few poor examples that do not fit the norm.

Diplomat. The difference between the North American system of education and that in Europe is that the European companies work much closer with formal education systems through their apprenticeship programs. In many cases, they have their own "schools".

Read this and then talk to me about global competition and corporations, especially manufacturing such as automotive, and their inability to participate in "social programs" to educate the young and bring them up to be "productive" members of society.

When you are reading it, keep in mind that one of the reasons the North Americans are losing the edge they had in the car manufactuing sector is because of countries like Germany and Japan which have such in-house training systems. Perhaps there is something to be learned.

The Time Magazine article starts off with:

"It may be hard for Americans to fathom a world in which corporations, instead of merely lamenting the shortage of skilled labor, volunteer to train vast numbers of the non-college-bound."

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1182439,00.html

Diplomat, you did an excellent job of describing the trap that we are in. How to get out of it I don't think that we can. Sometimes I wonder if we are repeating history by going the way the Roman Empire did.

And for steeliepete who thinks there is no poverty in Canada should also check the definition of the word with Stats Canada. We are second only to the USA who are at the head of the pack in the developed world.

Incidentlly, Diplomat, I am a very relaxed person. Greed has never been part of my life. I find the simpler things in life like going for walk or smelling the roses very relaxing and enjoyable

Owl, I cited the case of GM/Ford getting rid of 100,000 skilled production line workers. They are all already educated and especially the older ones (who get the first crack at a buy-out) have oodles of experience on the job.

I don't know if in Germany and Japan companies still have apprenticeship training in-house as they had many years ago. The jobs seem to be moving eastward to the newly "liberated" former socialist republic satellite states of Stalin's evil soviet empire.

In the USA millions of jobs are eliminated by outsourcing to India where highly trained professionals will do engineering jobs at 25% of the salary that an American engineer expects to get in the USA. Computer programming is another example.

In think that we should enjoy our Canadian way of life, including all the social benefits and medical care while they are still available as cornerstone values.

Things could be a lot tougher and who knows what the future holds in store for us.

Now I am going to go out and smell the roses in the garden.

Cheers!

I think the first mistake which may be made here is assuming that the 100,000 are skilled in today's technology. I would want to look at their continuous improvement programs first. These companies will likely not go under. Who knows. Cleaning house, re-assessing their products, and rebuilding new plants may where they are heading.

I know a German Robotics specialist working for Mercedes who worked out of Michigan for 6 years retooling the Chrysler plants for the new Mercedes/Chrysler group.

Here is some news about the company trying to distance itself from GM and Ford, by building on German knowhow.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-35/1151533461269060.xml&storylist=newsmichigan&thispage=1

I had to go back up to the original post to see where this began. I didn't see anything about education or economics. So, it just proves that everything is linked to everything else eventually.

So, how do we deal with "problem people" who continue to go through life stealing, vandelizing and outright destroying the property and lives of others?

First of all, things have changed over the years. We have become much more lenient, much more apathetic, much more tolerant, much more politically correct. We have lowered the bar in every area to the point where almost everything is permissible or tolerated. In fact, in many cases, there isn't even a deterant. Now we wonder what happened?

We let the special interest groups reduce the effectiveness of our legal system one slice at a time. It's called "The Salami Method".

So, we need to begin to get it back one slice at a time. This will be a challenge, but not impossible. So, what really needs to happen?

The first ingredient is the "Will" to change the things we are dissatisfied with or things that are not working. We are going to step on the toes of some groups of people who have dictated policy changes, but do not reflect the majority.

Where do we start? Develop a set of core values that the majority of our population support and implement them. Teach respect for authority. Teach respect for your elders. Teach people that their rights end when they begin superceding the rights of others.

Put fear back into our country where if you break the law, there are consequences. And you will experience them. And it won't be an enjoyable experience. Make the punishment suit the crime. Only lock those people up who are a threat to society.

Put the rest to work for the city, the province or the country providing restitution for the damage or the costs they caused to others. When they have paid back 7 times the cost they were responsible for, they can go back and begin working for themselves.

Impose control over those who have difficulty controlling themselves. The conditions in our jails should not be better than the conditions outside our jails for those same people. Otherwise, where is the incentive to stay out? Anybody with me? Chester

I challenge Kimbo to go to New Delhi or "non-Americanized" regions of Mexico, Indonesia, S. America, etc. You'll see the definition of poverty there. Stats Canada's definition of poverty is relative to N. American affluence. Go down to the intersection of 3rd and George in Prince George and you'll find "Canadian Poverty". Then ask someone who is obviously living under the "Canadian Poverty line" where they slept the night before and when did they eat last. Then you'll find out what "Canadian Poverty" is.

Canada is Shangri-la (paradise on earth) compared with the countries that have real poverty.

It's all about incentive. There's no incentive to get away from Crime. Go down to the courthouse on any given criminal remand day and watch the "gong show". B&E's, violent domestic's, vandalism, assaults, robberies, mostly all getting released the same day. Frequently, the victims get terrorized the day after the perpetrator is arrested, frequently the same day. Your tax dollars fund this "gong show" justice system. I challenge you to go watch. Watch the disrespect in the court house and even the court room. Then, when one of them gets roughed up in police or sherriff custody the agency becomes the bad guy??????? Another tragic factor in our system is protection for criminals. If someone breaks into my house at night and I catch them in my child's bedroom about to do something horrific, I can't bash that person on the head and drag him out to the street and beat the s... out of him. There's a great likelihood that I would be charged and it would be justified in order to discourage the community from vigilante actions.

I'm sick of writing. Thoughts.

Obviously people are concerned about the effect of crime on their lives, and Ben's comments are based on a perception that the rate of crime is increasing and we are awash in an orgy of criminality. We are not. The rate of crime is declining and has been for many years. We are safer now than in the past. Despite the perceptions, we are less likely to be impacted by criminality than in the past. Our society is safer, despite the constant focus on crime, or perhaps because of it. What has increased is our population, and that makes it appear that we aare worse off. Why make changes to our justice system when it is already successfully reducing the rates of crime? That just doesn't make sense.

This previous post is exactly what is wrong. Have we become so tolerant and apathetic that the chaos and vandalism we are facing appears to be the norm.

And oh well, it's not that bad, why would we want to change things? I am not surprised at this attitude. I guess the writer hasn't been affected by the problems we face day to day. Chester

Chester, your two posts of 8:52 AM and 03:52 Pm make a lot of sense, in my opinion. This business of statistics that seem to indicate that crimes rates are "down" must be approached with caution, as the constant de-criminalizing of previously punishable acts shifts the statistics into the comparing of apples to oranges arena.

Many years ago the justice system in Denmark for instance de-criminalized certain sexual offenses and the next year declared victory in its effort to reduce the rate of sexually criminal behaviour.

I suspect that much of that has happened in Canada as well in respect to re-classification "downwards" of vandalism and theft, perhaps even more serious matters.

Just because a crime has been de-criminalized doesn't mean it hasn't happened and it is very small comfort to the victims.

A reduction in auto thefts from 1,000 per year to 800 per year in P.G. still is an unacceptable condition and if the crime rate inches down only ever so slightly each year then we can expect that over the next 50 years almost every vehicle in P.G. will have been stolen and
vandalized at least once.

When the thieves are locked up in jail they can't steal cars. It is as simple as that.

The justice system needs to have more changes, not less.

I have to agree with diplomat. It's important to know that political parties are interested in showing statistics that they can run to the bank with. If you've ever taken a statistical methods course, you'd know that statistics are largely meant to sway the populous. Take a look at the funding that pays for stats in Canada. Who benefits from all these statistical studies? One example I can think of is a commercial I saw while living in the USA many years ago. The commercial was about the dangers of long-haul trucks with multiple trailers on hwys. Sure, they aren't the safest thing to be rolling down the hwy and I was all but convinced by the ad until I read the fine print at the end of the commercial...it read, "this ad paid for by the railway workers union of Washington". That's when it all sunk in for me. Statistics is a massive propaganda tool.

Lower crime rates in Canada are an indication of fewer convictions, not fewer crimes. Stop a local RCMP Cst. and ask him/her how many of their investigations/arrests are approved by the crown. I know of multiple heinous crimes that have either been "stayed" or dropped due to police work load or the crown's opinion about "community safety" and their unwillingness to run hearings because of the slightly lower probability of a conviction. Gangs run amuck in Canada, and PG, because they are intelligent enough to operate above the law. Then tax payers flip the bill for a study that results in an ad campaign to help educate young women about the dangers of hitch-hiking...of all stupid things. How naive do they think we are. Hitch-hiking isn't the problem. Organized crime that exploits young women and completely devalues them is the problem.

As before, I've written enough. Any more thoughts? This is a good bunch of entries. Thanks to all who commented or contributed.

Obviously, Chester, you didn't think about what I wrote in that post and the initial one. The information reported nationally by the RCMP and other agencies shows a decline in crime rates. You can poo-poo that if you like, but to say crime is rampantly increasing when it is in fact declining is nonsense and does nobody any good.

And you put words in my mouth. Please do not. What I actually said was that the current justice system is shown to be working in reducing crime, so why change it back to a system that caused increases in crime in the past. If it is working, as the federal government reports plainly show, why change it until it ceases to be effective, except to focus the programs more effectively.

And yes, I have been the victim of crime, and that doesn't alter the fact that the rate of criminality is declining and the justice system is working. If you are looking for a society in which crime does not exist, then good luck to you, but you won't find it in this world.

To diplomat, you may think the declining crime rates is due to comparing apples to oranges, but if you actually were to read the web pages I referred to you would find they are comparing apples to apples. The decline is due to actual lower numbers of specified crimes (and a few increases) not to decriminalising some sexual offences (what does that mean, anyway?).

Why do people insist that Canada is unsafe when it is one of the safest countries to live in the whole world? Why libel your own country? I have never understood that kind of disloyalty, its almost as if some people want Canada to be a hotbed of violence and theft. Accept the facts, Diplomat, as you so often say yourself.

Well Ammonra, it sounds like you come from a place where crime and the justice system is much worse. Why do we have to stop striving for a better system just because it's, as you say, the best system in the world. Perhaps it is, however, why stop our growth towards a better justice system just because it's better then the others. It doesn't take much to have a better system than some god-forsaken dictatorship or police state.

My neighbour works long hours on a manicured garden and the other night some a..holes stole a bunch of her planters. The police would laugh behind her back if she reported that. Why do we have to live with that?

Are you offering a solution or suggesting we live with the status quo? I believe that it's disloyal to sit back apathetically and be happy with a good system when a better system is available.

"Lower crime rates in Canada are an indication of fewer convictions, not fewer crimes."

How anyone with any sense could actually believe that statement is beyond me.

When someone is shot, it is investigated and it is recorded as a suicide, a homicide, or an accident. Whether they catch the individual responsible for a homicide or not, or whether that individual is found guilty or not really does not matter when reporting crime statistics.

The same goes for b&e, vandalism, rapes, assaults, etc.

How can anyone carry on a reasonable discussion when people do not even understand the most basic principles of what is being discussed?

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796-B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE09F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCanada2004.pdf

Read that. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

It never ceases to amaze me how posters like steeliepete can twist round what is said then use the twisted version to prove some obscure point.

First, lets deal with the nonsense about my origins. I come from a place where the justice system is much like Canada's, the United Kingdom. Steeliepete may believe that "God" has forsaken Britain and perhaps She has, but there has been no dictatorship in that country since the restoration of Charles II following the death of Oliver Cromwell (except, perhaps, for Margaret Thatcher). However, I have spent most of my life in Canada.

I did not suggest that we should stop working for a safer society with lower crime rates. I said that the current system is already doing that, so why go back to an older system that was not as successful as the one we have now.

It never ceases to amaze me how posters like steeliepete can twist round what is said then use the twisted version to prove some obscure point.

First, lets deal with the nonsense about my origins. I come from a place where the justice system is much like Canada's, the United Kingdom. Steeliepete may believe that "God" has forsaken Britain and perhaps She has, but there has been no dictatorship in that country since the restoration of Charles II following the death of Oliver Cromwell (except, perhaps, for Margaret Thatcher). However, I have spent most of my life in Canada.

I did not suggest that we should stop working for a safer society with lower crime rates. I said that the current system is already doing that, so why go back to an older system that was not as successful as the one we have now.

I didn't actually post it twice, but I guess the program must have thought my comments were sooooo.. important!

I get the last word as Steeliepete has congratulated us on the good posts and would say no more.

A while back I said, "those that believe in a capilalist system has a focused view of how our society should function". I guess what I should of said , "they are extremely narrow minded".

Ammonra, it saddens me to read your opinion that states: "How can anyone carry on a reasonable discussion when people do not even understand the most basic principles of what is being discussed?"

You are the only one with an understanding of basic principles? How does it feel to occupy such a lofty position? Very lonely, I bet.

Also, you stated: "I have never understood that kind of disloyalty, its almost as if some people want Canada to be a hotbed of violence and theft..."

So you think that when somebody expresses an opinion about Canadian circumstances that this is "disloyalty"?

Well, George W. Bush uses that kind of "logic" when he accuses people who don't support him and his views as being disloyal and un-American.

I am not very happy about you calling me a disloyal Canadian, in fact I resent it a lot.

I think you have taken this whole discussion to a very low level by doing so.

Nobody has stated that they want Canada to be a hotbed of violence or theft. It is purely your own opinion and it shows how far you have drifted from the original topic.

Ammonra, I mistakenly stated that you made the irritating comment ""How can anyone carry on a reasonable discussion when people do not even understand the most basic principles of what is being discussed?"

It wasn't you.

I apologize. The rest of my post in respect to trying to be "disloyal" stands as is.

As for changing statistics: Change the young offenders' act and the crime statistics change, change the age of consent, same thing.

"Why do people insist that Canada is unsafe when it is one of the safest countries to live in the whole world?"

I also wrote that. I ask it again. There must be some reason why you and others insist that Canada is crime ridden when all the evidence is that crime is on the decrease, going down, declining, less of it, not as much, etc and so on. Why insist that what is proven to be untrue must be the case?

If you do not want our country to be seen as crime ridden when it is not, why do you, personally, insist that it is?

And, no, Diplomat I do not see expressing an opinion as being disloyal. However, we are not talking about an opinion. Crime in Canada has gone down. That is a fact not an opinion. When people contradict the proven facts I do see that as disloyal, and whether you like it or not, that is my opinion. When what is expressed casts Canada as failing in an area where the country is being successful, as in crime reduction, then yes, I do see that as disloyal. Excuse me for being proud of Canada's success in this area, but for me, that is the bottom line. Crime is less than in years past. That is a fact not an opinion.

Mr. or Mrs. Owl,

You make a very good point about reported crimes and I stand corrected.

I think I've learned a couple of things out of this discussion, thanks to you. The main thing I learned is that it would likely be easier to improve the justice system then it would be for you stop being an asshole. There are more respectful ways of correcting someone.

Ammonra, I like your point about Thatcher. Made me laugh.

Any crime is unacceptable. I do not agree with Ben's statement that "all hell broke out." But:

I ask you, Ammonra, what amount of crime is acceptable??? To me, none, zero, nada. I know that this is unrealistic and probably never achievable. But, is the rape and murder of a certain number of individuals acceptable just because the crime rate is half of what it was x number of years ago and therefore only slightly more than half the number are being raped and murdered now?

This is a rhetorial question, because the answer is self-evident.

Even though Canada's crime rate may be lower than some other countries it doesn't mean it is not a negative aspect of our society.

Have you ever had your car stolen, the one you pampered and intended to keep for another ten or more years and then basically wrecked beyond repair by a bunch of hoodlums who just wanted to go joy riding in a vehicle that wasn't theirs and that the owner (me) worked and saved for?

Statistics and their (often questionable) numbers are small comfort in a situation like that.

I say that all crime must be eradicated, even though that may not be entirely possible.

Now I duck, because the bricks are going to start flying again.

Ammonra, If 10,000 people leave a city and the number of crimes is less than the previous year, do the number reflect a true picture?

If crimes never get reported because it would be a waste of time for everyone concerned, is there still less crime?

If judges throw cases out of court, because of lengthy delays or inadmissable evidence, did the crimes still exist?

If some high priced lawyer got a guilty person off for some crime they committed, did the crime still happen?

I rest my case. Stats don't mean nothing. So I don't put so much weight on stats. And I wouldn't argue with everyone else on the site with stats as the basis of my case. Chester

To Diplomat, of course no crime is acceptable and at no point in this whole discussion have I ever said it was.

For the third or fourth time I will repeat what I said. The Canadian justice system is working, and evidence of that is the reduction in the crime rate. It is not advisable to change the system back to an older approach under which the crime rate waas higher, but to keep on with the modern approach, which is clearly working, and work to fine tune it to be more effective..

I have had a car stolen, and at the time it was incredibly inconvenient. It was shortly after a break and enter in my apartment when an expensive camera and macro/portrait lens were stolen. However, just because I have been the victim of crimes does not alter the fact that crime is on the decrease, it is just an intense irritant.

To Chester. The population of Canada is increasing not decreasing, and since the crime rates are reported as ratios, then yes, the crime rate statistics do accurately reflect the reductions brought about by our current approach.

My impression, and I could be wrong as impressions often are, is that reporting of crimes is more likely to happen now than in the past, so the reductions may be greater than stated. Even if that is not the case, failure to report happened in the past as well, so comparisons are still valid.

Your other point has already been commented on by Owl. Crime statistics are for crimes reported, not convictions obtained. The conviction rate is another discussion entirely, and I have no information about it yet, but I will search the internet to satisfy myself. If someone is found not guilty for a crime, the crime itself still happened and is included in the statistics as a crime, it just means that someone else, unidentified, is the culprit. If a break in occurs, then someone is charged and found not guilty, the break in still happened.

Of course statistics are valid. If there were x number of rhubarb pies in 1999 and x-20 in 2000, then there is a reduction in the number of rhubarb pies. That is perfectly valid, particularly when the reporting agency has a first rate, rock solid reputation for accuracy as the federal government reporting agency does.

I should also note that the crime statistics are for classes of crimes: B&Es, homicide etc. The comparisons are for each class. Changing the age of sexual consent has absolutely no effect on the rate of B&Es nor homicide.

"When the reporting agency has a first rate, rock solid reputation for accuracy as the federal government reporting agency does"

Are you serious? You sound like a government statatician or someone who works in our judicial system. Chester

>Changing the age of sexual consent has absolutely no effect on the rate of B&Es nor homicide.<

Well, I'll be darned. I never would have figured that out all by myself!

I'll sleep better now knowing that there is finally one federal government agency that has a first rate, rock solid reputation for something.

Too bad it wasn't in charge of reporting on the sponsorship expenditures when we were being ripped off by the millions!

You sound like a federal Liberal apologist!

Where the heck are Superman and Batman when we need them?