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):
@9F83RNNConservative2yrs2Y
A much longer time such as 30 years
@8YZCDBRNew Democratic3yrs3Y
23 years then parole and psychological evaluation exam; you must study and pass to have a parole hearing
@8VV68564yrs4Y
Yes, only if they show remorse and improvement in behaviour.
@8VMFC9D4yrs4Y
First-degree murder means that it was premeditated. Murderers do not deserve rehabilitation if serving a first-degree murder.
@8V53PTT4yrs4Y
Yes and as Long as they can pass a strict physiological evaluation that shows they are no longer if actually society as well as it was not a offence committed on a minor
@8RCMXHK4yrs4Y
yes, but I think only those who had a good reason for what they did like self defense. but not those who straight up murdered someone.
@8R3ZM794yrs4Y
perhaps, but ending jails is a must.
@8QPHLGZ4yrs4Y
it depends how many murders the criminal committed and on the time span that each murder happened.
@8QFQV334yrs4Y
@8PCWLD64yrs4Y
Should be case to case more than a set rule
@8GKKMGP5yrs5Y
In the case where it’s a possible wrongful imprisonments I’d say yes. If the convict has admitted guilt then no
@8CJMPWF5yrs5Y
Yes, unless the prisoners have shown good behavior
@99PTCHG2yrs2Y
It depends from person to person
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
