BLOG MyyyyyAsssss

I spent a great many years working in Ontario's jail system and I've seen a lot of very bad individuals who were beating the system. Some of these folks were in and out of jail like yo-yos.
Well, Ontario is starting to get tough as the following item shows:

Bill on repeat offenders introduced in House

The government tabled legislation Tuesday morning that could see three-time repeat violent and sexual offenders face indefinite prison sentences. Under current legislation the onus in on the Crown to prove that a criminal should be classified as a dangerous offender. If the proposed bill passes, it will be up to the repeat offender to prove that they are not dangerous. If they cannot do so, they will face an indeterminate jail sentence with no parole eligibility for seven years. "In a nutshell, we want to impose stricter conditions on repeat offenders to keep such criminals from offending again and again," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last Thursday. But Jason Gratl, of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, argued the justice system should be extremely cautious in how it asks for indeterminate sentences. "We should bear in mind that an indefinite sentence is the nuclear bomb of the sentencing arsenal," he told CTV News last week. "We don't have anything more harsh. We don't sentence people to death in this country, and we should be sparing in how we apply our most severe sentences." Professor Irvin Waller, director of the University of Toronto's Institute for the Prevention of Crime and author of Less Law, More Order, told the Globe and Mail that although changes are certainly needed, Canada should be cautious of any legislation that resembles the three-strikes laws in the United States. "They incarcerate very large numbers of people who are not that dangerous," he said of such laws. "All the evidence says if you want to reduce rates of violence, you need to tackle the risk factors of people, particularly young, violent men," Waller told the Globe and Mail. The legislation would also put these offenders "on a tighter leash," Harper said, by increasing the maximum duration of peace bonds to 24 months from 12. "Peace bonds represent a sort of contract between the convicted criminals and the broader community. They lay out acceptable conditions of behaviour for released criminals and put restrictions on that behaviour," he said. This is just one of a series of tough crime-fighting bills that the Harper government has introduced in recent months.

Quotes in the above say we should be leery about adopting the Amerian "Three Strikes and You're Out Rule". I disagree strongly with that sentiment. All you have to do is look to Toronto and the problems there with drug-selling thugs who indiscriminately shoot anything and everything that gets in their way.
Special prison facilities should be built on the James Bay shore where it is good and cold where these sob's should be made to languish in a concrete cell never to be visited by their drug-abusing peers and family. A good long stay of fifty odd years should bring these idiots to their senses and if not, succeeding prison terms should start at fifty-one years.
The streets of Toronto should be safe then.

This topic was discussed at the dinner table this evening and just about all of the seven diners expressed an opinion. One was concerned about the offender having to prove his innocence and the onus being taken off the state for doing so. If you read the above textarea from the CTV source, that is what the bill supposedly says.
My interpretation or rather the way I'd like to see this set up has nothing to do with either the state or the accused trying to avoid the label "dangerous offender". When a court finds an offender guilty the third time his sentence automatically places him or her into a new category. Where the first and second time offender goes to jail/prison, the third time offender gets bumped directly to the Windy Northern Retreat on James Bay. He or she is not a dangerous offender - he or she is a third time offender.

It's just that simple!

But You Say
It would cost a fortune to house all those third time offenders for fifty years.
Not A Problem
The cost of running the Windy Northern Retreat would be far cheaper than a regular prison. Offenders would be issued one Hudson Bay blanket. He would be responsible for keeping it clean as no new blanket would be issued for two years. The high cost of feeding would be decreased by 33% as there would only be two meals issued a day instead of the regular three meals given to first and second time offenders. There would be no cost involved in any educational or social services as third time offenders at Windy Northern Retreat would languish in their four by four cell for their entire sentence. Anyone taller than six foot would be housed in a cell four by six. Attempts by shorter offenders to beat the system by putting layers of toilet paper in their shoes would be offset by removing footwear from prison issue.
But You Say
Offenders in their bare feet would be cold.
Not A Problem
Offenders have the option of wrapping their Hudson Bay blanket around their feet and more important - who cares!