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):
@B48SZ5F3wks3W
Yes but 15 years is too low and they still need to pass tests to ensure they are no longer an issue to society.
yes, but the sentence should be longer before they can have a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society, then possibly be eligible for parole
@9MC4BQL11mos11MO
Yes given they are rehabilitated and given a psychological evaluation shows they aren't a threat any longer.
@9F5KMPV2yrs2Y
If they've been well behaved prisoner and not at risk to kill again sure.
@8Y8LP963yrs3Y
There should be restorative justice measures in place especially for Indigenous offenders, and a hearing should be available if the offender has followed Indigenous restorative justice protocols for a majority of their sentence.
Yes, but We need to second guess our justice system and find the corruption before we put innocent people in jail!
@8SD6DXV4yrs4Y
yes if the conviction is due to manslaughter
@8PK936W4yrs4Y
Depending on the crime. If the individual has killed several people they should not. Everyone else should be case by case, and rehabilitation is very important.
@8NVTS5Q4yrs4Y
Depends on what the crime was
@8VYHF8K4yrs4Y
Depends on the circumstances of the murder and the victim.
@8V76GNDNew Democratic4yrs4Y
Prison should be an opportunity for reform, which can only happen if we work from a trauma based perspective to help those in the system transform their lives and be able to contribute to society in a meaningful way. There also needs to be the skill at the level of considering pardons, to accurately evaluate a prisoner's rehabilitation, and to link them with community resources that will support reintegration into the public.
@B3CJ7Z52mos2MO
Yes, but after a minimum of 25 years. They should be given a strict psychological evaluation shows they're no longer a threat along with being apart of a rehabilitation program
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
