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
@57LPWS94yrs4Y
no, life is life. Bring back public trials and corporal punishment and watch the crime rate drop!
@9F7JWQS2yrs2Y
If it’s proven they’ve made changes to themselves, unless theyre a multiple time offender with little to chance of change
@9CBTBW32yrs2Y
Yes, individual cases should at minimum be reviewed but under careful scrutiny and with the knowledge that their release and potential to commit crime again is now the responsibility of those who released the criminal.
@98YDFDC2yrs2Y
Yes, we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners and provide a strict psychological evaluation that shows they are no longer a threat to society.
@8VCR55S4yrs4Y
depends on the reason for killing
@8SCBVPC4yrs4Y
Depending on the reason for the murder.
@B48SZ5F3wks3W
Yes but 15 years is too low and they still need to pass tests to ensure they are no longer an issue to society.
@B47KN6S3wks3W
Yes, but only if it was a single murder, and only provided a strict psychological evaluation done by a panel of nonbiased experts shows they are no longer a threat to society. Anyone who has committed more than one murder should not be eligible for this
@B46TQHL3wks3W
This should be a case by case basis, and not a flat rule in either direction. Some offenders, with adequate rehabilitation and psych evals, would be permissible to re-enter society. Some, however, would not.
@B43SXTX 4wks4W
Require strict criteria for parole eligibility, such as demonstrated rehabilitation, remorse, and a low risk of reoffending.
Increase parole eligibility to 20–25 years instead of 15, to balance justice and rehabilitation.
Allow parole hearings but with strong victim and family involvement, ensuring their voices are heard in the decision-making process.
Use life without parole for extreme cases, such as serial killings or crimes involving extreme cruelty.
@B42F5YS4wks4W
Yes, provided a review of the crime. If it was premediated as a way to get out of an abusive relationship, then the person is very unlikely to reoffend.
@B39YWBH2mos2MO
No, the family of the victim has to live with the consequences of the murder's actions for the rest of their lives, why shouldn't the murderer?
@B32RJJ42mos2MO
Depends on why they killed the person, self defense, if they killed the person because were a rapist or pedo LET THEM FREEE
@B322S5D2mos2MO
No prisoners should not be allowed parole after 15 years it should be decided when they get they're sentence..
@B2XHWX22mos2MO
It depends on the crime and the situation. Regardless, I think rehabilitation should be prioritized.
@B2X89N22mos2MO
Yes, because if they are there for 15 years or longer an didn't do anything wrong in jail, and know what they have done and give a good parole hearing.
@B2RKXN3 2mos2MO
I think it depends on the reason for the murder. If the reason for the murder was based on something like abuse, I think the parole hearing should happen earlier
@B2QZKY22mos2MO
If a offender, once served time in prison should go out into the world and reoffend with murder, thats where the death penalty should come in.
@B2NXY75New Democratic3mos3MO
Heavily dependent on circumstance, elegibility for a parole hearing should be left to the discresion of the sentencing party (typically the judge) with a recommended minimum of 10 years.
@B2B3DPJNew Democratic3mos3MO
I believe there should first a strict psychological evaluation, as well as more rehabilitation programs
@B29X3K93mos3MO
No. And reinstate the death penalty for horrendous premeditated crimes. They took someone's life. It should be at the cost of their own wasting away.
@9ZZFG544mos4MO
If the individual has served at least 15 years of their confinement and is over the age of 65 and has been shown to be of no risk to society.
@9ZKKRXN5mos5MO
We should provided more rehabilitation, but those who commit heinous premeditated crimes such as 1st degree murder should need to serve their time fully.
@9ZHQY5B5mos5MO
Depending on the degree of murder they may or may not be allowed parole. 1st degree: absolute not. 2nd, 3rd: depending on the severity and the brutality of the crime. Manslaughter: Yes
@9X5SC256mos6MO
I think if you kill some one who was a child molester or rapist or a murder them selves you saved more lives then you took and deserve to go free
@9V4JT2C7mos7MO
Yes, but with extensive psychological assessment and rehabilitation and evaluation by significant amount of people. However, this should not apply for someone with more than one conviction and we should have people convicted of more than one murder serve consecutive sentences not concurrent.
Depends on why crime was committed and what sate of living the person was in while committing the crime.
@9TV5FXW7mos7MO
Yes, and If a prisoner is good enough, following the rules, not causing trouble, etc. Then we should give them a cat that they can keep while they are in jail and let them keep it once they are out. If/when they get out, they will not want to do anything to get sent back to jail because of the cat. They will want to take care of it and not leave, therefore, they will try their best to be a better person!
@9TTD73F7mos7MO
Yes, if the individual was under age 25 at the time of the crime and a strict psychological evaluation shows they are remorseful and are no longer a threat to society, and if successful, their parole is strictly supervised/enforced
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
@9TDH5DY7mos7MO
I think the family and/or loved ones of the victim(s) should have a say in this decision, as well as some close watch and rehabilitation and psychological evaluation.
@9TCRTKN7mos7MO
No keep the 25 years, and provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society
@9T3YWJJ7mos7MO
Once again, there is a fine balance. There should be more rehab programs, but for less serious crimes. Violent offenders should not be able to have parole hearings based on how the crime was committed.
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.
@9T2RHXK7mos7MO
It depends because I do think some situations with murder are unfair for example if you kill your rapist and get charged with 1st degree murder you should definitely be able to get parole but if you are just killing people a psychological examination is needed
@9STPBP68mos8MO
Depending on their reason for the crime, and whether they have rehabilitated and imporved in prison, depends on the situation
@9RZPX678mos8MO
yes, only for cases where the defendant can prove with indisputable evidence that they were wrongfully convicted or have been significantly rehabilitated
@9RTSMX59mos9MO
Prisoners should be given an opportunity to grow back into society. Also, they should be given a strict psychological exam before they are eligible for parole.
@9N5M4WW11mos11MO
Yes - should provide more rehab programs AND a strict psych eval shows that they are no longer a threat to society.
@9MC4BQL11mos11MO
Yes given they are rehabilitated and given a psychological evaluation shows they aren't a threat any longer.
@9LFBTXZ1yr1Y
No, but we should make improvements to prisoner living conditions and add psychological evaluation and more rehabilitation programs
@9KM39XY1yr1Y
Yes, however if their behaviour and views on the matter have not changed, the death penalty should be reinstated for these reasons
@9KLSTP31yr1Y
if the person who has killed people had to get to his kid or her kid and it was to perfect their kid then yes they should be let out after 15 years. But if the killing was planed and wasn't for a good course then life in jail
@9JQ8T5J1yr1Y
Yes, provided they are constantly observed & placed under restrictions to reduce the risk of recidivism.
@9JM57ZY1yr1Y
It depends on the murder how brutal it was and how the victims' families feel about having the prisoner on parole.
Yes, only after 20 years provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and provide more rehabilitations programs for prisoners
@9GBLSPT1yr1Y
No, the person committed murder. They fully cant be trusted, but they should eligible for mental testing, if they are found to have a mental illness they should be put in a asylum or a mental hospital.
@9G4FL6Z 2yrs2Y
Yes, if they showed consistent improvement and provided a strict psychology evaluation showing they are no longer a threat to society along with providing more rehabilitation programs for all prisoners.
Every incarcerated individual should be respected and given opportunities to rehabilitate and integrate themselves into society through career learning programs provided by taxation.
@9FF7QCK2yrs2Y
Yes, but in 20 years, not 15
@9FF66BJ2yrs2Y
no the it should be atleast 20 years couse studies show in prison can couse calmnest to the brain for a murder so i say keep him in for 20 years or more if his brain sanity has not calm down and the yaers depend on how many murders
@9F92YFB2yrs2Y
no, they should rot in prison.
@9F85HPW2yrs2Y
Yes, after extensive rehabilitation and psychological evaluations that show they are no longer a threat to society. Parole hearings don't always mean that the prisoner will be released.
@9F5KMPV2yrs2Y
If they've been well behaved prisoner and not at risk to kill again sure.
@9DG796F2yrs2Y
It depends on the motive on the crime
@8GBYNJQ5yrs5Y
Yes, but only after psychological evaluation and rehabilitation.
@9FL5NK32yrs2Y
yes if the court case dose not have evidence that proves the victim certainly did it.
@9FKSZH82yrs2Y
if they acted really well in prion and changed, yes
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
@9FGBY9S2yrs2Y
Not unless they did it for their own safety
@9CMY49G2yrs2Y
No, unless they have shown that they have rehabilitated and are able to safely come back into society. If this is the case, they and their actions should be monitored at all times.
@9C8YBHH2yrs2Y
Yes, provided that they have some trustworthy proof that they are okay. For example, many psychological evaluations, community/rehab programs (which could be more creative, such as opportunities to take care of cats, or skill-building programs), or a mix
@9B2X2T92yrs2Y
This highly depends on their reason for murder ie: self defense or something like that...
@96QST2L2yrs2Y
Yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society, but also ensuring they have supports, like housing, job and mental health for at least the first 5 years to ensure they are set up for success. If they require further support after that initial 5 years, they continue to get it.
@96KG9BQ2yrs2Y
Increase time from 15 years to 25 years and constant monitoring on mental state during (court hearing and sentencing) and after the murder.
@96GDG65New Democratic3yrs3Y
life sentence but let them hang w their family for 1 day a week
@96GCKP93yrs3Y
it depends if they are not a serial killer and should have a tracker on so they can tell if they did something illegal
@96GBCK63yrs3Y
depends in what way they carried out the murder
@96FCYNK3yrs3Y
MURDER IS UNACCEPTABLE but cool
@96FC9LZ3yrs3Y
yes, if it was self defense
@96D6BR23yrs3Y
@96D2BB53yrs3Y
Depends on how gruesome the crime was. If it was something like Jeffery Dahmer, then no they shouldn't get parole. They should do a psychological evaluation to see whether or not it's a good idea to give them parole.
@96D27J53yrs3Y
depends on what they did so they might eave of not it depends on want they did
@968RHGS3yrs3Y
After 25 years of they were behaving well they should have a hearing
@968Q7CS3yrs3Y
No, After 20 years in jail a person should be able to have a parole meeting unless the offended requests a parole
@95YCPNM3yrs3Y
Depends on why they commited first degree murder
@95YCKNY3yrs3Y
i dont it depends on what they did and who they killed.
@95MXNYQ3yrs3Y
yes after strict psychological evaluations and just being good in prison.
@95CCWCG3yrs3Y
I think it’s ok if they only killed one person
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.
@959GLJD3yrs3Y
@959GBDQ3yrs3Y
if said prisoner was 21 or younger when they committed first degree murder then yes if not no
@958NSFF3yrs3Y
If they show pleasant actions during the time period of 15 years.
@94S2DZP3yrs3Y
if they have proof of why the crime happend then it should depend
@94R6VG53yrs3Y
Depends on what the circumstances of the murder were.
@93CSFRDNew Democratic3yrs3Y
No, however we need to do use on creating more rehabilitative environments and provide more mental health aid to those who are incarcerated
@933LMPX3yrs3Y
Case by case, penalties and assessments by multiple agencies.
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.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
