Lennon's murderer up for parole

You sound angry, Jez,

but if he's served his time(and he's been inside for over 20years now) then why not ?

You could be on dodgy ground if you imply that Lennon's life was more valuable than Joe Blow, killed by a mugger.

How long do you want him to stay behind bars ? 30yrs ? 40yrs ? 'Till death ?

I think it's unlikely that he'll be released, purely on political grounds, but there must be hundreds of convicted killers who have walked free a lot earlier, possibly for even more violent crimes, but whose victims weren't famous.

25 years must be enough surely?

Brian OReilly

Those bearing any grudge or wishing to continue the cycle of hatred goes totally
against everything the philosophy that John Lennon stands for and is loved for,
and to my mind means that his lyrics were not understood by those that feel this
way, or rather would like to act out their thoughts egoistically, and have the
best of both worlds so to speak, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT YOU HAVE TO MAKE A
CONSCIOUS INFORMED DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, he's not nai've, & he's not
liked in many quarters either for his honesty and out-spoken comments, and in
Today's America probably wouldn't have been very welcome officially unless he'd
shut up, which he wouldn't have, so there you have it,'Civil Courage', innit
John !


We love you too Mick (Jagger that is) but you're a confirmist & cricket waller,
so you're allright Sir Keith.

Graham George Von U.S. President Harrison (March 1841 - April 1841)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian OReilly:

25 years must be enough surely?

---

Why? The family of the victim will still be suffering long after that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian OReilly:

25 years must be enough surely?

---

Why? The family of the victim will still be suffering long after that.

---

True.

Will they suffer any less if the guy gets released after 25yrs, or if he'd been executed ?

Obviously you have to be in that position for your opinion to be credible, but whatever punishment the guilty receive, it won't bring your loved ones back.

Brian OReilly

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian OReilly:
Obviously you have to be in that position for your opinion to be credible, but whatever punishment the guilty receive, it won't bring your loved ones back.

---

It must be difficult to see a murderer walking around free when your loved one has gone, and it'll be worse if that murderer then makes a career from it.

Make your mind up time folks.

Isn't it funny how we're relatively comfortable with long sentences until somebody gets near to the end of one them then it's as though the world has ended?

Justice is, and always has been, dictated by politics. Chapman (oh gosh, I mentioned his name. Forgive me for humanising him !!!)

We want a justice system that gets problems out of the way; provides a level of punishment and avoids recidivism but we never really want to confront the reality when it falls so far short. Better still, we just don't want to address the complex area of mental health and incarceration.

So, where does that leave us?

The release of a murderer should ideally be based IMHO on whether they have served their time and likelihood of reoffending. If there is an element of "is this person better" then that suggests a mental health issue and that perhaps they have been in the wrong place for "better" for the past 20 years. That's not a major debate in much of the US (nor the UK for that matter).

This is, of course, a gross over-simplification that skims over such issues as whether politicians will ever allow incarceration to be a positive experience so bear that in mind before you respond.

It is always tragic for the victim and their family but it is sad truth that, ultimately, the punishment will not make their lives better or heal their grief.

Sadly, the Chapman decision will ultimately be a political question and that brings into doubt the humanity and morality of us all.

Me, I think that if he can be a useful member of society then he has just as much right to be as the next person. After all, what does it say about that society if all it can do is hide disfunction rather than address it?

Mike

PS: John Lennon is not and never was a god so let's not confuse who killed him with what happens afterwards.

The fact is Lennon was musically creatively bankrupt at the time of his death; politically more than a little naive and irrelevant and none of that should inform this issue any more than those people who think that the Chapman issue is somehow related to who he killed and what it all meant.

Sorry to bang on but... just noticed the comment about him "making a career of it".

I wonder if society gives such people much choice in the matter quite frankly? I mean, plenty of self-employed people here. Rehab of Offenders Act and all that. Care to give the man a job?

Thought not!

If only life were so simple eh?

Mike

Sorry is Chapman more evil for killing someone famous?
Should there be a special tariff for pop star killers?

Howard

Did you hear what happened to the Tribute John Lennon?

He was shot by the Tribute Mark Chapman.



Stephen (bad taste) Bennett

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigH47:
Sorry is Chapman more evil for killing someone famous?

---

No.

quote:

---

Should there be a special tariff for pop star killers?

---

No.

Stephen's joke was originally (I think) done by HMHB:

"I shout all my obscenities from steeples,
But please don't label me a madman.
I'm off to see the Bootleg Beatles
As the Bootleg Mark Chapman"

Matthew
Biccies Completist

The crucial point here is not the fact that Chapman shot John Lennon (or the merits of Lennon's music at the time), or even wether he's "done his time", but whether he represents a danger to the public.

From what I've read about Chapman, he is probably still dangerous, partly because his behaviour will be unpedictable.

The 2002 Parole Board noted his improved behaviour, but added "that progress in such a controlled and structured environment [as a prison] cannot predict your community behaviour if released."

I spoke to Yoko Ono about this subject back in 1992, and she not unreasonably said that she felt Chapman would be a danger to her and her family were he to be released. From the BBC story, it would seem that she still feels the same way.

Being cynical, of course, this is all a bit irrelevant. It will cost less to keep him in prison for the remainder of his days than it would to release him. Like that other bete noir, Myra Hindley, he would be picked off by a vengeful member of the public unless he were given a new identity, round-the clock protection, etc, and no politician is going to sanction that.

Kevin (DJ Format: Music For The Mature B-Boy)

Hi
If he is let out how long do you think it will be before someone kills him, surely the mood of the people need to be taken into account and if there is a high likelyhood of another crime being commited then that eventuality has to be addressed also.
As someone has already pointed out, the political situation will be looked at before any decision is made but personally I would throw the key away.
Regards
Jim

Wooah there! Did I say I was angry? Did I offer any kind of opinion? A bit of pre-conception going on there. I don't care what happens to him, I just take care not to link his name on the forum to Lennon just because he murdered him.

Unfortunately it seems to have backfired on me. That's what I get for posting without thinking at 04:57.

Now if you want to debate whether Lennon was creatively bankrupt, I'd say we had some great stuff to come. Was the implication that it didn't really matter that he was murdered because you didn't like Double Fantasy?

Yorkshire humour at its finest²

The system of retributive justice serves the greater society as well as the victims of crime.

When the state punishes an offender they are acting on behalf of the victim but are responsible to the interests of a far wider group.

The "crucial point" of safety for the victims family and the offender is balanced against the same deep principles of rights and duties that were drawn upon to mandate the execution of State sanctions in the first place.

The victim does have rights. The offender has rights. Society has rights. But the concept of a civil right cannot be understood outside of a frame of reference that includes duty, or responsibility.

Neither should the concept of mercy be forgotten. It is more incumbent on society to exercise mercy because the State, which acts on behalf of society, is the more powerful party by far and so has a fiduciary obligation to show mercy. Without a merciful state apparatus we will soon have tyranny.

Deane

If his release is no big deal let him come and stay at your house?


Mitch

This thread is the best argument as to why the death penalty should be universal for 1st degree murder; the victims' family would have no worries, and the public would be safe from a repeat offense. Plus the immense expense of keeping the murderer locked up would be saved.

Since MDC is a paranoiac schizophrenic, probably incurable, I find it incredible that any authority would even consider releasing him.

Sign him up and send him off to Iraq.

"Since MDC is a paranoiac schizophrenic, probably incurable, I find it incredible that any authority would even consider releasing him"

But you don't seem to have a problem with the idea of killing him.

Matthew

Well, if he's released, and harms or kills someone else? I think the states' first responsibility is protecting the public. Since there's no $ for the manpower to follow paroled killers around 24-7, yes, prophylaxis after verdict would be appropriate.

Given that beauracrats (sic?) are known for their bumbling and incompetency how can anybody dream of handing over to them the administration of capital punishment?

I am not sure where I read it, or even whether it's true, but since the death penalty was re-introduced in the US I have heard that 36 people have been proved after their execution to have been innocent of the crimes for which they were executed.

It's ok when the guilty are executed but would anybody put their own family at risk of an uncertain and permanent future under a system that executes under a beyond-reasonable-doubt burden of proof? Surely only beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt burden would do?

Deane

I agree, the execution of the innocent is problematic. I support a beyond-all-shadows-of-a-reasonable doubt-with-sober-20/20 eyesight-reliable-witnesses kind of sure. Better use of DNA evidence should help. I also think the death penalty should be in all 50 states, or none at all.

I know my view may seem a bit right-wing to the non-U.S. posters to this forum; thankfully, NZ, Australia, Great Britain etc. are far less violent places, less guns about etc.; having had a friend murdered by someone (who's walking around free now) also affects my outlook.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty. It's barbaric and sickening. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill - whoever is doing it and with whatever righteous justification they wrap it in.

When I was a kid, I used to have long and heated arguments with my parents about the death penalty: I was against, they were for.

In 1985, my mum's sister/my aunt was brutally murdered in LA. One might have thought that event would have strengthened her "pro" stance but instead it sent her in the opposite direction.

When I asked her about it, she said simply that "the state murdering someone else won't make me feel any better and it won't bring Jean back".

She is now passionately opposed to the death penalty.

To get back on thread, I think it is highly unlikely Chapman will be released. It's a bit like the Hindley thing - her coming up for parole always ignited a big debate in the media. It's a story that sold lots of papers, but she was always going to die in prison, as will Chapman.

Kevin (BBC Radio 4)