Parole: Violent Crime

[Baron Samedi]

[quote][B]AP[/B] - John Lennon's killer appeared before a parole board in a third attempt to be released from prison, but was turned down once again.

Mark David Chapman, 49, was also denied parole in 2000 and again in 2002, on what would have been Lennon's 62nd birthday.

He has been in prison 24 years for shooting the former Beatle outside Lennon's Manhattan apartment in 1980 as the musician returned from a recording session.

He became eligible for parole after serving 20 years of a maximum life sentence.

In advance of the latest hearing, a letter was sent to the parole board on behalf of Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, requesting that Chapman remain imprisoned, according to a source close to Ono.

In 2000, Ono said she opposed Chapman's release out of concern for the safety of herself and her children.

Governor George Pataki, who asked earlier about Chapman's impending parole board decision, said he would not discuss individual cases but that he opposed parole for anyone involved in a violent crime.

"If I had my way, we would abolish parole," Pataki said.

For his own safety, Chapman lives in a housing unit separate from the general population at the Attica Correctional Facility, about 48 kilometres east of Buffalo, and works as a clerk, according to corrections officials.
[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I saw this article on nine-msn and it got me thinking.

Do you believe that violent criminals should be released on parole? When you incur a maximum life penalty, doesn't that remove you from the privileges of liberty accorded to a human being? Obviously, someone who has done something like this is not somebody you want free in public. I think that parole for people who have murdered [or other violent criminals] should be out of the question. In regard to law, I take a hard-stance. But what do you think about parole?[/SIZE]

[Panda]

I don't think violent criminals should be allowed to re-enter society. They have done crimes that have violated other peoples' rights and because of that I think they have forfeited their rights to be apart of the same society as law abiding citizens.

If a murderer is paroled where is the justice for the victim(s)? The victim(s) had a death sentence by this criminal and they will never get a second chance to re-enter society. Violent criminals should not be released onto our streets.

[Harry]

Well a sentence of life is really 50 years. Also I think we should get violent offenders another chance as long as it wasn't premeditated. If it was they'd get death penalty or life with no parole.

[Guest Midnight Rush]

[QUOTE=Panda]I don't think violent criminals should be allowed to re-enter society. They have done crimes that have violated other peoples' rights and because of that I think they have forfeited their rights to be apart of the same society as law abiding citizens.

If a murderer is paroled where is the justice for the victim(s)? The victim(s) had a death sentence by this criminal and they will never get a second chance to re-enter society. Violent criminals should not be released onto our streets.[/QUOTE]

At the same time Panda, why imprison them then? Why not execute them? The idea of imprisonment is not only punishment but rehabilitation! By removing parole you destroy their chance of ever functioning again.

I personally am in favor of the death penalty for violent criminals, rather than wasting money on prisons. Prisons are an obscene waste of money... think of all the expensive cars I could have if I had that money... damn!

[Soliel]

[QUOTE][I]Originally posted by[/I] [B]Midnight Rush[/B]
I personally am in favor of the death penalty for violent criminals, rather than wasting money on prisons. Prisons are an obscene waste of money... think of all the expensive cars I could have if I had that money... damn![/QUOTE]
[COLOR=GREEN]Um, actually, it cost taxpayer less to keep criminals in jail than to sentance them to death. When they exicute someone they have to pay all the workers involved overtime pay, plus there's all the legal fees and stuff they have to go through. I'm serious, I'm not making this up, I just had to write an English paper on it.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. No I do not think that criminals accused of violent crimes should have the right to parole. They were tried and found guilty of a heinous crime and the jail term they received is usually more than fair to them. Because of parole, many people fear that jailed criminals will be released, so they resort to sentencing people to death, which I firmly oppose.[/COLOR]

[chobit]

John Lennon was a god.

And that obsessive retard killed him.He deserves to rot in jail forever,and so do all other murderers.ITS UNSAFE.Who says they won't kill again?Sending a murderer out of prision id like sentecing someone to death.

[Ezekiel]

[COLOR=DarkSlateGray][SIZE=1]I know this may sound cruel and goes against human rights crap, but why don't we bring back the death sentence? I'm not saying use it on anyone who is convicted of murder, because Juries do make mistake. But calculated murderers who have been proven guilty hands down deserve to die. Not go to jail, probably live and be released to enjoy life once again while their victims are 6 feet under and their families are hurt for the rest of their lives.

I don't know if anyone who has posted so far is from the UK, but a while back there was a case of 2 men breaking into a farmer?s house, attempting to burgle him.

The man heard the noises, grabbed his rifle and went downstairs to find two strange men in his living room, he obviously felt threatened so what was his first reaction? Shoot, of course, like any sensible person would do.

I can't remember the exact detail, so forgive me, but I think one was killed or badly injured and the farmer ended up getting sued for shooting the guy!

I just can't believe that anyone would even take a case so stupid, seriously, if you burgle someone house and get hurts that means you can sue them, it's completely idiotic!

I just don't understand the way the law system has gone now, felons do not deserve to have rights of any kind, as soon as they brake the law, they abandoned those rights, it's logical.

Back to the parole thing, a murderer should get no parole and should be kept in solitary confinement until he dies. [/SIZE] [/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]I actually heard about that case. There was another case, where a Kalgoorlie [I'm from Australia ~_^] man had had his business broken into 3 nights in a row [I think]. Regardless, it was a lot of times. So, he slept there with his shotgun one night, and when the vandals broke in, he shot one of them in the arse with his gun. And then they wanted to sue him and accused him of being racist! It is no wonder that the Statue of Justice has a blindfold on...it can't tell between victims and felons.

In another similar case, a man was going to be sued for putting up a pepper spray alarm system in his store. Another man was charged because he set man traps on his property. [i]On his own property[/i]. If you stepped on the bloody things, you'd probably be in the wrong place anyway.

As you might be able to tell, crime is a hot subject with me. Or rather, the lack of support and protection granted to the true victims.[/size]

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]
Shouldn't the man be allowed to go on parole? I mean, he [i]was[/i] imprisoned for 20 years. The order has it that he can apply for parole after 20 years of jail time. He has fulfilled his part of the contract. If they were going to deny him parole, why didn't they sentence him to "life imprisonment without possibility of a parole" (or something like that)?

Love and Peace! :love2:
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[future girl]

I can't say I agree or disagree with parole because I believe it's a case by case type of thing. However, I do not believe that prisoners should be left to rot or sentenced to death. I consider prison, idealy, to be a chance for the criminally insane to reabilitate and if anything serve as an example. I don't see the logic in the death penalty because, for one, in my oppinion it is letting criminals off easy and it also justifies killing which I believe it is wrong in any shape of form. I would prefer to see a criminal in prison, doing his time than have them killed off. I'm sure someone will come up to me and tell me what do I know if I never been in a victim's shoes, but I know what I've been through and I know what I've seen and this is just what I believe.

[lea]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Aye, I agree parole is a case by case thing. But there needs to be some kind of evaulation of the person in question.


I heard of cases where there were murderers/child molesters/rapists who were let out because of good behavior/parole/finished their sentence. They ended up back where they were, because they [i]repeated[/i] what they went in for. Jail didnt do much for them except maybe prevent them from hurting other people. They have a sickness in their head that needs to be dealt with, and I think it is very wrong to let somone out of jail, knowing that they are the same bad way as when they came.


In all honesty, I think prisoners need a psychological evaluation from a competent psychologist before they are released/ out on parole, and base things on those results. Yes, it will cost a bit more money, but it is a lot better than keeping people in who dont need in, and letting people out who are going to come back anyways ( If they are caught, that is.) [/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]The problem is that 'baddies' may slip through the psychologist's net.

Really, this thread is talking about Parole for violent criminals. People who committed multiple murders or rapes, had a pre-meditated murder etc. It is these kinds of people who I believe should recieve life without parole. I wasn't necessarily refrring to the case that I quoted. That was just what sparked me off for this thread. But this guy did plan to murder someone. Obviously he had a reason for it, it isn't like he is a rampaging maniac. By the same measure though, if you plan to murder someone, you have to have a few screws loose. And we really don't need that.[/size]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Pataki can't decide whether to keep or lose the death penalty in New York state or manage to pass a budget on time let alone manage to get rid of parole for violent offenders, but that's just a New Yorker's point of veiw.

I don't think that people who took part in violent crimes should be eligible for parole unless they've shown a minimum of fifity years of good behaivior and are no longer deemed a threat to society. Maybe before being paroled their legs can be smashed with a lead pipe and then stuck in a wheel chair...not that that would help much, but it's worth a try.

I'm on the fence about the death penalty since I feel that many people on death row are there unfairly. I heard a while back that a man was sentenced to death even though his lawyer slept through the whole trial. Also there are more minorities on death row than non minorities. And more people from lower economic backgrounds which leads me to believe that race and economic status have a lot to do with who ends up on death row and who gets life behind bars.

That's all I have to add to this subject for the time being[/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[quote name='ChibiHorseWoman']Maybe before being paroled their legs can be smashed with a lead pipe and then stuck in a wheel chair...not that that would help much, but it's worth a try.[/quote]

[size=1] You have a charm all of your own, dear Chibi.

As for race and econiomic status...you may well find that disadvantaged minorities are more likely to commit first-class offences. It is plausible, and has solid enough reasoning behind it. I don't think the death penalty is a good thing however. Permanent life in jail, with solitary confinement, is how to break the bastards.[/size]

[Zeta]

I think that they should get a second chance. I just recently watched a documentary on Angola prison. One man was sentenced to 75 years for murder. Twenty five years later(when the documentary takes place) you look at him and say "how in the world could he have murdered someone?" No parole is insane. What about those who are jailed because of as crime they didn't comitt? Why should they have to stay in without a possibility of parole? I read that someone said that how do we know that they wont kill again? How do we know that they won't go and join a church group, and never comitt one act of violence ever again? I hate it when people say that. It goes both ways, we cant prove they will kill again, nor can we provie they won't kill again. But its the fact that jail is punishment, but at the same time rehabilitation. They know that if they screw up they will be going back to jail, most people believe that and will try not to.

[Soliel]

[QUOTE][I]Originally posted by[/I] [B]Zeta[/B]
I just recently watched a documentary on Angola prison. [/QUOTE]
[COLOR=GREEN]Were you talking about Angola state prision in Louisiana? If so, you just reminded me of a field trip my class had to take there Jr year of high school (yes, I did say that I went to a field trip to a state penatentury). One of the people who talked to our group was a man serving a life sentance for second degree murder, which he had committed sometime in the '70s. It was hard to believe that he had committed a violent crime. He looked so old and worn from the twenty-someodd years he had spent in prison. He did, however warn us that once you commit a heinous crime, you don't get a second chance.

Now this may seem harsh, but that is just the way our society works nowadays. The fact that you can end up in prison for life, perminantly stipped of your freedom and privacy, are supposed to act as a deturant to crime. I don't take back what I said earlier, but I want to add that if a mistake is made in the trail of a violent criminal, that the trails be reviewed to make sure that person wasn't accidently sentanced for a crime they didn't commit.[/COLOR]

[Guest FacelessMage]

I agree with Zeta, I think if somebody was in jail for a long time such as 20 years, would have to have something mentally wrong with them for them to commit another crime. Also, I don't believe in the death penalty, I don't think anybody holds in them the right to decide when another person's life is going to end, no matter what they have done. Even if it was [U]extremely[/U] bad, the most I think they should get is life in prison.

[Zeta]

Yes, I think it is the one that is in LA. But look at some of those guys. There was one guy that they trust enough to travel outside of the prison, and talk about God to people. How can you not trust him enough? There are people in there, who don't even have the ability to commit a simple crime of stealing a pack of gum. If the people in prison are not going to get out at all, there is no reason to change the way they are. What is the point? They do a complete "make-over" of themselves, new personality, everything. I still believe there should be the possibilty for parole. Now naturally, a guy who kills dozens of people won't get out, but yet, crimes that are small in comparison to that, still land you a life sentence without the possibility of parole, which I find unfair.

Another case of the Angola prison documentary I watched. A black man was accused of raping a girl, actually it might have been two? Don't remember. Anyways, he was sentenced for like 50 years maybe more. While in prison, him and his attorneys found evidence that showed his innocence. They found medical reports, done after he allegedly raped the girl(s), that showed they were still virgins. The parole board saw the medical reports, but didn't let him out on parole. Now should that man not have the possibilty of parole? When the evidence is there, in plain sight? He should have the possibility of parole. As should everyone. Without the possibilty of parole, hundreds, possible more, of the inmates of prisons who are innocent will be sentenced for a crime they did not commit. I find that wrong.