Lennon-killer Mark David Chapman will remain in prison

Cnn 2010 Crime 09 07 New.York.Chapman.Parole.Hearing T1Larg.Chapman.Gi

Mark David Chapman, who murdered John Lennon in 1980, has again been denied parole. From CNN:

In their written comments, the commissioners told Chapman they had concerns "about the disregard you displayed for the norms of our society and the sanctity of human life." After considering the action he took in 1980, they concluded Chapman's "discretionary release remains inappropriate at this time and incompatible with the welfare of the community."

"John Lennon's killer is denied parole for the 6th time"

Imagine Peace

David Pescovitz is Boing Boing's co-editor/managing partner. He's also a research director at Institute for the Future. On Instagram, he's @pesco.

MORE: News

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

kip w

Too bad they never nailed Billy Graham for winding the guy up and sending him out. “Will no one rid me of this blasphemous Beatle?”

Exaggeration, sure, but Graham screamed up and down about Lennon for, basically, using an idiom, and the only surprise is that it took as long as it did for his fulminations to find a nut willing to go out and do what that religious man seemed to want.

And I’m with the columnist who wrote about the murder without gratifying the asshole who did it. Bury his name. Don’t give him the fame he killed for.
Counterglow

I don’t believe in the death penalty, but I do believe that a life sentence should be exactly that…the killer never again walks free. I hope Chapman lives to a ripe old age, safely behind bars where he can’t murder another citizen.
Anonymous

The CIA would never allow his release. He will die in prison. Americans will continue to pay not only for murder, but the cover-ups that follow.
Daemon

That’ll teach him to kill a popular celebrity.
thefinder

Mark David Chapman looks like Jeb Bush’s identical twin.
AllisonWunderland

“but would also really love our prison system to actually bear evidence of good fruit.”

Keeping the “bad fruit” off the streets. There ya go. Sentence for capital murder needs to be “life or death” — no time off for anything.
Sekino

I don’t see why we have to try justifying why this killer shouldn’t get a worse sentence over killers of less prominent people. All killers who represent a threat to human life ought to remain under guard. Allowing this guy to walk free doesn’t magically bring better justice to nameless, faceless victims. It’s just one less psycho on the street.

IMO, the justice system is badly flawed because it is more based on a vague, moralist sense of punishment and retribution rather than just plain public safety. We don’t allow dangerous, maiming pets on the streets but we expect violent, large apes to have a reliable moral sense. Right. Once someone shows they lack such sense, or that their impulses override it to the point of murder, it doesn’t just grow back out of nowhere.

I don’t believe in retribution in the ‘symbolic’ way a criminal sitting in jail for X time to somehow make it up to the victim and society. It means nothing aside the hope to see the criminal regret his actions and feel bad for what he did. It’s just an adult version of ‘time out’. It relies on the notion of remorse and that killers are able to spontaneously regret their actions and change their nature. Again, unless that gets verified and proven as successful, I don’t buy it. Sociopaths or violent delusional people can’t be trusted on account of their emotions or perceived state of mind.

No need to split hairs about it. I don’t want to sit on a bus next to EITHER.
querent

Take a clue from The Last DJ; never say his name.
Anonymous

John Lennon will never get parole!!!
Anonymous

looks exactly like a young Steve Dahl.
(Chicago radio guy that blew up the Disco records at Comiskey Park)
Anonymous

What does it mean, “second degree murder” when the guy shot him 5 times and he was arrested at the crime scene? I just don’t get our laws sometimes…20 to life? It should’ve not been a doubt on the life sentence. Oh well…I hope he rots in jail and dies when he’s 100!
MrHarley

The real question is why are we still paying for him to live? He didnâ€™t just some useless celebrity like Ringo Star. He killed a hero. He killed the 60â€™s. I think his rehabilitation should be bare-knuckle boxing a hungry lion.
Teller

Sekino makes xlnt points about Yoko, the boys and the presumably flawed machinery in MDC’s brain.
Ugly Canuck

I should add that in all of my comments above arguing for no parole at this time for this person, I have implicitly presumed/assumed that the killer’s sanity at all relevant times was intact and entire.

Trial and punishment of the insane is a travesty of justice.
Anonymous

PEOPLE! This dude will never leave jail, same with Manson, yet they trot them out every few years just to remind us of, uh, what exactly? I guess since we dont “publicly” burn at the stake, behead, or gas chamber criminals, we can show-off these guys to remind everyone what crazy looks like. Or bad. Or something. I mean really, the question for me has always been why haven’t they been executed by now?
crabbyapplestein

The reason they’re not paroling him is because of guys like me, an obsessive life-long Beatle fan, who has many times fantasized finding the newly-released and rehabilitated MDC, having him sign a copy of the Daily News with his fat face on it (Lennon Killer Paroled!) and then firing four shots into his back with regards from John.
I know it’s wrong but it actually makes me happy to think this scenario through.
and I’m guessing I’m not the only person who’s harbored this thought.
Likely not what John would have wanted, admittedly, but I’d be proud to be that guy nonetheless.
I’m the reason he’ll never get out. Let him rot.
- Anonymous
  
  While I’m sure that there are some who secretly share your sentiment, admitting to it publicly is probably not in your own best interest.
quitterjunior

I can’t speak for the dead. But if I am murdered: I will not, given the option, wish for my murderer’s death. I would sooner kill myself than kill another human being, even by proxy. If anyone avenges my death, by gun or by chair, that person was never my friend. MDC is not Rosencrantz. He is Ryan Seacrest.
surreality

I have no idea whether or not this man should still be in prison. If he isn’t rehabilitated and it is likely he would kill again, then of course he shouldn’t be released, but we don’t even really have that information. What I’m curious about is the idea that someone who killed a famous person never gets parole, or should never get parole. Especially when WalterBillington says “If he’s released it sends a flowery message out to society that you can, ultimately, get away with murder. Of anyone, of any stature.” Haven’t other people who killed famous people been paroled before without that happening? I’m pretty young, so maybe I’m wrong, but I could have sworn I just read something about Malcom X’s killer getting parole on here a little while ago…
ubernym

Seems like a bad situation without an easy answer. I mean obviously, keeping him in prison doesn’t seem like justice anymore, but what about releasing him? What kind of life could he possibly have? I wouldn’t be that surprised if there were some (seriously misguided) attempts on his life. I also wouldn’t be surprised if absolutely no-one would hire him, or allow him to socially integrate at any level.

If he’s released, will he be condemned to a greater punishment of non-personhood after he’s paid his debt?

I recognized that this is also a problem for murderers of non-famous people.
Anonymous

“This guy coldly and methodically killed someone BECAUSE of his status.”

That pretty much describes every killer, be it uncontrolled (murder) or society-sanctioned and controlled (any military actions that give death to “the enemy”) that ever walked this planet.

On one hand, as others said, John Lennon contributed much to society, being it to the arts, public awareness for worthy causes, and fighting against war, and this person took that good and it’s future potential from the world away
and the punishment fits the crime?

And, Yes, other people have that capability but for the baby-boomers (who are now in control) he was one of their ubermench.

On the other hand, I see this man now as a societal example, not a real person any more and the system is using him for it’s self-interest.

They trot him out in the media to show “yes, our justice is benevolent!”, use him as a bogeyman for all of our darkest impulses to keep us in line, and pop him back in the “stocks” to rot away.

Never mind that similar crimes with their perps walk out in to society again after “rehabilitation” and the victim’s families feel the same kind of pain and fear that someone famous like Yoko and her family would feel.
Anonymous

#39 sekino: I’m with you it’s not just the murder of John, it’s also about the security of Yoko, Sean, and Julian
Anonymous

using illegal means to get celebrity status has consequences. of course he knew that. he had some very deep running psychological problems. not sure whether a prison can cure him from that. I doubt although he says.
Ugly Canuck

Anon #46: By knowingly attacking a public figure, a killer thereby attacks the public itself.
A public figure belongs to the public. By taking his life, he took something not just from Mr Lennon and his family, but from the public as a whole.

This cannot be said in the case of an attack upon a private citizen.

Were John Lennon NOT a public figure, this killer would have let him alone.
This makes his crime much worse: for the crime was CERTAIN to become as famous as the victim.

This criminal was seeking something beyond the simple death of another human being, something which specifically keyed off of the victim’s status as a public figure – infamy. For seeking that infamy, by causing of the violent death of a famous person in a public place, he ought to be treated more harshly than the killer of a private citizen, who seeks merely monetary gain, or revenge, or simply to gain otherwise his own satisfaction.

His criminal action from the outset of his planning sought to – and indeed has – involved us: and for that conduct, he deserves greater punishment.

This killer took something from the public, and hoped to gain infamy for himself thereby. By his actions, he has caused fear and terror throughout the class of public figures, of the “unknown killer fan”, and put such to who knows what additional expense: and has perhaps dis-couraged others from pursuing public honours or fame, and of thereby becoming a target for other gun-toting nutters looking for quick infamy.

IMHO he certainly deserves a harsher penalty than your average gang-banger, wasting other gang-bangers, would deserve. Since I don’t believe in granting States the power to take human life, that means having to serve more time.

Gee, I’m getting old: I can’t recall any other public figures who have been assassinated in the USA over the past 30 years…so the killing of a public figure is not all that common a crime, is it?
And thus IMHO Mr Lennon’s killer is no “common criminal”: nor should he be treated as such when he comes up for parole.
- querent
  
  “IMHO he certainly deserves a harsher penalty than your average gang-banger, wasting other gang-bangers, would deserve.”
  
  Reads like you’re valuing one life above another. The law cannot.
  
  I emphatically disagree with the idea that intent can be taken into account with regards to sentencing.
  - Ugly Canuck
    
    The law explicitly and commonly values one life at a greater value than another.
    Think of the act of negligence which takes the life of the breadwinner of a family, versus an identical case where it is a homeless unemployed man who dies…which claims will generate the greater judgment?
    
    In torts, the condition and position in society and life of the victim always determines the amount of damages to be paid by the perpetrator.
    Just as aggravating circumstances always result in harsher punishment where a range is available.
    Aggravating circumstances – like intentionally targeting not “key”, but “public” figures.
    
    My gangbanger example was perhaps ill-chosen in a racially-charged society like the USA: but I was simply seeking an example of “common homicide” – in Canada, urban killings just are simply not “common” – which would not present any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, to set a “baseline”.
    
    I’m also a little confused – can your Judges with justice accept a guilty plea from an accused, where there is a valid question as to the accused’s mental competence? That seems weird to me. Pregnant with mischief and injustice, in fact: are your prisons set up,in any way at all, to handle the actually factually mentally-ill inmates that such a Judicial policy would inevitably generate?
    
    Is, or was, this killer insane? If so, why is he in prison at all, instead of confined to a mental health facility, to be tried once he becomes fit and ready (if ever) to stand trial?
    What kind of system of justice punishes the insane?
    
    If US Judges do accept guilty pleas in cases where the accused is crazy, what hope can there be of any parole at all for that convict in the future, in the absence of medical treatment for the accused’s/convict’s mental health?
    
    It seems to me that perhaps the US justice system needs more psychiatrists and psychologists and nurses, rather than prison guards and police and mandatory minimum sentences.
  - Ugly Canuck
    
    The nature and existence of the accused’s intent determines which degree of murder she can be convicted for: and those degrees vary the sentences available.
    Intent has a great role to play on the determination of guilt, does it not?
    If, as is the case with murder, intent also grounds differences in the prescribed ranges of penalties available upon conviction – in fact, its determionation fixesthe degreeof guilt or culpability, ought not the accused’s conduct and the motives and springs of that conduct have some influence upon the determination of wherein the range of available penalties the accused’s punishment ought to fall?
    
    Or is this to be determined by the legislature, which has – can have – no knowledge of the specific facts found to exist in any given case?
    
    Preventing Judges from “fine-tuning” their penalties to better fit the circumstances of the case, within the range of penalties prescribed by Law, does not seem to me to be so very subversive of justice.
    
    I suppose the question is : why ought Justice not let her blindfold slip, not (of course) in the assessment of guilt, but of the appropriate sentence? For an unjust sentence does not remedy any injustice at all.
    
    I would have thought that some discretion in sentencing would be a requirement for a truly independent judiciary….
    
    Similar cases ought to result in similar results – but what then of the rare case, as this one seems to be?
- JohnnyOC
  
  That’s an extremely lucid and convincing argument. Nice!
  - peterbruells
    
    Isn’t to me.
    
    It assumes that the reason for murder is sufficient to lift the punishment and that the murderer â€œdeservesâ€œ punishment. The later is ultimatively tied to religion and the concept of sin, and of course, revenge. Punishment should have a real reason, though, that it helping in rehabilitation and prevention.
    
    Also, i fail to see the logic in the original argument: If murdering a celebrity to gain fame is such a rare event, why punish it more harshly? Shouldn’t we be much more concerned about murders of “little people” , which occur more often and for much more mundane and thus more common – reasons=
    
    Unless, of course, it’s about John Lennon, who’s clearly Jesus Christ reborn and not the ex-member of an ancient boy-group which made some interesting music.
    - Ugly Canuck
      
      No no: this particular murder was done specifically for fame or infamy: an infamous crime – and clearly intended to be such by the killer.
      This is an aggravating circumstance, and requires harsher punishment than a run-of-the-mill murder, done from passion or interest, which are almost always sought to be concealed by the killer after the fact. In contrast to this case, where publicity was the goal of the killer from the outset.
      
      Just as political assassins are different than run-of-the-mill murderers: there is a broader agenda in the mind of the perp, than simply taking a person’s life.
      And for me, that makes such killings worse crimes, and deserving of harsher punishment.
      Not for “revenge”: but for the general deterrence of those who would use murder as a political instrumentality, which use would serve to demonstrate more cold-blooded hostility to people, and greater indifference to the victim, on the part of the murderer.
      Again, worthy of harsher punishment.
      
      It seems that some posting above, those who want this guy released immediately, cannot help but insult the memory of the victim…sometimes explicitly!…in their comments.
      Reveals something of their attitude, if ya asks me.
      - peterbruells
        
        Yes it was done for fame. By a man who pleaded guilty against the recommendation of his lawyer, since six of nine psychiatrists diagnosed him with psychosis.
        
        I fail to see where “detererrance” would have worked in this case.
        
        Political murder come in two flavors: Killing or trying to kill a public figure associated with a movement/event (Lincoln, Gandhi, Hitler). I’d be *very* surprised if the assassins expect not to get killed if they fail, if they do not factor in getting killed on the spot even if they succeed with their assassination.
        
        Seems to me that most political (as in “trying to influence politics and the public optionen) murders aren’t aimed at key figures, but at minor politicians, journalists, teachers and other civilians to create terror.
        
        You repeat that you do not want harsher punishment as a revenge, but I cannot at all your trail of thoughts. The attacks your cite are rare occurrences, they are often committed by mentally ill persons or fanatics – both are not groups known for rational assessment.
Smoobly

Good. You stay there.
- David Pescovitz
  
  Yep.
steamboat.coat

i’d like to think that JL wouldn’t agree with this.
- Anonymous
  
  Seriously? If someone nearly murdered me, I wouldn’t want them to ever have a chance to get out and possibly do it to someone else.
  
  If they DID murder me, somehow I don’t my opinions would flip to allowing them out after X amount of time.
  
  Theres a difference between liberal, and idiot liberal.
WalterBillington

I wish he wouldn’t get this coverage. Glad he’s staying.
Anonymous

I can’t help feeling that if he had murdered an “ordinary person”, he would be have been released already.
pato pal ur

It’s a shame this post wasn’t written without mentioning the killer by name. Ah well.
Resident Media Pundit

“Who killed John Lennon?

A loser with a pistol, a martyr’s best friend.

And each time he’s televised, he kills him again.
It’s the prize that he wanted when he loaded the gun. And each time he’s mentioned, murder is done.
So, who killed John Lennon?

A no one.”
– Ellis Paul
Eric Ragle

I don’t know, I’m torn about this. I can’t help but think that keeping him in prison is somehow contrary to what Lennon would have wanted. I mean, is he genuinely rehabilitated? If not, then by all means keep him in prison. If he IS rehabilitated though, why not release him?

Maybe I’m just playing devil’s advocate. I don’t know. I just know that I really loved John Lennon, but would also really love our prison system to actually bear evidence of good fruit.
Anonymous

Not to say that he shouldn’t be there, but shouldn’t the parole board be more concerned about his current regard for “the norms of society and sanctity of human life” rather than from thirty years ago?
- lyd
  
  Vengeance.
kpkpkp

He’s about half way….
brunocs

“about the disregard you displayed for the norms of our society and the sanctity of human life.”

Are they describing what happened back then or implying that he still disregards the norms of society? Saying something along the lines of “what you did in the past was really, really bad” is not a valid reason for keeping him in prison; in theory he already paid for what he did.

I’m not sure whether he or not this guy is rehabilitated, but in this case I feel that he is suffering a much harsher punishment (by means of a longer period in prison, or of a parole that could already have been approved) just because he killed someone famous.
Anonymous

He would have been released by now if he’d killed a homeless man. The lives of famous people matter more than the rest of us.

David and Smoobly, you’re happy he’s still in prison 30 years later, but under what circumstances would you allow his release? Do you believe all murderers should never be released from prison? Be honest, aren’t you singling him out for worse treatment because he killed your hero?
- Anonymous
  
  he wasnt just famous he was a leader to some man that probably could of helped changed the world
- Anonymous
  
  I agree 110% with you, if it was a homeless person, no worries, the rich and famous, jail for life.
  - Ugly Canuck
    
    Anon #47: If by “no worries” you mean jail for life, maybe parole if the killer rehabilitates, then yeah.
    
    If OTOH the killing of the homeless was a vicious thrill-kill, then imprisonment for as long a term as Mr Lennon’s killer – or longer – might be appropriate to express society’s horror of such a pointless and cruel act against a down-and-outer.
    
    Don’t lump all murders together, to be differentiated ONLY by the class fame or wealth of their respective victims – that is not what is happening with Mr Lennon’s murderer.
    
    Every murder is an individual, in some sense unique, case: and although that seems obvious when stated thus, it may yet be difficult for the “everybody always ought to be treated the same for things to be just” crowd to understand the full implications of what that individuality means for, and how it effects, the process by which a killer is tried and sentenced, and (sometimes) paroled.
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      So murderers who kill homeless people should just get what – community service?
      - Ugly Canuck
        
        My comment #52 was directed at Anon #49, not Anon #47…my bad…responing to the Anon comments can beconfusing to the reader.
        
        Murderers of the homeless ought to get punished for murder, and get the standard punishment.
        Mr. Lennon’s killer deserves MORE time than the usual sentence, since his crime hurt MORE people.
        Just as circumstances can sometimes lead to lesser punishments…in Societies that do not bind the Judiciary’s hands with politically-dictated “mandatory minimum sentences”.
        
        Why not release ALL of the marijuana “offenders”, before releasing ANY murderers?
mermaid

Crap, I always forget this guy’s name until someone goes and publishes it. Hey wait I forgot it again.
Drpepperfan

Good.
osmo

So what if you can’t help him in 30 years and hes not insane… Why keep him there? Who will benefit from him being in jail?

Is it because he killed someone famous? Somone that sort of slipped into the common mind as a wierd jesus figure? Would they keep him there if he killed a bum, a random person, a known drug dealer?

Where is the value of keeping him in there? What do we gain by having him there and what do we loose?
And how can he be made less of a threat to society by releasing him later? Do they have some sort of method for that that they use that need 32 years to work? Becasue as correction goes it doesn’t do much does it?

I think he should be released onto a certain area, with a new name and a trial job. Kept under surveillance with weekly meetings with counselors and a radio-tag bracelet. Sort of ease him into society.
Brainspore

Another Devil’s Advocate POV:

I understand why people want life sentences for terrible crimes but after a point the guy you’re keeping in the cell bears very little resemblance the person who committed the original act. (Doubly true for people that committed their crimes as minors.)

The maximum prison sentence in Norway is 21 years and they have the lowest murder rate in the world. Could they be on to something?
- Eric Ragle
  
  I agree with you. I mean, I’m thirty-something years old and I don’t know if anyone in my life would say that I was even close to the same person that I was when I was fifteen.
- Niklas
  
  I think you have a good point, just throwing someone in the cellar and expecting them to change will not have a high percentage success rate. It has to be combined with some sort of rehabilitation/reeducation/something.
  
  I see a bit of blame on the prison system itself, it had about thirty years to make a better citizen of this guy but they have not come far.
  
  Yes, this does not change the fact that he actually murdered a person. But stillâ€¦ Thirty years and they managed to make about zero influence on his personality?
  - Brainspore
    
    But stillâ€¦ Thirty years and they managed to make about zero influence on his personality?
    
    Huh? Where are you getting that? From my reading of the article the parole denial was based on what he did 30 years ago, not on anything he’s done recently. He hasn’t had an infraction of any kind since 1994.
    - Niklas
      
      From this:
      
      The last time Chapman was up for parole, in 2008, the New York State Division of Parole issued a release saying his request was denied “due to concern for the public safety and welfare.”
      
      Here they say he was basically the same person as 1980. And in 2010 they said:
      
      “discretionary release remains inappropriate at this time and incompatible with the welfare of the community.”
      
      So, the still consider that he might hurt the welfare of the community. He has in other words not changed enough.
      - Brainspore
        
        Yes, but you omitted the part that said:
        
        After considering the action he took in 1980…
        
        So again, it sounds like they based the decision on the actions he took 30 years ago. Which may be appropriate depending on how you want to structure your justice system, who knows… but I don’t see that decision as evidence that there has been “zero change” in his personality.
      - Niklas
        
        And you choose to omit the part where they 2008 where still concerned for the the public safety and welfare. I guess we are both wrong and right then.
      - Brainspore
        
        And you choose to omit the part where they 2008 where still concerned for the the public safety and welfare.
        
        But they apparently BASED that concern on what he did 30 years ago. Nowhere is there any indication that anything he’s done in the intervening decades was a cause for concern.
Gisburne

Release the Chap’an!
Chris Spurgeon

re the conjecture that John Lennon would probably be in favor of Chapman’s release, I too could see Lennon holding that opinion…to his credit.

But…rightly…the law gives only very little weight to the opinion of the victim of crimes and their family. The scale of judgement that should be used is the feeling of society as a whole, not that of those most closely effected by the crime. It’s that society-based standard of judgement that keeps us from doing things like torture and eye-for-an-eye punishments, and way more capital punishment that we perform in the U.S.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the general feeling of society in the city and state of New York (where Lennon’s murder was committed) is that the scars from the crime even decades later are still too raw to allow parole.
- GeekMan
  
  I’m inclined to agree with you. I doubt very much that the same negative reaction would pervade the public consciousness if the victim had been a Paris Hilton-esque celebrity figure. Society as a whole feels that Lennon contributed something significant and positive to our lives as a whole, and as such we feel robbed, and unforgiving.
  
  John Lennon made a difference in the lives of many people, and his cultural impact will probably persist after we’re dead. While he died when I was two years old, the impact he has made in my life makes me realize what a horrible theft that has been committed by cutting his life short.
- lyd
  
  “It’s that society-based standard of judgement that keeps us from doing things like torture”
  
  Wait, what?
  - Chris Spurgeon
    
    I mean having torture as a common non-secret punishment for crimes, in addition to the imprisonment, community service, fines, restitution, etc., that we use now as forms of punishment. I wasn’t referring to the Bush administration “war on terror” related torture.
Sekino

With all the talks of him being denied parole because of “Beatles fans” and something he did “in 1980″, what about the safety of Yoko Ono or Lennon’s children? As others, I suspect Lennon could have forgiven his killer, but perhaps he would have still cared about their own lives and safety…

This guy coldly and methodically killed someone BECAUSE of his status. Who can absolutely guarantee that he would never get that insane, delusional impulse for his victim’s equally famous loved ones? This guy, as far as I know, didn’t get any treatment for whatever ‘condition’ made him decide it would be cool to kill someone, someone who hadn’t harmed him in any way. Yes, he’s older and he SAYS he’s regretful (did he find Jesus too, like Dahmer did?) but who could predict he would STILL be a 100% changed man, say, after a rough week? A few too many drinks? A failed relationship? He’s 55, not nearly impotent or meek enough to be harmless.

I just can’t help putting myself in Yoko Ono’s shoes: How well would I sleep at night knowing a man who callously shot my husband, entirely out of the blue, is walking free? I’m only grateful I don’t have to face that kind of predicament. But I know that if my kin was slaughtered in such a senseless, cold manner, I would show up at EVERY parole hearing and hammer in that murder IS a life sentence for the victim and his/her loved ones.

In my mind, it isn’t about punishment or revenge: It’s basically keeping non-murderers SAFE. Until there are proven measures and treatments to ‘fix’ murderous, delusional impulses, I’m okay with murderers remaining under very safe guard.
Anonymous

For those of you who think it’s unkind for “ahem” to remain behind bars, would it be more cruel to release him and have him possibly harmed by an obsessed Beatle fan?

We would have to put him in some sort of protection program, alter his looks, change his name, and even after all that he’d probably eventually spill the beans to some woman he was trying to impress, and the whole process would have to begin again.

I can’t help but think of all the music we missed through the ’80s, the ’90s, the ’00s, as well as what Mr. and Mrs. Lennon missed. Every interview and tape I’ve heard of John gives me the impression he fully intended to live to ninety or beyond, painting and writing children’s books and being a “guru” in his words.

Instead, he’s a part of the sky, and “ahem” is begging our pardon.
Anonymous

“The maximum prison sentence in Norway is 21 years and they have the lowest murder rate in the world. Could they be on to something?”

Um, fill your country with Norwegians?

Tell me how exactly does a short sentence discourage a murderer?
- Brainspore
  
  My point was not that short sentences discourage murder, it was that that extra-harsh sentences aren’t the most effective way to keep people from killing each other.
  
  Anyone who says we need to use a tough-on-crime, give-em-the-chair or throw-away-the-key approach to keep law and order clearly hasn’t been paying attention to what the rest of the world has been up to.
Phlip

Awe, come on, guys!

What are the odds he kills John Lennon _again_??
rebdav

Prison as it is designed now is perhaps more immoral than even the death penalty.

I am for the ancient pre-prison era punishments especially indentured servitude and the like. Force the guy to work at Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or Boeing and earn a living to pay civil damages, he has to rent a room in a lockdown at night but he locks himself in and only guards have access to the room prevent problems like prison rape and violence. Incarceration and separation from society in a concentrated criminal environment will only reinforce criminal behavior patterns not remove them.

I still believe in the equal protection clause of the constitution but special status for police officers, elected officials, the famous, and the rich have severely erode this basic civil right.

Whether I believe he personally should be paroled or not, his parole must be in line for anyone of a similar profile who killed a random person.
WalterBillington

If he’s released it sends a flowery message out to society that you can, ultimately, get away with murder. Of anyone, of any stature.

Killing unknowns kind of slips into the ether of public confusion. People’s opinions and thoughts aren’t much guided by that. But killing someone famous – that renders in multi-dimensional technicolor the act, consequences, thought processes and planning.

So would-be killers would be more likely to kill.

Bad.
- peterbruells
  
  I missed the part where â€žspending 30 years in prisonâ€œ is equal to â€žgetting away with murderâ€œ.
  
  Last time time I looked, spending 30 years in prison equals at least half the adult life span of a human being.
  - WalterBillington
    
    I’m pretty much the same person I was 30 years ago. 30 years of prison – no fun. But I can well believe this perp would exit prison and become like that Japanese cannibal murderer (Paris some point in the last 20 years) – he’s a curio celebrity now, making gravy from his crime.
    
    Surely that erodes society’s revulsion of the crime? And that revulsion is what matters to help deter it. Places where life is deemed valueless (pockets of Congo, for instance) see high rates of killing.
    
    This one did it for the fame. He would glory in it.
    
    So 30 years in prison, hard, but if you don’t change, and you’re going to live in infamy off the back of your crime, I don’t think in any way or sense that can be beneficial to society.
    
    Which is, ultimately, why we have a penalty for murder. To stop other people doing it.