Kind of a hard question to answer, since the identity of his victim was pretty central to his crime. Not Lennon in particular, but “someone famous.” Killing someone just to get your name in the papers displays such a callous indifference to human life that I think a strong argument can be made against ever letting that person go free. If Chapman had killed someone who wasn’t famous, it would almost certainly have been for a different motive, and that would play into his eligibility for parole.
I would think so, but I’ve never been in favor of parole for murderers. 
That is probably true, but disturbing. I would hope he’d pay the same penalty for killing me as Lennon. :dubious:
Sure. If his victim would have been Paul McCartney.
Why is that disturbing? Do you think motive should not play a role in sentencing?
No, I think a murderer should be sentenced for killing another human being.
Was John Lennon more important than I? Did his life mean more to him than mine does to me or my family?
Who is more important when it comes to being murdered, you or me?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, here. Are you saying motive should not play a role in sentencing? A mob hitman should get exactly the same sentence as a father killing his daughter’s rapist?
I never said he was more important, I said that he was killed because his murderer wanted to become famous himself. That’s a motive that can only apply to a famous murder victim, so you can’t really make a meaningful comparison about Chapman killing anyone else, because if he’d killed anyone else, it would have been for an entirely different motive.
Me, obviously. 
If he is found guilty of murder, yes.
And he chose Lennon instead of you or me because…?
Because if he had killed me, he wouldn’t have become “the guy who killed the famous so-and-so”. Can you imagine…? “He is the guy who shot JoseB”? Nope… Nobody would become famous because of that! 
If it is true that killing somebody famous and achieving fame through it was such an essential part of his motive, it automatically follows that he would NOT have chosen you, me, or that guy down the street as his victim: He would not have achieved that kind of notoriety. A bit like Herostratus, the guy who supposedly burned down the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus just to become famous as “the guy who burned down the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus” (and, to counter that, the rulers of the city ordered his name to be erased from all documents and never to be pronounced ever again – we can see how well that worked :rolleyes: ). In fact, Lennon’s murderer is mentioned as an example of “Herostratic fame” in the relevant Wikipedia article about Herostratus, as an example of someone who commits a crime just to achieve some kind of notoriety.
If someone is going to murder me, it has to be for some other reason, which necessarily cannot include “becoming famous for having killed someone famous”.
Now, if I am one among a list of victims in a bid to “become famous for killing more people than the bloodiest, most terrible serial killer in recorded history”… But that would be the only “notoriety-related” reason I can remotely imagine for someone like that to target me.