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):
@B43S6GL4wks4W
honestly id rather my taxes are not paying for some psychopaths liver treatment when he reaches the age of 90. so im fine that we dont have definite life sentences
@9TZCC787mos7MO
depending on how the murder was committed such as if it was absolutely horrid or if it was just a quick kill
@9QX3DHQ9mos9MO
no, we should provide rehabilitation programs, dialectical behavioural therapy, and determine parole eligibility on a case by case bases.
@9QQVM6K9mos9MO
I generally agree with prisoners serving life sentences for first degree murder shouldn't have parole hearings after 15 years. But it really depends on why they did it. For example, in the case of Gypsy Rose, where there was severe abuse, I understand why she did what she did , even though it was not the right approach. Each situation should be looked at carefully because they are not all the same.
@9QQFWWG10mos10MO
Yes, but we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners, and as long as a strict psychological evaluation is provided shows they are no longer a threat to society
@9LCZWJP1yr1Y
That’s so tough, on one hand the trauma of having someone who killed someone you love back in public life would be horrible, but on the other hand people deserve a second chance if they’ve rehabilitated themselves, I really don’t know.
@9FMN2RN2yrs2Y
Maybe instead of 15 years, 20 or 25 years.
@96LZ6W7New Democratic2yrs2Y
Yes, only with a strict psychological evaluation and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners both in and out of prision
Yes, after an extensive psychological evaluation, and if passed, they must be monitored for a period of several years.
@93RQ5HYConservative3yrs3Y
No, it should at least be 25 years
@93RM97V3yrs3Y
No to all, accept if the prisoner used murder as a defence (eg: a women murdered her rapist)
@93QZV7Z3yrs3Y
No, first degree murder is way to serious of a crime.
@92K33BD3yrs3Y
no, but i cant believe the only extra no option has the death penalty included, that seems very biased to me like this site is clearly on one side as it portrays the death penalty being reinstated as the only other no option when theres multiple yes options. this annoys me as i believe they shouldnt be let out of jail for a major crime like murder but lower level crimes deserve rehabilitation
@8ZHNRK93yrs3Y
depending if they have really changed
@8Y84N4Q3yrs3Y
Yes, if there is proof that there might have been more evidence for the prisoner.
@8X29CM8Libertarian3yrs3Y
it really depends if it is for sure they did it and its very obvious then no but if it was a close vote and they didnt know for sure then yes
@8J3BMHK5yrs5Y
@9CMJPJJ2yrs2Y
the parole should vary depending on the weight of their crimes
@99SGXG32yrs2Y
If they truly repent their sin, then Yes
@987GNWP2yrs2Y
You can’t buy a life once you takes someone’s life you can’t get it back so it wouldn’t be fair for someone to be on parole knowing they took something no one can get back
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
