The fundamental difference between right and left (in my opinion):
1) right wing thinkers put responsibility back on the individual
2) left wing thinkers posit some "force" which "causes" people to act in a certain way
I`ve been addicted before, I smoked for 14 years. I have not smoked for the past 3 years because
I chose to quit. The addiction was not some force which controlled me, it was something I submitted to by choice. Everyone I know who just can`t seem to quit smoking always blames the "addiction".
Saying that criminals can`t help themselves because they`re addicted really helps them justify their CHOSEN actions.
Being tough on crime is, in my opinion, more about placing responsibily on the person who commits the crime than anything else.
QUOTE (JohnS @ Dec 18 2008, 12:57 AM) 1) Tough on crime has been proven, repeatedly, by criminologists all over the Western world, not to work. It`s pretty much entirely based on the concept that if we increase the punishment, it will deter people from committing crimes, as the risk won`t be worth the reward. However, NOBODY commits a crime thinking that they`re going to be caught. If they`re not going to be caught, then what does the punishment matter? As soon as you can answer that question, then tough on crime policies might...MIGHT...have a chance of working. That`s the main problem with those kinds of policies. We can add to the problems, though, and numerous studies have done so. Like, a large percentage of crimes (I believe it`s a majority, but I could be wrong about that) have some relation to drugs...as in, the person is addicted and needs a fix. When you`re in that kind of situation, thinking calmly and rationally, weighing the pro`s and cons, is the furthest thing from possibility. And if they`re not going to think about the possible ramifications of their actions, there can be no deterrence factor. And there`s more reasons that further compound why tough on crime policies have proven to be insane - any research at all can turn up tons of evidence. But Harper isn`t interested in evidence, he`s interested in his ideology. That, and insulting and attacking anyone that tries to approach the situation rationally and has examined the research. Talking about such approaches as being "soft on crime" just shows that you`ve bought into the attack ads and propaganda, and aren`t willing to seriously address the issues, and I think it`s about time our Prime Minister seriously addressed them.
2) I don`t think I talked about the Liberals at all - I was talking about Harper`s failings, as someone directly stated that they didn`t understand why people disliked him. Not his party, but him. I`m not a lifelong liberal by any means, and although I did vote for them in the last election, I think it was the first time I voted Liberal federally in my life, but it might just be the first time in a long time. But to say that the Liberals have lied a lot too....When did Dion, Rae, or Ignatieff lie in the last 6-8 years? I wasn`t talking about what some long-dead Conservative lied about...I was directly talking about what the leader of the party did. Now, I`m assuming that you`ll be able to find some about the Liberal leaders (or recent contenders) - I`ve never stated otherwise. However, Harper`s campaign was based on lies, whereas the Liberals was based on ideas. There really is no denying that. You might hate the Liberals` ideas, but at least they had some and tried to discuss them. (And the ideas were released to the public before they voted!)
3) The Liberals and the Environment. Yes, there were definitely problems here. Of course there were. But Harper has been declared the worst leader by different environmental groups, whereas Dion was lauded by them, when he was the Minister of the Environment. Unfortunately, he wasn`t that Minister for long enough to have real impact, but different groups have repeatedly said that he was very good. As for his (hated, and much maligned) Green Shift - he had hundreds of economists and environmentalists on his side, saying that he had the best plan to combat the problems without destroying the economy. He had policies that have already been proven to work in different countries. Harper had....talking attack ads at gas stations months before the election was called.
4) As for patting myself on the back...I hadn`t before, but I am now. I mean, for pretty much every point I`ve made, I provided evidence. I don`t remember seeing much at all in your post. So, I`m feeling fine that way, actually, but I`m glad that I was able to amuse you that way, somehow!
As I said, I never used to be Liberal. But, after critically examining the ideas and supporting evidence of the different parties, I am one federally. That might change, depending on what Ignatieff does. And, I`m not really one provincially either. I mean, McGuinty does some of the same things that I don`t like about Harper. He has ideologies or policies that totally fly in the face of insurmountable evidence, and I don`t know if he does that because he truly believes in it or because it`s an easy sell to the voters. As the main example here, I`m thinking of Ontario`s policies on rent control. Most people here have seen the evidence that rent control doesn`t work, and that it actually hurts society as a whole. Yet, Ontario has it, and I can`t see us losing it anytime soon, no matter what the evidence says. To me, that just flies in the face of logic, no matter who does it, Liberal or Conservative, provincial or federal, McGuinty or Harper.
Have a good one!
JohnS
