NationStates Jolt Archive

This didn't get much traction last night. Maybe I just posted it at the wrong time, or maybe it's such a universally held belief, I should have heard the cry of "Duh" rise up from the world and started trying to make our prisoners lives better. Anyway, read it again and if it still goes nowhere, I'll drop it.

I had this sent to me by a conservative Canadian. No, that's not an oxymoron, there are a few. Isn't this hilarious and tragic, all at once? The idea that prisoners are entitled to anything but subsistence is ridiculous, isn't it?

Remind me why the US is backward and Canada is progressive? Eh? And why we are not supposed to make fun of our northern friends?

This article (http://www.ucco-sacc.csn.qc.ca/engine/Content.asp?Lang=EN&ParentID=1&SectionID=VZ7QD32T318PM) was just forwarded. I didn't believe it until I managed to find this link. If you follow the link, you have to page down quite a way.


Critics slam five-figure pension payoffs

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, OTTAWA BUREAU
In Canada, even hardened convicts get golden government handshakes. Documents obtained by Sun Media under Access to Information reveal some federal prisoners are collecting five-figure taxpayer-funded payoffs when they hurt themselves during activities, training or work programs behind bars.
While convicts can collect weekly or monthly pension payments for life, most choose the hefty "lump sum" option. Offenders are also eligible for benefits if they've suffered an "occupational disease" in jail or "aggravated" a pre-existing condition through a prison program.
Government records on the inmate compensation program reveal dozens of claims processed over the past three years, including one for $52,372, another for $38,511 and several more for $25,000-plus.
The prisoner pension program has been operating quietly for years. Sylvain Martel, national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, hadn't heard of the program but fumed that guards have to fight "tooth and nail" to have workers compensation board claims approved for workplace injuries or post-traumatic stress.
"It's atrocious to see what we have to go through while the inmates are getting paid directly," he said.
Inmate compensation is based on the minimum wage in the province where the accident occurred and the severity of the disability. Offenders don't pay into a workplace insurance program.
Conservative justice critic Vic Toews suggested victims should get first dibs on any payments made by the Crown to offenders.
SYSTEM OPEN TO ABUSE
"If they receive compensation from the government for their injuries, they should also be responsible to their victims," he said, adding the system is open to abuse by prisoners inclined to self-inflict or fake injuries to ensure a money pot is awaiting their release.
But the Correctional Service of Canada insists all claims are carefully scrutinized to ensure they're legitimate.
"CSC evaluates the claim, and if CSC is satisfied the claim is valid, at that point it's sent to Human Resources Development Canada for further processing," said spokesman Suzanne Cobb.
Pension benefits kick in after release from the penitentiary, but must show a lump sum option is to their financial "advantage" when the payout is more than $10,000.

If the highest claim was $52,372, well whoop-dee do.

That isn't a lot of money when you're in prison for several years.

Though, the concerns of the workers there should come first.

So? Seems to me the issue isn't that they get pensions, but that they get them with more ease than prison guards (according to that article, anyway).

Remind me why the US is backward and Canada is progressive? Eh? And why we are not supposed to make fun of our northern friends?

The idea that prisoners are entitled to anything but subsistence is ridiculous, isn't it?
There's your reminder. :D

TI had this sent to me by a conservative Canadian. No, that's not an oxymoron, there are a few. Isn't this hilarious and tragic, all at once?

Actually, there are quite a few. Try Alberta. It's just that America as a rule is so far to the right even conservatives seem liberal to them.

The idea that prisoners are entitled to anything but subsistence is ridiculous, isn't it?

No, why? While I definitely think things have gone too soft, especially with those parents in Toronto who abused and locked their kids in cages for years and got a couple of months, you can't lose sight of the fact that criminals are people first, criminals second. I'm not saying they deserve the preferential treatment it's implied they're getting - I'm just saying that you shouldn't suddenly revoke all kinds of considerations and rights (here I'm thinking of "felons, even after serving their time, can't vote" laws) because they broke the law.

They did bad. They should be punished, yes. But "punished" doesn't mean the same thing as "have all their privileges and rights revoked and be treated as second-class citizens for the rest of their lives".

They did bad. They should be punished, yes. But "punished" doesn't mean the same thing as "have all their privileges and rights revoked and be treated as second-class citizens for the rest of their lives".

When someone is being punished, should they have any right to compensation? Well, that isn't a right, to begin with. The answer should be No! They aren't involved in society, why should they have the benefits of society?

I don't know about restoring rights. I don't want felons voting immediately upon release from prison. I don't want them working in jobs that require special access or security clearances. I don't want them teaching my kids. Maybe there's a number of years after prison that they can use to redeem themselves, but restoring all rights upon release--Hell No!

What about restitution? Why shouldn't a criminal pay his victim for medical expenses, lost property, lost wages, and punitive damages on top of that?

I don't really think it's ridiculous. I do think that some of the prisoners' money should go to pay restitution to their victims. What if a guy draws a long prison term when he's young and isn't eligible for parole until he's, say seventy? He gets out of prison, has no Social Security, no living relatives, no job skills and isn't healthy enough to work. He's paid his debt, but ends his life starving under a bridge. Americans aren't exceptionally compassionate towards people who've screwed up.

Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia
The idea that prisoners are entitled to anything but subsistence is ridiculous, isn't it?

There's your reminder. :D
That's a worthless cheap shot. And it missed.
Prisoners are in prison because they have done something evil. Why are they entitled to any of the trappings of society, when they are not part of it?

I don't really think it's ridiculous. I do think that some of the prisoners' money should go to pay restitution to their victims. What if a guy draws a long prison term when he's young and isn't eligible for parole until he's, say seventy? He gets out of prison, has no Social Security, no living relatives, no job skills and isn't healthy enough to work. He's paid his debt, but ends his life starving under a bridge. Americans aren't exceptionally compassionate towards people who've screwed up.

If he's ever worked at an honest job, he will have Social Security. Until it goes broke, anyway.

Why should we show much compassion to people that prey on others? That was a decision that they made and they should have to live with. If they want compassion, let them join a church and find their compassion there.

I have a friend who was convicted on a felony drug charge when he was eighteen. He's now pushing forty and still doesn't have all his rights back. Once you've served your time and aren't on parole or probation, all your civil rights should be restored. Prison shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about protecting society and detering crimes. Surely humanity is enlightened enough to say "you screwed up, paid the price, now welcome back." It is to all our detriment if ex-cons feel they no longer have any stake in the community they return to. And, face it, most of them are returning to a community near you. Isn't it in your best interest if he gives a damn?

When someone is being punished, should they have any right to compensation? Well, that isn't a right, to begin with. The answer should be No! They aren't involved in society, why should they have the benefits of society?

It's a right if the law says it's a right, and clearly this is the case. Whether the law (or Parliament) is correct in granting that right can be debated, but I think I can say you are wrong there.

They are involved in society. Prison is the penalty for not fulfilling your societal obligation to respect the law. Besides, this isn't really a "benefit", from what I read of it it's compensation, and why shouldn't they get it if they suffered injury in prison? Just because they're criminals? The main issue is the potential for abuse, really, and that seems to be it.

I don't know about restoring rights. I don't want felons voting immediately upon release from prison. I don't want them working in jobs that require special access or security clearances. I don't want them teaching my kids. Maybe there's a number of years after prison that they can use to redeem themselves, but restoring all rights upon release--Hell No!

Well, that's your opinion.

What about restitution? Why shouldn't a criminal pay his victim for medical expenses, lost property, lost wages, and punitive damages on top of that?

It isn't that easy, for the obvious reason that the criminal may not be able to pay restitution, and then there's all the other problems that'll crop up. I'm pressed for time, or I'd be more wordy, but I think the problems are obvious.

If he's ever worked at an honest job, he will have Social Security. Until it goes broke, anyway.

Why should we show much compassion to people that prey on others? That was a decision that they made and they should have to live with. If they want compassion, let them join a church and find their compassion there.
If you were 19 when you committed the crime, no, you won't have shit in Social Security. Just because they screwed up majorly when they were young doesn't mean they never reformed, or that they spent their whole life preying on others. Gee, and conservatives can't understand why we think they're full of crap when they say compassionate conservative. I suppose your one of them that follow that nice Jesus guy?

Remind me why the US is backward and Canada is progressive? Eh? And why we are not supposed to make fun of our northern friends?

Prisoners are in prison because they have done something evil.

There's another reminder. :rolleyes:

If you were 19 when you committed the crime, no, you won't have shit in Social Security. Just because they screwed up majorly when they were young doesn't mean they never reformed, or that they spent their whole life preying on others. Gee, and conservatives can't understand why we think they're full of crap when they say compassionate conservative. I suppose your one of them that follow that nice Jesus guy?
Yes, I am one of those that call themselves Christians. I also can recognize intentionally bad grammar when I see it. Was that a reference to my lack of edumacation, or to the fact that I live in Georgia?

If you committed a crime at nineteen and the sentence kept you in prison until age seventy, that must have been a pretty serious crime. There are murderers that get off easier than that. I don't think I want that type of person to fully participate in society. I certainly don't want to give him $50,000 dollars of my money and send him off to be comfortable.

Like I said, if he really is anxious to rejoin society, let him join a church. There are plenty of compassionate people that are more than willing to help him in any congregation.

There's another reminder. :rolleyes:
So people are put in prison for morally ambiguous things? You guys are hurting me! Oh, stop. Please stop!

So people are put in prison for morally ambiguous things? You guys are hurting me! Oh, stop. Please stop!

You missed the bold emphasis on "evil"?

Seriously, "evil"? You answered your own question as to why you're looked upon as backwards simpletons...

You missed the bold emphasis on "evil"?

Seriously, "evil"? You answered your own question as to why you're looked upon as backwards simpletons...
No I didn't. I just don't accept trivial answers. Why are people in prison? Because they were "unlucky"?

No I didn't. I just don't accept trivial answers. Why are people in prison? Because they were "unlucky"?

They're there because they broke the law. *duh!*

Again, "evil"?

They're there because they broke the law. *duh!*

Again, "evil"?
So breaking the law isn't just unlucky. Good. Now what did they do to break the law? I'm going to bet it wasn't just drinking and driving. After all, we're talking about prision, not just the county jail.

Crimes bad enough to have prison sentences usually mean than the criminal deprived someone of their life, liberty, or property. All of those violate the rules that I live by. If you don't want to call it evil, call it very, very unsocial. I hate people that can't make judgements on things that are clearly right or wrong.

Prisoner pensions only makes sense: they have to have some sort of minimum wage income to meet the human rights standards that Canada supports. That they get their "wage" in a lump sum of 5-figure proportions is only because it's saved for them and paid out all at once. This makes perfect sense.

That they should be able to claim worker's compensation against insurance for this "wage" when they are injured in prison is a bit more tenuous, but I have no objections, personally.

What's the big deal?

When someone is being punished, should they have any right to compensation? Well, that isn't a right, to begin with. The answer should be No! They aren't involved in society, why should they have the benefits of society?
See, Canada actually supports human rights.

So breaking the law isn't just unlucky. Good. Now what did they do to break the law? I'm going to bet it wasn't just drinking and driving. After all, we're talking about prision, not just the county jail.

Crimes bad enough to have prison sentences usually mean than the criminal deprived someone of their life, liberty, or property. All of those violate the rules that I live by. If you don't want to call it evil, call it very, very unsocial. I hate people that can't make judgements on things that are clearly right or wrong.

And I dislike people who deal with moral absolutes. Simpletons. You answered your own question.

See, Canada actually supports human rights.

Yeah, I doubt he/she even knows what those are. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I doubt he/she even knows what those are. :rolleyes:
Hurt me! Human rights are different. Prisoners certainly have a right to subsist. They have a right to shelter. They have a right to justice. There's probably a few other basic human rights. In fact, a prisoner's rights are abridged from what the UN considers (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) to be basic human rights, as that includes liberty and rebellion. A pension and disabilty payments aren't what I consider to be "human rights".

And I dislike people who deal with moral absolutes. Simpletons. You answered your own question.
I guess this slipped by. So isn't there anything that is universally "bad"? Or maybe universally "good"? Why is it so bad to have a code of ethics and to make judgements based on those ethics?

When someone is being punished, should they have any right to compensation? Well, that isn't a right, to begin with. The answer should be No! They aren't involved in society, why should they have the benefits of society?

I don't know about restoring rights. I don't want felons voting immediately upon release from prison. I don't want them working in jobs that require special access or security clearances. I don't want them teaching my kids. Maybe there's a number of years after prison that they can use to redeem themselves, but restoring all rights upon release--Hell No!

What about restitution? Why shouldn't a criminal pay his victim for medical expenses, lost property, lost wages, and punitive damages on top of that?
And I ask why felons should be allowed to vote … they either chose to not partake in changing society’s laws through legal actions, or chose not to make a decision that was in the best interest for them (and you want them to HELP make a decision for what is best for the rest of society ?)

And I ask why felons should be allowed to vote … they either chose to not partake in changing society’s laws through legal actions, or chose not to make a decision that was in the best interest for them (and you want them to HELP make a decision for what is best for the rest of society ?)
You don't have to push too hard to get me to agree there. The only argument against it is that they have been rehabilitated. I think it would take a while to convince me of that, though.

I guess this slipped by. So isn't there anything that is universally "bad"? Or maybe universally "good"? Why is it so bad to have a code of ethics and to make judgements based on those ethics?
Obviously there are things that are black and others that are white. But there's a whole lot of grey in the middle. The "good / evil" dichotomy does not work in 95% of the situations where someone says, for example, "they have done something evil".

For your information, there are people in prison because they haven't paid their parking tickets. (few and for a great many tickets, but there are). Not all prisoners are there because they have done some repprehensible crimes like murder.

And even for those, the goal of the prison system is (in Canada) rehabilitation. When someone gets out of prison, we assume he paid his debt to society and is entitled to the same benefits as any other member of society, including pension.

Man, I would hate to loose my right to vote because I did something stupid when I was 19 and was caught with a bag of cocaine. Everybody is entitled to make mistakes. They shouldn't be paying for them with being stripped of what Canadians consider basic rights like voting.

You just have to understand that we have a very different mentality when it comes to the treatment of prisoners.

For your information, there are people in prison because they haven't paid their parking tickets. (few and for a great many tickets, but there are). Not all prisoners are there because they have done some repprehensible crimes like murder.

Don't the traffic offense people go to a jail that's a little more transient than a penitentiary? We send those kind of offenders to "weekend" jail. They serve on Saturday and Sunday until the sentence is done. Traffic ticket evaders aren't typically felons, either.

Don't the traffic offense people go to a jail that's a little more transient than a penitentiary? We send those kind of offenders to "weekend" jail. They serve on Saturday and Sunday until the sentence is done. Traffic ticket evaders aren't typically felons, either.
We have fewer jail here. There are few maximum security prisons but most of people are in minimum security. We don't really have "county jail" and "penitentiary" or, if we do, the majority of the people and the media would be hard pressed to determine which is which. There are jail cells in polices stations for minor offenses (read overnight detention) but the bulk of the carceral population are in minimum security.

But our prisons are full as it is and there is relly not very traffic violations that are thrown in jail. Many sentences are served in the community with house arrest, community services or other various alternatives.

I'm not up to speed on what is considered a felon here, but they get voting rights and other rights extended to the majority of the population (read pension.)

And if you're worried about what kind of jobs they get when they get out, don't worry. Some jobs that are deemed too sensitive have strict background check before hiring. You won't see an ex-convict in the police, for example.