Should prisoners serving life sentences for first degree murder be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years?

Prisoners are human too. A society that run charties for animal welfare should do treat a human with compassion.

Reinstate forced labor so they at least offset the cost of internment to the taxpayer.

perhaps, but ending jails is a must. it is inhumane. these people need mental health help, not physical and mental torture. even if they are insane and need to be strapped down 24/7, jail conditions are medieval and horrible.

No. I think the entire parole system needs to be looked at. Sentences are too lenient and criminals are released too soon. Parole should be considered only for exceptionally well adjusted and productive inmates not people given life sentences. Life sentences should be for life, you die in prison.

no, life is life. Bring back public trials and corporal punishment and watch the crime rate drop!

yes BUT death penalty should be brought back for heinous crimes even if under influence of a substance. Mental illness should not ever be an excuse in these crimes.

prison systems don't help our community we shouldn't try to forget the problem and lock humans away, but rather enforce rehabilitation programs not "correctional" systems

Life is hard. People make mistakes, forgive

If it’s proven they’ve made changes to themselves, unless theyre a multiple time offender with little to chance of change

I don't have an idea about this.

Yes, individual cases should at minimum be reviewed but under careful scrutiny and with the knowledge that their release and potential to commit crime again is now the responsibility of those who released the criminal.

Yes, we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners and provide a strict psychological evaluation that shows they are no longer a threat to society.

depends on the reason for killing

yes, but make it 20

Depending on the reason for the murder.

yes, depending on what they did

Determine case by case

It all depends on the nature of the crime (murder -- was it single or multiple, in a fit of passion, retaliatory for violent physical abuse) and how well the prisoner has been rehabilitated.

the person who commits the crime should serve the time, they took someones live that they cant get back

It depends on if the crime was towards random citizens, or one specific act of retaliation, knowing the crime will not be repeated if released,

If the individual has served at least 15 years of their confinement and is over the age of 65 and has been shown to be of no risk to society.

Depending on the circumstances, however, a prisoner committing first-degree murder should not get a second chance for something so unnecessary and awful

I would say it depends on why they killed the person. If the reason behind the murder is justified, then yes.

It depends why the murder was happened, if it was from a point of abuse or needing to escape a hamrful environment.

I think they should be provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and be closely watched the first year out of jail.

If they have shown to change or feel remorse/guilt, with a strict psychological evaluation proving they are no longer a threat to society they should be eligible. Thought process should be considered; Did they murder for benefit? Were they tasked to do this? Is this something they wanted?

We should provided more rehabilitation, but those who commit heinous premeditated crimes such as 1st degree murder should need to serve their time fully.

I think if they show no threats and are sorry for what they did and can be helped with a service like counseling everything 2 days a week and still being Monterey for awhile until proven nothing is bad that they've done

I think the death penalty should be given to certain people who've committed heinous acts, but a psychological evaluation wouldn't hurt either.

Depending on the degree of murder they may or may not be allowed parole. 1st degree: absolute not. 2nd, 3rd: depending on the severity and the brutality of the crime. Manslaughter: Yes

No, they shouldn’t be allowed to get parole the damages they have done has already happened and can’t be taken back instead they should live out their lives in prison and wait for what judgement lies in death

If they pass a strict psychological evaluation that shows they are no longer s threat to society, sure. However they should be monitored on a scheduled basis to see if everything is fine. However, for thise who commit specific heinous premediated crimes, the death penalty should be invoked.

Yes, if the murder was an act of self defence against someone or these was an abuse situation going on

I think there should always be hearings much later in case an individual was wrongfully accused, however I don't any rehabilitation measures should be allowed - it doesn't work; criminals should be properly punished.

if they were doing it since the person that that murdered killed someone they love they probably wont do it again so they should get parole but if it was a drunk driving murder they no theh shouldnt

I think if you kill some one who was a child molester or rapist or a murder them selves you saved more lives then you took and deserve to go free

i believe if there was a reason why they killed someone then that should be a conversation. but generally no someone who ended someone’s life should never be free just like the person they killed.

If the person who was murdered deserved it, most definitely. those who murder in cold blood because they are psychopaths who want to hurt and kill innocent people for their own gratification should be given the death penatly.

I think if a life sentence in Canada is only 25 years. Then re evaluate then. Then they can atemp a hearing to see if they should be back in society

The motivation behind the crime needs to be considered heavily before and the prisoner should be given therapy while in prison before entering the rehabilitation stage, if they do chose to apply for it

yes with a struct phycological evaluation that shows they aren't a threat along with more rehabilitation.

It, Depends on the reason they committed the murder. There are many cases where I believe the murderer should get a chance to walk free, but not all.

depends on the story of what happened. If they are protecting then no but if its brutality or violence yes and its if heinous and 100% proven I agree with death penalty

I think depending on how brutal and groosum the crime was that should be the deciding factor whether or not they receive the hearing.

Yes in certain cases for example, if someone is assaulted or someone who they loved passes and they take revenge on the person I think they deserve parole

Maybe depends on the reason for the murder and if over the past 15 years they show remorse or improvement

No, they should not be, but there should also be an enormous amount of evidence to suggest that they're guilty of 1st degree.

I think I depends how they killed them. Was it in cold blood or where they protecting themselves or family? Or were they killing a predator

It depends on the case for their murder. In an act of self defense they should be eligible, for ill intent they should not be allowed

Yes, if they truly and honestly have changed because people change over long periods of time and people regret the choices they make.

I feel that it is dependent on the reason for the murder. Some people commit terrible crimes to get out of terrible situations and I think that that is something to be taken into consideration when discussing this topic. On the other hand, someone who commits first degree murder simply because I don't feel that this should be applied.

I believe it depends on the motive someone had to kill someone. But strict phycological evaluation is still necessary.

No, and reinstate the death penalty for heinous crimes surrounding, murder at any degree, and proven assault-related crimes.

Depends on who they murder? Like if its a rapist or a pedo, then i would say they could be eligible for parole. But if they kill an innocent, then they should not be eligible for parole.

Yes, but with extensive psychological assessment and rehabilitation and evaluation by significant amount of people. However, this should not apply for someone with more than one conviction and we should have people convicted of more than one murder serve consecutive sentences not concurrent.

The prisoners should receive rehabilitation while in prison. Then they should receive a psychological evaluation after 15 years to show they are no longer a threat to society. If they are no longer a threat to society, then they become eligible for a parole hearing.

Depends on why crime was committed and what sate of living the person was in while committing the crime.

I believe it is important that they should be given a second chance however I think it should be taken case by case based on the severity of it.

depends on the reasoning, if it was self defense, defending someone else's life, then i think they shouldn't even be convicted to begin with.

depending on how the murder was committed such as if it was absolutely horrid or if it was just a quick kill

They should undergo a psychological evaluation and other strict testing but should have a longer range than 15 years

Yes but for those who killed and were justified but still wrong like a women afraid her man will kill her too, or a person who is abused and sees no way out but to kill also, killing a spouse who cheated should be applauded not jailed

Yes, make sure they are evaluated to be safe for society and keep them strictly monitored. We should also provide more rehabilitation programs that are more empathetic to the prisoners situation. We should provide them with proper resources support if they prove they are well and able so they won't fall back into the wrong path.

I think they should serve 20 years minimum. No early releases. After 20+ years they should have eligibility.

It should depend on what terms the murder the done was on. Such as murdering a rapist or a first, second, or third degree murderer you know of.

Yes, and If a prisoner is good enough, following the rules, not causing trouble, etc. Then we should give them a cat that they can keep while they are in jail and let them keep it once they are out. If/when they get out, they will not want to do anything to get sent back to jail because of the cat. They will want to take care of it and not leave, therefore, they will try their best to be a better person!

Yes, if the individual was under age 25 at the time of the crime and a strict psychological evaluation shows they are remorseful and are no longer a threat to society, and if successful, their parole is strictly supervised/enforced

no, because if the person does it one time. they would still have it in them to do it a second time.

Reinstate the death penalty but, you do to them what they did to someone else then kill them after 2 days.

I believe that It depends on the situation. There has to be reasonable circumstances for there actions.

i think that under sircumstances if you do it for good reason then you shouldn't get the death penilty like if your doing it based off self denfence

You have to have a real good reasoning behind why you got that sentence to either get let out or keep staying in prison.

it depends what they are in for or who they killed, if it was cold hearted, no reason. having a mental break down then no. if it was an accident, or they killed someone in jail who graped a child or something like that, in my opinion yes. but that's just my opinion.

yes, but the sentence should be longer before they can have a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society, then possibly be eligible for parole

I would say that 20 years more or less depending on the type of crime and some rehabilitation programs

I think the family and/or loved ones of the victim(s) should have a say in this decision, as well as some close watch and rehabilitation and psychological evaluation.

depends on the reason for the murder, if it was for an actual good reason then yes but if it wasn't then no.

No keep the 25 years, and provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society

Yes, prisoners who are eligible for parole deserve an opportunity to advocate for themselves, and speak to the reasons why they are able to return to the community. I have faith that individuals making decisions about parole are able to make a fair and just decision for the prisoner and the victims of the crime taking all factors into consideration.

It depends on how innocent the person they killed was. Was this person their abuser? Or simply an innocent?

the onlys ones who should receive this are people who killed in self defence or people who killed pedos and rapists

No you do your 25 years and the prison system should have the scientific stats on the requirement of human life. Basically you get nothing. Your food is a sort of mush with all essential vitamins and minerals three times daily. Temperature is controlled, you have a daily support worker to be there for you, you don’t get a mattress, you don’t get a blanket, you don’t even get a window. You get the bare bones of what’s needed to survive. This is what a person who commits first degree murder gets

Once again, there is a fine balance. There should be more rehab programs, but for less serious crimes. Violent offenders should not be able to have parole hearings based on how the crime was committed.

I feel that when it comes to repeating harsh offenders death penalty can be a punishment. But u also believe in rehabilitation and needing to take test to see if a person is no longer a threat to society in order to have a hearing.

It depends because I do think some situations with murder are unfair for example if you kill your rapist and get charged with 1st degree murder you should definitely be able to get parole but if you are just killing people a psychological examination is needed

yes, more rehabilitation programs in and outside of prisons, and provided and in depth psychological evaluation proving they aren’t a danger

Depending on their reason for the crime, and whether they have rehabilitated and imporved in prison, depends on the situation

yes, only for cases where the defendant can prove with indisputable evidence that they were wrongfully convicted or have been significantly rehabilitated

Prisoners should be given an opportunity to grow back into society. Also, they should be given a strict psychological exam before they are eligible for parole.

Case by case decision, some can be rehabilitated while other might not be. It is not black and white

It’s all subjective I guess…but rehab programs, therapy, psych evaluations need to be in place. If they make genuine progress in these programs, 15 years could be fine. If they don’t make progress in the programs/ don’t attend, 25 years. They also should be working in some capacity during their prison sentence in order to “pay their way” in prison, instead of relying on tax payer dollars.

no, we should provide rehabilitation programs, dialectical behavioural therapy, and determine parole eligibility on a case by case bases.

I think with how psychologically ill some of the criminals can be, and what they are clearly capable of doing, it depends on how much progress the specific criminal has made in their journey to not being a threat to society.

I generally agree with prisoners serving life sentences for first degree murder shouldn't have parole hearings after 15 years. But it really depends on why they did it. For example, in the case of Gypsy Rose, where there was severe abuse, I understand why she did what she did , even though it was not the right approach. Each situation should be looked at carefully because they are not all the same.

Yes, but we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners, and as long as a strict psychological evaluation is provided shows they are no longer a threat to society

It should be in a case-by-case basis. Although prisons should be biased toward rehabilitation rather than punishment

Depends on the mental state. If it' a hitman or something, then maybe. But if its someone who murders for the sake of it, then no.

It depends on why and how they killed the person, If they killed a person for breaking in their house and try to steal or hurt them, then, to be honest, they shouldn't even be in jail, same as if they killed a child molester. If they killed a person because they wanted too or drunk driving or anything like that, then yeah.

Depending on the situation and considering the evidence and how the prisoner was convicted. Because false confessions are common, cases with confessions should be re-evaluated.