Associate Director, Criminology, Simon Fraser University.
Debates: Is Faint Hope Fair?
When Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976, questions emerged about what to do with our worst offenders. In an effort to encourage rehabilitation and to mitigate prison violence, the Trudeau government introduced the Faint Hope Clause, which allows convicted criminals facing life in prison to apply for early parole after 15 years. Ever since, critics, including the current Conservative government, have argued that the clause is needlessly traumatic for the families of victims, and that no matter how faint the hope, it is undeserved. It’s a debate that raises, among myriad considerations, a fundamental question of government: Does our justice system exist primarily to protect or to punish?
The Positions
By eliminating the faint hope clause, the Conservative government would risk the safety of those who work in Canada's prisons.
The faint hope clause puts some of our most violent criminals back on the street. The Conservative government is right to eliminate it.
The Rebuttals
Better to offer a small carrot near the end of a prison term, than resort to the stick and nothing but the stick.
Convicted murderers should serve out the sentences handed down by a court of law, not duck out part way through.