Should Mark David Chapman (John Lennon killer) be paroled?

[Alben Barkley]

As I was debating the imminent paroles of Sirhan Sirhan and John Hinckley, I realized there is another, similar assassin of a prominent figure from several decades ago who remains jailed with little hope of parole: Mark David Chapman, the man who shot John Lennon in cold blood in the back as he was walking back to his NYC apartment with his wife in December 1980.

It seems clear based on the facts of the case that Chapman was severely disturbed in the head; he thought he was having conversations with God, among other things. He also seemed to have a parasocial relationship with the protagonist of The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield; he sat down and read the book while waiting for cops to arrive on the scene of his crime, and inside he had scribbled "I AM HOLDEN CAULFIELD!"

So clearly the man was not well. At all.

Nonetheless, he insisted against the advice of his own attorneys to plead guilty rather than not guilty by reason of insanity (frankly if I were his attorney today I would protest that he was not competent to make such a decision, but I digress...) and as a result was sentenced to 20 years to life. Now, over 40 years later, he has been denied parole every time it has come up.

His case is a bit more interesting than the others in the sense that I think you could actually make a case that he's better off incarcerated for his own safety. Many Beatles fans have threatened to kill him if he ever gets out of jail. Moreover, his crime was arguably more malicious and cold-blooded than the others; Sirhan and Hinckley both acted basically on impulse when opportunity struck, whereas Chapman literally waited for Lennon all day, and even had him sign an album for him that morning before killing him that evening.

It's a dicier situation in my mind, especially since it does not seem he has been unanimously cleared by the authorities as being fit for parole to the same extent as the others. Nonetheless, I tend to believe that life without parole is extreme for anybody, and I have to admit that if he had shot anybody else, he probably would have gotten out by now. And moreover, again I think his defense was shoddy and that alone could be grounds to overturn his sentence; I doubt he ever actually got the care he needed.

So what does Atlas think?

[DaleCooper]

I don't think he should be. I'm opposed to the idea of "No longer a threat" being reason enough to parole somebody in the case of murder. Rehabilitation should be a goal of prison system, but prison is not a rehabilitation center. I'm also not convinced that this man is actually safe to be amongst the public. There seems to be a lot of contradictions from Chapman himself about his motives. He was clearly unhinged, but the fact that he was at least partially motivated out of personal disdain for Lennon and the contradictions between his music and lifestyle makes me less sympathetic. The fact that it was premeditated and meticulously planned makes me completely unsympathetic.

Also, to be completely frank, we have way too many lunatics bumbling around the streets of this country. I'd be open to him being moved from a correctional facility to a mental institution, but does America really need another psychopath on the loose walking around thinking that the media is talking to him?

[PSOL]

Yes, because he is innocent. The most probable explanation was that he was drugged and coerced by a higher power to kill Lennon.

[Lambsbread]

Paroled? I think he should be given a medal!

[Alben Barkley]

Paroled? I think he should be given a medal!

And you know what? Joking or not, I'm just gonna nip this in the bud right now: There is exactly ONE recorded instance of John Lennon striking his first wife, Cynthia; she herself has long since forgiven it and, according to her accounts, the man basically broke down in tears immediately afterwards and begged for forgiveness. This whole myth of Lennon being some serial wife-beater is absolutely preposterous. He was not perfect, no, not by any means, but by the time he was shot he had for several years been turning his life around and was by all accounts a mature, decent family man by that time. The idea that he somehow "deserved" to be shot is even more ludicrous than the idea that Reagan did. Most of all, the man stood for music and peace. Regardless of any personal shortcomings or hypocrisy on his part, he absolutely did NOT deserve to be shot.

[Kleine Scheiße]

the idea that john lennon's most damnable transgression was somehow an isolated incident for which he was forgiven by his victim and not, among other things, his reprehensible treatment of julian, has never sat right with me

if you read cynthia's autobiography you will find that everything kywildman has said is accurate; if you can't trust cynthia herself about this, you should admit that you don't actually care about the topic and are just trolling because you think that enjoying the beatles is a political statement or something

voted no but i trust the parole board's determination one way or the other

[HisGrace]

If you think prisons are too crowded, let all the non-violent drug offenders out, who make up close to half the prison population. If you still think they're too crowded after that, then maybe talk about paroling some murderers but until then no. If anybody should be there they should.

[John Dule]

People who assassinate celebrities and politicians do so with the goal of having their names remembered. They should never be allowed to reap any benefits from their crimes, so as to discourage others from following in their footsteps.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Chapman had no right to take John Lennon's life regardless of what he did, and I'm hardly the guy's biggest fan myself, but if the parole board has determined he still poses a credible threat to other people or to himself, then he should just be placed in an institution at this point.

But I don't support life imprisonment for people because they killed a high-profile celebrity rather than a state official or someone who's not famous. I'm sounding like a broken record here, but I think the Scandinavian countries figured this one out many decades ago: set the maximum sentence at ~20 years and if they haven't or can't be reformed or if they're a domestic terrorist, just keep renewing it indefinitely.

[Dr. MB]

Yeah. 40 years is enough. I’m gonna be consistent here.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

As I was debating the imminent paroles of Sirhan Sirhan and John Hinckley, I realized there is another, similar assassin of a prominent figure from several decades ago who remains jailed with little hope of parole: Mark David Chapman, the man who shot John Lennon in cold blood in the back as he was walking back to his NYC apartment with his wife in December 1980.

Hinkley didn't kill anyone but he's still scum.  No, Chapman can cool his heels until he's six feet under.

[Alben Barkley]

the idea that john lennon's most damnable transgression was somehow an isolated incident for which he was forgiven by his victim and not, among other things, his reprehensible treatment of julian, has never sat right with me

if you read cynthia's autobiography you will find that everything kywildman has said is accurate; if you can't trust cynthia herself about this, you should admit that you don't actually care about the topic and are just trolling because you think that enjoying the beatles is a political statement or something

voted no but i trust the parole board's determination one way or the other

Yeah his neglect of Julian was far worse. But even then, by the end the two seemed to be making amends, and certainly Julian was very upset when his father died and has tried his best to fulfill his legacy. I can only “imagine” what would have happened if that psycho hadn’t shot John; I think he would have completely made up with his family decades ago and been a consistently positive voice for good in the world based on the trajectory his life was going when he died. It would be like shooting Johnny Cash right as he was emerging from his lowest point of crime, drug abuse, and adultery, and then claiming the bastard just deserved it; the world never would have seen the kind of redemption he was capable of then. What Chapman robbed us of more than anything was the chance to see a newer, better John Lennon back in action. He was already on the upswing, coming out of hiatus (during which time he worked hard to be a good father to his second son) and even making overtures towards Paul for a Beatles reunion. I fully believe that in the long run, John’s reputation is WORSE now because he died when he did, unlike almost every other martyr shot down in their prime.

[Kleine Scheiße]

the idea that john lennon's most damnable transgression was somehow an isolated incident for which he was forgiven by his victim and not, among other things, his reprehensible treatment of julian, has never sat right with me

if you read cynthia's autobiography you will find that everything kywildman has said is accurate; if you can't trust cynthia herself about this, you should admit that you don't actually care about the topic and are just trolling because you think that enjoying the beatles is a political statement or something

voted no but i trust the parole board's determination one way or the other

Yeah his neglect of Julian was far worse. But even then, by the end the two seemed to be making amends, and certainly Julian was very upset when his father died and has tried his best to fulfill his legacy. I can only “imagine” what would have happened if that psycho hadn’t shot John; I think he would have completely made up with his family decades ago and been a consistently positive voice for good in the world based on the trajectory his life was going when he died. It would be like shooting Johnny Cash right as he was emerging from his lowest point of crime, drug abuse, and adultery, and then claiming the bastard just deserved it; the world never would have seen the kind of redemption he was capable of then. What Chapman robbed us of more than anything was the chance to see a newer, better John Lennon back in action. He was already on the upswing, coming out of hiatus (during which time he worked hard to be a good father to his second son) and even making overtures towards Paul for a Beatles reunion. I fully believe that in the long run, John’s reputation is WORSE now because he died when he did, unlike almost every other martyr shot down in their prime.

it's impossible to tell for sure but i agree in general, he was clearly on an upswing unprecedented to his life before 1975, and the only "evidence" otherwise is that book by that hack goldman

it's very funny to watch people act in 2021 like there's some massive popular Cult of Saint John even close to the way there was at some points in like the 90s and arguably early 2000s

[CEO Mindset]

yes