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):
@9TNV7YD7mos7MO
I believe that It depends on the situation. There has to be reasonable circumstances for there actions.
@9TNV4SJ7mos7MO
i think that under sircumstances if you do it for good reason then you shouldn't get the death penilty like if your doing it based off self denfence
Re-tried depending on what they did, for example, if they murdered somebody in self-defence they can be re-tried
@9KCF7R6Conservative1yr1Y
Depending on age I think a strict psychological evaluation would be acceptable but for the more elderly or those with multiple counts of life death penalty/euthanasia might be a smart alternative.
@9J9KZ3H1yr1Y
It depends on the situation as not every criminal charged with first degree murder did it intentionally some do it as a result of self- defence.
@9FG2XZX2yrs2Y
@95DN78B3yrs3Y
Depends on what the situation is
@8VDKGYR4yrs4Y
For anyone over 18 years old they should have the life sentence, but anyone under should be able to get parole as kids often make mistakes they later regret, including murder.
@8RG6SG34yrs4Y
Depends on the violence of the crime and how well they have rebilitated themselves.
@8XVFF4T3yrs3Y
depends, I'm not really sure about this one.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
