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):
@9CBTBW32yrs2Y
Yes, individual cases should at minimum be reviewed but under careful scrutiny and with the knowledge that their release and potential to commit crime again is now the responsibility of those who released the criminal.
@9ZHQY5B5mos5MO
Depending on the degree of murder they may or may not be allowed parole. 1st degree: absolute not. 2nd, 3rd: depending on the severity and the brutality of the crime. Manslaughter: Yes
@9F92YFB2yrs2Y
no, they should rot in prison.
@8YRLLRZ3yrs3Y
That depends on if they improve
Yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society, and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners. With checking in and redoing a strict psychology test yearly depending on the severity of the crime for to see how they are doing
@8VHWVK54yrs4Y
Yes, depending on the age they were and circumstance surrounding the murder at the time
@8T9HWLG4yrs4Y
yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners
@8T8KRQF4yrs4Y
No. But we should still offer rehabilitation services.
@8T56SGM4yrs4Y
Yes, following a psychological evaluation, and we should be focusing on rehabilitation
@8S5LPK44yrs4Y
Maybe, depends on the situation and the individual
@8QDSZ3Y4yrs4Y
Yes, depending on the circumstance and the intent of the murder. For example, self defence.
Yes, but only for those who who commit first degree murder within self défense.
@8PL8SVC4yrs4Y
Situationally. Not every case is the same.
@8NVYZQ44yrs4Y
I'd like to see a move towards restorative justice. This question should be for the people who have been affected by the murder
@8DTWFZY5yrs5Y
yes but only if they understand very well what they did was wrong
@8CH3X5X5yrs5Y
yes depending if they have changed
@8CFKKF55yrs5Y
Depends what there motive was
@8VSH54P4yrs4Y
Depends on their behaviour
@8QRQ5QS4yrs4Y
Yes as long as it's not a case of serial killing or any other similar situation.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
