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):
@B2NXY75New Democratic3mos3MO
Heavily dependent on circumstance, elegibility for a parole hearing should be left to the discresion of the sentencing party (typically the judge) with a recommended minimum of 10 years.
@9V4JT2C7mos7MO
Yes, but with extensive psychological assessment and rehabilitation and evaluation by significant amount of people. However, this should not apply for someone with more than one conviction and we should have people convicted of more than one murder serve consecutive sentences not concurrent.
@9G4FL6Z 2yrs2Y
Yes, if they showed consistent improvement and provided a strict psychology evaluation showing they are no longer a threat to society along with providing more rehabilitation programs for all prisoners.
@9FKSZH82yrs2Y
if they acted really well in prion and changed, yes
yes, providing a strict psychological evaluation is done. this being said it depends on the case, the situation, the history of said person or back story of the situation
@9C8YBHH2yrs2Y
Yes, provided that they have some trustworthy proof that they are okay. For example, many psychological evaluations, community/rehab programs (which could be more creative, such as opportunities to take care of cats, or skill-building programs), or a mix
@96KG9BQ2yrs2Y
Increase time from 15 years to 25 years and constant monitoring on mental state during (court hearing and sentencing) and after the murder.
@8YLNZTD3yrs3Y
Depends on the circumstances and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners.
No, if the prisoner was rightly convicted with clear evidence pointing to them.
@8K6SNVBConservative4yrs4Y
They should be eligible for a parole hearing after 7.5 years
@8HKCYT85yrs5Y
It will matter on what they have done and how they have bin behaving do they show that they are trying to change
@9C73X8W2yrs2Y
It depends on who's in prison. You never know if someone could fake their behaviour and go back to doing crime
@996L2JH2yrs2Y
Yes, but the circumstances under which the offender committed the crime needs to be considered.
@9FFJDQM2yrs2Y
They should only be eligible for parole depending on their motive for the murder, along with a strict phycological evaluation.
@9TV5VL57mos7MO
no, and require them to serve the full life sentence and if they can pass certain rehabilitation training and show for sure that they're willing to change then maybe they can have a parole hearing after 15 years.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
