Is This Fair?

[ChillDoubt]

Whilst I would never condone what he did this does seem a tad cruel, considering that he has paid his debt to society:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28905473

It would appear that the celebrity status of his victim means he may never see the light of day. But has justice already been served(and then some) and is he now being kept inside out of pure spite?

[agchristie]

My answer is without prejudice as I have no particular allegiance to Lennon/Beatle's music.

Within the parameters of the prison term I don't consider it spiteful that Chapman remains inside. The crime itself was obviously a very serious one which the sentence reflects (though some may disagree). Obviously Lennon was such a high profile figure and had millions of fans around the world and one would have to consider that there are probably people out there who would love to take their revenge on him.

I don't see any merit in comparing this crime to anything in the US or the UK. I am more interested to know more about the US Parole Board system so if anybody can enlighten me? I note that his case has been reviewed eight times. I can only think that his mental health state is being reviewed since the risk factor to himself remains constant. Other than general statements being released by the board, we are not to know the fine detail.

If he was to be released, in Lennon's own lyric - 'Imagine'.

[New Judge]

"They get time off for a guilty plea.

The way the law works baffles me. "

Is it that particular aspect of the law that baffles you, ummm, or is it something else?

There seems to be widespread belief that murderers, once they are "no longer a threat to society" should be released. I don't agree with that. There are four main purposes to criminal sentencing - punishment, rehabilitation, prevention of crime and reparation. For the most serious offence of all - murder - punishment must be the overriding purpose. Lennon's murder was particularly nasty with no apparent rational motive. The perpretrator deserves incarceration for an extremely lengthy period (I was argue until he dies). If he were part of one's luggage on an ocean liner he would be marked "not wanted on voyage".

[anotheoldgit]

He couuld have face the 'electric chair' or the 'needle' had he been in some states.

[agchristie]

^ do you think he should have faced either of those options AOG?

[viv38]

I think it's fair.

[jomifl]

As he is already 13 years over his sentence has he done anything in that time to show he is still a danger either to himself or others?
Are you volunteering to share a room with him and a loaded gun?

[beso]

He is a nutcase. May he die in prison.

[New Judge]

It keeps being stated that this odious individual is 13 (or whatever) years over his sentence. He is not. He was sentenced to between 20 years and life. So only after he dies has he exceeded his sentence. Until then he has no cause for complaint.

[whiskeryron]

Whatever the status of the victim, he was murdered in cold blood, the perpetrator is still alive. He took away a flourishing life & therefore does not deserve to live. If his life cannot be terminated because of legislation, for taking away another's life then he should stay incarcerated until he dies. I have absolutely no time for mamby pamby nonsense.

[Baldric]

///Mark Chapman was sentenced to 20 years to life///

Seems like it's going to be Life, no problem with that!

[ChillDoubt]

Whilst I have no sympathy for him for what he did I'm just reasoning that it may have actually been more suitable to have told him at sentence that he was getting life without parole, as opposed to leaving him to apply for parole every 2 years.
To keep him perpetually in suspension with vage, broad-spectrum reasons only leads me to believe the celebrity status of his victim is the biggest motivational factor in this story.
I just find it something of a paradox because if any celebrity were to be considered one who would preach forgiveness it would in all probability be John Lennon.
I've really no idea but are there any similar cases in the US I wonder(not involving celebrity), whereby someone has served way beyond the minimum recommendation yet are perpetually denied parole?

[agchristie]

A very relevant point I asked for clarification has not yielded any replies. What could the Board be reviewing eight times?

ChillDoubt has a point, nobody can state what his mental health is. The system exists to consider this and other factors. If it is considered that he doesn't pose a risk then other factors must come into play....

[ChillDoubt]

Vague, even.....

[jno]

aog, I think he was charged with second-degree murder; as I understand it, that doesn't carry the death sentence. Given that he pleaded guilty to it, I imagine his mental health didn't come into it anyway. So he's as sane now as ever, he's as guilty now as ever, and he's serving a sentence with a maximum of life in jail, which means he hasn't paid his debt yet.

As to whether his victim's celebrity played a part - well, it certainly played a part in why the murder was committed in the first place, so I suppose it's only fair if it plays a role in the sentence. There are a lot of celebrities in NYC, and they all need protection, and those who would harm them need deterring.

[ChillDoubt]

That was me fixing my typo, not a question to agchristie's post!

[agchristie]

If you look at the Parole Board's latest statement it almost renders further appeals as futile. An element of going through the motions simply because he is entitled to ask...

[jno]

CD, the judge sentencing him would have had no idea what parole boards would rule 30 years later. He just handed down a sentence which was, I presume, pretty standard.

As to whether people killing non-celebs get the same treatment - we'll probably never know: the death of non-celebs doesn't make it into UK media. But it may be quite normal.

[jno]

parole board members will change over the years too. We don't know what future boards will think. They're not bound by what previous boards think (otherwise nobody would ever get out).

[ChillDoubt]

I concur totally with your last post agchristie.

[agchristie]

Jno, if you look at the latest Board response though it would be a very brave panel that would allow Chapman free. Gravity of crime, undermining the law, etc