BTW, InternetLegend, I loved your Poundstone quote. I remember cracking up when I first heard her say that; I hadn’t thought of it here, but what an appropriate context. (And we could all stand a little laugh.) I know John was a peaceful man, and probably would have tried to take a charitable view of any given criminal, but still… I’m a highly peaceable person myself, but if I could speak from beyond the grave, I’m not sure I’d say, “That crazy dude that shot me, yeah, he’s a valuable addition to society, we need his contributions, let him out!”
Keeping a dangerous person in prison need not have an element of revenge to it.
Also agree with Johnny L.A. in that, for me and presumably everyone here, losing a person real and immediate to my life would be on an incalculable scale compared to the loss of any famous but remote person, no matter how beloved. However, the nature of this situation precludes the ability to assess it in such a context. Whatever our own sense of pain and loss, who among us can claim to feel what John’s wife or children feel? We can only perceive it from our own position.
I don’t believe this is true–like has been said before, a famous death just gets more publicity.
This is, I think, the major point here. If they let this guy or Manson or whoever killed somebody famous and well loved out of jail, you have to realize that there are people out there holding a grudge against these people and will be out to get them. I’m not saying that’s right, but I would bet that if Chapman is ever let go, he doesn’t make it 6 months before being killed or attacked by a bitter Lennon fan.
Unfortunately, they need to keep those guys in jail for their own safety.
The implication being, Sunshine, that there is a time when they’re safe to be let out? I suppose, then, you should ask the convict if he wants to leave or stay in the secure prison environment.
As knee jerk as my first post to this thread was, it merely reflects a humorous way to deal with sorrow.
I was not a big fan of Lennon’s solo work. I thoroughly detested what work of Yoko Ono’s that I heard. That said, please understand that nature of the crime is what I find so detestable.
The victim is stalked, pure and simple. The perpetrator knows well in advance that his actions are wrong. The element of noteriety produces a principal motivating factor.
In the most recent interviews the criminal continues to make assertions about both the victim and his family that are deeply disturbing at least. There are no significant signs of intense sorrow or deep remorse. There is instead the almost stock reply of “finding God.”
Notice how you can insert anybody’s name as the victim and the equation still produces the same result? This killer has not changed in the least from his original orientation. He still seeks publicity and provokes outcry with his twisted logic.
Regardless of his survival rate outside of prison, he remains a menace to society. The only pity is that there is no way to apply a retroactive death penalty to this case. (I know this flies in the face of the entire American judicial system.) What we have is a sociopath/psychopath and confinement is the only rational way of protecting society from such vermin.
Are you being delibrately obtuse? Did you really take my statement to mean that we should ask murderers if they prefer to stay or go? Don’t put words in my mouth and make it sound as if I think murderers should be set free. I don’t; in fact, I don’t think Capital Punishment is so awful. I also don’t belive that it is impossible for people to become reformed. There ARE people who can pay their debt to society and safely re-integrate into the community.
Since you obviously didn’t get what I was saying, let me try to re-explain it. Criminals who kill someone the public loves will probably be in danger if/when they are let out of jail. They should be kept in jail for the safety of the community as a whole, but there may also be some danger to the criminal’s personal safety as well. Do I think that should be taken into consideration at a parole hearing? No. They shouldn’t worry about what will happen to him if they let him out. They should be concerned about the safety of the public. He killed somebody and has to pay the price, even if that price extends beyond the prison walls.
I do feel that our prison system is too often a walk in the park. Free meals, t.v., weight lifting, library, studying for your degree…etc, etc, etc. are not punishments as far as I’m concerned. Murderers and other vicious criminals should be shut in a cell with nothing to do but think about the crime(s) they’ve committed, period. Pardon me if that doesn’t jive with the ACLU, but that’s what I think. I don’t care if you killed John Lennon or the guy next door, you should rot either way.
As someone who couldn’t care less if John Lennon had never walked the earth (see my “music is just noise” threads) I think Chapman should be treated as any other murderer.
If we, as a society, think murderers should have the possibility of parole then Chapman should be eligible for parole. If he has served his time by the criterion for parole he should be let out . . . regardless of what may happen to him.
If he is released and someone sees fit to kill him, that someone should go to jail.
If we, as a society, think murderers should have the possibility of parole then that person should be eligible for parole. If that person has served his time by the criterion for parole that person should be let out . . . regardless of what may happen to that person.
If that person is released and no one sees fit to kill that person, we should be sad that we, as a society, are so stupid that some people get preferential treatment for creating noise.
Sunshine, my only feeling is that consistency is the key point here. However as society decides to treat it’s convicted murderers, whether that be life imprisonment, the death penalty, or other, all murderers, irrespective of who they have killed, should be treated equally (given a comparable crime). The separate issue of keeping somebody incarcerated for their own well-being is indefensible.
Parole board: Welcome inmate X (insert the name of any imprisoned criminal here), you’ve served your sentence, but we’re going to keep you locked up.
Convict: Er…Why?
PB: We think the public is a danger to you.
Con: But not vice versa?
PB: No.
Con: Oh, joy of joys, how can I ever repay you for your kindness, please, guards, take me back to my cell at once!
I personally have no problems with capital punishment, but neither of these individuals were sentenced to death, so I just said keep em locked up. I won't execute a nut, however.
HELLO! Obviously, you are either being delibrately obtuse or you are not actually reading my posts. Go back and read them. I did say “Unfortunately, they need to keep those guys in jail for their own safety.” I did NOT mean that we SHOULD keep convicts locked up for their own safety. What I DID say was that IF we let them go, something may happen to them. That’s all. I believe you are deliberately misconstruing my meaning.
Here. Let me make it easy:
Feh. I don’t have time for somebody who is trying to make me look like something I’m not.
I’m really not trying to make you look like something you’re not. I thought this was simply a discussion. Anyway, I’m obviously an idiot, because the parts I’ve italicised above read the same no matter how many times I read them, although if it makes you happy, I’ll concede that you’re right;)
How ‘they should’ (the authorities?) and ‘we shouldn’t need’ to keep 'em locked up differ beats me.
If you can’t tell the difference between need to and should, then I can’t help you.
If anybody else wants to chime in here and tell me that I’m the only person who gets this difference, please do and I will stand corrected as the sole human who understands it.
Lurker, Manson was originaly sentenced to death, but while he was on death row, the death penalty was prohibited by federal mandate (I believe that it was declared unconstitutional for a period, but am not sure)
Manson’s death penalty was then commuted to life.
I don’t know about the sole human, but I certainly don’t see it. Yes, there is a difference between ‘need to’ and ‘should’, but if anything, ‘need to’ comes off as a stronger statement than ‘should’, and you appear to be argueing just the opposite. It seems to me that ‘should’ is just offering advice while ‘needs to’ is stating something that definetly should happen (in the opinion of the author).
“If you want to keep the person from coming to harm we need to keep them locked up. Because it would be wrong I am not saying that we should keep them locked up.”
Actually, IIRC, one of the reasons that Hinkley (Hinckley?) decided to latch onto Foster is because he was depressed over Lennon’s murder. So I suppose the two actually could be linked together.
What I want to know is, if Hinkley and Chapman were cellmates, what would they talk about?
