2 criteria to receive my vote.
1) Party whose ideals and platform do the best to balance beneficial social programs with the economic well-being of the country.
2) Party that would (or would have) remained OUT of the War in Vietna...I mean...Iraq and OUT of the U.S. missile defense program.
1a) Thanks to the Liberals, Canada is the only G8 country running a surplus and I'm hesitant to give it to Conservatives to squander waging wars to fund military-industrial companies, fighting imaginary crime and running a deficit a la GW.
Harper's "get tough on crime" stance is absurd, as are most election promises. He wants to....
a) increase mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.
Why? Probably to target one of the fastest growing segments of the Canadian population...the elderly. The elderly tend to be both the most conservative and fearful of crime. Canada is, like most developed nations, ageing very quickly with the flood of baby boomers reaching retirement age. As a result, there is a growing perception among Canadians that crime rates are increasing and that there is a reason to be fearful. There are many reasons for that which we won't discuss now.
Good politics. But a good policy? First, CRIME RATES IN CANADA HAVE BEEN DECREASING IN ALMOST EVERY CATEGORY FOR YEARS. There is no crime problem here, so no need for fear? Second, there is a virtual consensus in criminology that harsher sentences actually result in more crime. There are numerous explanations for this. One is Labeling Theory, which demonstrates that incarcerated criminals internalize their stigma and develop a new master status. Essentially, they become more like the person that society labels them: a criminal. This persona results in more crime when the individual is released back into society. They may seek out other stigmatized individuals as friends and form a criminal subculture, further exacerbating crime. Another explanation is a derivative of Social Learning theory. In almost every study that includes it as a variable, 'deviant peers' are a significant causal correlate of deviant behaviour in individuals. If you have criminal friends, you're more likely to be(come) a criminal. When you put people in prison they are obviously surrounded by other criminals and criminal behaviour becomes perceived as more 'normal'. The experience of prison can be violent and is often demonstrated to rationalize violence. When prisoners serve their term, they are released with more violent and criminal tendencies than they entered with.
The idea of increasing sentences as a deterent (known as deterrence theory) is an extreme rationalization of crime, a phenomenon which is often spontaneous, irrational and with deeply rootes social causes. DETERRENCE DOESN'T WORK and I really don't think we understand how much it will cost in the long run. Billions!
b) try 14 year-olds as adults. Same as above. No rehabilitation programs listed or costed. More crime will inevitably result.
Bluntly put, the conservatives are playing on public ignorance in order to get elected, like every other party. What's worse is that they are planning on incorporating that ignorance into the criminal justice system regardless of the cost to Canadians, present and future. His policy will only create more crime than and it'll still cost more. If that's what you like, vote for Harper.
2) Harper would have entered the war in Iraq. 'nough said.
