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):
@B23ZSFH4mos4MO
It depends on if the crime was towards random citizens, or one specific act of retaliation, knowing the crime will not be repeated if released,
@9ZYCJ5N4mos4MO
I would say it depends on why they killed the person. If the reason behind the murder is justified, then yes.
@8V8LQD4New Democratic4yrs4Y
Yes but have extensive evaluation to ensure they have indeed been rehabilitated and also provide more support to prisoners not just house them for their sentence.
@8SCCN6L4yrs4Y
I believe there should be some sort of rehabilitation program in place, however I do not believe they should be eligible for parole
@8S8BCJ64yrs4Y
Yes with good behaviour, shown remorse, and stable household.
@8Q5ZWTZ4yrs4Y
yes and no, I think people who were defending themselves or their home or whatever the situation is should get parole after doing the right time set of getting off on good behaviour
@8PCNGPK4yrs4Y
maybe longer depending on how bad it is
@8HQ77MK5yrs5Y
Depends if they are guilty or not
@9BGXFTW2yrs2Y
No. I feel it should be a longer amount of time to be eligible for a parole hearing. Maybe 20-25 years
@99BL3T22yrs2Y
they should be aloud a prison job
@8DP569G5yrs5Y
Depending on the circumstances.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
