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):
@4X9MSY34yrs4Y
prison systems don't help our community we shouldn't try to forget the problem and lock humans away, but rather enforce rehabilitation programs not "correctional" systems
@B2X863R2mos2MO
Yes as long as vicim impact, quality of life for the survivors is taken into account. This in addition to strict psychological evaluation, remorse and restitution
@9TG6TXC7mos7MO
I would say that 20 years more or less depending on the type of crime and some rehabilitation programs
@96GPCBP3yrs3Y
Not for serious crimes. For less severe crimes, we need more rehabilitation in the prisons and parole will be a case by case decision
@947RZL33yrs3Y
Provided psychological evaluation and proper rehabilitation
No, unless they are 24 and under, your brain is fully developed when you are 25.
@8WJBJ584yrs4Y
It Matters how bad the Murder was
@8QVLLGTNew Democratic4yrs4Y
No, unless there is reasonable doubt that they commuted the crime in the first place.
@983RJ2P2yrs2Y
Depends on the case how serious the murder and the conditions.
No, unless they are 24 or under
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.