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):
@9DK58FZ2yrs2Y
Yes given the situation/crime and how it ensued
@8YNQWL73yrs3Y
If it is first degree murder then they shoulnt get a parloe but it is second degree yes they should in 15 years
@8YJ82HV3yrs3Y
No, unless lots of psychological checks have been made.
@8YDG2G23yrs3Y
it should be longer (something like 30 years)
@8WCMRK54yrs4Y
depends on the backstory and reason of the murder
@8VFPDPM4yrs4Y
Those serving life for first degree murder should be pitted against each other in a state-owned gladiator arena where those 18 and over can buy tickets to watch.
@9C4F27K2yrs2Y
Murder is murder and prison is prison. Good luck charlie
@9B6CGBX2yrs2Y
Depends on the situation, and provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners
@8V6HDV5Conservative4yrs4Y
No, it should be case by case.
@8GN2FMY5yrs5Y
depends on the situation.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
