(Aired on September 8, 2010)
It's a head-scratcher that support for keeping the long gun registry has jumped over the past few months. Back in April, 42% of respondents to a Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll thought it would be a bad idea to get rid of the registry. Now, the number is up to 48%.
That's a significant jump considering nothing has really happened to precipitate it. As far as I know, there haven't been any dramatic jumps in gun violence during that time. The Conservatives still want to scrap the registry, and the opposition parties are still largely looking for ways to keep it in place. Police organizations have reiterated their support for keeping the registry, but that support has always been there. They say it's incredibly helpful to know which homes have firearms registered to them before they knock on the front door. That may be true, but the stated purpose of the long gun registry was to make guns involved in crime more traceable, thus leading police to the criminals more quickly and easily. I have yet to see evidence that actually happens.
It's only common sense that people who would use firearms in the commission of a crime will avoid registering their guns. And while the residual effects may be positive, the billion-dollar boondoggle doesn't seem to be effective at fighting crime.
On a philosophical, world view level, I'm not a fan of firearms. In a perfect world, they would not exist. But it's not a perfect world, guns are a part of society and we would be better served managing their possession and use than trying to rid the world of them. Politicians need to come up with a better option than the ones we have today.
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
RCMP Not the Root of Policing Problems
(Aired on August 16, 2010)
I think we need to have a long look before we make any hasty decisions about doing away with the RCMP in our province. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has been touring the province getting input on what to do about the police situation in B.C. The RCMP contract is coming up for renewal and there are many who seem to feel that a 20-year renewal of the contract is not in our best interests. But I say let's have a good look before we move into something that may seem better, but has a lot of potential for failure.
Some who are against renewal say there is no hope of getting confidence back in the RCMP, that the force's brass needs a major overhaul, and that it's time for a provincial force. They would point to a number of complaints against the police handling of cases, excessive force by members and so on. But those complaints would probably not diminish with a provincial force. There are lots of complaints against officers in the Vancouver police force, just as many issues surrounding the handling of crimes and criminals. Is the real problem not the force, but the overall way we handle policing in general in this country?
For every person upset with excessive force, there is at least one more who is upset that the police aren't tough enough on criminals. For every complaint against an RCMP officer, there is a story about what a great job they do.
My impression is that it's a case of the selection committee choosing appropriate officers as opposed to the force itself. And that's the problem with any police force. I don't agree with Stewart Philip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs very often, but I think he hit the nail on the head when he talked about the fact that some of these older veterans, who have an interest in establishing relationships, are retiring and some of the newer members don't have the same inclination. Relationships are big, and that's what needs to be fostered. If we don't do that, it doesn't matter what kind of police force we have. It won't work.
I think we need to have a long look before we make any hasty decisions about doing away with the RCMP in our province. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has been touring the province getting input on what to do about the police situation in B.C. The RCMP contract is coming up for renewal and there are many who seem to feel that a 20-year renewal of the contract is not in our best interests. But I say let's have a good look before we move into something that may seem better, but has a lot of potential for failure.
Some who are against renewal say there is no hope of getting confidence back in the RCMP, that the force's brass needs a major overhaul, and that it's time for a provincial force. They would point to a number of complaints against the police handling of cases, excessive force by members and so on. But those complaints would probably not diminish with a provincial force. There are lots of complaints against officers in the Vancouver police force, just as many issues surrounding the handling of crimes and criminals. Is the real problem not the force, but the overall way we handle policing in general in this country?
For every person upset with excessive force, there is at least one more who is upset that the police aren't tough enough on criminals. For every complaint against an RCMP officer, there is a story about what a great job they do.
My impression is that it's a case of the selection committee choosing appropriate officers as opposed to the force itself. And that's the problem with any police force. I don't agree with Stewart Philip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs very often, but I think he hit the nail on the head when he talked about the fact that some of these older veterans, who have an interest in establishing relationships, are retiring and some of the newer members don't have the same inclination. Relationships are big, and that's what needs to be fostered. If we don't do that, it doesn't matter what kind of police force we have. It won't work.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Lay Off Local RCMP on Police Shooting
(Aired on August 4, 2010)
I think people are perhaps being a little too hasty in condemning our local police for not releasing information yet regarding the shooting of a man in North Kamloops last Friday night. I've seen all sorts of comments from people asking me if we had a couple of cowboys shooting up the city, if the police were holding back because they were trying to hide things. We've had them all in the past few days.
But let's put things in perspective. This is a homicide investigation. Someone died. In any homicide, there's an investigation, and in many cases, information doesn't come out in any great detail for the first few days. Police are still looking for witnesses to interview. The pieces of the puzzle certainly aren't in place yet. And because police are involved, the situation becomes even more complicated. They want to make sure every base is covered before things are released.
And the fact is, an outside police team, including forensic investigators, have been called in to make sure the investigation is transparent. But let's get one thing clear - it's Calgary's investigation. They're the ones who are putting everything together, not the Kamloops detachment. Other than securing the scene the night of the shooting, local mounties have not been involved in this investigation. People who suggest the Calgary police shouldn't be doing the talking on this are wrong. The fact is, they are the ones who should be talking, if anyone is.
I think we have to be a bit patient here. Local police have done a lot to make themselves more transparent. It wasn't very long ago that they held a news conference to come right out and say that two officers had been charged with assault in separate incidents. They're trying to be open and honest. And I, for one, am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. When all the facts are known and released, then let's make our judgments. It's a little early to be condemning them right now.
I think people are perhaps being a little too hasty in condemning our local police for not releasing information yet regarding the shooting of a man in North Kamloops last Friday night. I've seen all sorts of comments from people asking me if we had a couple of cowboys shooting up the city, if the police were holding back because they were trying to hide things. We've had them all in the past few days.
But let's put things in perspective. This is a homicide investigation. Someone died. In any homicide, there's an investigation, and in many cases, information doesn't come out in any great detail for the first few days. Police are still looking for witnesses to interview. The pieces of the puzzle certainly aren't in place yet. And because police are involved, the situation becomes even more complicated. They want to make sure every base is covered before things are released.
And the fact is, an outside police team, including forensic investigators, have been called in to make sure the investigation is transparent. But let's get one thing clear - it's Calgary's investigation. They're the ones who are putting everything together, not the Kamloops detachment. Other than securing the scene the night of the shooting, local mounties have not been involved in this investigation. People who suggest the Calgary police shouldn't be doing the talking on this are wrong. The fact is, they are the ones who should be talking, if anyone is.
I think we have to be a bit patient here. Local police have done a lot to make themselves more transparent. It wasn't very long ago that they held a news conference to come right out and say that two officers had been charged with assault in separate incidents. They're trying to be open and honest. And I, for one, am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. When all the facts are known and released, then let's make our judgments. It's a little early to be condemning them right now.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Why Hold a Summit in Downtown Toronto?
(Aired on June 30, 2010)
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
No Sex Sentence Unorthodox, Necessary
(Aired on June 28, 2010)
A woman who is accused of murdering her two newborn sons has been ordered not to have sex. This woman was released on $200,000 bail and court imposed 17 conditions on her. She is accused of two counts of second-degree murder. The body of her first son was found in 2009. The body of her second son has never been found. The court wants to avoid having her get pregnant again, and imposed the rather unheard of condition that she not have sex with anyone.
Safe sex is one thing, but no sex, that's something totally different. I haven't heard of it being imposed before, and I don't know how you would enforce it. The only telltale sign, of course, would be if she became pregnant again. She also can't be in the presence of her boyfriend unless someone else is around.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is concerned about the conditions, and they think it might be the start of a slippery slope. But I say to that, if indeed the charges against the woman are true, and she is convicted of killing her newborns, where do the child's civil liberties get exercised as opposed to the mother's? It might well be a slippery slope, but sometimes you have to travel down these slopes for the greater good. No one wants to see civil liberties denied, but is the Civil Liberties Association suggesting that murder is a better option?
As this case plays out, the facts will become more evident, and we'll get a better picture of what happened. In the meantime, I really don't think it's unreasonable to have the woman's rights curtailed somewhat until due process is done.
A woman who is accused of murdering her two newborn sons has been ordered not to have sex. This woman was released on $200,000 bail and court imposed 17 conditions on her. She is accused of two counts of second-degree murder. The body of her first son was found in 2009. The body of her second son has never been found. The court wants to avoid having her get pregnant again, and imposed the rather unheard of condition that she not have sex with anyone.
Safe sex is one thing, but no sex, that's something totally different. I haven't heard of it being imposed before, and I don't know how you would enforce it. The only telltale sign, of course, would be if she became pregnant again. She also can't be in the presence of her boyfriend unless someone else is around.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is concerned about the conditions, and they think it might be the start of a slippery slope. But I say to that, if indeed the charges against the woman are true, and she is convicted of killing her newborns, where do the child's civil liberties get exercised as opposed to the mother's? It might well be a slippery slope, but sometimes you have to travel down these slopes for the greater good. No one wants to see civil liberties denied, but is the Civil Liberties Association suggesting that murder is a better option?
As this case plays out, the facts will become more evident, and we'll get a better picture of what happened. In the meantime, I really don't think it's unreasonable to have the woman's rights curtailed somewhat until due process is done.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sadie Villars' Story All Too Common
(Aired on June 21, 2010)
The sad story of a young woman charged with smuggling drugs across the border is a far too common one, and unfortunately, we're only scratching the tip of the iceberg. Sadie Villars was arrested after border agents found her carrying bags of ecstasy tablets under her clothes as she crossed the border into the U.S. last week. Apparently, she was carrying the drugs for the quick cash, according to her mom.
These so-called drug mules are roped into the job for a variety of reasons. They may be trying to pay off a debt, either a personal debt or a debt to some criminal element who wants payback. Or they may do it because they think they'll get some quick cash for some baubles and toys and live the high life.
Many think they'll do it a couple of times and get out, but the problem is that once they start, getting out is difficult even if you put aside the attraction of the quick cash. Drug lords can put a lot of pressure on you once you're in. And as the drug trade heats up, more and more of these mules are being used to transport drugs, not just across the border between the U.S. and Canada, but around the world. And criminals are finding more and more tricks up their sleeves to avoid detection. But if these mules are ever caught, they're likely too scared to squeal on those who hired them, if they even know who hired them. And those higher up the ladder are so far removed from the chain they will never be associated with some kid who is picked up crossing the line.
Tracking down illicit drugs is almost like a crap shoot these days. The police do their best, but search warrants aren't easy to come by, privacy laws are so bad that the guilty often get more protection than the innocent, and unless police get lucky, many of these criminals continue to walk free. We will see many more stories about people like Sadie Villars. Unfortunately, it's a sign of the times we live in.
The sad story of a young woman charged with smuggling drugs across the border is a far too common one, and unfortunately, we're only scratching the tip of the iceberg. Sadie Villars was arrested after border agents found her carrying bags of ecstasy tablets under her clothes as she crossed the border into the U.S. last week. Apparently, she was carrying the drugs for the quick cash, according to her mom.
These so-called drug mules are roped into the job for a variety of reasons. They may be trying to pay off a debt, either a personal debt or a debt to some criminal element who wants payback. Or they may do it because they think they'll get some quick cash for some baubles and toys and live the high life.
Many think they'll do it a couple of times and get out, but the problem is that once they start, getting out is difficult even if you put aside the attraction of the quick cash. Drug lords can put a lot of pressure on you once you're in. And as the drug trade heats up, more and more of these mules are being used to transport drugs, not just across the border between the U.S. and Canada, but around the world. And criminals are finding more and more tricks up their sleeves to avoid detection. But if these mules are ever caught, they're likely too scared to squeal on those who hired them, if they even know who hired them. And those higher up the ladder are so far removed from the chain they will never be associated with some kid who is picked up crossing the line.
Tracking down illicit drugs is almost like a crap shoot these days. The police do their best, but search warrants aren't easy to come by, privacy laws are so bad that the guilty often get more protection than the innocent, and unless police get lucky, many of these criminals continue to walk free. We will see many more stories about people like Sadie Villars. Unfortunately, it's a sign of the times we live in.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Hounding the Dealers that Dog Our City
(Aired on May 31, 2010)
When RCMP Inspector Yves Lacasse made a comment a few months back that a particular North Shore property was going to become his "personal project" in an attempt to clean up the neighbourhood, there were many people extremely happy that the police were making a crackdown on a property that was the scene of many problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse and trafficking. I don't know where Yves' mission stands right now, but I hope it's ongoing. In fact, I would recommend that other officers take on "personal projects" of their own.
Residents of another North Shore neighbourhood are up in arms about the high number of drug complaints in an area around Hilltop Avenue and Clapperton. Residents say police are always on the scene there, trying to deal with a number of complaints. And maybe this is another area that should be looked at. Maybe we should be hounding these drug dealers until they eventually get the message, if that indeed is possible. But at least hounding them incessantly will curb some of the use of drugs in those neighbourhood.
Unfortunately, it's not only the high crime areas that need attention. Even areas of the city which have low crime rates have pockets where police are constantly surveilling homes to find out who is dealing and who the customers are. It's a sad part of the increasingly prolific volume of trafficking that goes on. Years ago, police knew all the dealers and most of the customers, but the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds, as more and more people get involved in the gangs that control the drug trade, and those who get addicted. Police resources are slim, and unfortunately, taking on areas as "personal projects" are not going to be the norm.
While police can work at ridding certain neighbourhoods of some of the problem, it won't be entirely eliminated. As people are put behind bars, more people start to get involved. It's a vicious circle. Police are doing their best, but it's a never-ending task, and one that, unfortunately, is going to be tough to eliminate.
When RCMP Inspector Yves Lacasse made a comment a few months back that a particular North Shore property was going to become his "personal project" in an attempt to clean up the neighbourhood, there were many people extremely happy that the police were making a crackdown on a property that was the scene of many problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse and trafficking. I don't know where Yves' mission stands right now, but I hope it's ongoing. In fact, I would recommend that other officers take on "personal projects" of their own.
Residents of another North Shore neighbourhood are up in arms about the high number of drug complaints in an area around Hilltop Avenue and Clapperton. Residents say police are always on the scene there, trying to deal with a number of complaints. And maybe this is another area that should be looked at. Maybe we should be hounding these drug dealers until they eventually get the message, if that indeed is possible. But at least hounding them incessantly will curb some of the use of drugs in those neighbourhood.
Unfortunately, it's not only the high crime areas that need attention. Even areas of the city which have low crime rates have pockets where police are constantly surveilling homes to find out who is dealing and who the customers are. It's a sad part of the increasingly prolific volume of trafficking that goes on. Years ago, police knew all the dealers and most of the customers, but the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds, as more and more people get involved in the gangs that control the drug trade, and those who get addicted. Police resources are slim, and unfortunately, taking on areas as "personal projects" are not going to be the norm.
While police can work at ridding certain neighbourhoods of some of the problem, it won't be entirely eliminated. As people are put behind bars, more people start to get involved. It's a vicious circle. Police are doing their best, but it's a never-ending task, and one that, unfortunately, is going to be tough to eliminate.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Crime Prevention Initiatives Well Worth the Money
(Aired on May 14, 2010)
Earlier this week, I talked about the fact that we can solve lots of things with money. We can fix health care, we can fix doctor shortages, we can fix education woes. All it takes is the bucks.
Same with crime. We can solve lots of crimes if we want to spend the money. Vancouver Police and Kamloops RCMP both came out with releases this week indicating the prolific offender targeting programs have had a major impact in reducing crime. That's exceedingly good news, especially at the coast where crime activity is in the news almost every day. Here, police target prolific offenders, they keep a close watch on them, and when they screw up, away they go back to jail.
In Vancouver, their focus is a bit different. Although they really target the offenders in a variety of ways, they also make a major push towards finding them help. Working with a variety of groups, police are working to divert the prolific offenders and hopefully give them a chance for the future by redirecting their lives. So far it seems to be working. Again, all the result of money. Increasing surveillance cameras, more human eyes in high crime areas, more anti-crime expenditures by business, all seem to be helping in the fight.
It's not a battle that's easily won. Police chiefs have to determine how much resources they can put into a program like this. Businesses and city governments have to decide how much they want to spend to get the job done. I do believe the effort is worth it. It certainly gives me a better sense of security when someone tells me property crime is down substantially, that my chance of getting mugged on the street has been reduced, and that the small percentage who commit most of the crimes are being targeted, and kept on the run.
It's taken a lot of money to get this far, it will take more to take the bar to the next level, but in my view, every penny is worth it. Protecting our safety is one of the highest priorities we have, and the money spent makes the results very worthwhile.
Earlier this week, I talked about the fact that we can solve lots of things with money. We can fix health care, we can fix doctor shortages, we can fix education woes. All it takes is the bucks.
Same with crime. We can solve lots of crimes if we want to spend the money. Vancouver Police and Kamloops RCMP both came out with releases this week indicating the prolific offender targeting programs have had a major impact in reducing crime. That's exceedingly good news, especially at the coast where crime activity is in the news almost every day. Here, police target prolific offenders, they keep a close watch on them, and when they screw up, away they go back to jail.
In Vancouver, their focus is a bit different. Although they really target the offenders in a variety of ways, they also make a major push towards finding them help. Working with a variety of groups, police are working to divert the prolific offenders and hopefully give them a chance for the future by redirecting their lives. So far it seems to be working. Again, all the result of money. Increasing surveillance cameras, more human eyes in high crime areas, more anti-crime expenditures by business, all seem to be helping in the fight.
It's not a battle that's easily won. Police chiefs have to determine how much resources they can put into a program like this. Businesses and city governments have to decide how much they want to spend to get the job done. I do believe the effort is worth it. It certainly gives me a better sense of security when someone tells me property crime is down substantially, that my chance of getting mugged on the street has been reduced, and that the small percentage who commit most of the crimes are being targeted, and kept on the run.
It's taken a lot of money to get this far, it will take more to take the bar to the next level, but in my view, every penny is worth it. Protecting our safety is one of the highest priorities we have, and the money spent makes the results very worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
