Yoko Ono opposes parole for John Lennon's killer

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Yoko Ono opposes parole for John Lennon's killer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100806/ap_en_mu/us_people_yoko_ono



BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – Three decades after John Lennon's death, Yoko Ono says she opposes parole for his killer because he remains a potential threat.

Ono says she was trying to be "practical" in asking that Mark David Chapman remain behind bars for fatally shooting the pop legend on Dec. 8, 1980, outside Lennon's Manhattan apartment building.

Chapman, who has been repeatedly denied parole, is up for review again this month.

Lennon's widow says Chapman might be a danger to her, other family members and perhaps even Chapman himself.

Ono made her remarks at a meeting Thursday of the Television Critics Association. She was discussing a new PBS documentary on Lennon's life in New York in the 1970s that is scheduled to air this winter.

The former Beatle would have been 70 in October.

[Ken Burch]

1. Well, it makes perfect sense that she would, doesn't it?

Any of us would do the same in her position.

My question is...why does the guy come up for parole EVERY two years? Couldn't they have spaced it out a bit more than that?

Yoko, Sean, and Julian shouldn't keep being put through this over and over again.

[petronius]

16. Perhaps, but it shouldn't matter what we would do or what she does

If he's truly still a threat is a determination that should be made by a competent analyst, not the family of a victim. And if he's not a threat, he's served his sentence and should be freed.

Personally, I think the two year cycle is too long for parole hearings in indeterminate sentences - annual at most, or preferably continuous would be just, IMO...

[blueamy66]

74. Yeah, my first thought was...

ya think???

[blondeatlast]

2. She and I have something in common after all. nt

[midnight]

3. It is hard to believe John Lennon has been gone this long.

This man has caused a huge gap in this women's life, and I can imagine she would want him moving around freely either.

[daleo]

4. I agree with her.

He robbed the world of something precious.

[treestar]

84. IMO they should be treated as others in the same situation

We don't know what happens to killers of ordinary people, because we don't hear about it. The fame of the victim should not enter into it. I'd really like to find out what happens in a similar case where the victim was some average Joe or poor person. Do they let the killer out? When it comes down to it, I'm against releasing anyone who ever killed someone intentionally. I'm against the death penalty, but for life without parole.

[Love Bug]

95. I disagree. Fame should enter into it.

John Lennon wasn't killed because he was joe-sixpack. He was killed by a deranged "fan." Yes, in a perfect society all people would be treated the same by the justice system, but the reality is famous people are targets for the nut-jobs of the world. Just look at all the hate still directed toward Yoko FORTY FUCKING YEARS after she allegedly broke up the Beatles. Extrapolate that in the mind of some nut-case with a gun and the real threat is there.

I don't blame her. It's not just about her, either. There is her son to consider and any family he may have.

[H2O Man]

100. That would be

because you don't take the time to find out. Yoko isn't allowed to make her statement simply because she is "famous." It's an option that others are allowed, as well.

[sandnsea]

5. If he's truly still dangerous, fine

But if he's now medicated in a way that wasn't possible then, or otherwise sane; then it's time to let him out. He's served his time. We either believe in second chances for everyone, or for no one.

[SeattleGirl]

8. You make a good point, but oftentimes, what happens with

cases like this is that they stop taking their meds after they are released. It's a very common thing, and not just among criminals. People with mental issues that are being treated by medication start to feel better, think they no longer need the meds, and stop. Before long, they go back into the same kind of behavior.

[sandnsea]

15. Yep, I'm well aware

I just think it's a bit hypocritical of liberals to want this particular "nut" locked up forever while we rail against other victims for feeling the same about their victimizers. I think we ought to apply the same standard across the board.

I'd design a prison system like they had in Sicko, the one in Norway I think it was. I don't see any reason for a punitive system, especially for the mentally ill. Then it wouldn't be such an issue of whether he was in or out, because either way he'd be getting appropriate care and monitoring.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MajorChode]

11. I'm not sure there are any medications that would make him not dangerous

There's no question he was mentally disturbed and probably still is, however he knew what he was doing was wrong. He was also 25 at the time of the crime, which is at a point when the brain is fully developed. Then you look at the nature of the crime. He planned it out for a very long time, traveled to do it, and then followed through without hesitation. It's pretty hard to turn anger like that off. I can't imagine him being safe to return to society at least at this point.

[sandnsea]

17. I really don't know

I just felt like somebody ought to put in a word for what liberal justice is supposed to sound like. It's embarrassing that every time this comes up, everybody turns into a mob and goes for the guy's throat, just like a bunch of freepers.

I just truly hope he gets treated fairly, like any criminal would.

[MajorChode]

19. There certainly is room for that

Certainly there are people who do stupid things in their youth that they will eventually get past, and many of those people deserve a second chance. However, there are some people who just need to be institutionalized and segregated from society for the better part of their life if not indefinitely. This particular guy was a religious nut who believed that God wanted him to kill John Lennon. He still appears to be a fanatic. I don't think you'd be doing society in general a favor by letting this guy out and I'm not even sure you'd be doing him a favor.

[Cetacea]

79. He was a murderer with a possible mental illness.

Medications do not not stop murderers as far as I know, and the mentally ill are no more violent than the rest of the population. Probable less so, actually.

[treestar]

86. The insanity defense was not used

so he did know what he was doing was wrong. I agree with you, my line in the sand is that if you intentionally kill someone and know what you're doing, you're out of society for good.

[Hannah Bell]

23. "he's served his time"? 20 years for murder?

hundreds of people are rotting in jail longer for way less.

some of those "three strikes" folks, to start with.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. It's been 30 years since 1980, actually

And yes, 30 years is sufficient for murder.

[alphafemale]

81. No. 30 years is in no way sufficient for murder.

Murder is a line that should not ever be crossed.

But once crossed, it can't be something that is lightly glossed over because we start to feel sorry for murderers.

You can't just let them skip back into society.

I completely oppose the death penalty, but I am in favor of locking someone up for the rest of their life if they steal the life of another.

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. Yes, I understand that that's your position

And I find it spiteful, cruel, and stupid, so I suspect we're not likely to have a productive discussion about it.

[alphafemale]

107. We'll let the murderes live next to you when we let them out...or better yet IN your house.

And don't you dare hide the sharp knives.

That might hurt their feelings.

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. Like I said

This is likely to descend into stupidity and senselessness. I'll leave you to your nonsense.

[SoxFan]

116. The apologist for murderers is accusing others of "nonsense"?

That's classic.

[alphafemale]

117. Oh...I'm just being silly.

Putting somebody away forever when all they did was fire several red-hot pieces of lead into the back of another human being, causing him to bleed out his life-blood into a cold concrete gutter, yeah...I guess I am silly that way.

[alcibiades_mystery]

118. LOL

Your posts are hilarious. "The apologist for murderers" :rofl: :rofl:

How petty and dumb.

[sendero]

28. I don't believe he was crazy.....

... at least the standard of crazy it would take to exonerate him of this crime - that being the inability to understand that what he was doing was wrong.


He made a choice and if it were up to me he would never see a day out of prison.

[H2O Man]

99. Right.

He was incarcerated for murder, not institutionalized for mental illness.

[MicaelS]

42. You feel so strongly about giving him his freedom...

Is it ok if he moves in right next door to you when gets out?

[H2O Man]

98. No, thank you.

He is incarcerated for murder, not institutionalized for mental illness. Hence, his "stability" is not a factor. The potential risk factors are what are being evaluated. He knew very well that he was killing another human being. He did so for publicity and fame.

[SeattleGirl]

6. I'm backing Yoko on this.

Guy shouldn't get out.

[Berserker]

7. I Love You Yoko

I agree. That skurge on mankind should remain behind bars.

[MrScorpio]

9. I don't blame her one iota

Let him rot

[Iggo]

10. Well...yeah.

[budkin]

12. I don't blame her... that asshole robbed us of one of the greatest human beings of all time

[SnakeEyes]

13. Our prison/justice system is not for revenge

At least it shouldn't be. And it certainly isn't to punish anyone more because the victim was a famous musician.

[blueamy66]

75. Okay then, just what is our prison system for?

just curious

[SnakeEyes]

109. Should be for protecting from immenant dangers

And reforming those that are a danger. Or in the case of the mentally ill, making them well enough to be able to live on their own and not be a danger. Both so that they can be released and hopefully are productive members of society and society doesn't have to pay to house and monitor them for the rest of their lives.

Far too many people are in prisons for far too long.

[chollybocker]

I still miss John.

And George, too.

[chollybocker]

14. dupy

[Booster]

18. So do I.

[1badjedi]

20. Once a loony

always a loony. I got her back.

[Cetacea]

34. "Looney" somehow makes him less than the cold-blooded

murderer that he is.

[MilesColtrane]

21. The thought of a 70 year-old John Lennon and the music he'd be making...!

Goddamn, but that crazy piece of shit who shall not be named robbed us all.

He should rot.

[Vickers]

22. For highly personal reasons, I am generally on the side of parole, but

this guy shot a person IN THE BACK, WHILE HE WAS WITH HIS WIFE, and this was the SECOND TIME he had made the trip (from Hawaii!!!) to do it.

Sorry man, but in this case, "life" should be life.

[elocs]

24. Let's pretend it was not John Lennon who was killed and that Chapman was mentally ill at the time.

As supposedly compassionate Democrats, do we refer to the mentally ill who commit crimes as "assholes". Statistically the mentally ill are the victims of crime far more often than they are the criminals.

Where I live there is a man who was mentally ill and killed 3 people in a church some 30 years ago. Alas, nobody as famous as John Lennon, so at this time he is being released having been deemed no longer a threat to society. The families of the victims did not want him released either, but that is entirely understandable.

The mentally ill who have committed crimes can be kept well if they are eventually released and stay on their meds. Staying compliant with taking meds is usually a condition of release and it can be ordered that they be given injections of their medications that can last up to a month so that taking their meds is not a daily decision.

It can be said that those who were mentally ill at the time of their crimes such as Chapman have already demonstrated they are a threat to society. But in the end with reasonable examination of their current mental health as well as that over a number of previous years are the mentally ill held to a higher standard than others in our society?

Where I live we routinely read of those arrested for drunk driving 6, 7, or more times even when they have had accidents that injured people. Even drunk drivers who have killed people are likely not to serve too many years before they are released. Have they not also proven they are a threat to society? Any one of us here are in far more danger of being killed or injured by a drunk driver than anyone mentally ill, yet they are not required to take Antabuse but promise to be good boys and girls and not drive while having consumed alcohol again.

The lives of the victims of any killed by those who are mentally ill are no less precious to their family, friends, and loved ones that the death of John Lennon was to many of us. We are simply talking about numbers and fame. If, as Democrats, we support the treatment and care of the mentally ill then it is hypocritical of us to abandon that attitude simply because it is somebody we personally admire or who is famous and important to us that is the victim of a crime committed by the mentally ill.

[Cetacea]

35. Mentally ill are no more violent than "healthy" people.

And he wasn't mentally ill.

[elocs]

54. Sorry, but you are wrong. Chapman was clearly mentally ill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Chapman

He also fantasized about having god-like power over a group of imaginary "little people".

In 1977, Chapman attempted suicide via carbon monoxide asphyxiation. He connected a vacuum cleaner hose to his car exhaust pipe and led it inside the car, thus exposing himself to the car's exhaust, but the hose melted in the exhaust pipe and the attempt failed. He was discovered and brought to a local mental health clinic. A psychiatrist admitted him to Castle Memorial Hospital for clinical depression.

Chapman developed a series of obsessions, including artwork, The Catcher in the Rye, music, and John Lennon, and started hearing voices again. In September 1980, he wrote a letter to a friend, Lynda Irish, in which he stated, "I'm going nuts", and signed it "The Catcher in the Rye".

Chapman was charged with second degree murder. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital for psychiatric examination. The conclusion was that, while delusional, he was competent to stand a trial. Nine psychiatrists/clinical psychologists were prepared to testify at his trial – six of the clinical opinion that he was psychotic and three of the clinical opinion that his delusions fell short of the necessary criteria for psychosis.

I cannot believe that anyone could read Chapman's history and not come to the conclusion that he was mentally ill. Clearly he was.

Plus, mentally ill people who are not taking their meds and are psychotic clearly have the potential to be more violent than "healthy" people. I don't know where you get your information other than making it up as you go along.

[Cetacea]

72. Yes, if you believe the defense doctors.

You left out that the six who thought he was psychotic were from the defense. "Oddly" enough, the prosecution presented three psychiatrists who said that Chapman fell short of full psychosis.
You left that out of your wiki quote and you accuse me of making things up as I go along.
But you left out all of the info that points to someone who was and is quite sane. A globe trotting, delusional psychotic? I would have to agree with the the three of the prosocution's psychiatrists who were "of the clinical opinion that his delusions fell short of the necessary criteria for psychosis."


Sean Lennon said said something about about people believing that Chapman was some lone nut are either nuts themselves or very naive. (Sorry.) Go on believing regenerated press releases if you like. It might keep you safe from the nuts. Do you really believe that someone who was as allegedly delusional as Chapman had the ability to plan and implicate a murder to the degree that he did? When people are that delusional they can barely leave their own homes, no less go globe trotting.

And I get my information about violence and the mentally from psychiatrists, not the media and wiki. Painting the mentally ill as more violent is another media-fed form of discrimination.



* Government News

Violence and Mental Illness: Media Keep Myths Alive

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/36/9/10.full

[elocs]

87. I have a loved one who is mentally ill, so I am familiar with the disease.

I am also a member of NAMI and a contributor to schizophrenia.com. If a person who is mentally ill commits a violent crime then it is the defense doctors who are there to help them. Somehow you seem to believe this is a bad thing. My loved one has been aided by those trying to help her and pointing out to the legal system that she is not responsible for the actions she commits while psychotic and so she belongs in a hospital and not a prison.

You also must know that the insanity plea is very seldom successful. Plus I don't need to apologize or be answerable to you or anyone else regarding my experience and opinions about the mentally ill. I know they are more often the victims of crime (did you miss where I said that?) than criminals, but I also know that I would not want to encounter any person who is psychotic who is carrying any manner of a weapon.

The untreated and psychotic mentally ill are more dangerous to themselves and to others than the general public and I don't see how any rational person could argue otherwise.

Chapman's history certainly indicated that he was mentally ill. Had he killed anyone other than John Lennon there would be no argument here about that. You want to argue that the mentally ill are no more violent than the general public (which I believe to be true if they are properly treated), but my point is that when someone has clearly indicated over their lifetime that they are mentally ill then when they commit an act of violence while psychotic why the great need to explain away their mental illness and call them all manner of names?

The mentally ill need help and treatment. When they commit acts of violence they do not and should not be thrown into prisons. If someone is mentally ill then they are mentally ill. We do not get to determine whether they are or not based upon how well we like or admire any victims of any violence they may commit while they are psychotic. That clearly seems to be the case with Chapman having killed John Lennon, some great need to explain away that he was mentally ill at the time of the murder.

[Cetacea]

91. Likewise. I just don't believe that his alleged illness made him kill Lennon.

He, like other famous and not so famous assassins, had a mission to complete and he carried it out to completion. It was well thought out, it involved obtaining the required weapons and the required travel long distance travel. Many people think about and even attempt suicide, Many people become obsessed with celebrities. Many people identify way to much with the objects of their adoration. Very few of them become assassins. We have to take him on his word that he heard voices telling him to kill Lennon over and over again. And even if that is true, it introduces the possibility of mind control or a secret companion being the catalyst rather than some transient schizophrenia. (FYI, original news reports had quotes from a witness to the shooting but later reports dropped her. The official story has been that the infamous "door man" -whose name was not used in reports for years- and Yoko were the only witnesses. (That would be the doorman who told Chapman to "get out of here" after he shot Lennon...)
Also , he certainly didn't appear to be in a psychotic state right after the shooting. As a matter of fact, the lead crime officer on the scene was hesitant about arresting him as he seemed remarkably normal and coherent.

[blueamy66]

76. Nice story, but....

"taking meds is usually a condition of release and it can be ordered that they be given injections".....who is gonna round them up?

[H2O Man]

101. Let's not pretend.

Let's be real: he is incarcerated for murder, not institutionalized for mental illness.

[saracat]

25. She just wants some publicity because no one cares about her anymore. I detest YoKo

She participated in ruining a family and thought she should be applauded for it. The way she treated Julian Lennon was disgusting. And the way she treated John towards the end was revolting as well.

She certainly proves many times over that she isn't the spirit of "love and peace" she cliamed to be. First she grabs every bit of money she could get her hands on, then uses John's bloody clothes as an exhibit, now displays her love and compassion in this manner. Bleh.

[POAS]

29. Ugly.......n/t

[MadMaddie]

32. Her husband was shot in front of her eyes

she saw him as the life seeped out of his body in crimson red and lose his aura of life. No one deserves to have that imprinted on their brain for the rest of their lives. No matter how much you hate someone can you really condemn them for wanting to keep a murderer in jail.

Seperate paths you are talking about, cold blooded calculated murder and then Yoko's influence on the Beattles and her family.

[saracat]

56. Is keeping this man in jail removing that imprint? How does that help?

I agree that no one deserves that. She didn't deserve that either but with her track record, I find her reasons suspect. And demanding he be refuses parole doesn't fit at all with the picture of love and forgiveness she allegedly wanted to present to the world.

[treestar]

85. The murderer of one's spouse? Even Gandhi would have trouble with it

Naturally she opposes parole, but he should be judged like any other killer - the victim's relatives are always against parole, that's the way people are.

[MadMaddie]

121. I think many families that have experienced tradgedy's like this

are highly emotional and in some cases forgiveness is hard. I think we all strive to be compassionate but after all we are human with human frailties.

[edbermac]

33. I love Lennon the musician but....

As a husband and father towards his first wife and son Julian, he was a real shitheel. By his own admission he cheated with hundreds of women and sued his wife for divorce claiming adultery!

Don't blame Yoko for his despicable behavior

[saracat]

52. I agree but it takes two to tango. And Yoko's behavior since hasn't been exactly great.

She accused Julian of stealing his own music and still cut him out of the estate. Yoko and John were quite the pair. Like you I loved the music but the person left a lot to be desired.

[lunamagica]

69. I love the Beatles but post-Yoko John is the one don't like much, so it can't be said

that I "worship" Lennon. I think Chapman needs to spend the rest of his life in jail.

One of the biggest argument for the death penalty is that criminals who get life in prison have a chance to be freed in time even if there isn't any doubt about their guilt.

Life in pris ion should mean just that, life in pris ion. Some people are capable of such heinous, horrific crimes; such people don't belong out in the street. Chapman is one of those people.

Chapman showed that he is a cold-blooded, calculating murderer. That he is capable of killing without motive or reason. He committed a horrific murder, for which he was guilty without a doubt and was sentenced to LIFE IN PRIS ION. Why should he be free?


Keeping criminals such a Chapman locked up can only straighten the cause against the death penalty

[Cetacea]

78. I doubt it was "cheating" in the ususal sense.

Besides, he left his Beatle persona and all of it's trappings behind. People change. He did.

[lunamagica]

90. Cheating is cheating. And he cheated on Yoko too. n/t

[Cetacea]

92. Free love hippies cheating on each other. Tsk.

[lunamagica]

94. If it was "free love" then it wasn't cheating. Yoko has talked

about how hurt and humiliated she was by his cheating. And I doubt he was happy about her "free loving"

[Cetacea]

106. Not sure what this has to do with Chapman's parole.

Or is it supposed to diminish Lennon as a great?

[lunamagica]

122. I was replying to your post, which had nothing to do with Chapman n/t

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

47. Have you ever read Cynthia Lennon's accounts? Have you read either of her books?

Maybe if you knew a little about BOTH sides you might feel differently.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

53. You do know this is stalking?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

57. You are continuing a topic / attack from another thread.That is stalking

Please read the DU rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

62. Post number 36 is stalking.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hekate]

67. +1

[Hekate]

63. No, saracat, actually not. He's simply demonstrating the ability to remember what you said...

... from one time to the next. As I do. I even remember all the way to last night when you gave the impression that you might have had a hairball, not that I'm saying you actually did.

I don't know you, so I will refrain from saying that "you are" or "you are not" thus and such. However, I will say that on the evidence of your posts (which I don't "follow" but do remember) -- well, they are such unhappy words. Unhappy with so very many public persons.

By the way, "stalking" was what John Lennon's obsessed murderer was doing.

Hekate

[saracat]

65. Quote from DU rules enforcement:

"Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere."

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

48. Hey, I was a Beatle fan growing up and read a great many things about all of them. I still do..

I have actually met all of them except George. John was just in passing and Yoko was with him. I used to live across from the street from the Dakota. I always had an interest in the Beatles.I always liked John and didn't like Yoko. Bitter, hardly. I say it is time for parole.

[grantcart]

70. "I detest Yoko" that degree of personal engagement in a widowed spouse of a celebrity

doesn't fall into the normal range of being a 'fan'. It seems to be a larger pattern.

[Cetacea]

80. You do realize that he probably wouldn't last very long, correct?

Or is that besides the point? Just curious if the uniqueness of this particular case should influence the parole decision.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. Damn. That's quite the grudge you've got going there (nt)

[saracat]

49. I'm still a Beatle fan.

:)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

83. So was Chapman (nt)

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

59. I love the Beatles!

:) I love Johnny Depp ,Adam Lambert, and I adore Broadway. I love my cats, and I love my family and friends! Sorry I don't like a few folks. I like more than I don't so that is a good thing!

[canetoad]

61. I must say

That is one of the nastiest and most vindictive posts I have ever read.

[Bobbie Jo]

115. Indeed.

:wtf:

[H2O Man]

102. Baloney.

Yoko is a great lady. And lots of intelligent people love her.

[Stevenmarc]

27. Parole, they should play Ask The Elephant 24/7 in his cell

[Desertrose]

30. Go Yoko!!

Lennon would be 70? OMG!!!

I feel so old.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

31. I wonder how Jody Foster would feel if he were released?

We'll never know- she consistently refuses to comment on the subject. I do know how I believe she would feel, though...

He shot John Lennon IN THE BACK. And some people here still use the term "fair". There is no fairness here. The man is a boil upon society's ass. He should be lanced then sat upon.

[The Midway Rebel]

45. That was John David Hinkley that had the mad crush on Jody.

He took a shot a Reagan.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

50. You're right, of course.

He was inspired by Chapman to shoot Reagan. Thus the intertwining of the two of them.

"I just want to say goodbye to the old year, which was nothing total misery, total death," he said. "John Lennon is dead, the world is over, forget it.

"Anything I might do in 1981 would be solely for Jodie Foster's sake. Just tell the world in some way that I worship and idolize her.''

The world would hear of John Hinckley three months later...

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/assassins/chapman/9.html

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. I agree with Yoko

[david13]

38. So do I. dc

[tabasco]

39. I'm with Yoko on this one.

Crazy fucker oughta rot in jail.

[UTUSN]

40. I also oppose parole for Yoko ONO n/t

[The Midway Rebel]

46. He should probably stay locked up for his own health and safety.

Mark David Chapman spoke with some degree of glib twisted with glee as he described shooting John 5 times, point-blank, with a snub-nosed .38 caliber revolver loaded with hollowpoint bullets. John wasn't just shot, he was blown away. It was overkill. Chapman is insane and should be held away from society for his own safety.

[Withywindle]

58. I'm with you, Yoko.

John Lennon's murder was calculated and in cold blood and the victim was no threat to the perpetrator.. Obviously self-defense was not an issue on Chapman's part, nor was a "heat of the moment" mitigation.

Chapman stalked Lennon, made cold-blooded plans, and carried them out, when Lennon was no threat to him.

I"m not calling for his head. I just think he was sentenced to "life in prison" and it should mean exactly that. I don't get why he's up for parole at all...ever.

[petronius]

71. He was sentenced to '20 to life', not 'life in prison'

Access to parole is an intrinsic part of an indeterminate sentence, and there should be clear objective standards for granting it. Celebrity and politics should never be part of the mix - the fact that those considerations play into so many of these decisions is disturbing to me...

[Cetacea]

82. But release could very well amount to the death penalty.

It's a unique case.

[petronius]

97. If so, that's a risk he's entitled to take - I don't see any justification in keeping

someone in prison for life because someone on the outside has threatened them. If he's served his time and if he's ceased to be a danger (as judged by competent professionals) then he should be let out. And of course, if a legitimate and specific threat to a released Chapman was identified I'd expect law enforcement to treat it as seriously as they would for anyone else...

[H2O Man]

103. Impossible,

since the cold-blooded murderer brought celebrity and politics into the picture.

He has access to parole hearings -- that is only too obvious. Yoko is exercising her legal rights, just as many other crime victims do.

[petronius]

105. My point was that the parole decision itself (to grant or not) should not in any way be

based on celebrity or political considerations. Yoko is free to say whatever she wants, as everyone else is...

[H2O Man]

110. Yes, I understand

your point. I just disagree -- respectfully, but completely.

[petronius]

119. I don't deny you the right to have a contrary opinion, but I'm curious to

understand the reasoning - why should a person who murdered a famous victim be less eligible for parole that a person who killed someone more anonymous?

Every crime is different, but I would argue that questions of motive, cruelty, victim-impact, etc should be factored in (to the extent they're factored at all) during sentencing. And even at that phase it seems to me that the crime itself, the taking of a life, should weigh most heavily, and all the intangibles should only swing the sentence by small amounts.

Once sentence is passed and if that sentence includes possibilities of parole, I think justice is best served when parole decisions are made objectively and without reference to social, political, or family pressures. We can't all be equal under the law when some victims are treated as more important than others. Allowing the celebrity status of a victim to weigh into the fate of the convict is similar to allowing issues of race or wealth to play a role (as in when the well-off white collar crook skates, or the poor person of color goes to the chair)...

[TwilightGardener]

64. I have no problem with this. I would oppose it too.

[AngryAmish]

77. I oppose Yoko Ono's music

Otherwise, we are fine.

[cynatnite]

88. I don't blame her one bit. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

93. So sad

but maybe we need to forgive and forget. Remember Darby Crash died the same day as John Lennon we must always remember to forgive and forget. God bless DU.

[Faygo Kid]

96. Works for me. I will extend my sympathies elsewhere than Mark David Chapman.

He achieved his fame.

I'm with Yoko on this one.

[KatyMan]

104. +1

Forget parole, let him rot. Let all murderers rot, for that matter. Obviously there are crimes of passion, etc etc, but someone who willfully and deliberately kills someone should not be let out into society again.

[Obamanaut]

108. As it turns out then, love isn't really all you need. Some

mercy/compassion/forgiveness could be thrown in after 30 years.

[KatyMan]

111. and if this was your spouse murdered?

Really. Yes people change, but some people need to stay in prison no matter how much they change.

[H2O Man]

113. silly

[Omaha Steve]

120. I agree with Yoko

She has donated millions to feed the hungry, stop wars, etc. The things she worked on with John never stopped.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

123. He should not be paroled. Actually, even if he were, he probably wouldn't

last 5 minutes in the world because so many people are pissed off that he murdered John Lennon, someone would probably "off" him.