John Lennon's killer denied parole after 35 years in prison. Should he be released

King George VI · 30-08-2016 11:58AM #1

So despite his good behaviour while incarcirated, Mark Chapman was denied parole for a 9th time "on the grounds that his crime was premeditated and celebrity-seeking in nature the York State Board of Parole said. The board said Chapman's release would deprecate the seriousness of the crime.".

He's been in prison for 35 years. Don't you think he's done his time? I'm not taking away from the fact he killed a human being. Obviously a severe punishment was due. However if he had murdered some regular non-famous person in the same manner, Mark Chapman would have been out of prison long ago but since it was the almighty John Lennon all of a sudden the rules change.

Shouldn't the penalty be based on merit of the crime instead of the status of the victim?

What do you think?

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/mark-david-chapman-denied-parole-for-ninth-time-w436955

Water John · 30-08-2016 12:03PM

Risk, should be the priority in deciding parole.

In other states he would possibly have been executed.
In many countries he would be released after around 20 years.

RobbingBandit · 30-08-2016 12:08PM

Out but put in his parole any way he is found seeking publicity for the crime such as talk shows or writing a book is deemed a violation.

dinorebel · 30-08-2016 12:08PM

Water John wrote: »

In other states he would possibly have been executed.
.

Back in the U.S.S.R?

30-08-2016 12:09PM

I'd say Lennon himself would have forgiven and wanted him released.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-08-2016 12:10PM

Johnny Carson wrote: »

So despite his good behaviour while incarcirated, Mark Chapman was denied parole for a 9th time "on the grounds that his crime was premeditated and celebrity-seeking in nature the York State Board of Parole said. The board said Chapman's release would deprecate the seriousness of the crime.".

He's been in prison for 35 years. Don't you think he's done his time? I'm not taking away from the fact he killed a human being. Obviously a severe punishment was due. However if he had murdered some regular non-famous person in the same manner, Mark Chapman would have been out of prison long ago but since it was the almighty John Lennon all of a sudden the rules change.

Shouldn't the penalty be based on merit of the crime instead of the status of the victim?

What do you think?

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/mark-david-chapman-denied-parole-for-ninth-time-w436955

Imagine it was your loved one, would you want his killer released?

Let him (and any other murderer) rot.

wes · 30-08-2016 12:19PM

There reasoning to deny the parole seems fine to me. It seems that Lennon was targeted due to his fame and was an attempt by the perpetrator to seek out fame, as per what the OP posted. I don't think such a person should really be let out.

I am sure there are far more deserving people rotting in US prisons, on ridiculous sentences for possessing a little bit of marijuana, or due to the 3 strikes system. This guy is a murderer, so I can't say I have much sympathy for him.

King George VI · 30-08-2016 12:26PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Imagine it was your loved one, would you want his killer released?

Let him (and any other murderer) rot.

I agree completely, but my point is that if one murderer gets 35+ years in jail then the next one should get 35+ years too. You hear it all the time in the news. Killers getting out after 8 or so years for good behavior. Why is the murderer of John Lennon worse than any other that he gets a longer sentence? Because a lot of people like Lennon's music?

Arsemageddon · 30-08-2016 12:27PM

Only release him if he agrees to shoot Simon Cowell

jaykay74 · 30-08-2016 12:28PM

Johnny Carson wrote: »

I agree completely, but my point is that if one murderer gets 35+ years in jail then the next one should get 35+ years too. You hear it all the time in the news. Killers getting out after 8 or so years for good behavior. Why is the murderer of John Lennon worse than any other that he gets a longer sentence? Because a lot of people like Lennon's music?

Do you see a lot of murderers getting out after 8 years in the States ? This was meticulously planned/premeditated, not some chance event...

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-08-2016 12:29PM

Johnny Carson wrote: »

I agree completely, but my point is that if one murderer gets 35+ years in jail then the next one should get 35+ years too. You hear it all the time in the news. Killers getting out after 8 or so years for good behavior. Why is the murderer of John Lennon worse than any other that he gets a longer sentence? Because a lot of people like Lennon's music?

Murderers released in the states after 8 years?

King George VI · 30-08-2016 12:33PM

jaykay74 wrote: »

Do you see a lot of murderers getting out after 8 years in the States ? This was meticulously planned/premeditated, not some chance event...

Ok 8 years was a bad example but way less time anyway.

Chuchote · 30-08-2016 12:40PM

If he were in Ireland someone who'd committed a crime like this would possibly be under lock and key, but in the Central Mental Hospital.

seamus · 30-08-2016 12:41PM

It's not so much about who he killed, but why he killed. He murdered John Lennon to gain celebrity status. Which is a level of narcissism so beyond your average Big Brother contestant that it's psychotic.

Releasing him into public leads to the inevitable outcome that he will be pounced on by the media, interview after interview, book deals, etc etc. He will get the very attention and celebrity that caused him to murder in the first place.
Which introduces the likelihood that other psychotic narcissists like him will be drawn to the outcome and commit similar high-profile murders.

Even if he gets murdered himself (which is likely), that would still make him a celebrity, a person of note. Which would inspire other lunatics to follow his course.

Dr Crayfish · 30-08-2016 12:46PM

Let him out hopefully he kills Bono

Water John · 30-08-2016 12:51PM

Chuch, if he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and put into the CRH, he would have been released once his mental health had stabilised.
BTW, I don't think the guy was insane.

lertsnim · 30-08-2016 12:53PM

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

I'd say Lennon himself would have forgiven and wanted him released.

He was a bit of a **** by all accounts.

Water John · 30-08-2016 12:56PM

He may have had all sorts of personality issues. The question is, was he aware of the gravity of what he was doing and did he make that choice?

kjl · 30-08-2016 12:59PM

Let him out but keep him away from any copies of The Catcher in the Rye.

rafatoni · 30-08-2016 01:02PM

all we are saying is give him a chance?

Irish Guitarist · 30-08-2016 01:07PM

How exactly do you what would have happened if he had killed a non-famous person? Besides the whole point of killing John Lennon was that he was famous. I think the whole notion of him being an obsessed Beatles 'fan' is a myth. He just wanted to gain notoriety by killing a celebrity. It could have been any number of famous people but he just decided on John Lennon. I read an interesting David Bowie book years ago which claimed that Mark Chapman had wanted to kill him too. I forget the details but I think he had waited outside a concert but couldn't get close enough to him. He had his sights on plenty of other celebrities too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312755/John-Lennons-killer-Mark-Chapman-Elizabeth-Taylor-Johnny-Carson-hit-list.html

The parole committee did their job and decided he was too much of a risk to the public.

Moo Moo Land · 30-08-2016 01:17PM

I believe Chapman was religious and killed Lennon because he said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

Chuchote · 30-08-2016 01:26PM

He was quoted at the time as saying Lennon had betrayed the Beatles' ethos, or something like that.

It all depends what you mean by insane. If you decide today that you're going to go out and kill some celebrity for a reason that appears logical to you but not to everyone else, that would seem like a pretty good part of the definition!

Outlaw Pete · 30-08-2016 01:46PM

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Let him out hopefully he kills Bono

Ah you're just a jealous guy.

Water John · 30-08-2016 01:48PM

No, your insane if you are not aware that what you are doing is obviously wrong and haven't got the wherewhital to know its wrong.

Speedwell · 30-08-2016 01:55PM

Most premeditated murderers want to kill a specific person for a specific reason, and when the victim is dead, the murderer figures that solves whatever the original problem is. Chapman had a whole list of potential victims, and what was to stop him from getting more celebrity by killing more people? What's stopping him from being triggered by the celebrity he will inevitably get once he gets out, and want even more? The parole board clearly thought that the thing he wanted to accomplish by killing Lennon wasn't yet accomplished, and that releasing Chapman would be similar to rewarding him.

andekwarhola · 30-08-2016 01:57PM

He might go after Yoko though.

Actually, the guy has served his time. Show a bit of compassion.

jiltloop · 30-08-2016 02:12PM

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Let him out hopefully he kills Bono

Ah I think Kanye West should be top of the hit list to be honest. It's a very long list though....

ohnonotgmail · 30-08-2016 02:24PM

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

I believe Chapman was religious and killed Lennon because he said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

Obviously playing the long game on that one.

ohnonotgmail · 30-08-2016 02:25PM

Water John wrote: »

No, your insane if you are not aware that what you are doing is obviously wrong and haven't got the wherewhital to know its wrong.

he was well aware of what he was doing. He wanted to be famous/notorious.

Samaris · 30-08-2016 02:38PM

From just looking at the headline, yeah, my first reaction is he should get neither less nor more than a similar crime. But good points have been made about the reasons. Assuming that's true and sourced from something, it suggests that he is still a danger.

Eh, it comes down to risk factors. Both the risk that Chapman himself poses and the risk that is posed by other people seeing light sentences handed down. The latter doesn't apply in this case, 35 years is a pretty solid sentence. If Chapman's mental health is stabilised to the point that he is beyond reasonable doubt unlikely to ever reoffend, then he probably should be released (although god knows how he'd cope with the outside world now). It can never be beyond absolute doubt, because people don't work like that, so it's down to acceptable risk.

I don't know that we know enough about whatever spurred him to do it -I'm hesitant to try categorise it as narcisstic personality disorder or whatever since I'm literally just going by what's in this thread and internet threads aren't exactly primary sourcing material!- to be able to say he's "beyond reasonable doubt" in terms of potential recidivism, so I'm going to assume that the judge with access to his medical records and psychological records was probably correct in their decision.

John Lennon's killer denied parole after 35 years in prison. Should he be released

Comments