In 2010 the Conservative government introduced a crime bill which would kill the so-called faint hope clause that allows some people serving life sentences to apply for parole after 15 years (instead of the usual 25 common for first-degree murder and other life sentence convictions). Opponents of the crime bill argue that extended prison sentences are cruel and will cost the government tens of millions of dollars per year.Proponents argue that 15 years is too short of a prison term for people serving life sentences.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Electoral District (2011):
@9F7JWQS2yrs2Y
If it’s proven they’ve made changes to themselves, unless theyre a multiple time offender with little to chance of change
@9673VLG3yrs3Y
Yes, but not without a strict and thorough psychological evaluation and provide more rehabilitation programs
@95BS7H63yrs3Y
Yes, provided psychological evaluation and continued engagement in rehabilitative services to assess risk and mitigated risks for reoffending post release.
@8Y8LP963yrs3Y
There should be restorative justice measures in place especially for Indigenous offenders, and a hearing should be available if the offender has followed Indigenous restorative justice protocols for a majority of their sentence.
@8VRRWV24yrs4Y
Provide rehabilitation programs and psychological evaluation.
I believe it depends upon the situation, why the murder was committed and what has the individual done since/ are they a threat.
@8V8FJD44yrs4Y
It would depend heavily on the circumstance of the murder. If it was self defense, parole should be available immediately
@8TXF8JKConservative4yrs4Y
Case by case basis after thorough professional examinations and tests to determine danger
@8TX3YTBNew Democratic4yrs4Y
Yes, depending on the reason behind their murder.
@8TWZKLY4yrs4Y
No. A life sentence should mean exactly that...life.
Yes and abolish the prison system.
@8TKFPRH4yrs4Y
Yes, and we should be working towards the abolition of prisons and carceral infrastructures by heavily investing in rehabilitation programs, models of restorative justice and community accountability, social services, and psychiatric health care.
@8T56SGM4yrs4Y
Yes, following a psychological evaluation, and we should be focusing on rehabilitation
@8RG6SG34yrs4Y
Depends on the violence of the crime and how well they have rebilitated themselves.
@8PPM5D3New Democratic4yrs4Y
No, but with psychological treatment and rehabilitation
@8PK936W4yrs4Y
Depending on the crime. If the individual has killed several people they should not. Everyone else should be case by case, and rehabilitation is very important.
@8P79JNN4yrs4Y
Yes if they look at the effect on the family
@8NGM3JW4yrs4Y
Yes, but depends on the physiological condition of the offender
@8H6N2C25yrs5Y
Yes, but it should be 30 years, psychological evaluation
I believe they should serve their full sentence and they shouldn’t have an option to get out of prison. Murders should stay in prison and they don’t deserve to be out in the normal world
@8D8N7PL5yrs5Y
@9C8YJM32yrs2Y
I think when it comes to the specific situation of the prisoner, like if they were abused for years or had to kill out of self-defence then yes and provide rehabilitation for them. There should be rehabilitation for all prisoners of lower crime though.
@9C2JMT92yrs2Y
Needs to be treated on a case by case basis
@976LMFL2yrs2Y
The death penalty is the harshest of punishments, therefore it should only be implemented if prisoners of first degree murder show no remorse, guilt or regret. If they do, they should be not let out until after 25 years.
@969Y6MJ3yrs3Y
Case by case basis (ie if they were very young at the time) & greatly increase funding for rehabilitation
Dependiendo del tipo de delito.
@8KSPPR94yrs4Y
Yes, with rehabilitation and psychological evaluation
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
