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):
@B322S5D2mos2MO
No prisoners should not be allowed parole after 15 years it should be decided when they get they're sentence..
@9TV5FXW7mos7MO
Yes, and If a prisoner is good enough, following the rules, not causing trouble, etc. Then we should give them a cat that they can keep while they are in jail and let them keep it once they are out. If/when they get out, they will not want to do anything to get sent back to jail because of the cat. They will want to take care of it and not leave, therefore, they will try their best to be a better person!
I feel that when it comes to repeating harsh offenders death penalty can be a punishment. But u also believe in rehabilitation and needing to take test to see if a person is no longer a threat to society in order to have a hearing.
Every incarcerated individual should be respected and given opportunities to rehabilitate and integrate themselves into society through career learning programs provided by taxation.
@8YSN6QJ3yrs3Y
@8VJFQJN4yrs4Y
Yes one mistake shouldn’t decide your fate each prisoner that turns into a meaningful piece of society this means the system is working. However there are acts that are inexcusable.
@8VCTQ9F4yrs4Y
I believe it depends on the age of the person they murder
@8V55J2V4yrs4Y
Eligible yes, but clear outcomes should be set for what is required to receive probation. And the death penalty should be an optional sentence for those who demonstrate heinous, premeditated crimes, those lacking any remorse and for repeat offenders.
@8RDGMY34yrs4Y
Yes, and we should provide them with more rehabilitation programs but at the same time, the death penalty should be reinstated for heinous premeditated crimes.
@8M5S3Z84yrs4Y
Perhaps but after 25 years and an extensive psychological evaluation
@8J3ZMJX5yrs5Y
It depends on how old they were when they did the crime. I would give someone who was younger more leeway than someone who was older (ie, comparing a teenager to a 30 yr old)
@8DJTM525yrs5Y
only if a new thing appears in a case
@9CZ7KRQ2yrs2Y
, they would need a psychological evaluation, and parol officers and I think rehabilitation centers do work under the right circumstances
@9C7HK4G2yrs2Y
Yes but only after strict psychological evaluation which proves they are no longer a threat and there should be more rehabilitation programs
@99577832yrs2Y
like 20 years if they still psycho like 25 years if like still psycho like 40 years
@8YSWKR93yrs3Y
It’s depends on the situation as some people could be serving a first degree murder sentence for killing there kidnapper or rapist to escape and in that case I think they should have parol and no jail time but there are cases where people just murder others and in that case they should spend life in prison or serve death penalty
@8VQ6FP84yrs4Y
Depends on how serious the murder was.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
