• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Jim Williams
    December 06, 2011 - 11:04

    Interesting how the government of Canada has pulled out of Kyoto, but not surprising. They say timing is everything. Some time ago climate change topped the list of concerns of Canadians, and government would not dare dismiss the Kyoto accord at that time. What the government needed was a more pressing concern that would occupy the Canadian populous. And behold the banking industry gave it to them (government) by manufacturing a financial crisis. What we will see, on a more frequent occurrence, in the future will be bigger and more damaging weather patterns. Insurance companies will cry out for help and just like the banking industry governments will step in and bail them out. Oh what a tangled web we weave. I cannot help but wonder if technology exists that would eliminate the use of coal, thus reducing co2 green house gases, would we embrace this technology? .

  • Lizzy
    December 06, 2011 - 10:04

    According to people like Wangersky, it is "logical" to ease up on criminals just because the crime rate is falling. Ridiculous! If you ask me, the crime rate is never low enough, and we as a society should do everything in our power to drive it down. That means putting dangerous and repeat offenders behind bars, because "logically" speaking, a criminal can't commit crimes if he is in prison.

  • Taylor
    December 06, 2011 - 09:59

    The declining crime rate is a red herring. Regardless of the total number of criminals, the real and serious question remains: How should we treat each criminal? Just because there are fewer criminals, does that mean we should treat each of them more lightly? Of course not. Even if we focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, the fact is you can't rehabilitate a criminal by putting them right back where they were when they committed their crimes. Nor can you rehabilitate someone by putting them in a prison and handing them everything on a silver platter. You have to put them in a controlled setting and condition them to act responsibly. In other words, you have to incarcerate them and teach them to earn their privileges (like TV, computer access, visitors, social opportunities, canteen privileges, etc.). After all, that is what responsible members of society have to do every day.

  • Carl
    December 06, 2011 - 09:46

    Funny how Wangersky touts the importance of facts and logic in making policy decisions, yet he presents none to support his own views. Here are some facts on the Kyoto accord: 1. Countries accounting for 75% of the world's GHG emissions are not included in the accord; 2. Almost none of the countries that are included will meet their obligations by reducing emissions - instead, they will meet their obligations by buying credits, which does the environment no good whatsoever; 3. The Chretien government signed the accord in 1996 and then did absolutely nothing to meet its requirements - instead, Canada's emissions rose by over a third before the Liberals left office; 4. Canada's emissions of GHGs have started to fall under the Harper government. So, Mr. Wangersky, where is the logic in remaining under the Kyoto accord when it is clearly useless for reducing GHG emissions?

  • Jerome
    December 06, 2011 - 08:58

    Most posters claim to have the answers. I don't. Locking up "petty" criminals for extended periods of time is an obvious waste of taxpayers dollars. But what is the alternative? Suspended sentences or house arrest? Last evening there was a home invasion on Springdale Street, and the alleged perpetrators face numerous charges, including breach of court orders. This is a common theme . More often than not, the word breach sticks out in most charges laid today. It's obvious that repeat offenders are not being rehabilitated. Would locking them up for extended periods of time solve that problem? With the over-crowding in our penal system, is that a solution? Who is going to pay for extended incarceration, but the provincial jurisdiction? Unfortunately, like almost everything else, the dollar factor comes into play. When a minister of justice or attorney general has to weigh what a penalty will cost, then we have a huge problem.