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):
@9BT9DTX2yrs2Y
It depends on if they are truly guilty. If they are 100% guilty without any doubt, then no, they should stay in prison.
@93RV2L93yrs3Y
We should not give a real murderer any chance or any mercy; but if the previous evidence is insufficient to establish that he is a real murderer, then he can be given a chance to plead.
@93RQQQP3yrs3Y
No, but this can vary depending on the case and prisoner.
@93RNFNT3yrs3Y
Only if it's after 25 years and they must be kept under strict watch after being reinstated into society
Yes, most prisoners (at least in America) get falsely accused for murder
@8TFVW57New Democratic4yrs4Y
Should be decided on a case by case basis based on repeat offenders and the level of violence of the crime.
@8Q78H854yrs4Y
Yes, but there should be many psychological evaluation/rehabilitation hurdles to jump through in order to get that parole.
@9CMY88HConservative2yrs2Y
under very specific circumstances should they get a parole hearing. for instance if they were murdering someone who had been abusing them over the years
@8WHPCRS4yrs4Y
No, make it at least 25 years
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
