The Canadian House of Commons sent a bill {S-6} back to the Senate that would have done away with the Faint Hope clause {§745.6 of the Criminal Code of Canada-pdf}. The clause allows prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment with a parole eligibility of greater than 15 years to apply for early parole if they have served 15 years. {Canoe News was alluding to the idea that this was politically motivated, in the wake of Conservatives in the Senate killing an environmental bill, C-311}.
The Conservatives have been wanting to get rid of the faint hope clause and may eventually get their way. The Conservatives’ stance is that it re-victimizes the families by having them prepare at an earlier date for parole hearings. A Toronto Sun columnist, Jerry Agar, isn’t interested in rights and rehabilitation of convicted criminals. He wants tougher sentencing and the elimination of the Faint Hope clause for the sake of victims. In my mind, this brings up a fundamental question. Does society view the criminal as forever “bad” or is even the most notorious criminal subject to rehabilitation?
Moreover, while the rights and safety of the victim shouldn’t be discounted, at what point does the weight of a victim’s impact statement have more gravitas than the evaluations of a prisoner’s current state. I wonder about government intervention when it comes to the wishes of the victim. The attempt by California courts to get Roman Polansky extradited from Switzerland in spite of the victim’s wishes after her civil settlement makes me wonder what the guidelines should be. Specifically, how should prosecutors and the courts balance a victim’s wishes and the interests of justice?
One factor that may be influencing this is culture. European sentences for homicide can be lenient by North American {US & Canada} standards, but there appears to be a cultural norm that tough sentencing is a deterrent and metes out justice for the victim. While “vengeance” may be a strong term, I recall watching a HBO documentary on capital punishment about a decade ago and much of how the death penalty was framed was to help the victims obtain closure.
I suppose much of this boils down to whether one believes in rehabilitation. Are the Jimmy Boyles {Scottish gangster and convicted murder turned artist and writer} merely outliers in the annals of crime and punishment?
Twitterversion:: [blog] Do You Believe a Murderer Can Be Rehabilitated?: Canada’s Faint Hope Clause Clings to Hope—for now. @ThickCulture @Prof_K
Comments 3
jennifer — November 25, 2010
no i don't think murderers get rehabilitated. who knows he/she might murder another person or hurt them. it stay on their file until they die.
Jon — November 25, 2010
I think it entirely depends on circumstances. For instance, someone who murders their spouse in a fit of passion is unlikely to be a threat to the general public upon release.
People feel the need for vengeance when someone dies but it's a hollow victory because no matter what you do to the criminal, it's not going to bring your loved one back.
I think it is entirely possible for *some* criminals to be rehabilitated, no matter the crime, but the more pertinent question is - should we?
David — February 11, 2012
I believe all offenders should be rehabilitated and released as fast as possible. This will be beneficial both morally and economically. It has been shown it cost 3 times more to simply keep someone locked up than to give them rehabilitation.
I do agree that Life Without Parole should be mandatory at sentencing for murder, terrorism, rape, crimes against humanity, drug trafficking of hard drugs by a criminal organisation and torture and discretionary for treason, aggravataed battery assault, arson, severe cases of child abuse and exceptionally severe cases of corruption, however after 5 years if the offender is on good behaviour their sentence can be commuted to no less than 15 years of which they become parole eligible after serving one third of their sentence, this means a lifer who serves 5 years and gets their sentence commuted to 15 years are automatically parole eligible since 5 years equals a third however this would not be automatic. Cases of murder, terrorism and torture that were especially heinous may simply not get a commuted sentence or might get a sentence commuted to say 90 years, making them ineligible for parole for 30 years.
However based on calculation I believe an average life sentence should be 7 years and 8 months. The reason is because even though parole can come after one third of sentence I believe offenders should still serve at least half their sentence which equals 7 years and 6 months or half of the minimum 15 year commutation plus 60 days as an average time it takes to sentence somebody.
I believe the jails we have now should be for those on trial, juveniles, the elderly and the ill. The healthier prisoners would be sent to a prison camp in the rural region. There they would live in barracks, and live under strict supervision. All television would be educational only, the internet would only be allowed during free time for those who behave.
All inmates would be required to do an hour of military type of exercise in the morning, an hour in the afternoon and an hour at night. Inmates work in the morning on farms, water treatment facilities, cutting the lawn or working in carpentry to fix buildings in the camp. Food is cooked by inmates trying to get a trade in making food, while inmates health is looked after by specialised inmates who are aspiring to work in the trade of medicine. All inmates must become literate, know mathematics and know a decent amount of world history and politics.
If the inmate does this well for 5 years they increase the chance of their life sentence being commuted to a determinate sentence, generally 15 years. Well this is how I think the system should be run. Let me know if anyone has anything to say to this.