Does Crime Really Not Pay?

What amounts to a fair punishment for being found guilty of committing a crime these days?

A young man from Leduc was recently found guilty of drug possession for the purpose of trafficking. Although the press has already printed his name, as they are legally allowed to do in this case, I don’t feel it’s necessary to name him here.

The provincial court judge who heard the young man’s case told the offender drug dealers are “bloodsuckers,” and she needed to make an example of him to send a warning to other potential drug traffickers. Judge Marilyn White then sentenced the 19-year-old man to pay a four-thousand dollar fine. She also banned him from owning weapons for the next 10 years.

I cannot see how emptying this guy’s piggy bank and telling him not to play with guns until he’s 29 serves as a scary warning to others who are thinking about or currently selling drugs. Sure, four thousand dollars is a lot of money. But if this man starts selling drugs again, he will easily make that money back in no time. I also fail to see how not allowing this man to own a gun or any other firearms helps him stay away from drugs, unless he used to steal drugs from his suppliers while threatening them with a shotgun.

During his trial the 19-year-old man said he had stopped using drugs and was trying to find a legit way to make money. Good for him; hopefully he meant it. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he did start using and/or selling drugs again. And I wouldn’t even blame him, really. I would blame the judge who promised to make an example of this young drug dealer and then failed to do so.

I’m not saying Judge White should have sent this young man to jail. I don’t think that would have solved many of his problems, although a few nights spent snuggled between a murder or two in a cold, cramped jail cell might have provided this young man some much-needed motivation to stay out of trouble.

Our legal system has failed to make an example of this man. Yes, he was dealing marijuana, a drug many people feel is relatively harmless, out of his car. He wasn’t selling crack cocaine in an alley somewhere. There are much worse crimes he could have committed. But at the age of 19 this young man has already pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking. He could obviously use a little extra help staying out of trouble.

Our system has failed this teenager because although we (barely) punished him for the crime he committed, we have not taken any steps to ensure he won’t commit the same crime again. If Judge White had put this young man on probation and ordered him to undergo random drug testing for the next year, the chances of him doing drugs or selling them to others would be significantly reduced. Judge White also could have punished the young man while simultaneously helping the community by sentencing him to community service or to giving talks at junior high and high schools about the dangers of getting into a lifestyle that involves using and/or selling drugs. This would have allowed the young man to reflect on his poor choices while helping other kids avoid his own mistakes.

The young drug dealer is an adult. He’s not some 10-year-old that broke the law without fully understanding it. He is old enough to deal with the consequences of his actions. Except in this case, the consequences are so minor the young man is not likely to learn that whole “you reap what you sow” philosophy of life.

Judges should not promise to send a message to others when deciding the fate of one law-breaker, unless they mean to follow through with that promise. Judge White’s decision sets a pathetic precedent that will help influence how other judges decide to sentence future teenage drug dealers. What’s the point of holding expensive trials if judges don’t punish criminals properly?

Teenage drug pedlars in the County of Leduc beware- if you get caught selling weed you’ll just have to give up some of the money you have made selling pot and the right to play with your very own shiny little gun for the next decade.

An Upside to the Recession?

This week I read the first truly positive column I’ve ever seen about the current recession. And I don’t mean positive in a cautiously-optimistic ‘this might end soon if we’re really, really lucky” way; I mean, it was actually freakin’ positive in a “this is great!” sort of way. Weirdly enough, the column was by a deputy editor at Forbes. And here I was, thinking that anyone who worked at Forbes was too busy crying in their coffee that business people could no longer splurge on their over-priced financial magazine to find an upside to the recession.

The columnist in question, Elisabeth Eaves, actually managed to put a silver lining on the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s by describing it as an opportunity to buy things for cheaper, from salespeople who are nicer. Eaves writes about the “flip side” of a bad market, such as cheaper rent, better rates from banks and being able to get out of expensive personal obligations that you never wanted to fulfill, such as going to a friend’s destination wedding. Eaves herself managed to refinance her mortgage at a much better rate. Eaves writes, “There’s a global sale on, so if your own income hasn't plummeted, the getting is good”. She’s right; practically every store at West Edmonton Mall is advertising major sales in an attempt to move merchandise and retain customers. Now is the time to shop, assuming you still have a job.

The majority of people don’t agree there is a silver lining to the recession. Other financial writers are now sinking their sharpened claws into Eaves for being out of touch with what’s really happening to “real” people during the recession. On MSN’s money blog, Kim Peterson writes in response to Eaves’ column, “The only explanation I can think of here is that Eaves is in a different recession, where it rains cupcakes and kittens and where champagne glasses are never half-empty. I'd be celebrating as well in that case.” Side note: raining kittens? Ouch. Raining cupcakes? Delicious. And Peterson is being easy on Eaves compared to many of the reader’s comments on Forbes. Very few people seem to appreciate Eaves’ sunny disposition when it comes to money, or lack thereof.

Eaves does acknowledge that many people are suffering from the recession, particularly those who have lost their jobs. Admitting that people are suffering from the harsh consequences of the recession saves Eaves from entering into totally obnoxious territory. She tries to paint a rosy picture by telling readers that being laid off is an opportunity to ask yourself if you really liked your job that much in the first place or to discover what you really want to be “when you grow up.” Sure, people who have recently been laid off because of the global financial meltdown are probably burning effigies of Eaves right now and I really can’t blame them. It’s hard to say that everything will one day be fine and it’s even harder to believe it sometimes. Tell that to the family who just lost their home or the recent university graduate who can’t get a job at Wal-Mart, you say. And I understand. Usually, when someone tells me the sun will come out tomorrow, I tell them where they can shove that sun. But does cursing a bad economy help you find a new job? Does complaining fill your life with joy? Or does being a downer simply bring you down? Being negative never got anyone anywhere and I say it’s time we all stopped, including me.

Eaves might come off as a blonde twit on uppers for saying there is an upside to the recession but at least she is being positive. Yes, it is easier for her to be more upbeat than someone who has lost their job or house since she still has both of those. But Eaves has a point: finding the bright side of a bad situation sure doesn’t hurt you; in fact, it can only help. Sometimes, when you lose everything, you realize how much you still have left.

After months of hearing about the doom and gloom of the global economy, it was nice to hear from someone who was trying to see the positives of a recession. Maybe we should all slip on some rose-coloured glasses for now, if only to give ourselves a break from all the doom and gloom.

Oh Fudge!

Edmonton Police Chief Mike Boyd has banned his officers from using foul language in an attempt to improve the image of the Edmonton Police Force. Although profanity has always been frowned upon, police officers are now officially no longer allowed to swear while on duty.

The no-cussing decree is just the latest publicity move from the Edmonton Police chief in an attempt to create more warm and fuzzy feelings between the police force and the public by making police officers seem more gentlemanly. Boyd also implemented a new dress code about a year ago, one that limited plainclothes officers to wearing dress shirts, ties and jackets. Boyd also enforced a policy that requires officers to wear their hats while walking the city’s streets. This move was supposed to not only make police more popular with the public but also boost the police squad’s morale. Oddly, it doesn’t seem to have worked. I can’t imagine why; isn’t everyone crazy about a sharp dressed man?

Normally, I would fully support anyone group’s decision to dress nicer but in this case, I’m sure the only people who got any sort of boost from the police force wearing ties are the salespeople at Moore’s. If I were to be held at gunpoint by some dastardly criminal, would I care if the plainclothes officer who came to my aid was stylish and well-mannered or if the on-duty police officer coming to my rescue was wearing a chapeau? No, I care if they can do their job properly and save my ass. If the police officer who rescued me from my hypothetical dilemma wore jeans and cussed like a sailor, I doubt I would really notice. Unless, of course, their shoes were, like, so last season.

Of course, most workplaces do require employees to adhere to a dress code. Dress codes can range from pyjamas (freelance journalist) to a coat and tails, with a top hat (carriage driver). But it’s one thing for Edmonton police officers to adhere to a reasonable dress code, it’s another thing to say that the dress code is in place to boost morale and enhance the public’s view of police officers. And I’ve never heard of a workplace that actually managed to enforce a no swearing policy, except, presumably daycares and elementary schools.

Obviously, the police force is feeling a little unloved lately. How else can you explain the 46 per cent of officers who are either dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied with workplace morale, as shown by an internal survey this past January? The same survey showed that 51 per cent of respondents have seriously considered quitting the police department in the past year, according to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal. But hey, who cares if police officers are unhappy at work, as long as they look good doing their jobs?

Boyd does need to find a way to make these unhappy officers want to stay. And it’s nice that he’s trying, what with his attempts to tell his officers how to dress and talk, but his efforts so far seem to have missed the mark. Perhaps Boyd should make all his officers take a ball-room dancing class; that always cheers me up, plus what could be more gentlemanly than an officer who can waltz?

I personally don’t care if police officers swear or not, as long as they exercise some common sense about when and where to swear. There are certain situations were police officers definitely should not swear, such as when they are dealing with children, but to expect police officers to never, ever swear while serving and protecting the public is ridiculous. Have you ever been shot
at? I haven’t (yet), but if I was, I am quite certan I would instinctively let a few profanity-laced expletives loose. Really, really creative expletives that adequately expressed my feelings of terror.

Police officers often work in high-stress environments that can turn deadly in an instant. They probably don’t have time to stop in the middle of a hostage negotiation to do some calming yoga poses. Police officers need a more efficient way to blow off steam. I mean, isn’t that what wearing was invented for?

Most police officers have enough common sense to know when swearing is appropriate and when it is best just to bite one’s tongue. And if an officer drops a few F-bombs at the wrong moment, the police chief could always just wash their mouths out with soap instead of bringing them up on disciplinary charges.

Forcing new rules, like the new no-swearing policy, will only serve to lower the Edmonton Police officers’ morale. Treating police officers like children by telling them what they can and cannot say is not a long-term solution to the problems the Edmonton Police Force is facing.

Recycling Improvements

There’s no use crying over slightly more expensive milk.

As of June 1st, Albertans started paying a little more for their moo juice. A four-litre jug of milk now costs an extra 27 cents at the store. Milk buyers will regain 25 of those 27 cents if they bring their clean, empty jugs to a bottle depot.

The initiative is part of Environment Alberta’s efforts to reduce the amount of waste going in landfills. According to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal by Hanneke Brooymans, “Alberta is the first province to include milk containers in the deposit-refund system.”

For once, the government of Alberta is actually working to show the world this province isn’t as backwards as most people believe it is. Unless, of course, to go along with this program the government plans on giving parents the right to pull their kids out of the classroom whenever teachers bring up a cow’s religion or sexuality.

But I digress.

I am proud Alberta is finally starting to make more positive changes to help reduce our impact on the environment. I confess, as someone who is allergic to milk, I never buy the stuff. So the price hike really doesn’t affect me, or at least it doesn’t affect my wallet. But it does affect the planet I live on. I hope not too many milk lovers out there will bitch about the small hike to milk prices. 27 cents is a small price to pay to help out our planet.

Hopefully the prospect of gaining ten cents for every milk container one litre and under and 25 cents for every milk jug over one litre will motivate more people to recycle. We all know recycling is a smart idea: it helps reduce waste and fill piggy banks. So why do so many people throw out their recyclables?

It’s hard to motivate people to take the time and energy to recycle because it doesn’t have an immediate, tangible impact on our lives. If I recycle a juice box, will I become a millionaire? Not likely. If I throw out the juice box instead of recycling it, will a tree fall in the forest? Probably not.

Recycling is important because of its long-term impact. It is an easy but effective step towards a less junked-up earth. Simply put, a monkey could recycle a milk jug. So can you.

Allowing milk jugs to be recycled is a positive step in the fight to minimize harm to the earth but it is only one step. Albertans need to take bigger leaps towards a cleaner environment.

There are many more things Albertans can do to lessen their impact on the environment. One of the simplest ways to help the planet is to stop using plastic bags in stores. Plastic bags are basically the devil. And there are a lot of them floating around. According to CTV Toronto, Canadians are guilty of taking home 55 million plastic bags from stores each week. That’s 2.86 billion plastic bags a year. How many of those bags get recycled? Check under your kitchen sink and report back.

Some cities in Canada have already taken steps to reduce the amount of plastic bags used. As of June 1st, 2009, the City of Toronto requires stores to charge five cents per single use bag.

In Halifax, Nova Scotia, many stores charge anywhere from five to 10 cents a bag. Halifax is also home to the first Atlantic Superstore in Nova Scotia to go completely bag-free; they literally only offer reusable cloth bags.

Environment Alberta must push for legislation requiring store owners to charge for plastic bags and to eventually go bag-free in order to give Albertans the encouragement they need to stop needlessly wasting billions of plastic bags a year.

Store owners may worry their business will drop if they demand customers pay for or bring their own bags. It won’t. People will be upset at first, but they will adjust their routine. Try it yourself; eventually it will be second nature to bring a reusable bag along with you whenever you leave the house. The bag-less Atlantic Superstore in Halifax is always packed, partially because it’s in a great location but partially because the people who shop there are proud of their decision to shun plastic.

Sure, customers will complain about having to buy the bags but reusable bags hold three to four times the amount that plastic bags do. Buy three or four bags at one to two dollars apiece and you’re set for life. Yes, you will forget your reusable bags at home sometimes and yes, it will be annoying. Keep a stash of bags in your car so you’re ready anytime the urge to shop strikes you. It’s simple, it’s effective and hey, it’s eco-chic. In a few years, you won’t even notice the minor inconvenience of carrying reusable bags.

It all comes down to the habits we form. We all often need a push to start respectable habits, like recycling, carrying reusable bags and flossing regularly. It is time for the Alberta government to give consumers that push. Normally, I wouldn’t be in favour of the government telling us little folk what to do in our daily lives but for this, I will make an exception. The Alberta government needs to make plastic bags a thing of the past.

Albertans, do your part by showing the government and store owners everywhere you are ready to eliminate plastic bags. Tell stores you’re anti-plastic by buying reusable bags and bringing them with you to all stores, not just grocery stores.

And while you’re at it, go buy some milk.