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):
@9F9LLVX2yrs2Y
it depends on how it was done, how many were killed etc.
@9F8QJ4X2yrs2Y
depends on the amount of people, how it was done, is the person sadistic etc.
@95LMVRN3yrs3Y
no they still killed someone if it was intentional if it was not consider parole
@dryc34703yrs3Y
No, prisoners should be eligible for parole hearing after at least 25 years
@fizaiqbal3yrs3Y
Yes, considering the context
@8V5CS564yrs4Y
25 years as it currently is
@8TDHSG44yrs4Y
I feel like they should be released if it was reasonable
@9395HQR3yrs3Y
Depending on situation of why the murder was committed
@8W3XLBL4yrs4Y
Yes, Unless it is a serious crime
@8Q9SXCW4yrs4Y
yes if it is not a lift sentence but if they have a life sentence they should not be allowed parole unless their case is reopened and are proven innocent.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
