Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

John Lennon's killer denied parole for 5th time

  1. Aug 12, 2008 #1


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Do you really think that their reason that he's a still a threat to scociety is valid? Or are they denying him parole because

    1) The public outcry if he was set free

    2) Some nut would kill him before the end of the week, for killing Lennon?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_re_us/chapman_parole [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 12, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Presumably if he killed Lennon to gain attention then he was no further menace to society as soon as he did it?
    I think someone doesn't want their career tagged with 'freed the man who killed Lennon'
  4. Aug 12, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Both reasons, but I would say mainly reason #2.
  5. Aug 12, 2008 #4
    Honestly, I dont care what their reason is so long as he rots in a jail cell. Killing someone just to gain some fame is probably one of the lowest things you could do.

    I dont see why he should even have any right to parole in the first place. That seems like a luxury.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  6. Aug 12, 2008 #5
    LENIN??? Oh, Lennon. Screw him.

    You can say that about most murderers. When a husband finds his wife sleeping with another man so he shoots one or both of them, he's probably not going to murder again, since he took out his anger on the people who caused it. But then we could all just kill each other and say "But I won't do it again!" and that would be it. So that's irrelevant.

    But no doubt he's safer in prison. And no doubt nobody wants to have their name associated with releasing him from prison.
  7. Aug 12, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Don't speak ill of the dead.
  8. Aug 12, 2008 #7
    Unless you really mean it
  9. Aug 12, 2008 #8
    He's right. Hurray, Hitler!
  10. Aug 12, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    From the Yahoo article -
    Does anyone want to volunteer to take this guy in, or perhaps as a nextdoor neighbor?

    But then his expression was 14 yeas ago. I wonder what he told the parole board recently.

    Most politicians want to appear to be tough on crime, and that leaves little room for leniency.

    Then there is always the concern about whether or not an individual who has committed a homicide has reformed or rehabilitated. It's one thing to commit a crime in state of passion, and be truly remorseful, but its another to cooly plan and commit a homicide, and then be indifferent afterwards.
  11. Aug 12, 2008 #10
    I think he most certainly is a danger to society still.
  12. Aug 12, 2008 #11
    He became eligible for parole, so the parole board should treat him like they would any one else who came before them. If they aren't letting him out because they were Beatles fans or for any reason other than they don't feel he meets the requirements to be paroled then it is a travesty. I loved John Lennon and the Beatles and hate Chapman and I hope he rots in jail, but if we are going to brag about our justice system then it needs to be just.
  13. Aug 12, 2008 #12
    Is parole a right? If not, they can laugh at his face and tell him to go back into his hole.
  14. Aug 12, 2008 #13
    When he was sentenced he was given life in prison, with the possibility of parole after this many years. The possibility of parole is a court order and he HAS to be given a fair chance at it. If he is being rejected as a matter of fact, regardless of the situation, then he is not being given the possibility of parole and that is criminal. No body will ever be prosecuted for it, because they make sure they march him to the parole board and let him have his say before they reject him.
  15. Aug 12, 2008 #14
    I think 53 is still young to let him go. He's still going to live out another 20 years (probably). I would say his no longer a threat when hes near the end of his life (Late 60s-mid 70s).

    Without knowing his behiavor while in jail, its hard to say if hes a threat or not still.
  16. Aug 12, 2008 #15
    This reminds me of the movie A Clockwork Orange.
  17. Aug 12, 2008 #16


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Specifically everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment. While the amendment may have been intended to right the wrongs of racial issues arising after the Civil War, its terms are generally extended to ensure that all laws are equally applied.

    If Chapman has the right to be considered for parole, then such consideration cannot be unequally given as to his status within the corrections system merely because his was a high profile case, but must rather be decided on more general grounds as they would any prisoner serving the same or similar sentence, exhibiting similar behavior and state of mind.
  18. Aug 12, 2008 #17
    It's not up to you to decide if 53 is too young. He was sentenced, nobody has the right to tell someone who has paid his price to society that he owes more. A judge made the determination and decided his sentence was just.
  19. Aug 12, 2008 #18
    Thank you, that's what I was trying to say
  20. Aug 12, 2008 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't believe that he is a danger to society. His parole is apparently being denied for one of the two reasons I cited.
  21. Aug 12, 2008 #20
    He had a life sentence. He's not dead yet, so he's still 'paying his price' as sentenced by the judge.

    Considering we dont know his behavior while in jail, none of us can say if he's still a threat or not.
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2008
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook