|
Post by ladyfalcon on Jul 12, 2012 14:56:57 GMT -5
Help Oppose John Lennon's Killer from getting Parole in August 2012 Unfortunately its that time again that John's cowardly killer that assassinated him is up for his Parole hearing again this August 2012.Please share this information with others to help oppose his release from prison, on other message boards the internet,Facebook and among friends etc.
I want to stand by John's wife Yoko and his sons and family members and the surviving former members of the band and all those that are angry and heartbroken over his assassination.His Wife Yoko had to witness her husband shot to death. John's sons Sean and Julian lost their Dad. For Paul and Ringo that lost their band mate and brother.For all of John's loved ones and friends and fans.When every two years Yoko's lawyers sends out her personal letter opposing his release from prison ever.I want there be a invisible group of us,standing near her and John's Sons and all his loved ones and fans etc,opposing this together in spirit. I do not represent anyone in John Lennon's family or his widow Yoko Ono Lennon.Or any of his business interests etc.I am not advertising anything for sale or asking for money. The parole board information,requests statements be turned in no later than about one month before the parole date.So the people on the parole board can look at all the paperwork and letters in opposition or support for parole for inmates etc.I'm not going to be posting anything else in thread about his issue.Thank you everyone that submits this internet form and mails in letters etc to the New York Parole board. Letters in opposition of an inmate's release should be sent to the address below and they will be forwarded to the appropriate facility. NYS Board of Parole
97 Central Avenue
Albany, New York 12206 You must put in the DIN (Department Identification Number) Mark D Chapman – 81A3860 on all letters and E mails etc. Inmate Name : CHAPMAN, MARK D
DIN (Department Identification Number) 81A3860
Sex MALE
Date of Birth 05/10/1955
Race / Ethnicity WHITE
Custody Status IN CUSTODY
Housing / Releasing Facility WENDE Correctional Facility in Alden, State of New York Parole Hearing Date
08/2012
Use this online form to send out e mail letters of opposition to the parole board. Please cut and paste this link.Because it isn't linking up properly when posted. www.parole.ny.gov/boardletters/forminput.jspwww.parole.ny.gov/letters.html
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 13, 2012 5:48:54 GMT -5
Help Oppose John Lennon's Killer xxxxxxxxx from getting Parole August 2012 Unfortunately its that time again that John's cowardly,killer that assassinated him is up for his Parole hearing again this August 2012.Please share this information with others to help oppose his release from prison, on other message boards, the internet,Facebook and among friends etc.
I don't think we have to worry... he'll never get out. However, I'm not so sure I would mind him being released as long as it would mean someone would kill him in a matter of moments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 6:30:52 GMT -5
Help Oppose John Lennon's Killer xxxxxxxxx from getting Parole August 2012 Unfortunately its that time again that John's cowardly,killer that assassinated him is up for his Parole hearing again this August 2012.Please share this information with others to help oppose his release from prison, on other message boards, the internet,Facebook and among friends etc.
I don't think we have to worry... he'll never get out. However, I'm not so sure I would mind him being released as long as it would mean someone would kill him in a matter of moments. If someone did kill him, we'd like to insure it was done slowly rather than instantaneous..Let the F**ker suffer, he's had it easy since he announced himself as one of life's ultimate turds...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 13, 2012 7:57:22 GMT -5
I'm not clear on why he should not get parole...?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 13, 2012 9:39:30 GMT -5
He'll never get out of jail as long as Yoko, who turns 80 in Februrary, is alive. He might never get out as long as Sean is alive. I just don't think there is any evidence to the contrary. I guess letters won't hurt, but I don't know if they are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 13, 2012 9:40:54 GMT -5
I'm not clear on why he should not get parole...? Has he been proven not to be a danger to the general public or even other celebrities? No.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 13, 2012 10:25:03 GMT -5
I'm not clear on why he should not get parole...? Has he been proven not to be a danger to the general public or even other celebrities? No. I don't believe this is a factor the Parole Board can consider but this person would be at huge risk himself as there are many people who would try to harm him. Casey Anthony was acquitted of murdering her daughter but she must live in seclusion. John's killer has been strictly segregated from the prison population his entire incarceration I believe. This blivet will always suck off the taxpayers so I prefer he stay in prison and not collect his public welfare free on the street(or in seclusion). He was too calculated, stalked John too long and made more than one trip from Hawaii for me to be impressed with his post-crime conduct while in prison. I think I am just as mad at his wife Gloria who damn well knew his plans(or figured it out), said nothing and went back to him post-conviction. Some criminals need to serve their full terms and this person is a classic example to me. But I respect dissenting opinions and as asked by panther, he may technically meet the criteria for parole in the State of New York. Here is a link to that State's handbook for parole: www.parole.ny.gov/intro_handbook.html#h2_1If we taxpayers must pay for him one way or another, I just assume it be for prison.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 13, 2012 10:49:45 GMT -5
The goal of prison should be to reform people. If what's-his-name is believed by experts to be no danger to anyone henceforth, he should be released.
Doesn't the USA spend, like, 10 times more on imprisoning the average person than on educating them? Think I read that recently...
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 13, 2012 17:14:31 GMT -5
Yeah, let him go. Just think how famous he would be if he took out Paul or Ringo next. A person should be allowed to live up to their potential.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 13, 2012 19:11:39 GMT -5
The goal of prison should be to reform people. If what's-his-name is believed by experts to be no danger to anyone henceforth, he should be released. Doesn't the USA spend, like, 10 times more on imprisoning the average person than on educating them? Think I read that recently... This animal killed a human being simply to become infamous for the heinous act. It was a cold-blooded murder, and as far as I know he has not ever expressed any regret for the act. Even if he did, he took a life. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison as a result. Personally, I don't think even consideration for parole should be a part of his sentence. But nevertheless, he deserves to rot in his cell for the rest of his mortal life. He was 25 years old when he comitted the act, old enough to make the decision and therefore old enough to face the consequences. A life for a life. I don't care how much it cost to keep him behind bars. I'm pro-death, so I'm sorry he didn't pay the ultimate price for his crime and spared the rest of us the cost of incarcerating him. Reform him? Release him? How would you feel if it were a close relative of yours that he had murdered in cold blood? Parole? Never. Release him? He won't live a week on the outside.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jul 13, 2012 19:38:11 GMT -5
What was his sentence?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 13, 2012 19:44:37 GMT -5
Anybody else would have been paroled by now. He wanted to benefit from killing a Beatle. Let him get special treatment. Keep him in prison the rest of his life.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 13, 2012 21:00:08 GMT -5
and as far as I know he has not ever expressed any regret for the act. I recall hearing, twenty years ago, that he expressed a great deal of regret for the act. I'm not sure, but that's what I heard from a friend. Even if he did, he took a life. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison as a result. What if the state law disagrees with you? He deserves special treatment because he killed someone you admire? He was 25 years old when he comitted the act, old enough to make the decision and therefore old enough to face the consequences. I would suggest that spending the past 32 years in prison means he has already faced a rather large consequence. And how old he was is irrelevant. The issue is where he is now. That's a rather un-couth way of putting it. Someone hearing you say that wouldn't be able to distinguish between you and a killer... Reform him? Release him? How would you feel if it were a close relative of yours that he had murdered in cold blood? I would feel exactly the same way. Parole? Never. Release him? He won't live a week on the outside. I'm not sure about this. People who have been wanted dead by the mafia have survived to live long lives on the outside through witness-protection programs and simple changes of names and so on. Lennon's killer could probably go back to Hawaii and live in obscurity or whatever, and be fine.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 13, 2012 23:16:17 GMT -5
and as far as I know he has not ever expressed any regret for the act. I recall hearing, twenty years ago, that he expressed a great deal of regret for the act. I'm not sure, but that's what I heard from a friend. What if the state law disagrees with you? He deserves special treatment because he killed someone you admire? I would suggest that spending the past 32 years in prison means he has already faced a rather large consequence. And how old he was is irrelevant. The issue is where he is now. That's a rather un-couth way of putting it. Someone hearing you say that wouldn't be able to distinguish between you and a killer... I would feel exactly the same way. Parole? Never. Release him? He won't live a week on the outside. I'm not sure about this. People who have been wanted dead by the mafia have survived to live long lives on the outside through witness-protection programs and simple changes of names and so on. Lennon's killer could probably go back to Hawaii and live in obscurity or whatever, and be fine. This can go into deeper debate, but this was a smoking gun episode and he should have been executed because if he got out he would do it again, then what would you say...oops? Hawaii my ass...it would be ...next? Even the ultra-liberal Yoko who once sang "free the prisoners" (of Attica) fights his parole annually. You think she would be thrilled to see him head off into the sunset in Hawaii? Society has a right to defend itself. But now I have to change gears and say I in fact OPPOSE the death penalty, because the courts don't observe a smoking gun policy. Many people have been tried and found guilty due to poor defense and ambitious prosecuting attorneys on weak circumstantial evidence. Some of these people have been found later to be innocent, after the execution...oops. Many are minorities. Most are circumstantial and in some cases it reeks of lynching. Thus the unfairness and inconsistency is more of the rule than the exception. But none of the above applies here. There was no one in the grassy knoll here and no CIA conspiracy. He was caught red handed. Sooooo the alternative especially since NY didn't have the death penalty at the time, should have been life without parole.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 14, 2012 0:13:56 GMT -5
if he got out he would do it again, then what would you say...oops? Yes, basically. It goes without saying that reforming people who have committed serious crimes against humanity involves some risk and inevitable error in judgement. As does getting out of bed in the morning... crossing the street... marrying someone... investing money... it's part of life. Those looking for death penalties and an "eye-for-an-eye" are simply looking for a simple, easy, "final solution" (note parallel to totalitarianism) which simply doesn't exist. Even the ultra-liberal Yoko who once sang "free the prisoners" (of Attica) fights his parole annually. You think she would be thrilled to see him head off into the sunset in Hawaii? I've no idea what Yoko thinks. The ideas she expressed on Some Time in New York City and (from what little I've seen) her attitudes towards Lennon's killer don't seem to correlate. Of course, it's natural that the more emotionally invested people are in an issue, the less rational they become. Which is why Yoko's opinion shouldn't be important in this issue. It's a matter for the legal system of New York state (I think... I'm not American). Society has a right to defend itself. Said Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, etc...
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 14, 2012 0:37:00 GMT -5
if he got out he would do it again, then what would you say...oops? Yes, basically. It goes without saying that reforming people who have committed serious crimes against humanity involves some risk and inevitable error in judgement. As does getting out of bed in the morning... crossing the street... marrying someone... investing money... it's part of life. Those looking for death penalties and an "eye-for-an-eye" are simply looking for a simple, easy, "final solution" (note parallel to totalitarianism) which simply doesn't exist. I've no idea what Yoko thinks. The ideas she expressed on Some Time in New York City and (from what little I've seen) her attitudes towards Lennon's killer don't seem to correlate. Of course, it's natural that the more emotionally invested people are in an issue, the less rational they become. Which is why Yoko's opinion shouldn't be important in this issue. It's a matter for the legal system of New York state (I think... I'm not American). Society has a right to defend itself. Said Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, etc... Those tyrants killed innocent people because of what they were not what they did. Last I heard it was MDC that shot the gun not innocent civilians. I know a prison guard that was killed by a murderer behind bars. Yeah that criminal was being reformed. Tell that to the guard's wife and kids. A 19 year old busted for selling pot can be reformed, a kook who just feels like ending the life of a celebrity for the fun of it, well if you think he can be reformed, let me know how that works out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 6:10:16 GMT -5
Chapman will get out the same way as Sirhan...in a pine box...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 14, 2012 6:41:37 GMT -5
if he got out he would do it again, then what would you say...oops? Yes, basically. It goes without saying that reforming people who have committed serious crimes against humanity involves some risk and inevitable error in judgement. As does getting out of bed in the morning... crossing the street... marrying someone... investing money... it's part of life. It's part of life to release someone who has already served notice on society that he's a murderer, to go out and kill again when that could have been avoided?? You'd be all right with one of your loved ones being the "oops" victim? Besides, it isn't about "rehabilitation". Once you commit the supreme crime of murdering another person you forfeit your own right to live a life -- be it under the death penalty, or life in prison without parole. This is only fair -- but as I get older I am not so much in favor of capital punishment simply because I think it's too quick and too easy for the killers. Instead, I support them living in a tiny little cell with no windows, about the size of a small bathroom. No rights, no good food, no exercising equipment, no TV, no Internet, no privileges. THAT is truly suffering. One thing you cannot possibly deny though -- if a killer is put to death, there is no way in hell that one particular person will ever kill anyone else. That is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 14, 2012 9:22:28 GMT -5
This is not in my country, so I don't get a say.
I'm not in favour of rehabilitation: I believe that it works so small a percentage of the time that the population deserves to be protected from those for whom it doesn't work.
I believe Chapman is clearly mad - there is no rationality in his motive for his act - and I don't believe in murdering mad people for revenge.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 14, 2012 9:25:36 GMT -5
This is not in my country, so I don't get a say. I'm not in favour of rehabilitation: I believe that it works so small a percentage of the time that the population deserves to be protected from those for whom it doesn't work. I believe Chapman is clearly mad - there is no rationality in his motive for his act - and I don't believe in murdering mad people for revenge. I'm with you, vectis. Slow torture is the way.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 14, 2012 9:56:58 GMT -5
Once you commit the supreme crime of murdering another person you forfeit your own right to live a life -- be it under the death penalty, or life in prison without parole. I disagree -- as do the vast majority of people today living in democratic states. One thing you cannot possibly deny though -- if a killer is put to death, there is no way in hell that one particular person will ever kill anyone else. That is a fact. Another thing neither of us can deny -- no matter how many killers the state executes, further killers will arise to take their place, and more murders will result. It's also notable that the USA imprisons and executes far more of its own citizens (per capita) than any other developed nation on Earth, and simultaneously has the highest rates of murder. It cannot be denied, then, that the current system is failing miserably.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 14, 2012 10:13:51 GMT -5
This is not in my country, so I don't get a say. I'm not in favour of rehabilitation: I believe that it works so small a percentage of the time that the population deserves to be protected from those for whom it doesn't work. I believe Chapman is clearly mad - there is no rationality in his motive for his act - and I don't believe in murdering mad people for revenge. That is a possibility, but then he needs to be in a mental institution permanently. But with the costs of appeals, the fact that circumstantial evidence has put many on death row and mental illnesss, then have life without parole. But again there are gray areas- crimes of passion, the guy in Texas who killed someone raping his little girl, accidents and now driving while texting. None of these cases involve hardened criminals and I would argue on a case by case that they should not have to spend the rest of their lives with hardened criminals.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 14, 2012 15:47:05 GMT -5
The goal of prison should be to reform people. If what's-his-name is believed by experts to be no danger to anyone henceforth, he should be released. Doesn't the USA spend, like, 10 times more on imprisoning the average person than on educating them? Think I read that recently... That may be the goal but its hardly the practise. Few people leave American prisons as better persons. I believe America has the highest percentage of people incarcerated of any other country in the world. We've got something like 2 million people locked up now. Personally, I believe in the death penalty. Fry that guy and the world will be a slightly better place for it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 15, 2012 7:12:55 GMT -5
This is not in my country, so I don't get a say. I'm not in favour of rehabilitation: I believe that it works so small a percentage of the time that the population deserves to be protected from those for whom it doesn't work. I believe Chapman is clearly mad - there is no rationality in his motive for his act - and I don't believe in murdering mad people for revenge. That is a possibility, but then he needs to be in a mental institution permanently. But he was not found to be "insane" or "mad".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 15, 2012 7:28:11 GMT -5
Another thing neither of us can deny -- no matter how many killers the state executes, further killers will arise to take their place, and more murders will result. No doubt. But how in the world does that justify putting a former murderer back out on the street to possibly kill again, just cuz there will always be other brand new killers out there too, anyway? Earlier when talking about the "oops" of releasing a former killer you said (paraphrasing) something like "well, there are always risks -- you take a risk when you cross the street,...(etc.)..." (I didn't get a chance to address all of this in my first post because I was literally running late for work in the morning, so I'd like to address this now.) ... Don't you see a difference though in someone getting hit by a car while crossing the street, or slipping on soap in a tub, or even being in the wrong place at the wrong time and being murdered by a first-time offender.... and being killed by someone who was already imprisoned for murder previously and who was paroled to murder AGAIN? To me these are very differing circumstances... the second murder by the same former killer now let loose back on the streets was certainly preventable and we were already given a "heads up" on them. How would you feel if it was a beloved family member of yours who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time when the parolee got released and oh well, that's how life goes sometimes, oops..."? [Edit: I heard you say it wouldn't change your mind even if one of your own was the victim; however, look at Yoko Ono - she sure changed her tune once it was her own husband who was the victim] I don't see how the system has anything to do with it after the murder ... that is to say, okay so the USA may have the highest rate of murder ... but that statistic would stand even BEFORE the killers are caught. The high rates of murder occur BEFORE and INDEPENDENTLY OF the killers being imprisoned or executed. Whether the killers are jailed/executed or rehabilitated/released or not, how does it change the number of "new" murders in the USA? Do you think that if the USA "rehabilitated and released" all of their killers, that the number of murders in the country would DIMINISH? On the contrary, there would be a large number of former murderers killing again in addition to the new murders by the new thugs on the block. Consider this scenario: Let's pretend that I hate my boss. I want to kill him, and only him -- not any other soul on Earth. So I know under your proposal that the "penalty" is no more strict than me getting rehabilitated and sent right back out on the street again, free as a bird. Knowing this is the consequence, and knowing in my heart that I never intended to harm anyone else ever again anyway, wouldn't it be worth murdering my boss? (The same applies to anyone -- killing a lousy neighbor, a cheating wife or husband)... You don't think the idea of "do rehab and go free again" would actually make the prospect of murdering another person a "win-win" scenario?? If anything the amount of one-time killers would sky rocket! The word would pass 'round the criminal circuit that murdering someone isn't such a bad trade-off.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 15, 2012 7:39:30 GMT -5
I might agree. However, I admit that I myself could not do it and would not do it. But that's okay because I'm not the one who would be employed to perform the task, so that would not be an issue. But my preference? How about keeping these vermin alive but in miserable and desperate conditions? Imagine Lennon's killer, for example, having been convicted back in early 1981, and then immediately locked into a tiny little cell not much bigger than a walk-in closet. There are no windows. No TV. No gym. No newspaper. No computer. No medical attention. The last thing this jerk recalls is December 8th 1980. As far as he knows, Jimmy Carter is still president. He's never heard of CDs or DVDs... he doesn't even know there was a Madonna. So what happens to a caged killer under those conditions? He suffers... he suffers HARD. He constantly is miserable, and if he decides to commit suicide, the only way he is able to do so would be to not eat or drink whatever lousy scraps of food are shoved under the door once a day. When they starve themselves it is a slow and agonizing death, and nobody else could be accused of pulling the trigger. My fantasy will never happen, of course, because there are so many bleeding hearts around. But my proposal accomplishes two things -- first, it is a punishment which fits the crime, and second - that vermin won't ever murder again. (And here's even a possible THIRD ... this may damn well deter any other future killers and make them think twice, more than any other consequence).
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 15, 2012 9:16:43 GMT -5
I might agree. However, I admit that I myself could not do it and would not do it. But that's okay because I'm not the one who would be employed to perform the task, so that would not be an issue. But my preference? How about keeping these vermin alive but in miserable and desperate conditions? Imagine Lennon's killer, for example, having been convicted back in early 1981, and then immediately locked into a tiny little cell not much bigger than a walk-in closet. There are no windows. No TV. No gym. No newspaper. No computer. No medical attention. The last thing this jerk recalls is December 8th 1980. As far as he knows, Jimmy Carter is still president. He's never heard of CDs or DVDs... he doesn't even know there was a Madonna. So what happens to a caged killer under those conditions? He suffers... he suffers HARD. He constantly is miserable, and if he decides to commit suicide, the only way he is able to do so would be to not eat or drink whatever lousy scraps of food are shoved under the door once a day. When they starve themselves it is a slow and agonizing death, and nobody else could be accused of pulling the trigger. My fantasy will never happen, of course, because there are so many bleeding hearts around. But my proposal accomplishes two things -- first, it is a punishment which fits the crime, and second - that vermin won't ever murder again. (And here's even a possible THIRD ... this may damn well deter any other future killers and make them think twice, more than any other consequence). Hasn't the human rights crowd made life pretty livable for these prisoners now, cable tv, internet, conjugal visits, gyms...?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 15, 2012 10:03:03 GMT -5
...how in the world does that justify putting a former murderer back out on the street to possibly kill again...? Um, yeah. I'm not saying that prisons around the world should, right this second, release every dangerous criminal immediately, and that a better world will result. If, after years of professional monitoring and 'education', a prisoner is deemed by experts (not by Beatle fans) to be any kind of serious threat to society, then that prisoner should not be freed. (Needless to say, locking someone up and dehumanizing them into stupidity for decades does not generally reform people.) On the other hand, if a criminal has served his/her time, and if the expert opinions are that he/she is no longer a danger to society, then the person should be released. What I am conceding is that, out of 100 such former violent or dangerous criminals released (bearing in mind that only 1 in 5 overall dangerous criminals might be considered reformed), perhaps 1 or 2 will commit a crime again. In my opinion, that is better for society, however, than keeping all 100 locked up at the cost of their and our humanity, and massive costs to taxpayers. (Appreciate the comments here, but I'll refrain from any further posts on this topic, as I fear we're getting drawn into another off-topic political debate. Just so you know...)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 15, 2012 11:58:13 GMT -5
(Needless to say, locking someone up and dehumanizing them into stupidity for decades does not generally reform people.) Who cares about reforming vermin? I believe in a murderer paying a price for taking someone else's life. Forfeiting his own life or chance at fulfillment of happiness seems to be a much more fair exchange to me. I don't think that any "expert" can guarantee that a clever murderer would not indeed go and kill again. I'm not going to place the lives of my loved ones into trusting some psychiatrist who's probably half a nut himself. By "a crime" do you mean MURDER? Because as far as I'm concerned, even "1" more murder of an innocent person is one too many when the culprit has already been convicted of a killing and then got released. How about a poor little 5-year-old girl getting killed next time after the parolee gets out? Doesn't THAT tug at your heart strings more than the "poor misunderstood killer"? Well in my LAST long post/response to you there was more than just "comments"; I made strong points. You did fine answering others' points item by item... I think you may not want to concede that mine make sense.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfalcon on Jul 15, 2012 13:14:01 GMT -5
I wasn't going to respond to this thread.Because I know it is a emotional and painful, sad issue.With a lot of anger about it. For many of us that loved John and the Beatles to etc.I thought it was necessary.It isn't just because of that I feel that cowardly killer should be denied parole just because he assassinated a former Beatle named John Lennon.That its the only reason that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. I also don't want to get into the politics of criminal justice in the USA.But I wanted to explain my personal views about this.If this crime had happened in the city of New York or in my own state of California.Or within the past even 20 years or longer or right now anywhere in the USA.Someone stalking their victim at their home,laying in wait for them and shooting and killing them.They would have been given a life sentence with no parole ever.The criminal laws changed everywhere after 1980's in the US because of lax laws for these violent,horrible murders of people. I'm 54 years old so I was alive and remember back then.If the laws had been different back then.Then there would have been no be need for a discussion or opposition.Because there would have been justice for John Lennon or anyone that was murdered in a such cold blooded away.They would have spend the rest of their life in prison. I understand the anger many people have about this killer. He has said in interviews that God has forgiven him.Since he now claims to be born again Christian.I have anger about it to.I also have no intention of forgiving him for shooting and killing John.I respect and feel everyone has a right to their personal feelings about this issue and and violent crime and laws.I do agree with the person that posted.I think he is just waiting for Yoko to pass away from old age.So the main family member opposing it is gone. I agree that for his own safety he needs to stay prison where he will be safe from people that hate him etc.I do not support any violence toward him.Also to keep society safe from him.I understand that he may never get out of prison.I am doing this for justice for John.And posting, supporting and sharing this myself to stand in support and in spirit with John Lennon's widow Yoko and Sean and Julian and friends etc.So they don't have to oppose this alone every two years. And for his family members in England,all his loved ones,friends and fans.For Paul and Ringo that lost their band mate and brother.I respect everyone's personal feelings about this issue.Thank you to everyone that does support this and helps.The parole hearing is coming up soon.So anyone wanting to help by E mails or letters.A reminder to please get it sent in soon.Thank you to everyone that helped with this.Everyone have a safe,positive and great week.I'm sending you all positive energy and love. www.parole.ny.gov/boardletters/forminput.jsp
|
|