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):
I think the death penalty should be given to certain people who've committed heinous acts, but a psychological evaluation wouldn't hurt either.
Depends on why crime was committed and what sate of living the person was in while committing the crime.
yes, but the sentence should be longer before they can have a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society, then possibly be eligible for parole
I feel that when it comes to repeating harsh offenders death penalty can be a punishment. But u also believe in rehabilitation and needing to take test to see if a person is no longer a threat to society in order to have a hearing.
The mix between completely no and psychological evaluation and rehabilitation. But obviously depends on the person and the details.
It depends on who they killed and why. I think if it's like, a child, then that can't be forgiven. But in self defense or something like "Oh, I killed a man because he raped my daughter", then I think they should get the hearing + rehab
Re-tried depending on what they did, for example, if they murdered somebody in self-defence they can be re-tried
Yes, but we should provide more rehabilitation programs and provide a strict psychological evaluation.
This question is too simple. Maybe there are multiple degrees of 1st degree murder? A hearing after 15 years does not mean the murderer gets released. Would families of the victim(s) heal enough in 15 years to accept any court's decision? 20 years? life? Would it be a waste of money or are there programs for the victim's families to rehabilitate them?
No and they should be executed or at least go to prison for the rest of their lives
If they were good in jall
it depends if it was in self defense
I belive with murdering in act of proven self defence such as rape, kiddnapping, break ins thee should be rehabilitation with deeply looked into phycological history so that they are no longer a threat to society.
No, they should be eligible for parole after 25 years and provided a psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society
No, but we should still provide more rehab programs for prisoners
Depends on if it was an accident or not if it was then yes if it wasn’t then no
No, unless first time offender and has shown non-violent behavior while in prison, with a psych evaluation pre- and post-exit and rehabilitation afterward
It depends on why they were charged with first degree murder. If the action is justifiable under a moral stance, they should be eligible for parole. e.g father kills daughters rapist
Yes, but after 20 years and after a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society
We should keep people responsible but treat them better then prisons do
I think they should be eligible for parole after 20-25 years
No, after 25 years and a strict psychological evaluation
Yes, after an extensive psychological evaluation, and if passed, they must be monitored for a period of several years.
Yes, most prisoners (at least in America) get falsely accused for murder
Yes if they continue to show change and great behavior
Prisoners serving life sentence for first degree murder should be eligible for parole hearing after 25-30 years.
Depends on the reasoning behind there crime
yes, in order to review new evidence to make sure their guilty
The reason for their crime should be taken into consideration and used to determine if they should be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years. Rehabilitation programs and strict psychological evaluations should be made too.
If we can guarantee they're guilty then no
No. However, we should observe increased rehabilitation programs as an alternative.
No, unless substantial evidence has been found to overturn the decision, or successful rehabilitation of the prisoner.
depends on why they did it and their mental state
Depending on how serious it is and the intentions behind it then sure.
No, unless they are 24 and under, your brain is fully developed when you are 25.
It depends on the circumstances of the crime and is there a better way to rehabilitate convicted felons.
yes they should be eligible but more than 15 years later
I think it should depend on the case
id say, let them have the hearing, have him hooked up to a lie detector and have him/her swear on oath, have him/her have a phys evaluation, with a parole officer and house arrest for 3-7 months.
Provide more rehabilitation programs and provide a strict psychological evaluation.
Yes, but cases should be reviewed for a false conviction
Depends on the mental state and reason for murder. Is self defence should have parole
This will be depend on honourable judge
Yes, given they have been unproblematic during their sentence. Rehabilitation programs should also be in place
I believe it depends upon the situation, why the murder was committed and what has the individual done since/ are they a threat.
If there is compelling evidence that the accused did not commit the crime, then they shall have a parole hearing
Yes, when true growth is proved and they reevaluate the penalty with offence
Depends on the crime and their rehabilitation in prison. Life sentences should be longer than 25 year and multiple sentences should be consecutive, not concurrent. So if someone commits 2 first degree murders, they should get two life sentences and they should be consecutive, not concurrent. 25 years is NOT A LIFE SENTENCE.
it depends on the circumstance
Prisoners in for first-degree murder should be eligible for parole after 20-25 years
yes but only with rehabilitation and psyh test
Yes, but it should be case-by-case. Depending on the crime itself and a phycological evaluation.
Maybe if you are able to prove they are mentally stable enough to make sure they will not go on a killing spree after they are let out
Yes, more rehabilitation programs should be provided for prisoners as well as strict psychological evaluation that shows they are no longer a threat to society
I think it should be a rehabilitation model. Finland has the best prison system. It’s unorthodox, but they have the lowest re-incarceration rate. In the end rehabilitation cost most initially, but saves more tax payer dollars with less re-incarceration. Pay it forward to do it right the first time.
No they should stay in jail
Depends on why the murderer killed
if they are ready mentally i think they should be, but if they are not then no.
depending if they show any signs of changing.
I would say a little more then 15 years, then slowly try to rehabilitate them back into society as a new and changed person
no but the death penalty should definitely not be used
NO, however we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners.
yes, but only if it's their first time
I think it depends on how cruel the murder was, or what the reason for murder was. In some circumstances yes, but in some no.
Depending of how horrible the murder was
depending on the nature of the person
Depending on the brutality of the murder, if you murdered someone in cold blood you should never be aloud a parole hearing but if you were driving and slide off the road and hit someone you should be aloud a parole hearing after 15 years even though it was no ones fault but your own.
Depends on how intense it was
No. They should be eligible after 30 years for parole if they have done rehabilitation programs.
if the prisoner has been doing good in prison not causing any trouble and helping out i think they should be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years
Yes, but have dangerous offender legislation so that people like Paul Bernardo have a much harder time getting out.
It depends on the situation, let’s say someone murdered their parental figure because they were abusing them for their entire life, I wouldn’t send them to prison for that.
A murder has to die. unless the family of the victim forgives.
No; eligible for parole after 25 years
If the prisoner killed them in an act of self defense or say the victim was also a bad person
Yes, though it depends on the reason behind the crime. People acting in self-defense or trying to get out of a threatening and abusive relationship should be allowed parole, that is after a psychological evaluation has been preformed.
Only if provided with an EEG (Electroencephalogram) to show legitimate proof that the prison does not carry psychopathic/sociopathic diagnostics in brain matter.
Yes after having their case reviewed by a publicly funded (and well paid to reduce bribery) committee.
They should be eligible for parole but after a longer period of time
depending on what hes done yes and no?
depeniding on there actions and how they behaved if they earnd the years
It depends on how bad the murder details and mental state of the prisoner are
in some cases yes but in other no
Life in prison should mean LIFE in prison for the very heinous crimes. 25 years should mean 25 years for 1st degree murder
No, unless they are 24 or under
Sort of a combination of answers 3 and 4. I think they should be psychologically evaluated, but we might as well help them get to that goal.
They should have the opportunity depending on the severity of their crime, however if they show no remorse or change they should stay in prison as they are a threat to society.
No for criminals that are confirmed to have committed first degree
Dependiendo del tipo de delito.
only if they where good in prison
only if the murder was on a pedophile or rapist
Community service, going to prison is not great in my opinion. I believe that people should go to prison for part of their sentence and then do community service. Unless it was a mass murder convict.
No but they should have some form of access to real life. If they are a threat to society no human interaction and they can contribute to our economy in some way rather than sitting in jail.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
