Should Parliament Repeal the Faint Hope Clause?
October 29, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
There is a debate going on at The Mark inspired by the Conservative government’s desire to do away with the Faint Hope clause (which allows for a chance at a parole hearing after 15 years for those sentenced to life imprisonment). I can’t believe I’m going to type this, but I’ve got to side with Pierre Trudeau over Stephen Harper on this one (it was Trudeau’s government that initially brought in the Faint Hope clause).
Despite my inclinations, the debate at The Mark is clearly won by Bob Tarantino, who is arguing for the clause’s repeal. Simon Fraser’s Neil Boyd does a wretched job making a cased for the Faint Hope clause. His opening statement focuses not on the subject at hand, but on drug laws and minimum sentences for drug offenders. I’m in agreement that our drug laws are confused and ridiculous, but that doesn’t really have a lot to do (specifically) with the Faint Hope clause (which tends to apply to murderers). Mr. Boyd’s rebuttal is minimally more persuasive.
Mr. Tarantino, however, puts together a strong argument against the Faint Hope clause. Nonetheless, he manages to steal a base:
Bizarrely, he then states that “such legislation certainly wouldn’t enhance the safety of the men and women who work in Canada’s prisons.” This is an implicit admission that the very people the faint hope clause releases into the community are dangerous, even to prison staff. If the people who are being released under the faint hope clause are such a threat to the safety of prison workers, then why is Boyd so intent on making sure these same people have the chance of being released? Won’t they be that much more of a threat to people outside prison? In a perfect distillation of the inversion of rational thought which governs so much of our criminal justice system, the criminals that Boyd thinks are too dangerous to keep in prison are the same ones he thinks should be allowed to apply for release.
Considering the obvious intelligence of Mr. Tarantino, I must assume that this paragraph is intended to score points against Mr. Boyd’s article rather than actually address the argument that the Faint Hope clause makes Canadian prisons safer (hopefully not just for guards, but for inmates, as well). Without any hope of parole, these prisoners have nothing to lose. Regardless of what crimes they commit while incarcerated, they cannot be executed; all that can happen to them is that they are doomed to a similar fate to the one they were already facing. The argument is that the Faint Hope clause is the very thing that fosters rehabilitation and leads to fewer attacks against prison workers. It is a point that can be rebutted, but it is a point that Mr. Tarantino does not address.
There may never be a prisoner deserving of parole gained through the Faint Hope clause; there may be no rehabilitating this type of criminal (though I’d suggest there is), but hope is perhaps the one thing we can afford these people. Whether they deserve it or not, we should give it to them.
As an aside, in his preface to the debate, the editor of The Mark notes that the issue comes down to the question of whether the primary purpose of the justice system is to protect or to punish. I tackle that here.
Yes get rid of it. It makes a farce of the sentence applied by our “so called” justice system . Lets go as far as life means life. The victim ’s family and friends get a life sentence. And before anyone says it is just vengeance, Yes it is.
Good critique, Jon. It is clear that Tarantino is being ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst in his argument. He is comparing apples and oranges.
The danger of an inmate upon release with a faint hope clause is not the same as the danger posed by the same inmate inside the prison knowing that he will never be released.
It is dreadfully sad that people do not appreciate that difference. Such unintelligent people, in my opinion, are a danger to the rest of us and do not deserve the respect of an audience in policy matters. They treat people as if they were objects.
So the person that murders 4 people gets concurrent sentence, out in 15 years? The monster that rapes and murders a child out in 10 for good behavior? If we can’t have the death penalty then should life in prison not mean life, period? Those that commit these crimes should not be afforded the same rights and freedoms the victims do, or the rest of us. Releasing killers early is not the answer, I’m sure you would have a different point of you if someone you knew, or your child, had been raped, and/or murdered. How’d you like to see that person out in 10 years living it up?
So the person that murders 4 people gets concurent sentence, out in 15 years? The monster that rapes and murders a child out in 10 for good behavior? If we can’t have the death penalty then should life in prison not mean life, period? Those that commit these crimes should not be afforded the same rights and freedoms the victims do, or the rest of us. Releasing killers early is not the answer, I’m sure you would have a different point of you if someone you knew, or your child, had been raped, and/or murdered. How’d you like to see that person out in 10 years living it up?
Without any hope of parole, these prisoners have nothing to lose.
really?
Try 2-5 years in solitary, or the hole.
The problem, in my opinion anyway, with the Faint Hope Clause is that it has turned into the Pretty Good Chance Clause.
I agree that a life sentence should actually mean for the rest of their natural life and that they should be given in lieu of the Death Penalty. The Faint Hope Clause should give them something to aspire toward, but not before an initial mandatory time sentence is served. Something like Faint Hope but not prior to [insert number] of years. That number of years being the determined mandatory sentence to be served.
Imagine though, for a moment, if the Death Penalty was reinstated but not executable before 25 years had passed, with a mandatory time being served and the Faint Hope Clause being of last resort prior to execution. Would that be fair?
@Sean
Definitely, I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t review and tighten up the Faint Hope clause. It should be anything from automatic.
@Beast
You’re right, the hole or solitary should be some sort of incentive for prisoners. However, the standard of behaviour to avoid such a punishment should be far below the standard for getting out on the Faint Hope clause. Further, the marginal punishment of going to solitary may not be seen as sufficiently severe to motivate someone to alter their behaviour; going free, however, would seem to be a significant improvement in one’s lot.
Without any hope of parole, these prisoners have nothing to lose.
But this is precisely the point: convicted first-degree murderers already have the possibility of parole – it’s just that their ineligibility for parole is limited at twenty-five years. In Canada we simply do not have prisoners “without any hope of parole” – all prisoners are entitled to qualify for parole. Our sentencing regime provides that some convicted killers (first- and second-degree murderers) are ineligible for parole for prescribed minimum periods of time.
Regardless of what crimes they commit while incarcerated, they cannot be executed; all that can happen to them is that they are doomed to a similar fate to the one they were already facing.
No, they can face a different fate: if they exhibit good behaviour, they can qualify for parole once their ineligibility period expires; if they exhibit bad behaviour, they will prolong their incarceration.
The argument is that the Faint Hope clause is the very thing that fosters rehabilitation and leads to fewer attacks against prison workers.
What fosters rehabilitation, at least on the account you’re providing, is the possibility of parole. That possibility exists irrespective of the existence of the faint hope clause – the faint hope clause only accelerates their eligibility. Regardless of that, however, the larger question remains: we’re talking about convicted murderers, and, on the fact case we’re assuming for purposes of this discussion, convicted murderers who evidently are moments away from committing more crimes, even while in prison, but for the incentive provided by the chance that they’re going to be released – remind me again why we’re so eager to let these people out of prison?
Mr. Tarantino,
Thank you for dropping by to expand on your argument. I think what you have written here is a more exhaustive rebuttal to the contention that the Faint Hope clause fosters a safer environment in prisons than is the post of yours in The Mark to which I linked.
No doubt, in most cases, I am sure you are correct. I think the exceptional nature of the clause means we are arguing about the fate of those on the margins of the prison populations. I can’t imagine your average murderer (if there is such a thing) is likely to tailor his behaviour to the demands of winning parole under the clause.