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):
Only in some cases and with extremely strict mental tests and other things should be considered like guarded work such.
We should use capital labour as retribution from the crimes committed. This would be within safe conditions; not something inhumane
All depends weather it was done on purpose or by accident
I think it depends on the reason, if somebody was about to be raped/murdered and they had to do it for self defense purposes they should be eligible for a parole hearing.
@8X29CM8Libertarian3yrs3Y
it really depends if it is for sure they did it and its very obvious then no but if it was a close vote and they didnt know for sure then yes
@8TWPQJSLibertarian4yrs4Y
The government should put the onus on the victim on what happens.
@8S7DVR7Libertarian4yrs4Y
depends on the situation. for example If a woman kills her rapist and receives life, she should be re-assessed. but those who kill in cold blood should not.
@8PHQ3PBLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, and provide more rehab. ALSO reinstate the death penalty for heinous crimes.
@8P6NKHGLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, instead rehabilitate them and treat them as human, prison often leads to more mental issues.
@8NXRYZTLibertarian4yrs4Y
Life in jail and used for medical experiments for a reduced sentence
Increase the number of years to 25 - 30 and make them go through parole hearings.
@8KKFTLYLibertarian4yrs4Y
On a case by case basis, people who have, over time, become a different person from the one who committed the crime, and can show remorse and have developed the skills to help society, should be elligible to prove their changed state.
I think that not matter what age you are and you illegally commit murder that was not for "self defense" on another human being you should be serving a life sentence because now that person cant live a life so you shouldn't be able to either
No, but we should make prison more humane.
Serial killers and demented psychopathic murderers should be given the death penalty. murders due to anger, passion, and less serious mental problems should have a strict evaluation to show that they're no longer a threat to society.
Yes but only if they have showed change and if they have became more behaved and show that there sorry about doing it.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
