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):
@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.
@8YRLLRZ3yrs3Y
That depends on if they improve
Yes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society, and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners. With checking in and redoing a strict psychology test yearly depending on the severity of the crime for to see how they are doing
@8VDJ95R4yrs4Y
It depends on the situation of each case. If the prisoner is making positive progress and is no longer deemed a threat to society, then yes they should be offered parole. If not, then no they should be rehabilitated until they're in a better headspace.
@8T8KRQF4yrs4Y
No. But we should still offer rehabilitation services.
@8T56SGM4yrs4Y
Yes, following a psychological evaluation, and we should be focusing on rehabilitation
@8SKZLX44yrs4Y
No, but our justice system should be focsued on rehabilitation.
@8SD9PTWConservative4yrs4Y
after the 15 year and they have not shown a change in life stye then but if they are changed then yes
@8SD9NT74yrs4Y
depends on how they acted and if they have actually shown they have changed for the better multiple time over
@8QDSZ3Y4yrs4Y
Yes, depending on the circumstance and the intent of the murder. For example, self defence.
Yes, but only for those who who commit first degree murder within self défense.
@8PL8SVC4yrs4Y
Situationally. Not every case is the same.
@8NVYZQ44yrs4Y
I'd like to see a move towards restorative justice. This question should be for the people who have been affected by the murder
@8DTWFZY5yrs5Y
yes but only if they understand very well what they did was wrong
@8CH3X5X5yrs5Y
yes depending if they have changed
@8CFKKF55yrs5Y
Depends what there motive was
@8VSH54P4yrs4Y
Depends on their behaviour
@9FM6JVV2yrs2Y
yes unless they did somthing realy bad.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
