Thoughts on Mark Chapman

DICKIEDUVET

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,384
Reaction score
1,153
Points
1,204
Age
49
Location
Kidderminster
On the 30th anniversary of John Lennon's death I was wondering how people feel about his incarceration and the continued denial of parole. Is this justified ?, Has he served his time ? Are they keeping him locked up for his own safety ?
 
Life should mean life. John Lennon's still dead isn't he?
 
I think it's wrong that he has so far had 30 years whilst others are out after 10 years or even less for killing other people.

John Lennon is no more or less important than anyone else.
 
He should serve life, My thoughts exactly, I heard someone say recently that he's served his time etc....Doesn't just apply to Chapman. Applies to anyone who takes the life of another person in a premeditated manner.
 
he's not just a pre-meditated murderer, he's a psychopath, a total wacko who was fixated by certain things (Catcher in the Rye, hatred of a stranger, etc)
- someone like that should never be free
 
Whether others get out after 10 years is irrelevant IMO. He should never get out, and neither should others who take a life. Strange OP.....
 
I dont think there is anything odd about it at all.

The OP isnt asking whether you should or shouldnt serve actual life for murder but should Mark Chapman now be released after 30 years. Has he served his time.

The answer is simple really, would he have served 30 years for killing my next door neighbor? Probably not, I dont think you can sentence someone in accordance with how important/loved the person they killed was.
 
the guy had mental health issues and was incarcerated for the safety of the public and himself, not just for murder. he's had a number of reviews and it's been found he's not yet ready for release

the guy pleased not guilty due to insanity but was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years to life, not a fixed 20 years. he is eligible for review every two years and so far been turned down for release six times. i think the panel of people reviewing his case are probably the best people to make the right decision, and i think that decision should stand
 
Didn't I hear somewhere people have touted Robbie Williams as being the next John Lennon?

Let the guy out I say, what harm can come of it?
 
Nothing medically wrong with him which was proved in his trial. he should have been executed.
 
To me the majority of those guilty of murder should be locked up for the rest of their natural years. I say the majority because there are always mitigating circumstances and everything isn't always in black and white as much as some people who are uncomfortable with individual thinking try to make it.

From his mental health assessments he appears to still be a danger. Keep him locked up.
 
The answer is simple really, would he have served 30 years for killing my next door neighbor? Probably not, I dont think you can sentence someone in accordance with how important/loved the person they killed was.

It's not comparable. Would he have had an unhealthy fixation with your next door neighbour, an original unknown person? And even if he did, would he have done it was the same reason - fame? No. So this particular type of murder is very rare. 'krish' put it perfectly above - he's a fruitloop, not just some random criminal who ended up killing someone.

Just because he only killed once, doesn't make him any less dangerous than a serial nutcase. Why take the risk, he would've survive more than a few days outside anyway so it would ruin a few more lives in the process.

ps. Anyone watch the documentary a couple of nights ago? (Channel4 I think). Very good I thought.
 
ps. Anyone watch the documentary a couple of nights ago? (Channel4 I think). Very good I thought.

Yeah, I saw it too. Fantastic documentary and really made me think. What if that other (heavily bearded) fan had alerted the police to Mark being a bit of an odd character? He must have thought that himself - it must be a terrible weight on his mind I'd imagine.

As for Mark, if he's been turned down 6 times already he's obviously still not right. My view is that he should've been executed long ago (same with anyone who takes a life in a premeditated fashion). There was just no motivation for this whatsoever, so he's clearly a nutcase who shouldn't be released imho. If he is ever released, it's a matter of time before he gets his comeuppance.
 
Yeah, I saw it too. Fantastic documentary and really made me think. What if that other (heavily bearded) fan had alerted the police to Mark being a bit of an odd character? He must have thought that himself - it must be a terrible weight on his mind I'd imagine.

Problem is, this is New York City, it's absolutely full of odd characters & judging by the fella's facial hair - that includes him :)

That photo he took was freaky though, not the final photo but the one with Chapman. His eyes over the top of his glasses looking at Lennon is so creepy
 
Didn't he kill John Lennon so he would be written into history?

Keep him locked up, releasing him would only see a queue of people trying to murder him.
 
I think those paid to have a better understanding of the psychopathic mind have made a decision based on the evidence in front of them.
 
Anyone who shoots someone 4 times in the back should be locked up indefinitely.

Just a complete nutcase who killed a genius, husband and father in the prime of his life.

Let him rot.
 
Whether others get out after 10 years is irrelevant IMO. He should never get out, and neither should others who take a life. Strange OP.....
nothing strange about it .Not all murder cases are the same although in this case i think he should be kept locked, all the while he is seen as a continuing threat
 
The echoes in the this thread suggest that he should remain locked up because he killed John Lennon, NOT because he killed. What makes John Lennon so special? He was not a messiah, he was not an angel, he was just a musician. There have been better (matter of of opinion of course) and lesser musicians before and after him. There are more influential figures in society before and after him.

Since his death he has been idolised and put on a pedestal, such is the way for many a dead celebrity. Which is wrong IMO.

Yesterdays radio spent the majority of it's time focusing on celebrating JL's life and music, because it was the anniversary of his death - it was also the anniv of "Dimebag" Darrel Abbott's death - another musician shot to death by a psycho while he perfomed live on stage. Now in MY opinion, Darrel Abbott was a more influential person in the music scene, and was a true innovator. He paved the way for guitarists we know and love today. What he was doing in the early days of his career was unheard of and was a truly innovative method of playing guitar.

So what makes JL more important than Darrel Abbott? I find it offensive that the media focus on JL on December 8th and no mention of Darrel Abbott is even made. Because he was a member of the Beatles? The most over-rated band in history (IMO)? So what?

Darrell Abbott was a son, a brother; On December 8, 2004, Abbott was shot onstage while performing with Damageplan at the Alrosa Villa in Columbus, Ohio. The gunman was Nathan Gale, who shot Abbott six times, including four times in the head, killing him instantly. Gale then continued shooting, killing four others and wounding a further seven. Gale fired a total of fifteen shots, stopping to reload once and remaining silent throughout the shooting.

Fortunately Nathan Gale was killed by a responding police officer before he had the chance to kill/wound anyone else, including Darrell's brother and drummer Vinny Paul.

The cases are very similar in a lot of respects - crazed obsessed psycho goes deliberatly to kill artist. The main difference only being that Abbott was shot on stage and JL outside his apartment complex.

So why should JL be heralded so?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom