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):
@8VCR55S4yrs4Y
depends on the reason for killing
@9X5SC256mos6MO
I think if you kill some one who was a child molester or rapist or a murder them selves you saved more lives then you took and deserve to go free
@9T3YWJJ7mos7MO
Once again, there is a fine balance. There should be more rehab programs, but for less serious crimes. Violent offenders should not be able to have parole hearings based on how the crime was committed.
@94R6VG53yrs3Y
Depends on what the circumstances of the murder were.
@93CSFRDNew Democratic3yrs3Y
No, however we need to do use on creating more rehabilitative environments and provide more mental health aid to those who are incarcerated
No, unless substantial evidence has been found to overturn the decision, or successful rehabilitation of the prisoner.
@8WWXCH53yrs3Y
I think that the system is flawed. Instead we should have programs that allow “prisoner” to be able to enter society once again.
@8VYZLVY4yrs4Y
It is difficult to make a choice without knowing the context of the case. In some cases I am pro-death penalty however, there are some people that have severe undiagnosed mental disorders. With the right help, that person can be rehabilitated and integrated back into society. However, when it is a person that kills for the spite of it, then yes they should not have that chance to go back into society as they are to dangers.
@8VJZ4GB4yrs4Y
Yes, but for purposes of reviewing the original case circumstances to ensure it was not a wrongful conviction.
@8T8TDGQ4yrs4Y
only if they have had outstandingly good attitude
@8R6WMH2New Democratic4yrs4Y
Yes provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a thread to society. We should also provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners.
@8P79JNN4yrs4Y
Yes if they look at the effect on the family
@9C9F9K32yrs2Y
I believe ti depends on how their behaviour is. They should also need to go through psychological evaluations that show they are no longer a threat to society and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners.
@9C8L3P42yrs2Y
depends on wether they have changed and are deserving of being rehabilitated into society. They have to be deemed not threatening to the safety and security of society.
@9729VY22yrs2Y
rehabilitation efforts along with phycological testing and a version of house arrest/probation for the rest of their lives.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
