John Lennon's killer denied parole for an 11th time

[thucythucy]

32. Yes, some examples would be helpful.

You stated that "plenty of people" who committed crimes analogous to Chapman's have been released by parole boards. I wonder on what basis you make this assertion. Is it something you know, or merely something you assume? In any case, since you made the assertion I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you cite an example or two. But if you can't, that's fine too.

You also say parole boards are given wide discretion, which means they consider--I would hope in some detail--the particulars of the cases before them. I would suppose among these particulars would be the motivation behind the crime, the viciousness and cruelty of the attack, the suffering of the victim, the impact on loved ones and the community, and also the contrition or lack thereof expressed by the perpetrator. (The fact that the crime's impact on survivors is considered a factor is seen in how victim impact statements are now a common feature of trial proceedings). So I'd be interested in making some comparisons, to look at how these factors are weighed, especially since you seem to be arguing that the only reason Chapman continues to be in custody is because he killed a famous musician.

I agree that the law should treat victims and offenders mostly equally, with obvious exceptions. Crimes against children, for instance, should carry a greater burden of punishment than similar crimes against adults. But by and large I agree we should strive for equality before the law.

But there may be instances where similar crimes might have unequal impacts and thus perhaps should entail unequal consequences. Defacing a liquor store wall is different from defacing a synagogue or mosque, smashing a light fixture in a museum is different from smashing a Greek statue from the fourth century BC.

I was in Sweden not too long after Prime Minister Palme was assassinated, and there was a sense that the entire nation had been traumatized, even though it was to outward appearances a rather ordinary street crime. Just as JFK's murder was, under the law, no different from any other murder in Dallas that year. And yet we do make a distinction, even in the language we use to describe what is basically the same crime. We don't usually say Kennedy was murdered, we say he was assassinated. Jewish cemeteries spray painted with swastikas are not only vandalized, they're desecrated.

I admit to being ambivalent about this notion of "crimes against culture" or cultural figures. It was a thought that came to mind, and so I threw it out there. I'm less ambivalent about the thought that the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. is a different sort of crime, a crime against not only a single man, but also against an entire community, a crime of terrorism as well as murder.

I suppose one could argue that MLK's murderer (or assassin) be treated no more harshly than the murder of anyone else. Each life is precious, each victim is dead, each family is torn. Even so, do you not see any difference in the impact of those crimes? And should that difference in impact not be reflected somehow in the consequences meted out to the perpetrator[s]?

But I'm not wedded to this notion, just throwing it out there for discussion.