Should prisoners serving life sentences for first degree murder be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years?

Reinstate forced labor so they at least offset the cost of internment to the taxpayer.

perhaps, but ending jails is a must. it is inhumane. these people need mental health help, not physical and mental torture. even if they are insane and need to be strapped down 24/7, jail conditions are medieval and horrible.

prison systems don't help our community we shouldn't try to forget the problem and lock humans away, but rather enforce rehabilitation programs not "correctional" systems

I don't have an idea about this.

yes but after 10 years

Determine case by case

No to stay in custody until the parent passes that they took the life from. Because their loved one will never come back. Unless it was an accidental death then that’s different but murder. Is murder

yes, and provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society, but if their first degree murder was such a massacre they don't deserve anything.

Depends on the circumstances of the first degree murder, if it was self defence or a good reason then yes.

honestly id rather my taxes are not paying for some psychopaths liver treatment when he reaches the age of 90. so im fine that we dont have definite life sentences

I would say it depends on the circumstance if a father has a daughter that was raped and killed by an adult, and her father killed the man who did it and the father got arrested. then yes I think he should be eligible for parole after 15 years.

Someone in prison for any type of murder should never be released. However, if they are truly repentant and strive to be a better person they should be entitled to less strenuous incarceration. They could also help other inmates with bettering themselves to reduce recidivism.

no I think if a prisoner unalives someone they should stay in jail for much longer than 15 years. maybe something around 20-30 years.

i feel like if there is 1 count of first degree murderer then they should be released but if there is more counts then they should stay

I think if it was a justified decision yes but if it was a hate crime or just a murder for murder no

Yes but only after 20-50 years and are on parole 24/7 and have gone through strict psychological evaluation and do community service and are no longer a threat to society

I think it depends if the prisoners genuinely have something wrong with them, but if they’ve shown that they have changed their ways, then I do agree with letting them be eligible for parole after 15 years

Psychological analysis should be considered to determine rehabilitation is possible for possible parole

If a life sentence has no chance of being liberated. Execute that prisoner. Do that until crime rates lower. If they raise, implement that measurement again

Should not be an automatic law! Should provide more mental health and rehabilitation programs, should be considered on case by case basis after in-depth psychological assessment!

it would depend on the story. I believe everyone deserves to get a chance to be heard but I know some people would use it to their advantage to manipulate and get out of their murderous deed.

Yes as long as vicim impact, quality of life for the survivors is taken into account. This in addition to strict psychological evaluation, remorse and restitution

I think for some people they should be allowed a parole hearing and I think so others they should not be allowed a hearing at all. I think it really depends on the case.

Yes, and we should provide more rehabilitation programs prisoners and a psychological evaluation that shows they are no longer a threat to society

It should be at least 25 years before eligibility of a parole hearing. There should be a strict mental evaluation and they should be under supervision for an additional 3-5 years. Murderers must pay a large price for their actions, it should not be easy for them to be free.

No, if we don’t want to reinstate the death penalty for heinous crimes we should require that sentences are served in its entirety

The entire Legal System should be overhauled.
First, better training for police and detectives. Second, Medical Professionals, and Social and Community Programs should work with the police to ensure public safety, but also the safety of the individual. Third, random mandatory economic, physical & psychological reviews, to ensure they are not at risk of becoming dirty for anyone involved in the 'case' including judges, lawyers, cops, and medical personnel.

There are too many instances where the poor, and uneducated, lose when having a bad lawyer appointed to them.
Also, bad…  Read more 'expert' witness testimony, poor police investigation, and many mitigating circumstances contribute to many people falling through the cracks.
(Ex. Sara Jessimy Kruzan, Cyntoia Brown, etc.)

It depends on their history, childhood, why they committed the act in the first place. All prisoners should have better rehabilitation programs depending on their circumstance and psychological evaluations.

It depends on the situation or case, including the consideration of mental health, poor investigation, long-term responsibility, and many other factors.

It depends on what there in for murder on. If it’s a child I believe they should get the death penalty If it’s an adult and adult I believe they should go to trial and have programs for them

Yes, provided that a strict phycological evaluation shows that they are no longer a threat to society. However any heinous, premeditated crimes such as a planned murder or sexual abuse.

No exemptions for those Including but not limited to minors and the mentally ill in the case of premeditated crimes.

No, if you take a life you should be in prison for the rest of yours. I also think they need to change the prison system for more rehabilitation

if their mental illness was the cause and its been fixed or strong proof of resolution yes. We should not punish the mentally ill but instead help them heal.

It depends on if the crime was towards random citizens, or one specific act of retaliation, knowing the crime will not be repeated if released,

Depending on the circumstances, however, a prisoner committing first-degree murder should not get a second chance for something so unnecessary and awful

I would say it depends on why they killed the person. If the reason behind the murder is justified, then yes.

It depends why the murder was happened, if it was from a point of abuse or needing to escape a hamrful environment.

I think they should be provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and be closely watched the first year out of jail.

If they have shown to change or feel remorse/guilt, with a strict psychological evaluation proving they are no longer a threat to society they should be eligible. Thought process should be considered; Did they murder for benefit? Were they tasked to do this? Is this something they wanted?

I think if they show no threats and are sorry for what they did and can be helped with a service like counseling everything 2 days a week and still being Monterey for awhile until proven nothing is bad that they've done

I think the death penalty should be given to certain people who've committed heinous acts, but a psychological evaluation wouldn't hurt either.

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.

I think there should always be hearings much later in case an individual was wrongfully accused, however I don't any rehabilitation measures should be allowed - it doesn't work; criminals should be properly punished.

I think if a life sentence in Canada is only 25 years. Then re evaluate then. Then they can atemp a hearing to see if they should be back in society

yes with a struct phycological evaluation that shows they aren't a threat along with more rehabilitation.

It, Depends on the reason they committed the murder. There are many cases where I believe the murderer should get a chance to walk free, but not all.

Yes in certain cases for example, if someone is assaulted or someone who they loved passes and they take revenge on the person I think they deserve parole

No, they should not be, but there should also be an enormous amount of evidence to suggest that they're guilty of 1st degree.

I think I depends how they killed them. Was it in cold blood or where they protecting themselves or family? Or were they killing a predator

It depends on the case for their murder. In an act of self defense they should be eligible, for ill intent they should not be allowed

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.

Depends on who they murder? Like if its a rapist or a pedo, then i would say they could be eligible for parole. But if they kill an innocent, then they should not be eligible for parole.

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.

depending on how the murder was committed such as if it was absolutely horrid or if it was just a quick kill

They should undergo a psychological evaluation and other strict testing but should have a longer range than 15 years

Yes but for those who killed and were justified but still wrong like a women afraid her man will kill her too, or a person who is abused and sees no way out but to kill also, killing a spouse who cheated should be applauded not jailed

Yes, make sure they are evaluated to be safe for society and keep them strictly monitored. We should also provide more rehabilitation programs that are more empathetic to the prisoners situation. We should provide them with proper resources support if they prove they are well and able so they won't fall back into the wrong path.

I think they should serve 20 years minimum. No early releases. After 20+ years they should have eligibility.

no, because if the person does it one time. they would still have it in them to do it a second time.

I believe that It depends on the situation. There has to be reasonable circumstances for there actions.

i think that under sircumstances if you do it for good reason then you shouldn't get the death penilty like if your doing it based off self denfence

You have to have a real good reasoning behind why you got that sentence to either get let out or keep staying in prison.

I would say that 20 years more or less depending on the type of crime and some rehabilitation programs

Yes, prisoners who are eligible for parole deserve an opportunity to advocate for themselves, and speak to the reasons why they are able to return to the community. I have faith that individuals making decisions about parole are able to make a fair and just decision for the prisoner and the victims of the crime taking all factors into consideration.

It depends on how innocent the person they killed was. Was this person their abuser? Or simply an innocent?

No you do your 25 years and the prison system should have the scientific stats on the requirement of human life. Basically you get nothing. Your food is a sort of mush with all essential vitamins and minerals three times daily. Temperature is controlled, you have a daily support worker to be there for you, you don’t get a mattress, you don’t get a blanket, you don’t even get a window. You get the bare bones of what’s needed to survive. This is what a person who commits first degree murder gets

It’s all subjective I guess…but rehab programs, therapy, psych evaluations need to be in place. If they make genuine progress in these programs, 15 years could be fine. If they don’t make progress in the programs/ don’t attend, 25 years. They also should be working in some capacity during their prison sentence in order to “pay their way” in prison, instead of relying on tax payer dollars.

no, we should provide rehabilitation programs, dialectical behavioural therapy, and determine parole eligibility on a case by case bases.

I think with how psychologically ill some of the criminals can be, and what they are clearly capable of doing, it depends on how much progress the specific criminal has made in their journey to not being a threat to society.

I generally agree with prisoners serving life sentences for first degree murder shouldn't have parole hearings after 15 years. But it really depends on why they did it. For example, in the case of Gypsy Rose, where there was severe abuse, I understand why she did what she did , even though it was not the right approach. Each situation should be looked at carefully because they are not all the same.

Yes, but we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners, and as long as a strict psychological evaluation is provided shows they are no longer a threat to society

Depends on the mental state. If it' a hitman or something, then maybe. But if its someone who murders for the sake of it, then no.

It depends on why and how they killed the person, If they killed a person for breaking in their house and try to steal or hurt them, then, to be honest, they shouldn't even be in jail, same as if they killed a child molester. If they killed a person because they wanted too or drunk driving or anything like that, then yeah.

Depending on the situation and considering the evidence and how the prisoner was convicted. Because false confessions are common, cases with confessions should be re-evaluated.

No, depending on the details of the crime, they should wither serve life sentences or get the death penalty.

In an individual case-by-case basis, especially if very young at the age that the crime was committed or if new evidence pertaining their involvement emerges.

Only in some cases and with extremely strict mental tests and other things should be considered like guarded work such.

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.

If person is able to be rehabilitated and it was out of defence they should have a chance but if the crime had ill intent they should not

yes, after proving they are no longer a threat to society AND providing more rehabilitation programs

That’s so tough, on one hand the trauma of having someone who killed someone you love back in public life would be horrible, but on the other hand people deserve a second chance if they’ve rehabilitated themselves, I really don’t know.

What should happen is they should take a program to help them reintegrate in society, if they fail, they serve the rest of their life sentence, if they succeed and show positive changes, they should be let out with parole.

No, it should be 25 years. 15 feels a little too short, but there is always a chance for someone to change. There would need to be a psychological evaluation.

Offer rehabilitation programs, but people with life sentences who are proven to have commited the crime should remain in prison.

After 50 years so they are old and can't kill no more as well ad go to a rehab facility of some sort.

The mix between completely no and psychological evaluation and rehabilitation. But obviously depends on the person and the details.

It all depends on the context. Those who have defended themselves have been wrongfully convicted and when evidence comes up later all the court has to say is "Sorry". But those who committed the crime willingly should do their 25 years before thinking about parole.

Yes and only placed in to special program facility to monitor the individual behaviour and help them return back to society if there’s no more threat.

I think that prisoners serving life sentences should be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years if they have shown to be reformed to an extent within those years in prison. Otherwise, they should not be eligible for parole.

Yes, for prisoners only facing one charge of first-degree murder and they must pass a psychological evaluation and attend a rehabilitation program upon release

It depends on the situation as not every criminal charged with first degree murder did it intentionally some do it as a result of self- defence.

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.

Yes, but we should provide more rehabilitation programs and provide a strict psychological evaluation.

depending on the circumstance and reasoning for committing this crime. evaluations and counseling should also be mandatory

If the murder was on accident then study should be able to have parole after 15 years but they still deserve to face time for their crime

Yes, as long it was not multiple murders, if it's just one case then it has a chance to be more of an accident

depending on how bad the crime committed is and if they show remorse then they should be eligible for parole

Crimes of force and non consent should lead to death penalty or life with no parole. Cant be trusted again why would you. Murder/aggressive charges, do evaluations etc check if they r stable member of a community

Ok so basically I was once in prison for a life sentence when I was born because I murder my doctor and then I was like 15 and I got out and now speaking is not very good so I me thinking that maybe no you die in prison very much or you have bad grammar