Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates
I am continually frustrated by this misunderstanding of Canadian sentencing. In Canada a life sentence means you are serving your sentence for literally every single second of your natural life until you die.
There is no 25 years = Life. It's not a real thing.
In the case of a first degree murder, you are not ellligible to be considered for parole (continuing to serve your sentence but with whatever measure of conditional freedom the parole board grants) until you have served at least 25 years.
As for never allowing parole, it is an easy idea to embrace superficially. But right now there are murderers in minimum security jails across Canada with no perimeter fences, who drive vehicles and have access to sharp tools and keys to various segments of the prison. They could escape if they wanted. They could murder other inmates or guards easily. They don't because they are not supposed to. They are trusted to a level exceeding that which is deserved by many people you will ride public transit with tomorrow morning.
I think if many people considered how little difference there can be between being in prison or being on parole for many lifers after they have a quarter century in the system, then they might reconsider the one size fits all 'no parole ever' position.
|
From a criminal defence lawyer, of course you're going to have this perspective. So why not get rid of the 'life' part of First/Second degree murder sentencing within the criminal code and simply state 10 or 25 (or whatever the minimums are) years before parole eligibility? A life sentence should mean a life sentence if that's what you're going to call it. Many other countries including our neighbours to the south call a life sentence as such. There is no chance of parole, you die in prison.
Because an inmate serving a murder sentence does not harm another inmate or guard even though they could means they should be trusted to be amongst the general populace? Murdering a guard or inmate means more time in prison and the less likely chance they are paroled, would that not seem more plausible reasoning as to why that would be?