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):
@B4LB24P6 days6D
depends on why they did it, if its for fun then keep them in if they had a good reason then let them
@99YWY2J2yrs2Y
they should be allowed parole after 20-25 years
@99YM8GN2yrs2Y
@93C9HLT3yrs3Y
I think this is a very case by case thing.
@8W88RGN4yrs4Y
each case is different, I am open to parole hearings only if the individual has demonstrated rehabilitation, with a lot of follow up meetings
@8RHLR784yrs4Y
Depends, the time should depend on the murder and reason.
@99LS2NX2yrs2Y
Yes, both Rehabilitation Programs and Psychological Evaluation should be enforced during parole.
@998RMPX2yrs2Y
Yes and No, a very throw psychological evaluation however if the crimes were horrible death penalty is logical
@98NCNVQConservative2yrs2Y
20 years in prison, and then rehabilitation
@98J54T92yrs2Y
depending on why they killed smo
@8VRXLXT4yrs4Y
If the murder was retaliation for something like rape or murder of a loved one.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
