Go Back   BuildingHomes.ca - Building your community! > General > Chit Chat

Chit Chat General chit chat that doesn't have to be specific to home ownership.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 2013-07-05, 11:30 AM
R.F.D. R.F.D. is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burlington (Alton)
Posts: 1,250
Default

BCPL ... leaving your child unattended in a cold, comfortable or hot vehicle at anytime, for any length of time, under the age of 12 (I believe) is a form of child abuse, period (atleast in Ontario). I would be glad to get you in touch with an OCS worker....

This is plain negligence...and I hope this child from Mississauga is put in the care of individuals that can provide that. Imagine leaving a 2 year old child in a car unattended in a shopping mall parking lot, I've been to that parking lot, its a friggin zoo.

If individuals need to be TOLD or as in your words "educated" not to leave their kids unattended...I don't think you should have kids....
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 2013-07-05, 12:38 PM
bcpl bcpl is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: ottawa
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
BCPL ... leaving your child unattended in a cold, comfortable or hot vehicle at anytime, for any length of time, under the age of 12 (I believe) is a form of child abuse, period (atleast in Ontario). I would be glad to get you in touch with an OCS worker....
First, this would be neglect, not abuse. Abuse would be to do this as a form of punishment, or enjoyment, or something like that, but I get what you are trying for. I am not disputing that it is inappropriate to do this. You do not need to get me in touch with an OCS worker.


Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
This is plain negligence...and I hope this child from Mississauga is put in the care of individuals that can provide that. Imagine leaving a 2 year old child in a car unattended in a shopping mall parking lot, I've been to that parking lot, its a friggin zoo.
And she was charged with it. As she should have been. I am not disputing this. She will recieve a suitable penalty... just know that the size of this penalty will not affect her likelihood of doing it again. That will be determined a combination of a) if she better understands the consequences and b) if she thinks she will get caught again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
If individuals need to be TOLD or as in your words "educated" not to leave their kids unattended...I don't think you should have kids....
Pretty brazen of you to say that I should not have kids. Speaking boldly like that because you do not agree with me is inappropriate and I take offence to that.

If it comforts you that my kids are well and safe, know that my kids will understand why they should and should not do things. I seek to correct their behaviour in a way that will persist outside my sight.



It is unfortunate that we have a growing culture that limits itself to punishing people rather than changing them. What I outlined here will reduce the number of kids left in cars. That is what we want. If you want to protect the kids - Do not limit us to hurting those who have committed the offence; rather, stop the offence from occurring in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 2013-07-05, 01:12 PM
R.F.D. R.F.D. is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burlington (Alton)
Posts: 1,250
Default

BCPL, never ONCE said/implied YOU should not have kids, "you" as in referring to the individual in general, apologize for the misunderstanding. Neglect falls within the umbrella of abuse btw.

Regardless we are not going to agree.

I do not think education is the answer, it may be part of the answer but not the entire solution. If education would be the answer to all issues drinking and driving would be on the way down, it is not since 06.

With all the available resources should child seats still be installed incorrectly, should children still be thrown in the back of the car without a seatbelt or with no available seat? I think we know the answer but 70% of seats are still installed incorrectly, I see it everyday when I pick-up my kids at daycare.

You think we have a Growing Culture to punish versus educate? Really, that is an interesting view. I think it is absolutely the other direction, last I checked capital punished was removed ( I don't think you want to know my stance there) . In Canada we have a passive method of dealing with individuals who have done wrong, whether a minor or severe crime has been committed.

I can provide a mile long list of cases within the past 18 months, some of the people, convicted of heinous crimes, some against kids, may be out on the streets "supervised" and "thera-educated" and ready to mosey on in general public...awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2013-07-05, 02:12 PM
bcpl bcpl is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: ottawa
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
BCPL, never ONCE said/implied YOU should not have kids, "you" as in referring to the individual in general, apologize for the misunderstanding.
Sure, I'll accept that you should have been clearer when you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D.
I don't think you should have kids....
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
Neglect falls within the umbrella of abuse btw.
Well, actually, they are separate and distinct. They both fall under forms of child maltreatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
I do not think education is the answer, it may be part of the answer but not the entire solution. If education would be the answer to all issues drinking and driving would be on the way down, it is not since 06.
Hey! Check out the cool graph on page three. Drivers charged in 1980 = 162,000. Drivers charged in 2004 = 63,000. Sure this could be improved but there will always be people who do stuff they should not. Fact of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
You think we have a Growing Culture to punish versus educate? Really, that is an interesting view. I think it is absolutely the other direction, last I checked capital punished was removed ( I don't think you want to know my stance there).
I guess I was thinking more recently than 1976. In the last 10 year, there has been an increased focus on punishment and a decreased focus on rehabilitation. Take a look here for bills that have sought to increase penalties under the Criminal Code. We have been moving closer to an American style of justice - a style of justice that American, itself, is moving away from because it has been shown to be ineffective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
I can provide a mile long list of cases within the past 18 months, some of the people, convicted of heinous crimes, some against kids, may be out on the streets "supervised" and "thera-educated" and ready to mosey on in general public...awesome.
There will always be people that do crappy things to other people, including leaving their kids in cars. The goal is to reduce this number. I am NOT suggesting that people are not punished. I did state that there are people that should be punished. I am suggesting that if we want to reduce this number it is best done before the action (in a way that targets the people who are most at risk). It is less effective to address the problem after it has occurred (the target audience is too small and the deterrent factor is too weak without enforcement).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2013-07-05, 05:32 PM
PJD PJD is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Stouffville
Posts: 1,968
Default

Accidents will never stop happening. Education/public awareness will always be the key to reducing incidents that can be avoided. People don't realize that it happens so quickly, so they think they have time to just "run in quickly" to pick-up a cake or whatever it was the Markham woman claimed to have been doing.

Again - whether it's common sense to you or not, there will always be ignorant people out there. And that's with respect to many topics.

Punishment will occur when necessary, but it is not an effective method of prevention and the aim here is to prevent it from happening in the first place. This can easily be avoided with some public education around the fact that within 15 min. your child can already be in danger so don't take the chance period.

It's not hard for me to believe that people simply parking in front of a store would figure they can just run in quickly, the child is asleep, etc. A mall or grocery store, that's different.

There has to be consequences to neglect. But I would not compare neglect with child abuse. Else, they wouldn't be two different charges under the Criminal Code.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2013-07-08, 11:22 AM
R.F.D. R.F.D. is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burlington (Alton)
Posts: 1,250
Default

interesting read.... http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/mwg-interna...?id=kuXlxUhOm+

you may be correct, however could not find the distinction... http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

one important part was left out of your chart, yes from 1976 the numbers did decrease, significantly, however you failed to mention what happening thereafter

-as of 2006 they have been up year after year since
-early 70's - 1976 introduced new laws for stiffer penalties including refusing to take a breath test;
-since the millennium very aggressive education efforts have been made including shock ads
-2008 introduced new laws re: DUI with the temp suspension due to warning .05 - .08; many who would have been convicted under the old law as impaired are now falling under warning or temp suspension
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 2013-07-08, 02:03 PM
bcpl bcpl is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: ottawa
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
Sorry, link did not work for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
one important part was left out of your chart, yes from 1976 the numbers did decrease, significantly, however you failed to mention what happening thereafter.
Okay, if you want to continue debating DUI, I'm game...

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
-as of 2006 they have been up year after year since
First off, although there have been increases in the actual numbers of police-reported DUI. The magnitude of these increases is limited when taking into consideration the increased number of people living in Canada. The rate(per 100,000 population) is far more stable. Since 2006, I see three increases. There is one decrease and then a return to previous.

1986 – 577
1987 - 561

2001 - 267
2002 - 255
2003 - 245
2004 - 252
2005 - 243
2006 - 234
2007 - 241
2008 - 254
2009 - 262
2010 - 256
2011 - 262

I’ll acknowledge that there is going to be a point that after which there will be little or no change. People will be idiots. As long as there are alcohol and cars, there will be someone who drinks and drives. Although optimists would say that the goal is to extinguish DUI, realists would say the goal is to limit it. I am a realist. I think that after 40 years, it is now fair to say that the norm against drinking and driving has been established. We are now dealing with the idiots that will persist despite what everyone else tells them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
early 70's - 1976 introduced new laws for stiffer penalties including refusing to take a breath test;
So… are you suggesting that the reduction is DUI is because everyone who refused a breath test was arrested, sentenced, learned their lesson and continued on with their life committing no more DUI?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
since the millennium very aggressive education efforts have been made including shock ads
Not sure where you are going with this. Are you suggesting that there should have been a larger decrease as a result of these ads? I am not sure what exactly is “more aggressive”. How was this actually different than previous? Just because they are “shock ads” does not mean that they are effective. These “shock ads” may have been a poor choice? Also, see above re: hitting the limit. I would bet that organizations who work with these ads continue to press forward (admirably) despite the possibility that no further reduction is possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
2008 introduced new laws re: DUI with the temp suspension due to warning .05 - .08; many who would have been convicted under the old law as impaired are now falling under warning or temp suspension
Okay, I think you may have been a little confused here. The law for a DUI remains at .08. However, now there is a warning level between .05 and .08. There is no one who would blow over .08 who now gets off with a warning.

I actually see this as a form of education. They are a warning “Hey! You are getting close to a DUI. Watch out!” It targets those who are most at risk of actually committing a DUI. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Already I see a drop shortly after the laws took force in 2010. I would suggest that there is not enough data to properly look at changes as a result of this law.

It will also be interesting to see how this plays out in context of the increased mandatory minimums that were also imposed at the same time. I think that there will be no effect of the minimums but that the warnings will help to decrease it overall. We will have to see…


Overall, I see nothing here that suggests education does not work, nor do I see anything that suggests that increasing punishment will decrease DUI. I believe that the same pattern will be exhibited with leaving kids in cars.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 2013-07-08, 02:56 PM
R.F.D. R.F.D. is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burlington (Alton)
Posts: 1,250
Default

No I wasn't suggesting that refusing breath tests was the game changer what I am saying is that the introduction of more severe consequences and those that were impacted by them made the year after year decline.

.08 maybe the threshold in ontario law books but many other factors can and will be addressed to determine whether or not you will be convicted of the offence, just because you blew over does not mean you will be convicted

Simply the shock ads did not work...that's all I was saying, you may discredit the increase in from 2004 and on as negligible...but I don't...something is not working or getting the message across, you have chalked it up to the remaining fools out there...I think those fools are still changeable, how so is the question, education...maybe, punishment maybe, an avenue that has not be explored, dunno, what is that avenue, dunno, a combination of all, likely

I know 4 people that have been arrested for DUI, 2 convicted, 2 plea bargained, the 2 that plea bargained have learned their lesson; worst experiences of their lives, 2 convicted continue, 1 caught again waiting for trial, released at side of road, told to pick up car in the morning, would have faced jail time I believe...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 2013-07-08, 05:04 PM
bcpl bcpl is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: ottawa
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
No I wasn't suggesting that refusing breath tests was the game changer what I am saying is that the introduction of more severe consequences and those that were impacted by them made the year after year decline.
Right. Just like the spoiled milk. People need to know the consequences. People need to know the consequences of DUI. People need to know the consequences of leaving their kid in the car. If they do not know, they will not do anything different. Let's tell them what the consequences are. The consequence for leaving your kid in the car is that the kid will suffer. If this is not the primary consequence, people will continue to leave their kid in their car because they know (and it is true) that the police will not catch them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
.08 maybe the threshold in ontario law books but many other factors can and will be addressed to determine whether or not you will be convicted of the offence, just because you blew over does not mean you will be convicted
Right. And... I do not see your connection.
You first said that "many who would have been convicted under the old law as impaired are now falling under warning or temp suspension".
The old law says that you can be charged and subsequently convicted (if found guilty) of DUI if you blow over .08. The new law is the same. It just also adds that if you blow between .05 and .08, you can be suspended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
Simply the shock ads did not work...that's all I was saying, you may discredit the increase in from 2004 and on as negligible...but I don't...something is not working or getting the message across, you have chalked it up to the remaining fools out there...I think those fools are still changeable, how so is the question, education...maybe, punishment maybe, an avenue that has not be explored, dunno, what is that avenue, dunno, a combination of all, likely
It is unfortunate that we can never hit zero percent on something like this. Something like all mistakes that all people make. I also believe that fools are changable - individually, but across society there will always be fools. It is a replenishing resource.

That is why I am a firm believer in harm reduction. Get the number of fools as low as possible then work to reduce their impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F.D. View Post
I know 4 people that have been arrested for DUI, 2 convicted, 2 plea bargained, the 2 that plea bargained have learned their lesson; worst experiences of their lives, 2 convicted continue, 1 caught again waiting for trial, released at side of road, told to pick up car in the morning, would have faced jail time I believe...
Penalties can work. People make rational choices. I would suggest that your two friends who pled understood that the conviction hurt them. Even though they are still unlikely to get caught DUI, the consequence of possibly getting caught again was too severe. The others, even though the consequences were severe, believe (correctly so) that they will unlikely be caught.

Penalties can work, but it is the certainty of getting caught (in combination with the swiftness) of getting caught that changes behavior.


In the end, you're right. The answer is unclear. The end point is also unclear. Fortunately we do know a lot about how to effect change, it is just a matter of establishing the best policy for the time.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 2013-07-09, 01:58 PM
PJD PJD is offline
Senior Member
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Stouffville
Posts: 1,968
Default

Some reading material for you:

http://cwrp.ca/faqs#Q3
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mother Nature hates our lot already! Trepex Ottawa 9 2012-09-08 08:28 PM
Mother Nature - Grrr Shan1214 Ottawa 13 2011-06-03 08:12 AM
Mother Goose Academy t.o.mama Stouffville - Mattamy On Main and Wheler’S Mill 1 2010-08-02 02:27 PM
Toddler group Radiant3 Stouffville - Mattamy On Main and Wheler’S Mill 2 2008-01-07 01:51 PM
Toddler group Radiant3 Stouffville - River Ridge, MainStreet and Country Lane 2 2008-01-07 10:02 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:28 PM.



Copyright © PHAND Corporation
This document may not be used elsewhere without the expressed written consent of PHAND Corporation.
*** There is no association between this website and any builder. ***

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.