nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

King George VI

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Samaris

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.

valoren

If I didn't murder John Lennon, then I had a list of other celebrities I would have murdered. Parole please?

B.A._Baracus

While it says he has had good behaviour that doesn't mean he still is not crazy for example.
A parole board makes its decisions on reports and evaluations. Which none of us know.

Winterlong

I dont think it is possible for anyone here to assess whether Mark Chapman is still a threat to society or not. I doubt the Parole board are die hard Beatles fans who are keeping him locked up for the craic.

sadie06

I think Mark Chapman is safer where he is.

kupus

If it happened around here he'd be out in seven years. Funny old world ain't it.

Elliott S

It depends on if they think his mental problems are resolved or not. Good behaviour in prison doesn't necessarily mean that they are. If he still has mental issues, then I think there's a possibility he might kill again.

Chuchote

Elliott S wrote: »

It depends on if they think his mental problems are resolved or not. Good behaviour in prison doesn't necessarily mean that they are. If he still has mental issues, then I think there's a possibility he might kill again.

Depending, of course, on what 'mental issues' means. Plenty of people have mental issues and are gentle and kind. Just wanted to keep that clear, nothing to do with the person under discussion.

Elliott S

Chuchote wrote: »

Depending, of course, on what 'mental issues' means. Plenty of people have mental issues and are gentle and kind. Just wanted to keep that clear, nothing to do with the person under discussion.

Well obviously I meant the mental problems that caused him stalk and become obsessed with John Lennon.

Joe prim

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Let him out hopefully he kills Bono

What a disgusting and heartless thing to say, surely Justin Bieber would be a much more popular choice?

Academic

I do not have access to the evidence which was considered in making the decision, but so far as I’m concerned such decisions should be made on the basis of whether or not the person poses a risk to the public if released—it’s not a matter of how much time he has or has not served which is irrelevant to that question. I do know that this person has been definitively diagnosed with a mental illness, and I also know that as recently as two years ago at a parole hearing he continued to express a weird kind of pride in the murder.

The rather extraordinary degree of premeditation is itself suggestive of what Chapman is capable of; it wasn’t, for example, a crime committed in the heat of passion under circumstances unlikely to be repeated.

Ted111

Go ahead and stamp your form sonny

moc moc a moc

Joe prim wrote: »

What a disgusting and heartless thing to say, surely Justin Bieber would be a much more popular choice?

Por qué no los dos?

Laois_Man

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

The American rules have not changed for him. John Hinckley Jr, around the same time, attempted to assassinate a far bigger personality in the US (President Ronald Reagan) and he is walking free probably this very week. I know he didn't actually succeed in murdering anyone - but that's not the point.

The world is safer with Chapman behind bars and you assume he's getting special treatment without knowing much if anything about how psychotic he still is.

Chuchote

It seems cruel to keep these people in jail, however. A secure mental hospital would be more appropriate.

Speedwell

Chuchote wrote: »

It seems cruel to keep these people in jail, however. A secure mental hospital would be more appropriate.

In the US? Same-same.

De Bhál

If I killed someone in that fashion I would expect to be in prison for the rest of my days.
He was sentenced 20years to life. I hope he never gets out.