Yeah, let the bastard rot forever. Fuck the rule of law and all that equal justice shit. It’s all situational, right?
Anyone who wouldn’t be willing to shoot someone for a date with Jodie is insane in my book.
Well, in this case, yep, it is.
Situational, in that he stays locked up as long as he’s crazy. That’s the situation he’s in.
Rule of law? He’s outside the scope of the criminal justice system because he was found not guilty. He’s hospitalized because he’s been determined to be a hazard to himself and others, which is covered under totally different statutes. His confinement to the hospital is perfectly legal.
Disclaimer, IANAL.
It would be a bad idea to do Hinckley the favor of setting him free.
After all, there are such interesting and compelling connections between his family and the Bush family. It wouldn’t do to have all that dredged up again, especially as we enter a campaign cycle.
I see Mr. Moto that you misunderstood Cerowyn’s comment. Basically a bunch of law’n’order foamers in this thread are saying “He shot my king, throw away the key”. You see, since he hasn’t been set free they are complaining that he is even getting a hearing. They are complaining that normal procedures are being followed. Do you agree with that or what?
And whether he’s in the criminal justice system or not they still must follow the rule of law-- unless you’ve defined it in some way I’m unfamiliar with.
Follow all procedures as appropriate, but proceed with caution.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call them “compelling”, RTA. Interesting, yes.
To those that are curious, John Hinckley’s brother was alleged to have had dinner plans with Neil Bush the day that Reagan was shot, the families are allegedly related, having a common ancestor, and the conspiracy theorists among us would have us believe that George H.W. Bush put John Hinckley Jr. up to shooting Reagan so that he could assume the office of President.
There’s a lot of allegations flying around about this relationship, and the current President Bush claims to have no idea whether he ever actually met Hinckley, which people are taking as “Yes, I met him, but I won’t admit it”.
It’s all intriguing, yes, but c’mon guys, Hinckley was nuts. He said that he did it for Jodie Foster, and I am willing to accept that if all of the rumors were true he might have done it to both impress the girl and get rid of G.H.W. Bush’s rival and main impediment to the White House, but that requires some really tortured logic to accept. Even with that, I am completely unwilling to accept that G.H.W. Bush actually put him up to it. There’s no way that could possibly have been covered up. No way.
I think it’s far more obvious that the guy was stark raving gonzo.
Granted, the shootings occured a couple of years prior to the Federal ‘truth in sentencing’ reforms, I have no idea what the sentence was at the time of the shootings.
Shootings, as in 4:
Reagan,
Brady,
McCarthy, and
Delahanty.
Irishmen all. Hmmm, RTA, maybe the motive for the Bush plot was their WASPy hatred of donkeys
Can’t find a cite,
Pre-reform Federal sentencing guidelines had to be a minimum of 8 to 10 years.
Had he been found guilty, he probably would have gotten the maximum per charge: 10 years x 4 victims = 40 years.
Even with 1/3 off for good behavior - he’d be in 'til 2011.
** G-RAY **that was a great triple post. Only you left out one little detail: John Hinckley used a 1902s Style Death Ray.
I submit that some of the folks who think Hinckley should be locked up forever ought to support a verdict of “guilty but insane” in America, as they have it in Britain.
A lot of Americans believe an “innocent by reason of insanity” verdict means, or ought to mean, in the case of serious crimes like trying to assassinate the POTUS, “lock 'em up forever” – if in much more comfortable circumstances than prison. And I can’t say I disagree with them too much.
I hesitate to link to the National Review Online, because – frankly – there’s a lot of assholes who write for NRO. I believe their overall standards are low, and, speaking as a moderate conservative, I find them generally unreadable. HOWEVER – Deroy Murdock is one of their best, since Rod Dreher left. Here he is talking about the Hinckley parole issue:
The kinder souls among us would be perfectly content if those who recover their sanity prefer not argue their case to be transferred to prison, and remain in relatively cozy institutions. We don’t want Hinckley to suffer, we just want him off the streets permanently.
“Innocent by reason of insanity” allows his potential release, and for that reason it’s a bad verdict and should be scrapped. IM non-lawyer O, of course.
You know, there are rumors that Sarah Brady does own a gun.
ccwaterback: Do you think it would ever be possible to decide that Hinckley is sane enough that he’s no longer a threat to himself or others? Is it even a possibility in your view?
Let’s pose a hypothetical: Tomorrow a miracle drug is found that cures Hinckely of whatever disease he has, or at least controls it well enough to give him a rational view on the world. Hinckley agrees to take it in return for being released into first his relatives’ custody, then into his own life. Would you agree to that deal?
All sarcasm aside, it is a tough call.
What we have is a person that not only thought about shooting the President, but planned and acted out his fantasy. To me, this says the checks-and-balances inside his head do not function like a normal human being. How many times along the way could he have said to himself, this is crazy, I can’t go through with this. But in the end, he did go through with it.
I can’t see how psychiatrists can ever say he is cured. How can you say someone is cured of plotting, planning and executing a heinous act? If they simply rely on responses to interview questions, I would say there is no possible way they can prove he is “cured”.
Maybe, just maybe, he is cured. But I don’t think we should take the calculated risk of having someone like him walking the streets. There are certain crimes against society that (I believe) should never be pardoned. One of those crimes is plotting, planning and executing a murder.
ccwaterback: Then let’s cut the charade and take him out and shoot him. Don’t pretend to treat him when you’ll never be prepared to let him go.
In fact, by your reasoning, we should probably abolish the whole insanity defense completely. At least, we should make it no longer viable for violent crimes. If we do that, however, we will be guaranteed of killing people we could cure, or at least render nonthreatening through nonviolent means. And that is unacceptable.
Ahem. We should abolish the whole insanity defense completely. It’s what allows Hinckleys to be set free.
Who’s talking about guaranteeing killing people we could cure? Insanity would mitigate a crime; a person in Hinckley’s circumstance should be off the streets forever, but a guilty-but-insane verdict would presumably exempt him from capital punishment, and even prison. Nobody has a problem with this. Nobody is chanting for Hinckley’s death, or for him to be treated worse than he is now. They just don’t want him loose.
Derleth here’s a hypothetical: Everything the same, but Mr. Hinckley’s target was YOU. Discuss.
Oh, then I’m sure Derleth would want internment camps for the whole Hinkley family. :rolleyes: That is the oldest dodge question in the “Law’n’Order” playbook. It’s usually answered thusly: Do we want emotional vengeance driven decisions directing our legal system?
Uh, no. That should read “if you are found sane again…” There is zero guarantee that this will be the case. Whether he will ever be freed or not is problematic.
No, I don’t think we want emotional vengeance driving decisions in our legal system. But I do think it is a worthwhile exercise to think about yourself, or your loved ones, to be the victim of the crimes you discuss to form a more realistic point of view. If it’s always “them” who are the victims, I tend to think people are move lenient in their retribution.
If Hinckely’s target was me, I’d want him to be treated and not just killed if treatment is a viable option. (Even if I died… eh, work with me here.) That’s my freaking point: If we can treat him, we should treat him. If we cannot, we should execute him. ccwaterback is the one saying that treatment shouldn’t be an option.
CarnalK: Are you being sarcastic or stupid? That rolleyes could go either way. I’ve always advocated treatment in every case it is plausible, even when the person has been convicted of homicide.