John Lennon's killer denied parole for an 11th time

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — The man who gunned down John Lennon outside his Manhattan apartment in 1980 was denied parole for an 11th time, state corrections officials said Wednesday.

Mark David Chapman was denied after being interviewed by a parole board Aug. 19, according to corrections officials. Chapman, 65, is serving a 20-years-to-life sentence at Wende Correctional Facility, east of Buffalo.

Chapman shot and killed the former Beatle on the night of Dec. 8, 1980, hours after Lennon autographed an album for him. He has said previously that he feels “more and more shame” every year for the crime.

“I was too far in,” Chapman told a parole board in 2018. “I do remember having the thought of, ‘Hey, you have got the album now. Look at this, he signed it, just go home.’ But there was no way I was just going to go home.”


Read more: https://apnews.com/9cd54b32a7c92a223de6d2f48250dfb8

---

Good! Beatles FOREVER!

[pwb]

1. Good. We could use John Lennon

again.

[regnaD kciN]

2. Just because one is opposed to the death penalty...

...it doesn't mean that one can't also believe that a life sentence should mean a life sentence. And I have no problem with the concept of that guy remaining in prison until his dying day.

[nycbos]

3. +1

[marble falls]

6. Life sentences are a chicken shit form of death panalty. What is being accomplished by adding ...

any more time to what he's served?

[catbyte]

7. So John Lennon's wife and children won't have to surreptitiously look over their shoulders

wondering if Chapman is going to come after them, too, even though it's probably not likely? They have a life sentence, too. When should they have released him? The sentence was 20 years to life. They're not "adding" time onto his sentence.

[marble falls]

11. Please. You and I are more likely than a Ono-Lennon to run into a Chapman ...

there comes a point that no justice is being served by overly long and indeterminate sentence.

There is no justice to any of the players: the sole purpose for a justice system is to reaffirm values and law in line with what society wants.

There's no getting even. No reparations is possible. But at some point they are no longer capable of redoing their crime and should be released.

[ArizonaLib]

18. Accepting that nothing can bring John back - I agree justice is possible w/o indeterminate sentences

The only thing we can bring is that John would have wanted us to move forward as a planet. We must find a way to remove as much revenge from justice. Fair justice is the scariest and the most effective deterrent if one is guilty and the most healing for those wronged. I don't know what type of incarceration John's murderer (the others don't use his name) serves under but it must be examined if max is necessary. I understand that the American system is not fair right now or may never be, so modifications without restarting it yields pointless debate. One thing we can do is push and hit the streets for change. John was always willing to demand fixing pointless unjust status quo, and to do whatever he could to for everything and everyone else.

Pat Buchannon: "He sounded like John Lennon!"
The whole thing is screwed up. I remember after Obama's inauguration speech, Pat Buchannon snickered in response that 'he sounded like John Lennon'. That was his near complete initial response. Previously some had said the CIA or incoming Reagan administration was behind silencing John, which previous to Buchannon's remark I thought was far fetched but it made me wonder. My response to Obama's inauguration was that we had him as president, and he was our generation's Bobby Kennedy and was hoping beyond hope that he would make it to serve safely. When I heard Buchannon say that, I figured he was fantasizing that Obama would not serve long. I was pissed. Still am. Still don't believe in virtual or actual death penalties.

We have to keep our heads.

[stopdiggin]

8. truth? respect? continuity? integrity? (nt)

[marble falls]

20. Justice for everyone.

[yardwork]

47. Protecting the rest of us from being murdered by him?

He murdered somebody once. What's to stop him from doing it again? It's not like he murdered by accident, or in a momentary rage. He planned it.

[FireChild]

21. That's exactly

how I feel.

[Bengus81]

40. Yep...like the 17 year old who shot people dead in cold blood

I sure as shit hope there is no death penalty there. I want that fuck to spend 60-65 years in a dink ass prison cell and think about his Fuehrer Trump each day even after he's long dead.

[artemisia1]

46. Exactly. /nt

[skylucy]

4. Good. He should never be released.

[Aristus]

5. Rot in jail, fuckbrain.

Was it worth it? Seriously, fathead; was it worth it? Is there anything about your life now that wouldn't be better if you had just left well enough alone?

Would it really have been so bad to live the rest of your life as a free man, with your only regret being "I could have killed John Lennon, and I didn't"?

[Chainfire]

9. You have to wonder

If enough time has passed whether John would have forgiven the shooter? In a few years, I will ask him.

[marble falls]

12. We all got some 'splaining to do ...

I'm not saying I won't get thru the gate, but I might have to ask to see a manager or supervisor first.

[greenjar_01]

10. He should have the same chance at parole as others sentenced under the same guidelines

with similar fact pattern.

[marble falls]

13. Agree 100%. He'd have been released by now.

[thucythucy]

19. Do you really think so?

I wonder.

Here is a man who committed cold blooded premeditated murder. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing. He purchased a weapon, procured ammunition intended to cause maximum pain and damage, and then traveled cross-country with the express purpose of murdering someone whom he'd never met and had never done him any harm. He spent days stalking his victim, including interacting with the victim's child. He even interacted with his intended victim, who by his own account was gracious and friendly toward him, only hours before the murder.

He then waited in front of the victim's home, and shot the man multiple times, in the back, at near point blank range, in front of his wife. Aside from the victim's wife there were others in the immediate vicinity who might well have been wounded or even killed. All of this showed a calculated, and absolutely callous disregard for human life.

There's more. After being imprisoned he made attempts to contact the widow, so much so that she has testified at previous hearings that she would fear for her life and the life of her child if he were ever to be released. He has granted interviews, appeared on TV, had his story told in at least one movie, and all in all seems to have reveled in accomplishing his undoubted goal: to become famous by killing someone famous.

Charles Manson was sentenced to life, and he never actually killed anyone. Sirhan Sirhan was never paroled, and had he not been murdered by another inmate I doubt if David Berkowitz would ever have received parole either.

BTW Chapman is now at what I'm told is a medium security facility (definitely not Attica) and is allowed conjugal visits with his wife.

[ripcord]

22. I still have serious concerns about his mental state

[thucythucy]

26. How so?

[greenjar_01]

27. David Berkowitz is alive and well

He won't be paroled because he is a serial killer; he was sentenced to six consecutive 25-life sentences.

Chapman murdered John Lennon; he was convicted of second degree murder, not first, for that crime. Plenty of people who committed similar murders have entered and left the New York State prison system during the time Chapman has been there. If it were the exact same facts but not a famous musician, Chapman would almost surely have been paroled already, probably after 27-29 years (i.e., probably around 2010).

[thucythucy]

28. My mistake re: Berkowitz.

I was thinking of the Boston Strangler.

Not to be too picky, but if you could cite some examples of the "plenty of people" who have committed similar murders being released I'd be most appreciative. I mean people who decided to murder someone for no particular personal reason, but rather only for the attendant publicity.

Chapman actually had a list of celebrities he wanted to murder, including Ronald Reagan, Jacqueline Kennedy, Elizabeth Taylor, George C. Scott and Johnny Carson. Lennon just happened to be the most accessible. Given the opportunity, he might well have gone on killing. It's not like he had any compunctions about doing brutal things to people he didn't know.

He also had a history of stalking and threatening people he thought had slighted him, or were "phony." One of his victims reported how Chapman made up to forty threatening phone calls a day for a period of months. "A voice would whisper, 'Bang bang, you're dead!'" (Chapman confessed to making these phone calls).

Chapman deliberately used hollow nosed rounds, making his attack especially vicious. Lennon was conscious for several minutes after being shot, losing consciousness on the way to the hospital. During that time he puked up pieces of flesh that had been torn loose by the attack. His last moments must have been horrific.

And I'm not sure it's such a bad thing that murdering someone prominent, someone famous, be considered a factor in the severity of punishment. I think there is an argument to be made that killing someone like that--whether a political leader such as JFK, a movement leader such as MLK Jr. or a cultural leader such as Lennon--is a crime not only against that individual but also against the culture at large. The result is a profound shock to the entire society, almost on a par with terrorism. Such a shock is precisely what Chapman wanted.

So maybe "killing a famous musician" should carry with it an extra penalty, just as a murder committed as a hate crime.

[greenjar_01]

29. Let me see if I understand you

You don't believe that there is anybody convicted of a second-degree murder by gun of a single victim that has been incarcerated and released on parole in New York State since 1980? You need specific examples of such cases?

I don't think John Lennon, for the purposes of adjudicating punishment, is any more special than any of those victims, for surely there are SOME. Chapman's parole chances should not be based on the fact that the person he killed was famous. I don't find your argument of a crime against the culture compelling; while New York state parole boards are given wide discretion on how they view the "circumstances of the crime," the idea that you've committed "a crime against the culture" just seems random. The law should treat victims and offenders mostly equally.

[thucythucy]

32. Yes, some examples would be helpful.

You stated that "plenty of people" who committed crimes analogous to Chapman's have been released by parole boards. I wonder on what basis you make this assertion. Is it something you know, or merely something you assume? In any case, since you made the assertion I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you cite an example or two. But if you can't, that's fine too.

You also say parole boards are given wide discretion, which means they consider--I would hope in some detail--the particulars of the cases before them. I would suppose among these particulars would be the motivation behind the crime, the viciousness and cruelty of the attack, the suffering of the victim, the impact on loved ones and the community, and also the contrition or lack thereof expressed by the perpetrator. (The fact that the crime's impact on survivors is considered a factor is seen in how victim impact statements are now a common feature of trial proceedings). So I'd be interested in making some comparisons, to look at how these factors are weighed, especially since you seem to be arguing that the only reason Chapman continues to be in custody is because he killed a famous musician.

I agree that the law should treat victims and offenders mostly equally, with obvious exceptions. Crimes against children, for instance, should carry a greater burden of punishment than similar crimes against adults. But by and large I agree we should strive for equality before the law.

But there may be instances where similar crimes might have unequal impacts and thus perhaps should entail unequal consequences. Defacing a liquor store wall is different from defacing a synagogue or mosque, smashing a light fixture in a museum is different from smashing a Greek statue from the fourth century BC.

I was in Sweden not too long after Prime Minister Palme was assassinated, and there was a sense that the entire nation had been traumatized, even though it was to outward appearances a rather ordinary street crime. Just as JFK's murder was, under the law, no different from any other murder in Dallas that year. And yet we do make a distinction, even in the language we use to describe what is basically the same crime. We don't usually say Kennedy was murdered, we say he was assassinated. Jewish cemeteries spray painted with swastikas are not only vandalized, they're desecrated.

I admit to being ambivalent about this notion of "crimes against culture" or cultural figures. It was a thought that came to mind, and so I threw it out there. I'm less ambivalent about the thought that the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. is a different sort of crime, a crime against not only a single man, but also against an entire community, a crime of terrorism as well as murder.

I suppose one could argue that MLK's murderer (or assassin) be treated no more harshly than the murder of anyone else. Each life is precious, each victim is dead, each family is torn. Even so, do you not see any difference in the impact of those crimes? And should that difference in impact not be reflected somehow in the consequences meted out to the perpetrator[s]?

But I'm not wedded to this notion, just throwing it out there for discussion.

[greenjar_01]

36. Here's a compiled list of 235 murderers paroled in New York State just in 2017

https://www.newyorkupstate.com/news/2017/10/see_list_of_235_recently_released_murderers_including_4_from_central_new_york.html

Many entered the system in the 1990s and even 2000s. Many of the crimes are substantially the same as the shooting of John Lennon, minus the fame factor and records sold (i.e., shooting of one person, adjudicated second degree murder). Some seem to me substantially worse.

That's plenty, I think, and that's just one recent year. Of course, the whole exercise is silly, since you and I both well knew that plenty of people who committed substantially the same crime (minus the fame and records sold) entered and left the system since 1980. I still don't find the culture argument compelling. I also don't find the crime here to have been a political assassination comparable to the shooting of Martin Luther King Jr.

[thucythucy]

37. Thanks for the info.

I'll view this in more detail later, but a cursory look already shows some extenuating circumstances. One of the "murderers" was not actually at the scene of the crime, but was involved with those who were, and was thus charged with second degree murder. There seem to be other instances of a similar nature.

But yes, there are people here who clearly committed heinous crimes. It seems strange to me that we have people in prison for non-violent drug offenses, while others who perpetrated vicious crimes of violence are set free.

You say you don't find Lennon's murder comparable to the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and I agree. But does this mean you believe that the murder of Dr. King should have a different response from the criminal justice system than other firearm murders? Had Oswald not been murdered himself, and assuming he had been found guilty at trial, would you be all right with him being paroled at some point in the decades following his crime?

Anyway, thank you again for this information. It gives me lots to think about,

[greenjar_01]

39. I believe in parole eligibility for the vast majority of offenders

Obviously, there are reasonable exceptions, but the default should be eligibility and parole for most offenders.

[Bengus81]

41. Maybe Yoko Ono and Sean show up each time and make a compelling case.......

To keep that POS locked up for more years. Sean was only five when his dad was murdered. They count too, not just numbers. I don't know if parole hearing transcripts are ever available for the public to see.

[greenjar_01]

42. If that's how most similar cases are treated and adjudicated, that's fine

I have no problem if they're making the decision mostly in the same way that they make other decisions, with reasonable adjustments for the specific circumstances, of course. If he has no real chance of parole simply because of the fame or popularity of the victim, that doesn't strike me as fair or just.

I do think that many offenders with crimes substantially the same or even worse have been paroled, family opposition or not. I'm not arguing, incidentally, for the parole of this particular offender, by the way. I'm arguing that he deserves to be treated equally under law vis-a-vis his eligibility and possibility for parle. It's not really that radical an argument, to be honest.

[Dial H For Hero]

30. Sorry, don't buy it. The punishment for killing someone shouldn't be more severe simply because the

victim sold a lot of records.

[thucythucy]

33. See my post 32 above. nt

[Dial H For Hero]

38. I respectfully disagree. One shouldn't be punished less for killing an anonymous citizen than they

would be for killing a famous movie star.

[LeftInTX]

45. Sirhan Sirhan is still alive and in prison

He's a nutjob

[Polybius]

34. That just shows me that the system is broken

Let them all rot.

[LeftInTX]

44. Parole is subjective

I agree with you, if you look at the facts on paper.
What other factors, besides killing a beloved artist were taken into consideration in his parole hearing?

If it appears he could be a danger if releaed, then he stays. If not, he should go.

[AC_Mem]

14. He should NEVER be released

My heart still stops and my eyes fill with tears when I think about what we lost when he took John Lennon's life. I love and listen to the Beatles every day - they have been the music of my life and he was 1/2 of the most gifted composer duos ever known.

The person who took his life should never be free. He should be thankful that he still has his life, a choice he took away from John.

Annette

[mdbl]

15. Let him rot in prison forever

He doesn't deserve freedom when he deprived someone else of their freedom.

[scarletwoman]

16. Good. Works for me.

Let him spend the rest of his days meditating.

[Zorro]

17. He will die in prison

[LudwigPastorius]

23. You got your greatest wish, asshole.

You're (in)famous.

You don't get your next greatest wish, freedom.

Personally, I think the state is doing you a favor keeping you inside. There are still plenty of people in this world who would like to fuck you up for what you did.

[Mad_Dem_X]

43. Agreed. He wouldn't last five minutes

out on the streets if he were released. Let him rot in prison.

[cp]

24. Rot in hell

LIfe in prison is justice in this case. No parole, ever.

[yuiyoshida]

25. Good!

let him rot in prison.

[Dial H For Hero]

31. Fine with me. Not because it was Lennon as such, but simply because it was premeditated murder.

On a personal note, I was in college when Lennon was killed. I remember half the people on campus breaking out into tears, some of the sobbing as they heard the news. I didn't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I knew who the man was, but I didn't understand the emotional attachment that so many of my fellow students seemed to have to him. Granted, I wasn't particularly a fan at the time (I've since grown to appreciate his music), but even if a musician or author I particularly liked was murdered, I would never have reacted in so strong a manner.

[MrsCheaplaugh]

35. He can rot in jail, then rot in hell

I have never seen a shred of genuine remorse from that man. He's a psychopath, and if released would still pose a danger to society.

[Bengus81]

48. A convicted murderer gets a new parole hearing approx every 3.5 years??

Seriously?

[Brother Buzz]

49. Ah, that explains why the wacko was triggered and was calling late night call in radio... again...

Telling us he has irrefutable proof that Stephen King shot John Lennon. Steve Lightfoot is a nut and has been calling radio call in stations for decades. His website reads like a Dr. Bronner's label.

Here's his wall of text bio, (pack a lunch ): http://lennonmurdertruth.com/about-the-author/