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):
@584DVFT4yrs4Y
Reinstate forced labor so they at least offset the cost of internment to the taxpayer.
@B3C7LQR2mos2MO
I think it depends if the prisoners genuinely have something wrong with them, but if they’ve shown that they have changed their ways, then I do agree with letting them be eligible for parole after 15 years
@B39J9Q92mos2MO
Psychological analysis should be considered to determine rehabilitation is possible for possible parole
@9N92TQD11mos11MO
Depending on the situation and considering the evidence and how the prisoner was convicted. Because false confessions are common, cases with confessions should be re-evaluated.
@9M99CW211mos11MO
In an individual case-by-case basis, especially if very young at the age that the crime was committed or if new evidence pertaining their involvement emerges.
Only in some cases and with extremely strict mental tests and other things should be considered like guarded work such.
@9LS9R2W12mos12MO
If person is able to be rehabilitated and it was out of defence they should have a chance but if the crime had ill intent they should not
@9L372BN1yr1Y
What should happen is they should take a program to help them reintegrate in society, if they fail, they serve the rest of their life sentence, if they succeed and show positive changes, they should be let out with parole.
Depends on if it was an accident or not if it was then yes if it wasn’t then no
@9BVPY5F2yrs2Y
It depends on what the situation is
@964YBZQ3yrs3Y
no, but provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners
yes, in order to review new evidence to make sure their guilty
@922366V3yrs3Y
Yes, but not if they are a mass murderer. They should have a psychological evaluation and rehab
@8YZ3BXH3yrs3Y
They should work in the jail and get credit or money so they can buy there own food and clothes if they don't work in jail it is like staying in your room and doing nothing
@8YYH2XJ3yrs3Y
Only to those who murdered with the intent of self-defence
@8YXY4TQ3yrs3Y
I think rehabilitation programs should be available to prisoners and they should be given a psychological evaluation before going back into society
@8YQ35Y83yrs3Y
depends on severity of the crime
It depends on the circumstances of the crime and is there a better way to rehabilitate convicted felons.
@8RTKVF44yrs4Y
Case by case basis. I think that completely depends on the specifics of the crime and the convicted criminal.
It depends on the situation, let’s say someone murdered their parental figure because they were abusing them for their entire life, I wouldn’t send them to prison for that.
@96TXPDJ2yrs2Y
No, depends on the crime but for some after 30 years yes
@8ZTM42Q3yrs3Y
Depends what reason they had if the person they murdered severely hurt or killed someone close to them they should have a lighter sentence
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
