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):
@98WHVMZConservative2yrs2Y
They should go to fortnite battle match and one who wins gets to leave jail.
@B2STF4QConservative2mos2MO
hmmm this is a very cool and fun topic
@B2STBFV2mos2MO
yes I think this would be amazing In the realm of corrections and rehabilitation, traditional methods have long been the norm. However, as society evolves and the world undergoes continuous change, so too should our approaches to rehabilitation. One intriguing and unconventional proposal is to hold a Fortnite battle match, where prisoners compete in a virtual arena, and the victor earns the opportunity to leave jail. This radical idea might seem far-fetched, yet it offers a unique way to address rehabilitation, promote skill development, and incentivize good behavior.
First and foremost, a For… Read more
@B2STF2NConservative2mos2MO
this is why I quit to many sweats
@B2STF4QConservative2mos2MO
I think this would be very great since Fortnite is a great game and its very helpful in real life situations
@B2STF2NConservative2mos2MO
I much agree to your statement you have some stunning points and I will be agreeing with your vote because I also think that Fortnite is very helpful in real life because if you were to get mugged on the street you could full box and double pump the robber for the vic Roy
@B2STF2NConservative2mos2MO
calc is short for calculator I'm just using slang guys
@9YGJXM9Conservative5mos5MO
If they pass a strict psychological evaluation that shows they are no longer s threat to society, sure. However they should be monitored on a scheduled basis to see if everything is fine. However, for thise who commit specific heinous premediated crimes, the death penalty should be invoked.
@9V9R5P2Conservative7mos7MO
Yes, if they truly and honestly have changed because people change over long periods of time and people regret the choices they make.
@9TZKRJKConservative7mos7MO
depends on the reasoning, if it was self defense, defending someone else's life, then i think they shouldn't even be convicted to begin with.
@9TZC3YPConservative7mos7MO
They should undergo a psychological evaluation and other strict testing but should have a longer range than 15 years
@9TWK4RLConservative7mos7MO
I think they should serve 20 years minimum. No early releases. After 20+ years they should have eligibility.
@9MVJV3NConservative11mos11MO
Yes if they have been mentally checked and we know that they won't kill again but it also depends on the severity of the murder.
Only in some cases and with extremely strict mental tests and other things should be considered like guarded work such.
@9LZSWQCConservative12mos12MO
Depending on the situation. Example if someone killed another just because they felt like it. Or were a serial killer targeting random people no they should never be allowed out.
But if someone killed another because of self defense or if they individual that was killed was a pedofile or rapist or something else extremely bad. Then the person that killed someone like that. Shouldn't be in jail in the first place.
@9LTTQMVConservative 12mos12MO
It depends the reason on why they murdered someone. If it was a form of defence yes, if not no. Either way they should have a strict psychological evaluation before they are released.
@9L4PZ2KConservative1yr1Y
the life sentance should be the rest of there life instead of the 15 years that they give or up to 45 years at max
@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.
@9J4JGWRConservative1yr1Y
Yes, dependant on the nature of the crime. Constant repeat offenders should not be eligible, rehabilitation should be provided and a strict psychological evaluation should be done to prove they are not a threat to society.
We should use capital labour as retribution from the crimes committed. This would be within safe conditions; not something inhumane
@9H9XLMMConservative1yr1Y
Only if they pass strict psychological assessment and have not committed/attempted any other crimes.
@9GYC866Conservative1yr1Y
yes but they should be under more watch when they are in public and they should be prepared to enter back into public life
@9FR2W9PConservative2yrs2Y
This can only be answered if one knew the circumstances of the crime, and whether there were extenuating circumstances related to that conviction.
All depends weather it was done on purpose or by accident
It depends what the murder was like, ex. accidental
@9F9VFF3Conservative2yrs2Y
Only if the prisoner has a very good reason
@9F83RNNConservative2yrs2Y
A much longer time such as 30 years
@99YN5RFConservative2yrs2Y
I think it truthfully depends on the situation, depending on wether or not it was self defense etc.
@96SK4BFConservative2yrs2Y
if found new evidence or proven guilty then yes
@96PNDQSConservative2yrs2Y
Should be eligible for a parole but after 20-25 years instead
@965KWGTConservative3yrs3Y
depends on how the murder was preformed
@9644S3YConservative3yrs3Y
@95Z3857Conservative3yrs3Y
i think if there was reasoning then maybe but if not then no
@95H2DSXConservative3yrs3Y
No, the minimum sentence for first-degree murder should be 25 years.
@95CVJ66Conservative3yrs3Y
Yes, so that we can stop wasting taxpayers' money for their food.
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.
@958H6MWConservative3yrs3Y
it all really depends on what happened or the story behind it
@93VBRYZConservative3yrs3Y
I think prisoners should get the opportunity but must go through a psych eval and be on close watch with parole officers and city police. They should also provide more rehabilitation programs to improve the rate of reintegrated prisoners.
@93RQ5HYConservative3yrs3Y
No, it should at least be 25 years
@8ZM45LHConservative3yrs3Y
Only if there is a complete justifiable reason for their crime and they should bee checked up on food the rest of their lives
@8YYT4RJConservative3yrs3Y
Yes and alert the victims friends and family that he will be released
@8WDWTJTConservative4yrs4Y
If they Prove they have changed and got the help when needed but if they killed more than one person not by accident than Life unless prove somthing but 3 No life no parole
@8VV622DConservative4yrs4Y
Once they are not considered a threat to society and after going through rehabilitation programs then yes
@8VTRJNHConservative4yrs4Y
Yes but if they can not be rehabilitated they have to wait another 15 years
@8VT64VPConservative4yrs4Y
NOOO. you have taken a life, put them to the electric chair
@8VSTDMFConservative4yrs4Y
Yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat and reinstate the death penaly for heinous premeditated crimes.
@8VPB6CPConservative4yrs4Y
Yes, if it can be proved that they have rehabilitated and feel remorse.
@8VMSBDBConservative4yrs4Y
maybe depending on the situation
@8VMGRYBConservative4yrs4Y
Depends on the crime and why
@8VLCM8NConservative4yrs4Y
they killed somebody and end their life. they are lucky that they are still alive so no
@8VL9J97Conservative4yrs4Y
only if people find that they have changed over the years
@8VC8RQWConservative4yrs4Y
Life should mean life and there should not be a release ever
@8V4RGZFConservative4yrs4Y
If they had a good reason for murder like killing someone who tried to hurt someone you love then, yes. Cold blooded murder for no apparent reason, no.
@8TXF8JKConservative4yrs4Y
Case by case basis after thorough professional examinations and tests to determine danger
@8TKLQWJConservative4yrs4Y
Yes but only depends on the murder and make sure they are not going to be a threat to the society.
@8TBNB37Conservative4yrs4Y
Have them be on parole for life
@8T4K5QRConservative4yrs4Y
Provided a strict psychological evaluation showing they are no longer a threat to society and providing more rehabilitation programs for prisoners.
No. First degree should be punished with death; a life for a life.
@8SDC2GDConservative4yrs4Y
No, reinstate the death penalty for first-degree murder and use the funds for rehabilitation
@8SD9PTWConservative4yrs4Y
after the 15 year and they have not shown a change in life stye then but if they are changed then yes
@8RSJ9WYConservative4yrs4Y
They should go to a rehab facility after 15 years.
@8RJB7QRConservative4yrs4Y
it only takes one second for a man to change
@8QRW5Q2Conservative4yrs4Y
No, depending on the crime and severity of it parole should be offered at minimum time of half way through their sentence.
@8QRNKHZConservative4yrs4Y
No if you have first degree murder, you should receive automatic death sentence, no question, eye for a eye
@8Q9BT7SConservative4yrs4Y
Life sentences should be considered inhumane; the death penalty should be reinstated for heinous premeditated crimes.
@8PS3BLXConservative4yrs4Y
they should be heard as soon as possible
@8NW3K9HConservative4yrs4Y
I’m Against Life In Prison & More In Favour Of Capital Punishment.
@8NSCQPPConservative4yrs4Y
No, unless they have completed a rehabilitation program. And we should provide more programs to make this happen!
@8K6SNVBConservative4yrs4Y
They should be eligible for a parole hearing after 7.5 years
@9CMY88HConservative2yrs2Y
under very specific circumstances should they get a parole hearing. for instance if they were murdering someone who had been abusing them over the years
@9CMH3WPConservative2yrs2Y
Prisoners serving life for first degree murder should be eligible after at least 25 years, and I also believe the death sentence should be reinstated.
@9CDNCCCConservative2yrs2Y
it depends on the situatution of the individual convict and the changes they have made since being arrested
@9BZ4H6TConservative2yrs2Y
If they murdered someone by accident ( Ex hit and run)
@9BRFWM4Conservative2yrs2Y
Yes because in the future the police might stumble on something showing that they are innocent. Also they get another shot at life maybe.
@99VVCCYConservative2yrs2Y
Yes they should be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years they should also have to pass a sick eval. But the dearth penalty should be reinstated.
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.
@99B73JNConservative2yrs2Y
If they didn't desiccate the corpse
@996MBWHConservative2yrs2Y
First 5 years than in the next 10 years if still in jail, do another hearing
@98VBGQBConservative2yrs2Y
under some circumstances
@98NCNVQConservative2yrs2Y
20 years in prison, and then rehabilitation
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.
@9893GVBConservative2yrs2Y
It should be determined by the behavior of the inmate during the incarceration
Yes but only if they have showed change and if they have became more behaved and show that there sorry about doing it.
@97T4JZCConservative2yrs2Y
Yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners
@92W6DBZConservative3yrs3Y
If it was in self-defense, then they can be eligible for parole.
@8XN5D8ZConservative3yrs3Y
No, Once given a life sentence it should stay that way unless wrongfully committed. Parole hearings are painful and disrespectful to the victims families.
@8V6HDV5Conservative4yrs4Y
No, it should be case by case.
@8TNHZKJConservative4yrs4Y
Parole be decided by the jury/judge depending on many factors and a vague question like this one wouldn't be enough to answer the question.
@8SFWP6SConservative4yrs4Y
Yes, but they need to show they’ve changed.
@8QZL5HTConservative4yrs4Y
No, however, older cases could be reviewed as technology has advanced. There could be instances where they could be proven innocent.
@8PJDYXKConservative4yrs4Y
No, They deserve to live the rest of there life in jail as punishment for what they did
@8GK2PZ5Conservative5yrs5Y
After leaving a 15yr sentence, it's more likely that society is more of a threat to the inmate than the other way around. Setting up for failure
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
