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):
@B4P27XC2 days2D
No to stay in custody until the parent passes that they took the life from. Because their loved one will never come back. Unless it was an accidental death then that’s different but murder. Is murder
@B3QNMWT1mo1MO
Someone in prison for any type of murder should never be released. However, if they are truly repentant and strive to be a better person they should be entitled to less strenuous incarceration. They could also help other inmates with bettering themselves to reduce recidivism.
@9T7C6427mos7MO
It depends on how innocent the person they killed was. Was this person their abuser? Or simply an innocent?
It depends on the reason
@93FV8Y53yrs3Y
It depends on why they killed
@8XH8KJ43yrs3Y
yes, and reinstate the death penalty for heinous premeditated crimes
@8V9YGJP4yrs4Y
If they are wrongfully accused, there has been rehabilitation programs and strict psychological evaluations done yes.
@8RFDJX84yrs4Y
maybe after 30 years as well as rehabilitation
@98Q2MS82yrs2Y
Yes, Based on the situation
They should be eligible for parole but after a longer period of time
@B4PPBZN1 day1D
Only if those signing the release accept some civil responsibility for any offenses committed after release
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.