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):
@8ZN35ZL3yrs3Y
Yes, only depending on an extreme situation where the person committed the act to save their life and are an innocent person who should be punished further.
@8Z9JMCS3yrs3Y
Depends on what they are there for
@8Z97NF53yrs3Y
Yea, depending on the circumstances of the crime.
@8X2SVZY3yrs3Y
Depends on if they show and prove that they can/ want to change
@8RZGYHN4yrs4Y
This strictly depends on the nature of the crime and differs in different cases, but most of the times i think the answer is Yes. Everyone deserves a second chance.
@9C8YJM32yrs2Y
I think when it comes to the specific situation of the prisoner, like if they were abused for years or had to kill out of self-defence then yes and provide rehabilitation for them. There should be rehabilitation for all prisoners of lower crime though.
A murder has to die. unless the family of the victim forgives.
@995MVNC2yrs2Y
first degree should be studies heavily before making any stance
No for criminals that are confirmed to have committed first degree
@8TDS47L4yrs4Y
I am too stupid to formulate an opinion on this.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
