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.
@9CMY49G2yrs2Y
No, unless they have shown that they have rehabilitated and are able to safely come back into society. If this is the case, they and their actions should be monitored at all times.
@96GDG65New Democratic3yrs3Y
life sentence but let them hang w their family for 1 day a week
@968RHGS3yrs3Y
After 25 years of they were behaving well they should have a hearing
@8XLW4DH3yrs3Y
No, but still provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners
@8VP9Y5Z4yrs4Y
Depends on why they killed someone
@8VG3MTG4yrs4Y
If in jail they have been getting better(not fighting and doing violence in jail) they should be able to have a hearing.
@8VBRM9C4yrs4Y
Yes, but a hearing should be done if there is new evidence proving their innocence
@8V4RGZFConservative4yrs4Y
If they had a good reason for murder like killing someone who tried to hurt someone you love then, yes. Cold blooded murder for no apparent reason, no.
@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
@8QRQ7SX4yrs4Y
Depends on who they murder. If they murder a innocent they don't deserve parole, but if they murder in defense or murder a rapist, etc. , I believe they should be re-looked at. To conclude, I believe whether the murder was justified or not, they should get parole or not get it.
@8P7S73Z4yrs4Y
It depends on their case
@8NXRYZTLibertarian4yrs4Y
Life in jail and used for medical experiments for a reduced sentence
@8HWQNFJ5yrs5Y
they should be freeed cause killing women is legal
@8D8N7PL5yrs5Y
@8CV6LXJ5yrs5Y
Case by case basis, evaluations should be done too.
@8CHLPC55yrs5Y
@9CFXL4X2yrs2Y
Very good question. Well... say I was in a bank ... say someone robbed a bank and I had my kids with me. Say I shot the robbers like some Flippin hero. Say they seen it differently... excessive force. Etc.. likely a verdict in Canada. Yay for our terrible legal and sometimes to lenient punishment... I'm not exactly sure. Yes and No. We've got bigger problems and it's upon my belief that terrible economic crisis due to irresponsible liberal government and Justin trustupid has created a higher risk for crime because people stop caring about repercussions in a world for them that makes no sense anyways.
@96S965W2yrs2Y
Yes, and no. it depends on what the situation is
@96JLQNJ3yrs3Y
Eligible for parole hearing after 25-30 years.
@B3FWKNX2mos2MO
No, they should be serving a life sentence of at least 25 years before being el, along with strict physiological evaluations to show they are no longer a threat to society
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
