John Lennon's killer denied parole for 7th time

[Lovell]

John Lennon's killer Mark Chapman denied parole for seventh time

Chapman shot Lennon on 8 December 1980, outside the singer's New York flat. He was sentenced in 1981 to 20 years to life imprisonment after pleading guilty to second-degree murder. The singer was 40.

He has come up for parole every two years since 2000 and has been turned down each time.

Sally Thompson, a member of the board assessing Chapman, said: "Despite your positive efforts while incarcerated, your release at this time would greatly undermine respect for the law and tend to trivialise the tragic loss of life which you caused as a result of this heinous, unprovoked, violent, cold and calculated crime."

At a previous parole hearing Chapman said he had considered killing Elizabeth Taylor or Johnny Carson but had reconsidered because Mr Lennon was a more accessible target.

Chapman waited outside the Lennon's flat until he returned in the evening, and then fired five shots at the singer. Four of the shots hit Mr Lennon, who was with his wife, Yoko Ono, at the time.

In 2010 Chapman told his parole board he felt he could achieve notoriety with the crime: "I felt that by killing John Lennon I would become somebody and instead of that I became a murderer, and murderers are not somebodies."

Ono, 79, says she wants to see her husband's killer stay in prison. Two years ago she said she felt Chapman might be a danger to her, other family members, and to himself.

Chapman will be eligible again for parole in two years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9495333/John-Lennons-killer-Mark-Chapman-denied-parole-for-seventh-time.html

[vincent]

If he got released he might not survive anyway, he might be institutionalized and either kill himself or do something to go back..just saying..

[Growled Member]

He should not be released ever.

[FloatingFatMan]

He should not be released ever.

Just curious, but do you feel the same way about ALL murderers? If not, why not? Why should he spend longer inside than other murderers, just because he murdered someone famous?

I believe that ALL murderers should stay locked up for the rest of their lives. There definitely shouldn't be different rules just due to fame.

[Dan~]

Rightly so, if you take a life on purpose like he did, then he should die in prison.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Just curious, but do you feel the same way about ALL murderers? If not, why not? Why should he spend longer inside than other murderers, just because he murdered someone famous?

Exactly. He shouldn't be treated any differently.

I believe that ALL murderers should stay locked up for the rest of their lives.

This is where we disagree. If somebody can be successful rehabilitated into society then they should be, after they have served a proportionate punishment period. Keeping people in jail indefinitely isn't a solution; it's a lack of one.

[FloatingFatMan]

This is where we disagree. If somebody can be successful rehabilitated into society then they should be, after they have served a proportionate punishment period. Keeping people in jail indefinitely isn't a solution; it's a lack of one.

The victim doesn't even HAVE their life any more. The only proportional punishment for that is removing the killers freedom for the rest of THEIR lives. I can't really suggest blanket execution for murderers, I'm kinda ambivalent towards the death sentence. Not convinced the state should have the legal right to kill citizens, even murderers. It's a case by case basis for me.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The victim doesn't even HAVE their life any more. The only proportional punishment for that is removing the killers freedom for the rest of THEIR lives.

I'm not willing to accept that the best form of justice a civilised and enlightened society can come up with is an-eye-for-an-eye, a crude throwback to the biblical era. Why does a punishment have to be proportional? To make us feel better? What we need is a system that can rehabilitate criminals and not only prevent them from being a threat to society but allowing them to contribute to it. Punishment will obviously play a role in that but locking people away for the rest of their lives is simply hiding from the issue.

If Chapman poses a continued threat to society then he should remain locked up but if not then he should be reintegrated into society, not left to rot because of other people's emotions. Will that offend some people? Absolutely. But murderers shouldn't be jailed for life just so that people feel better.

[mps69]

I'm not willing to accept that the best form of justice a civilised and enlightened society can come up with is an-eye-for-an-eye, a crude throwback to the biblical era. Why does a punishment have to be proportional? To make us feel better? What we need is a system that can rehabilitate criminals and not only prevent them from being a threat to society but allowing them to contribute to it. Punishment will obviously play a role in that but locking people away for the rest of their lives is simply hiding from the issue.

If Chapman poses a continued threat to society then he should remain locked up but if not then he should be reintegrated into society, not left to rot because of other people's emotions. Will that offend some people? Absolutely. But murderers shouldn't be jailed for life just so that people feel better.

I think in the case of Chapman, he's never shown any remorse for what he's done, and from the interviews and articles I?ve seen and read he thinks he didn?t do any wrong. On those grounds alone he?s not going anywhere fast, and if does ever get out I?ll bet he won?t last more than a week before someone takes a pop at him.

I?d love to have your faith, if someone murdered a member of my family in cold blood I sure would do my utmost to keep them behind bars for the rest of their natural life.

Could you honestly say hand on heart that you?d be happy to see a known killer walk free and lead a normal life, while one of your loved ones wasn?t with you anymore.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I think in the case of Chapman, he's never shown any remorse for what he's done, and from the interviews and articles I?ve seen and read he thinks he didn?t do any wrong. On those grounds alone he?s not going anywhere fast, and if does ever get out I?ll bet he won?t last more than a week before someone takes a pop at him.

Absolutely, so in this case I doubt he'll ever be released.

Could you honestly say hand on heart that you?d be happy to see a known killer walk free and lead a normal life, while one of your loved ones wasn?t with you anymore.

Happy? No. Would I be upset or angry? Almost certainly. And I would be opposed to shorter sentences for the sake of it but if a person can be rehabilitated and contribute to society then I would accept that. However, while that is the justice system that I think society should aspire to I believe that there is a lot more work needed before we get to that position, as I do not believe that the support structure is adequate to minimise the risk of re-offending.

The current prison system doesn't work, for society or for the criminals who reside there.

[cork1958]

I'm not willing to accept that the best form of justice a civilised and enlightened society can come up with is an-eye-for-an-eye, a crude throwback to the biblical era. Why does a punishment have to be proportional? To make us feel better? What we need is a system that can rehabilitate criminals and not only prevent them from being a threat to society but allowing them to contribute to it. Punishment will obviously play a role in that but locking people away for the rest of their lives is simply hiding from the issue.

If Chapman poses a continued threat to society then he should remain locked up but if not then he should be reintegrated into society, not left to rot because of other people's emotions. Will that offend some people? Absolutely. But murderers shouldn't be jailed for life just so that people feel better.

Yeah,

And we all know how well murderers are rehabilitated! I'm a VERY FIRM believer in an eye for an eye and if we did things that way, I'd be willing to bet just about ALL crimes rates would drop. In fact, in an out right no doubt about who did it crime like this one, it should 2 eyes for an eye!!

[Growled Member]

This is where we disagree. If somebody can be successful rehabilitated into society then they should be, after they have served a proportionate punishment period. Keeping people in jail indefinitely isn't a solution; it's a lack of one.

I've never seen anyone successfully rehabilitated from spending time in prison.

[Mr. Gibs]

I've never seen anyone successfully rehabilitated from spending time in prison.

That's because the American prison system isn't about rehabilitation, and instead about punishment. And sometimes it even fails to be a punishment.

[redfish]

I've never seen anyone successfully rehabilitated from spending time in prison.

Juvenile rehabilitation proves successful where its tried. Kids who get caught up in gangs, etc., and need a wake up call. One of the reasons why juvenile crime is treated differently than adult crime.

[Colin McGregor]

isn't life 25 over there? If so he's done his time and it's time to let him go.

[Nashy]

The victim doesn't even HAVE their life any more. The only proportional punishment for that is removing the killers freedom for the rest of THEIR lives. I can't really suggest blanket execution for murderers, I'm kinda ambivalent towards the death sentence. Not convinced the state should have the legal right to kill citizens, even murderers. It's a case by case basis for me.

It's clearly not deterring anyone in that stupid country. Rehabilitation is the best way IMO. There is a reason people kill. Lets find out why, and fix them. Why take two lives, when we can just take one?