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):
@9H2BYSQ1yr1Y
No because once guilty is always guilty also it doesn't show they learn anything or if they have remorse for what they did
@97NRTW82yrs2Y
Would need extensive supervision. If crimes are recommitted at the same degree. Death penalty would be the solution there after.
@8Z5ZGQC3yrs3Y
Depends on why the killing was planned out.
@8VLQQY34yrs4Y
It depends on the specific scenario
@8V2J6FL4yrs4Y
No, but all prisoners should be provided more rehabilitation.
@8THCVNQ4yrs4Y
I think that the current law for first-degree murder parole hearings is fine
@8P3HL3F4yrs4Y
Yes, if they did it to escape a horrific situation and get them psychiatrist help regardless of their situation.
@8GLXM955yrs5Y
Yes, but instead of full parole maybe move them from a maximum security prison to a medium and have another hearing later.
@8DNJDJP5yrs5Y
Depends on their act, and if they aren't wrongfully accused or framed. Sure provide an evaluation to show they aren't a threat to society.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
