Mark D. Chapman denied parole after 28yrs of a 20yrs to life sentence for murdering John Lennon. Should he ever be let out?
Submitted 93 days ago by HauliFavoriteEmbedOptions
Mark D. Chapman denied parole after 28yrs of a 20yrs to life sentence for murdering John Lennon. Should he ever be let out?(Please click yes or no)
Personally, I think they should keep in in for his own safety. I don't think he'd be out for a full day before some other nutcase Beatles fan took him out.
That was my first reaction too, but should he be punished more harshly for killing someone beloved by millions than he would if it were an unknown person loved only by his own family?
If one day the mental health people feel he is no longer a threat to anyone, he should be freed.
I agree, but I voted no because I know that in the USA and most other countries in this sad world nothing is done to ensure he get monitored or counseling. It would be cheaper then keeping people like that in jail. But risky for the career of a politician.
I would like to see what the likelihood of re offending is, as compared with the general population and first time offenders. Including from nations that do "proper" rehabilitation.
On reflection I feel that same way about all murderers, life should mean life, unless there are some very exceptional circumstances, reviewed on a case by case basis.
As for mental patients who murder, this is a very sore point with me.
People who claim to be experts decide that it is OK to release someone back into society because they have "cured" them. Only too often they then proceed to kill or injure another innocent citizen.
I have much loathing for these "experts" who need to justify their jobs by making arbitary decisions with no comeback on themselves.
Were they people of honour they should put their reputations and livelihoods on th line when thy release someone to prey upon the innocent.
When a released mental patient reoffends, those releasign them should join them when they are sent back to jail!
There of course lies the difference between he and me.
(the point I was trying to make, in a way to cryptic way I admit, is that loonies don't get cured, they just stop showing symptoms in a nice controlled environment.
What happens when they get outside in the world of stress and gyp of every kind is anyone's guess, and sadly the "experts" do guess and gamble with innocent peoples lives, without having to put their own freedom up as stake money!
I think it probably depends on what was wrong with him mentally in the first place...there are some pretty good drug regimens out there. (I watched my own mother turn into a complete loon and be brought back by one of the newer drugs). As far as I know though, there is no way to compel someone to stay on the drugs (unless, perhaps, it was conditional upon their release from jail?). I wish there was a middle ground area for people like him.
Hmmm, well I know you can do a lot with drugs, but I think it is one think to stop someone seeing pink elephants floating around the room, and something totally different to stop someone killing, attacking without reason, raping etc.
If the pink elephant person is let out and has a relapse, they see a few pink elephants, go back in, you chance the drugs, watch them for a while, and let them out again.
If the violent offender has a relapse, an innocent person will pay the price.
not sure if it was because it was so close to where I live, a place I pass regularly, or becuase she was so young and innocent, but it seemed such a senseless waste of life.
(I was amazed to see it was 2001, I remember it like it was this year).
Also, a policeman was stabbed to death locally by someone who kept getting released despite numerous violent incidents.
Because I don't believe criminal punishment should be meted out on our assessment of what damage a collateral party received. Are you suggesting that someone who is put in jail for murdering someone without a spouse should receive less punishment than someone who murdered with a spouse?
People don't get sane in an noncorrectional environment do they? If it was truly a corrections system the recidivism (return to prison) rate would not be as high as it is. When the USA recidivism rate drops to less than 1% perhaps then it will be a sign our noncorrectional system has achieved it's goal (hopefully that's its goal) and has become a corrections system, and then we can start focusing more on the 20 years (less with good behavior) than on the LIFE possibility of a 20 to LIFE sentence. As it is now, why make parole mistakes that only help to keep the recidivism rates as high as they are?
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/08/lenoons-killer.html
Personally, I think they should keep in in for his own safety. I don't think he'd be out for a full day before some other nutcase Beatles fan took him out.
Hope he stays there until he rots personally.
Just think of all that potential for more wonderful music he deprived us of.
That was my first reaction too, but should he be punished more harshly for killing someone beloved by millions than he would if it were an unknown person loved only by his own family?
If one day the mental health people feel he is no longer a threat to anyone, he should be freed.
I agree, but I voted no because I know that in the USA and most other countries in this sad world nothing is done to ensure he get monitored or counseling. It would be cheaper then keeping people like that in jail. But risky for the career of a politician.
I would like to see what the likelihood of re offending is, as compared with the general population and first time offenders. Including from nations that do "proper" rehabilitation.
Very good point.
On reflection I feel that same way about all murderers, life should mean life, unless there are some very exceptional circumstances, reviewed on a case by case basis.
As for mental patients who murder, this is a very sore point with me.
People who claim to be experts decide that it is OK to release someone back into society because they have "cured" them. Only too often they then proceed to kill or injure another innocent citizen.
I have much loathing for these "experts" who need to justify their jobs by making arbitary decisions with no comeback on themselves.
Were they people of honour they should put their reputations and livelihoods on th line when thy release someone to prey upon the innocent.
When a released mental patient reoffends, those releasign them should join them when they are sent back to jail!
Did they ever deal with the mental problems that put him in there in the first place?
If not, maybe they should start, huh?
No, as far as I know, they have not removed his trigger finger!
Should we put you in jail, then, as you have one, even if you are not inclined to use it?
There of course lies the difference between he and me.
(the point I was trying to make, in a way to cryptic way I admit, is that loonies don't get cured, they just stop showing symptoms in a nice controlled environment.
What happens when they get outside in the world of stress and gyp of every kind is anyone's guess, and sadly the "experts" do guess and gamble with innocent peoples lives, without having to put their own freedom up as stake money!
I think it probably depends on what was wrong with him mentally in the first place...there are some pretty good drug regimens out there. (I watched my own mother turn into a complete loon and be brought back by one of the newer drugs). As far as I know though, there is no way to compel someone to stay on the drugs (unless, perhaps, it was conditional upon their release from jail?). I wish there was a middle ground area for people like him.
Hmmm, well I know you can do a lot with drugs, but I think it is one think to stop someone seeing pink elephants floating around the room, and something totally different to stop someone killing, attacking without reason, raping etc.
If the pink elephant person is let out and has a relapse, they see a few pink elephants, go back in, you chance the drugs, watch them for a while, and let them out again.
If the violent offender has a relapse, an innocent person will pay the price.
Would you want to acept responsibility for that?
I know I would not.
Was he medicated before he killed? And if you remove the dementia, is it not also likely you have removed the reason to kill?
This is why I would love some kind of third option.
This case always seemed a good reason for detaining dangerous mental patients.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1701820.stm
not sure if it was because it was so close to where I live, a place I pass regularly, or becuase she was so young and innocent, but it seemed such a senseless waste of life.
(I was amazed to see it was 2001, I remember it like it was this year).
Also, a policeman was stabbed to death locally by someone who kept getting released despite numerous violent incidents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4562621.stm
As long as Yoko Ono is still alive, Chapman should remain in jail!
Why?
Why not? :-)
Because I don't believe criminal punishment should be meted out on our assessment of what damage a collateral party received. Are you suggesting that someone who is put in jail for murdering someone without a spouse should receive less punishment than someone who murdered with a spouse?
No. I didn't suggest that. I just asked, "Why not?" And you told me. Good reason. 'Makes sense. :-)
Sorry...I'm a bit prickly today. Perhaps I should change my name to: ThePorcupine!
People don't get sane in an noncorrectional environment do they? If it was truly a corrections system the recidivism (return to prison) rate would not be as high as it is. When the USA recidivism rate drops to less than 1% perhaps then it will be a sign our noncorrectional system has achieved it's goal (hopefully that's its goal) and has become a corrections system, and then we can start focusing more on the 20 years (less with good behavior) than on the LIFE possibility of a 20 to LIFE sentence. As it is now, why make parole mistakes that only help to keep the recidivism rates as high as they are?