Faint hope clause


JLM
#1
According to Global News at noon Harper's outfit wants to eliminate the "Faint Hope Clause" (allows for the release of exemplary prisoners convicted of 1st degree murder after serving 15 years. What is your opinion of this? I would have hoped he would be toughening up sentences for the worst offenders not the milder ones.
 
L Gilbert
#2
I think it'd be more punishment without the barbed wire, armed guards, and bars. How would one start a life after being inside for 15 years (especially as a senior)? Confusion, disorientation, etc. are what I think would be the results.
 
pegger
#3
My opinion - bright shiny bauble thrown out there to distract from the incompetence of the current government.

But L Gilbert will just say I have "blinders" on
Last edited by pegger; Jun 5th, 2009 at 04:18 PM..
 
VanIsle
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

According to Global News at noon Harper's outfit wants to eliminate the "Faint Hope Clause" (allows for the release of exemplary prisoners convicted of 1st degree murder after serving 15 years. What is your opinion of this? I would have hoped he would be toughening up sentences for the worst offenders not the milder ones.

I think we should read the article before commenting.
OTTAWA - The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called "faint hope" clause from the Criminal Code.
If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first-or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole.
"Our government believes murderers must serve serious time for the most serious crime," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in a statement Friday.
"By ending faint hope reviews, we are saying No to early parole for murders.
"We are also sparing families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to relive these unspeakable losses, over and over again."
Under the faint hope clause, criminals convicted of first-and second-degree murder can apply for an earlier parole eligibility date at the 15-year mark of their sentence.
The legislation would directly impact people convicted of murder once it becomes law.
But under the Tory proposal, anyone currently serving life sentences would also face tougher rules when applying for early parole.
Today's move is one of a series of law-and-order announcements the Conservative government is making in the weeks before Parliament rises for the summer.
 
wulfie68
#5
This is another one of those issues that will depend heavily on how you view our justice system. I don't have a problem with them eliminating this clause: 1st degree murderers should never be released IMO, but then again I view our prison system's role, as it pertains to violent crime as first to protect the public, second to punish offenders and lastly to rehabilitate offenders. Someone guilty of 1st degree murder has planned out and then taken the life of someone else: you can't take that back or ever make it right. "I'm sorry, I'll do better" doesn't cut it.
 
pegger
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68 View Post

This is another one of those issues that will depend heavily on how you view our justice system. I don't have a problem with them eliminating this clause: 1st degree murderers should never be released IMO, but then again I view our prison system's role, as it pertains to violent crime as first to protect the public, second to punish offenders and lastly to rehabilitate offenders. Someone guilty of 1st degree murder has planned out and then taken the life of someone else: you can't take that back or ever make it right. "I'm sorry, I'll do better" doesn't cut it.

I've heard example though, where even in 1st degree murders it's not so cut and dry.

For example, someone rapes and murders a child. The parent takes matters into his/her hands and kills the offender. 1st degree murder. You really think they deserve to rot for 25 years? The justice system should have some flexibility, because not every case, not every offender is so cut and dry.

Also consider that this will affect 1% of all convictions...and it doesn't give you parole - it gives the ability to apply for parole (so you have to apply for faint hope - then apply for parole) - it's not (as the Conservatives try to paint it) some revolving door.

Finally, what is the reason for changing the law? Is it being abused? Has some vile killer gotten out on "faint hope" that is causing this debate to raised?

Also - with only a few weeks left before summer shut -down - this legislation will just die on the table, and have to be resubmitted in the fall. Why bring it up now (other than a feeble attempt to create an election issue if one is called in the next few weeks)

Don't get me wrong - I think the majority of murderers are the scum of the earth, and deserve harsh sentances - but I don't see the reasoning for this legislation - other than for partisan purposes.
 
JLM
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

I think we should read the article before commenting.
OTTAWA - The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called "faint hope" clause from the Criminal Code.
If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first-or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole.
"Our government believes murderers must serve serious time for the most serious crime," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in a statement Friday.
"By ending faint hope reviews, we are saying No to early parole for murders.
"We are also sparing families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to relive these unspeakable losses, over and over again."
Under the faint hope clause, criminals convicted of first-and second-degree murder can apply for an earlier parole eligibility date at the 15-year mark of their sentence.
The legislation would directly impact people convicted of murder once it becomes law.
But under the Tory proposal, anyone currently serving life sentences would also face tougher rules when applying for early parole.
Today's move is one of a series of law-and-order announcements the Conservative government is making in the weeks before Parliament rises for the summer.

Yes, V.I. that was the message on the news at noon. What I want to see is legislation to terminate the likes of Homolka, Bernardo, Olson- NOT make things tough for some drunk who kills another drunk in a bar brawl.
 
L Gilbert
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by pegger View Post

My opinion - bright shiny bauble thrown out there to distract from the incompetence of the current government.

But L Gilbert will just say I have "blinders" on

Aaaahh, I was thinking from the prisoners' standpoints. From the gov't angle, I bet you're right. (Fooled ya, didn't I?)
 
L Gilbert
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

I think we should read the article before commenting.
OTTAWA - The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called "faint hope" clause from the Criminal Code.
If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first-or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole.
"Our government believes murderers must serve serious time for the most serious crime," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in a statement Friday.
"By ending faint hope reviews, we are saying No to early parole for murders.
"We are also sparing families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to relive these unspeakable losses, over and over again."
Under the faint hope clause, criminals convicted of first-and second-degree murder can apply for an earlier parole eligibility date at the 15-year mark of their sentence.
The legislation would directly impact people convicted of murder once it becomes law.
But under the Tory proposal, anyone currently serving life sentences would also face tougher rules when applying for early parole.
Today's move is one of a series of law-and-order announcements the Conservative government is making in the weeks before Parliament rises for the summer.

Well, pooo. There went my fun.
But, being serious; I don't think hard and fast ruels are the way to go. We have those. We also have lots of examples of screwups in the system and too many laws.I'm inclined to think that discretion should be exercised in any case, but our difficulty lies in uniform discretion, because not one judge is like another. Perhaps if we made hard and fast rules for judges ....
 
L Gilbert
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by pegger View Post

I've heard example though, where even in 1st degree murders it's not so cut and dry.

For example, someone rapes and murders a child. The parent takes matters into his/her hands and kills the offender. 1st degree murder. You really think they deserve to rot for 25 years? The justice system should have some flexibility, because not every case, not every offender is so cut and dry.

Also consider that this will affect 1% of all convictions...and it doesn't give you parole - it gives the ability to apply for parole (so you have to apply for faint hope - then apply for parole) - it's not (as the Conservatives try to paint it) some revolving door.

Finally, what is the reason for changing the law? Is it being abused? Has some vile killer gotten out on "faint hope" that is causing this debate to raised?

Also - with only a few weeks left before summer shut -down - this legislation will just die on the table, and have to be resubmitted in the fall. Why bring it up now (other than a feeble attempt to create an election issue if one is called in the next few weeks)

Don't get me wrong - I think the majority of murderers are the scum of the earth, and deserve harsh sentances - but I don't see the reasoning for this legislation - other than for partisan purposes.

Good point.
 
JLM
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Good point.

I guess what it all boils down to is the old adage- "THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE".
 
VanIsle
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Yes, V.I. that was the message on the news at noon. What I want to see is legislation to terminate the likes of Homolka, Bernardo, Olson- NOT make things tough for some drunk who kills another drunk in a bar brawl.

JLM: I was not doubting what you had to say. I just felt that the whole story needed to be here. I know you want the death penalty and you have always been clear on that. I'm not so sure that Harper wouldn't agree with you but it's never going to happen. The next best thing then is to incarcerate them for no less than 25 years, disposing with the faint hope clause. My next best would be to say that life is life. So in other words - until you die of natural causes.
 
JLM
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

JLM: I was not doubting what you had to say. I just felt that the whole story needed to be here. I know you want the death penalty and you have always been clear on that. I'm not so sure that Harper wouldn't agree with you but it's never going to happen. The next best thing then is to incarcerate them for no less than 25 years, disposing with the faint hope clause. My next best would be to say that life is life. So in other words - until you die of natural causes.

Yes V.I.- I have slightly softened my stance on the death penalty but still think the three I already mentioned and several more should be eligible for it. I do however believe that a few (albeit it probably a VERY few) would be eligible for release after 15 years for instance a case like where a man comes home to find his family murdered and the axe with the owner's initials on it at the crime scene and in a act of rage chases down the guy and kills him. It was planned and it was deliberate but I don't think he deserves 25 years.
 
JLM
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

JLM: I was not doubting what you had to say. I just felt that the whole story needed to be here. I know you want the death penalty and you have always been clear on that. I'm not so sure that Harper wouldn't agree with you but it's never going to happen. The next best thing then is to incarcerate them for no less than 25 years, disposing with the faint hope clause. My next best would be to say that life is life. So in other words - until you die of natural causes.

I think the "faint hope" clause should stay, remember the old adage "there is an exception to every rule". We want to toughen things up for the worst offenders, not necessarily the mildest.
 

Similar Threads

3
11
22