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):
@98YDFDC2yrs2Y
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.
@9FF66BJ2yrs2Y
no the it should be atleast 20 years couse studies show in prison can couse calmnest to the brain for a murder so i say keep him in for 20 years or more if his brain sanity has not calm down and the yaers depend on how many murders
@96D2BB53yrs3Y
Depends on how gruesome the crime was. If it was something like Jeffery Dahmer, then no they shouldn't get parole. They should do a psychological evaluation to see whether or not it's a good idea to give them parole.
@96D27J53yrs3Y
depends on what they did so they might eave of not it depends on want they did
@8VW6DJP4yrs4Y
We should implement rehabilitation programs along with psychological evaluations that show they are not a threat to society or to themselves. Allowing individuals to receive help throughout their sentence is what can ensure they will leave prison and become a law abiding citizen. If they show they are not capable of these tasks then they should be sentenced to another amount of years, and it shall continue.
@8VM96P64yrs4Y
No but I thinjk there shoukld be more rehabilliatation programs
@8VLCLWQ4yrs4Y
maybe in later years depending on age
@8R6WR3V4yrs4Y
depends on the circumstances of the conviction
@8QRW5Q2Conservative4yrs4Y
No, depending on the crime and severity of it parole should be offered at minimum time of half way through their sentence.
@8QRPRY74yrs4Y
no, but we should provide rehabilitation programs within the prison to increase the ability to reintegrate into society when they do
@8CDF8F55yrs5Y
yes, but only if they have been good and have not caused a riot or something in the prison.
@9BJQB5K2yrs2Y
yes unless it was a horrible murder or something horrible they did
@999XDL92yrs2Y
Yes, if the murder was accidental and not on purpose.
@98YDF852yrs2Y
Yes. However, I think that we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisons and the prisoners will need to undergo a strict psychological evalutation to insure they are no longer a threat to society.
@8VNYWLR4yrs4Y
Those who are serving a life sentence should not be able to get parole, however, if someone who has been 'good' in jail and has done first degree murder, could get a chance at parole, but if they mess up at anything small or have not bee good in jail, then they should not get parole at all. It depends on what they have done and why they are in jail. Otherwise, NO neither group should be allowed parole.
@8VNMTSR4yrs4Y
I feel like it should be closer to 20 or 25 but, yes. After a longer time.
Dependiendo del tipo de delito.
@8SFD4XJ4yrs4Y
Depende de que delito hayan cometido
@8RG8QDQ4yrs4Y
Maybe, it depends on the situation.
@8QZL5HTConservative4yrs4Y
No, however, older cases could be reviewed as technology has advanced. There could be instances where they could be proven innocent.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
