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):
@9JCF3BY1yr1Y
Yes, depending on what the life sentence was for after 15 years they should be able to stand for another hearing
@9HZSYSQ1yr1Y
Yes, but have prisoners take psychological tests and be able to do social work to make sure they have changed
@8Z6NKNQ3yrs3Y
This depends on the circumstances.
@8YXBQR73yrs3Y
Depends on the person, if their crime was with no original intent to kill the yes they should be eligible.
@8WVHHJL3yrs3Y
no unless the murderer defended himself because he was in extreme danger e.g. conjugal violence
@8VNSBGD4yrs4Y
Yes and do the psychological evaluation but if they commit another bad crime the death penalty should be reinstated
@8TYPJ3B4yrs4Y
They should be eligible for parole after 25 years for murder and heinous crimes so long as they have shown good behavior and have had a psych evaluation that they are no longer a threat to society
@8T7H2NR4yrs4Y
yes, Depending on the circumstances of the murder.
@8NM9SG94yrs4Y
depends on what they did and depends on any behaviour changes
We should have a system like Norway our prisons are in humane
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
