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.

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?

@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.

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?

really?

Try 2-5 years in solitary, or the hole.

Without any hope of parole, these prisoners have nothing to lose.

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.