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):
@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.
@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
@8XLW4DH3yrs3Y
No, but still provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners
@8T3GK5W4yrs4Y
Only in special circumstances such as gypsy rose (parole for those who killed someone out of self defense such as rape, kidnap, getting jumped, torture etc)
@8SYX63G4yrs4Y
Yes, after completing a thorough psychological evaluation to show they are no longer a threat to society and there should be more rehabilitation programs for prisoners
@8HWQNFJ5yrs5Y
they should be freeed cause killing women is legal
@8CV6LXJ5yrs5Y
Case by case basis, evaluations should be done too.
@9CDF59M2yrs2Y
It depends on case by case ex. intentionally or self defence but also we should implement more rehabilitation programs and psychological evaluations as well.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
