First degree murder implies that the offense was premeditated

With that in mind, this goes beyond the concept of rehabilitating this individual. I personally feel that the release/parole of an individual who either commits an extreme act of violence (i.e. first degree murder) or commits a large number of violent offenses goes against the interests of the public. Nothing is owed to this individual in terms of rehabilitation or the promise of release. At some point, we have to acknowledge that part of the criminal justice system is to set a proportionate or appropriate punishment in response to the offense committed, which in this case would be the planned taking of one's life. Parole is a tool for reintegration while keeping in mind the safety of the public. The likeliest scenario is that the public would lose faith in the administration of justice by seeing a soft punishment such as parole after 15 years for taking a life.

To those who commit a criminal offense, there is little that is owed to them through the criminal justice system. They have their right to counsel, the right to a fair trial, as well as essential human rights in regards to their treatment while in custody. The question was "Should prisoners serving life sentences for first degree murder be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years?" I answered "No". The reason for that is simple: I do not feel that an individual who has been found guilty for committing first degree murder should ever have the opportunity for parole. Although it may err on the side of Hammurabi law, I feel that a proportionate punishment for an individual found guilty of first degree murder would be a life sentence without the chance for parole.