Chapman denied parole for the seventh time

SheSaidSheSaidSheSaidSheSaid Washed Up
edited August 2012 in Less Rokk More Talk
John Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, was denied release from prison in his seventh appearance before a parole board, New York corrections officials said.

If you're not aware, corrections officials have largely considered Chapman a model prisoner since shortly after his first parole application. It's often believed that political pressures (and the wishes of Yoko) are the only things behind his continued incarceration.

He will be eligible for parole again in 2014.

Comments

  • raynebcraynebc Road Warrior
    edited August 2012
    I don't have any sympathy for murderers.
  • ClaptonsWigClaptonsWig I Can't Dance
    edited August 2012
    They need to bring back the death penalty.
  • firedoom666firedoom666 Headliner
    edited August 2012
    ClaptonsWig;4853282 said:
    They need to bring back the death penalty.

    this... or at least use it more often
  • SheSaidSheSaidSheSaidSheSaid Washed Up
    edited August 2012
    I doubt Chapman will ever be paroled. No one wants to be known as the parole board who set free John Lennon's murderer.
  • DangimarockerDangimarocker Headliner
    edited August 2012
    firedoom666;4853313 said:
    this... or at least use it more often

    Agree, especially on the theater shooter.
  • WitticusWitticus VERY DEEP
    edited August 2012
    I think he should be paroled for being my favorite part of the Monty Python team.
  • LiveHomeVideoLiveHomeVideo Trying too hard
    edited August 2012
    Witticus;4853496 said:
    I think he should be paroled for being my favorite part of the Monty Python team.

    He was in Monty Python? I'll never look at that show the same way again ;_;

    I say let 'em rot.
  • firedoom666firedoom666 Headliner
    edited August 2012
    Dangimarocker;4853487 said:
    Agree, especially on the theater shooter.

    or the Tucson shooter :(
  • jawillroyjawillroy Rising Star
    edited August 2012
    LiveHomeVideo;4853516 said:
    He was in Monty Python?
    Nope. I believe the witticus was being the witty.
    Graham Chapman =/= Mark David Chapman.
  • WitticusWitticus VERY DEEP
    edited August 2012
    jawillroy;4853535 said:
    Nope. I believe the witticus was being the witty.
    Graham Chapman =/= Mark David Chapman.

    At least someone caught the joke. All the title said was "Chapman denied parole"
  • jawillroyjawillroy Rising Star
    edited August 2012
    Could also have referenced the inventor of "The Stick"
  • RockBandRockerRockBandRocker Love Is A Battleship
    edited August 2012
    Witticus;4853543 said:
    At least someone caught the joke. All the title said was "Chapman denied parole"

    Well, Graham Chapman has been dead for close to 2 decades.

    He is no more.

    He has ceased to be.

    He's a stiff. Bereft of life.

    He's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
  • ClaptonsWigClaptonsWig I Can't Dance
    edited August 2012
    RockBandRocker;4853548 said:
    Well, Graham Chapman has been dead for close to 2 decades.

    He is no more.

    He has ceased to be.

    He's a stiff. Bereft of life.

    He's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

    Sit on my face, and tell me that you love me!
  • SheSaidSheSaidSheSaidSheSaid Washed Up
    edited August 2012
    Well, a guy named Mark Chapman did play John Lennon in a movie. Mark Lindsay Chapman. I bet he's reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll happy the world knows his girly middle name :p
  • soup567soup567 Headliner
    edited August 2012
    ClaptonsWig;4853282 said:
    They need to bring back the death penalty.

    It never went away.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

    As terrible as a crime murder is, I am 100% opposed to the death penalty. Innocent people wind up getting killed because of it.
  • www1221www1221 StackOverflowError
    edited August 2012
    SheSaidSheSaid;4853556 said:
    Well, a guy named Mark Chapman did play John Lennon in a movie. Mark Lindsay Chapman. I bet he's reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll happy the world knows his girly middle name :p

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Buckingham
  • SheSaidSheSaidSheSaidSheSaid Washed Up
    edited August 2012
    Lindsey Buckingham is American????!!!!???!?!?!???!?!??!?!??!?!??!??!?!?!!!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!!!!??!?!?


    (no but seriously, I thought he was English. Is it the 'Buckingham' connection, or am I just an idiot?)
  • WitticusWitticus VERY DEEP
    edited August 2012
    RockBandRocker;4853548 said:
    Well, Graham Chapman has been dead for close to 2 decades.

    He is no more.

    He has ceased to be.

    He's a stiff. Bereft of life.

    He's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

    Yeah which is why it would be kind of sad to not parole a guy whose been dead just a little bit less than Lenon.
  • ClaptonsWigClaptonsWig I Can't Dance
    edited August 2012
    soup567;4853560 said:
    It never went away.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

    As terrible as a crime murder is, I am 100% opposed to the death penalty. Innocent people wind up getting killed because of it.

    Just like innocent people serve life sentences. Id rather get rid of the guilty people who are contaminating our streets and prisons then those who may or may not have committed the crime.
  • raynebcraynebc Road Warrior
    edited August 2012
    soup567;4853560 said:
    As terrible as a crime murder is, I am 100% opposed to the death penalty. Innocent people wind up getting killed because of it.

    And jailing severe criminals is likewise a drain on society. There are occasionally instances where there is 0% doubt and irrefutable proof that somebody is guilty of a horrible criminal act. It is in these instances where the death penalty should be applied swiftly instead of housing somebody for decades waffling back and forth about whether a death penalty that has already been decided by the courts is going to be acted upon.

    What about repeat offenses of murder? How many second chances need to be given before it's decided that somebody is unfit to ever be part of society and rehabilitation is not feasible? If somebody cannot be rehabilitated, it's not worth keeping them imprisoned for the rest of their lives.
  • soup567soup567 Headliner
    edited August 2012
    raynebc;4853618 said:
    And jailing severe criminals is likewise a drain on society. There are occasionally instances where there is 0% doubt and irrefutable proof that somebody is guilty of a horrible criminal act. It is in these instances where the death penalty should be applied swiftly instead of housing somebody for decades waffling back and forth about whether a death penalty that has already been decided by the courts is going to be acted upon.

    What about repeat offenses of murder? How many second chances need to be given before it's decided that somebody is unfit to ever be part of society and rehabilitation is not feasible? If somebody cannot be rehabilitated, it's not worth keeping them imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

    I say no in every case because as long as the death penalty remains there are going to be people who are innocent that are going to end up wrongly accused and sentenced. I think instead of focusing on punishing criminals we should be focusing on crime prevention by fighting poverty and implementing stricter gun control measures like the assault weapons ban and and better background checks.
  • ClaptonsWigClaptonsWig I Can't Dance
    edited August 2012
    soup567;4853634 said:
    I say no in every case because as long as the death penalty remains there are going to be people who are innocent that are going to end up wrongly accused and sentenced. I think instead of focusing on punishing criminals we should be focusing on crime prevention by fighting poverty and implementing stricter gun control measures like the assault weapons ban and and better background checks.

    I take it you believe OJ really was innocent.
  • raynebcraynebc Road Warrior
    edited August 2012
    soup567;4853634 said:
    I say no in every case because as long as the death penalty remains there are going to be people who are innocent that are going to end up wrongly accused and sentenced. I think instead of focusing on punishing criminals we should be focusing on crime prevention by fighting poverty and implementing stricter gun control measures like the assault weapons ban and and better background checks.

    When there is irrefutable proof (such as unaltered footage of the crime that IDs the criminal), then it is not reasonable to argue that the accused may be innocent. And yes, I would reserve the use of the death penalty for such irrefutable cases.

    Fight poverty how? There will always be people that are relatively poor, due to bad luck, bad life choices, bad work ethic, etc. As always, criminals will circumvent gun control laws and will be able to reap the benefits of having a lesser-defended populace to victimize.
  • SheSaidSheSaidSheSaidSheSaid Washed Up
    edited August 2012
    raynebc;4853727 said:
    Fight poverty how? There will always be people that are relatively poor, due to bad luck, bad life choices, bad work ethic, etc. As always, criminals will circumvent gun control laws and will be able to reap the benefits of having a lesser-defended populace to victimize.

    When truism meets thesaurus :p
  • LiveHomeVideoLiveHomeVideo Trying too hard
    edited August 2012
    Witticus;4853543 said:
    At least someone caught the joke. All the title said was "Chapman denied parole"

    I just headdesked so hard that I need to go to the hospital.
  • TheStuddzTheStuddz Lil Rascal
    edited August 2012
    He killed a musical genius, a legend, a one-of-a-kind treasure.

    No, he should not be set free. Here's to hoping he stays in jail until he passes.
  • SheSaidSheSaidSheSaidSheSaid Washed Up
    edited August 2012
    TheStuddz;4853767 said:
    He killed a musical genius, a legend, a one-of-a-kind treasure.

    No, he should not be set free. Here's to hoping he stays in jail until he passes.

    So if he had just killed some guy, well a) we wouldn't be having this discussion, but b) you'd be cool with him getting out?

    This is what I meant by "political pressures." Because murdering John Lennon is suuuuuuuuuch a more heinous crime than 'plain old' murder.
  • soup567soup567 Headliner
    edited August 2012
    ClaptonsWig;4853704 said:
    I take it you believe OJ really was innocent.

    I don't know what that has to do with this. I was a baby when the trial was going on. It's not something that I've ever looked into, so I have no strong opinions on the matter.
    raynebc;4853727 said:
    When there is irrefutable proof (such as unaltered footage of the crime that IDs the criminal), then it is not reasonable to argue that the accused may be innocent. And yes, I would reserve the use of the death penalty for such irrefutable cases.
    Even when it's irrefutable and when the accused is known to be guilty for a fact, I still say no. I think the harshest punishment for a murder should be life in prison. An eye for an eye is not a philosophy I subscribe too.
    Fight poverty how? There will always be people that are relatively poor, due to bad luck, bad life choices, bad work ethic, etc. As always, criminals will circumvent gun control laws and will be able to reap the benefits of having a lesser-defended populace to victimize.
    By poverty I didn't really mean bad life choices or work ethic, I more or less meant being born into it. And often is the case then is when you have nothing, sometimes illegal activities seem like the only viable options. I think adopting more economic fairness measures directly benefits the less fortunate, and in turn could lead to less crime.

    And criminals aren't necessarily circumventing laws to get weapons. The Aurora shooter acquired his arms legally. If the assault weapons ban was still in place he would not of been able to acquire the assault weapons or high-capacity magazines that he used.
  • SheSaidSheSaidSheSaidSheSaid Washed Up
    edited August 2012
    At least we do it better than the Norwegians. Anders Breivik is "imprisoned" here. In addition to the amenities that video shows, each "prisoner" is afforded free and unlimited access to college-level education courses.

    So he gets a college degree, a kickass gym membership and a better apartment than I could ever afford, let alone actually get. All for killing 77 people, which he has confessed to doing.
  • raynebcraynebc Road Warrior
    edited August 2012
    soup567;4853795 said:
    Even when it's irrefutable and when the accused is known to be guilty for a fact, I still say no. I think the harshest punishment for a murder should be life in prison. An eye for an eye is not a philosophy I subscribe too.
    I disagree, but that's life. As far as "eye for an eye" goes, I don't agree that blindfolding somebody permanently (keeping them in prison for life) is a more effective or just punishment.
    By poverty I didn't really mean bad life choices or work ethic, I more or less meant being born into it. And often is the case then is when you have nothing, sometimes illegal activities seem like the only viable options. I think adopting more economic fairness measures directly benefits the less fortunate, and in turn could lead to less crime.
    The tax code is already extremely progressive. Everybody deserves a chance in life, but not endless second chances, especially when it's at somebody else's expense.
    And criminals aren't necessarily circumventing laws to get weapons. The Aurora shooter acquired his arms legally. If the assault weapons ban was still in place he would not of been able to acquire the assault weapons or high-capacity magazines that he used.
    And if he couldn't buy an assault rifle, he would have just used another weapon. Access to firearms was not a problem for him. Personally, I don't think an assault weapon is reasonably necessary to protect oneself except for in a war zone, but the anti-gun crowd just as easily goes to the other polar extreme by demanding that people not be able to carry guns in various places or at all. I read an article today where a college professor threatened that he would stop teaching class if he found any of his students had a concealed carry permit. The head of the school retaliated by saying the professor had no right to make such a threat, and if he did so he would be reprimanded.
Sign In or Register to comment.