ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
Bruce Monkhouse said:As of October 18, 2009, 1,023 offenders were deemed eligible to apply for a judicial review. Of those eligible, there were 174 court decisions of which 144 became eligible for earlier parole. Of these, 85 were granted parole.
Tess, this is more Parole Board crap as I read it...........over 800 didn't even bother to apply as they would rather wait a bit longer for mandatory release and have either no strings attached or at worst, very few. [or just like the nice easy life in jail]
So now we have 85 out of 174 released........unless I too am mistaken.
They have to apply to apply. I *think* the 1023 "deemed eligible" must have passed the first application (to the Chief Justice of the province), and then failed at the parole board. They were deemed eligible (by the Chief Justice) to go face the parole board, or that is how I am reading it anyway.
"The prisoner must apply to the Chief Justice of the province where they were convicted, and the Chief Justice (or another designated judge) then reviews the application to determine whether there is a reasonable chance the prisoner could be successful in his or her application before a jury; if the applicant is likely to succeed, the court will empanel a jury to hear the application." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_hope_clause
How many actually put in the first application to the Chief Justice of the Province would an answer to another question we'd have to ask before we could get the real percentages, but it would make it small.er
Bruce Monkhouse said:Either way the real shitty part of the 'faint hope' clause is it makes victims families start attending these hearings years sooner to start listening to a total jerk off spout on about how he/she deserves another chance.
No kidding. After reading about the clause I've become to think it's pretty stupid. I mean, max sentence of life, parole after 25 years, is basically a 25 year sentence as it is. If the faint-hope clause works for them, you've cut a murderer's sentence by 40%, which is ridiculous.... and if a murderer deserves that 40% reduction... who doesn't? Very few.