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):
@9V8PY4N7mos7MO
I feel that it is dependent on the reason for the murder. Some people commit terrible crimes to get out of terrible situations and I think that that is something to be taken into consideration when discussing this topic. On the other hand, someone who commits first degree murder simply because I don't feel that this should be applied.
@9K544ZP1yr1Y
Yes, though it depends on why they committed murder. Killing a man for raping someone close to your so they can’t hurt anyone else is a very different reason than killing a man so they can’t tell the police about another crime.
@9HQLBC91yr1Y
depending on how bad the crime committed is and if they show remorse then they should be eligible for parole
@9HCKGC71yr1Y
Yes but they have to take a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and if still a threat reinstate the death penalty for heinous premeditated crimes
@9DG796F2yrs2Y
It depends on the motive on the crime
yes, providing a strict psychological evaluation is done. this being said it depends on the case, the situation, the history of said person or back story of the situation
@9FH4WZJNew Democratic2yrs2Y
It depends on the circumstances and the nature of their crime
murder is still murder and all should be locked up forever unless they have a really good reason to why they committed the crime!
they should not be let out for murder
Yes, as long as there is significant psychological proof of rehabilitation, and a judge rules it to be the best option.
It depends on the reason
This is a complicated issue, but if someone killed me by accident or on purpose I would hope that this person could sent to a place where they can learn to cooperate with people and learn to control their rage, punishment only leads to rebellion, people need to be treated with respect when being rehabilitated not imprisoned
Yes, but it should be 20 years.
@8Y8LP963yrs3Y
There should be restorative justice measures in place especially for Indigenous offenders, and a hearing should be available if the offender has followed Indigenous restorative justice protocols for a majority of their sentence.
@8XGL5GB3yrs3Y
It depends on the reasoning and motive behind the murder
they should do a hearing after 10 years
@8W8J43S4yrs4Y
Depends on why and how the person was killed
No, unless the murderer was acting as self defense in an abusive home or situation and can prove the police didn't provide help for their safety when asked.
@8VXZZ6R4yrs4Y
No, they should have to wait longer for a parole hearing.
depending on the crime and empathy they have towards the crime
There should be no fixed sentences; all prisoners should undergo regular psychological evaluation and training aimed at rehabilitation. If a prisoner is deemed to have true remorse and understanding and could be an asset to society, they should be able to return at any time. For those who can never be rehabilitated they should never be released.
@8VQJZC84yrs4Y
Depending on what the murder was about
@8VMTH7M4yrs4Y
Depends on what’s going on with the person and what he’s suffering with
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
there should be heavy psych evaluations and for more heinous crimes there should be a death penalty for those deemed extremely dangerous and prone to re offend.
I think this is dependent on the individual. I think that a strict psychological evaluation showing they are no longer a threat to society and also providing more rehabilitation programs for prisoners is a good idea.
@8VBF2F24yrs4Y
Yes, if it was a crime done as an accident or because they were young and naive, or they still claim innocence. We should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners and assign a buddy system outside for them with free counselling for the first year or two.
Depends on the murder, if it was self-defense or accident then yes, and if it was intentional then no.
Yes, but We need to second guess our justice system and find the corruption before we put innocent people in jail!
@8T3S42M4yrs4Y
yes but under the condition that the prisoner has been doing well behavior wise...
@8T3RNG54yrs4Y
A mix of option 4 (making sure they are no longer a threat to society) but it also depends on the seriousness of the crime
yes, providing that they undergo psychological evaluation, no longer a threat, and are strictly monitored when back in society.
@8RTBKQP4yrs4Y
If the prisoner was wrongly accused of murder they should have a chance to live a normal life
@shaelynj4yrs4Y
Yes, and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners and provide a psychological evaluation to show they are no longer a threat to anyone , while also bringing back the death penalty for heinous premeditated crimes
@saides9908Green4yrs4Y
Yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and only if the victims family gets to have a say in the matter
Yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation that shows they are no longer a threat to society and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners and
@8PJRLYY4yrs4Y
yes but more than 25 years
They should be eligible for parole after a larger amount of years and a psychological evaluation to ensure they are no longer a threat to society.
@Jatzuyu4yrs4Y
No, they made their decision to kill someone, that was their life choice and now they are paying the price for it, unless the person is wrongly convicted.
We should have a system like Norway our prisons are in humane
I believe they should serve their full sentence and they shouldn’t have an option to get out of prison. Murders should stay in prison and they don’t deserve to be out in the normal world
Cold blooded killer's should not be allowed free.
No but any other serious crime committed should be sent to life without a second chance
depends on the mentality of the murderer
@98Q2MS82yrs2Y
Yes, Based on the situation
@98NK33G2yrs2Y
Depends on the stances of First degree Murder, A Fatal car accident is considered first Degree Murder
@9898FLY2yrs2Y
depends how many people and age
@8RG8QDQ4yrs4Y
Maybe, it depends on the situation.
@8KSPPR94yrs4Y
Yes, with rehabilitation and psychological evaluation
It depends on the motive.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
