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):
@B39YWBH2mos2MO
No, the family of the victim has to live with the consequences of the murder's actions for the rest of their lives, why shouldn't the murderer?
@9T2RHXK7mos7MO
It depends because I do think some situations with murder are unfair for example if you kill your rapist and get charged with 1st degree murder you should definitely be able to get parole but if you are just killing people a psychological examination is needed
@8Z3VCCP3yrs3Y
Only if the person is psychologically messed. If they were acting in self defence then it should have no sentence
@8VQS4CK4yrs4Y
yes but add 100 more years
@8VNQSDT4yrs4Y
Depends on the crime but, no
@8VC3SZ34yrs4Y
No but more rehabilitation and psychological supports need to be in place.
@8TCJSSY4yrs4Y
Depends on the context of the case and mindset of the prisoner.
@8T8VK3K4yrs4Y
Depends on the story of the crime; was it a reasonable kill like Gypsy Rose?
@9C8BR8P2yrs2Y
I think it ultimately depends on the convict. Anyone receiving a life sentence should serve their life sentence but I think everything else needs an evaluation before allowing parole
@8TCJYHX4yrs4Y
Yes, depending on if they have shown change during their time in prison.
@8P6NDT54yrs4Y
If there is no doubt the person committed the crime then no
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
