I can’t see where I said treatment is not an option, and I surely didn’t say he should be executed. I’m just skeptical that he can be “cured”. I would let him live out his life in confinement, because I have at least a small amount of compassion for someone who is mentally ill, even under these circumstances.
Also, I think CarnalK was being sarcastic in your favor. But I will let him/her speak for them self on that matter.
Tell it to Britany Spears. Jodie Foster is Still Fine at 41, both visually and aurally. If you listen to her speak, she has one of the sexiest voices in Hollywood. I once was working with a client (by phone, never met her) who sounded Exactly like Jodie. I helped her set up everything she needed, above & beyond the project scope, and I made it clear that if she ever needed any additional project work done to please call and ask for me by name.
Hell Yes, her voice was That sexy.
ccwaterback: But if you’ll never admit that he might be cured, what’s the point of even trying therapy? I did take your posts somewhat hyperbolically, but my interpretations aren’t that far off: Imprisonment for life in prison is one thing — nobody has any illusions of what is going on, and nobody expects the prisoner to be released — but therapy is different, in that release is supposed to be the ultimate goal. Sometimes it fails and therapy becomes life imprisonment, but that isn’t the ideal case.
My point is this: Call things what they are. Don’t confuse therapy with punishment. Don’t turn hospitals into prisons.
I suppose it’s just a matter of semantics, but John Hinckley is indeed imprisoned in a hospital, a hospital for prisoners. I guess my real point is: How can they prove he is cured? I really don’t know the procedure they use, but all I can figure out is they talk to him and if he gives enough “right” answers over an appropriate amount of time, then he is declared to be cured. I just can’t buy that conclusion using those techniques. Is there any other way they prove he is cured? Maybe let him out in public and observe? That seems very risky to me.
Ease up on the trigger finger Derleth 
I was indeed rolling eyes at ccwaterback’s hypothetical.
Well that’s the crux of it isn’t it. Obviously I agree that release shouldn’t be a cake walk or a simple timeline. As there is an actual hearing going on it doesn’t seem as simple as you figure. You are only describing Hinkley’s side of the procedure(showing that he’s cured). There is a whole bunch of lawyers trying to show he isn’t. At least that’s how I read the situation.
CarnalK: Sorry, I’m just used to being the only one on my side in any given debate.
ccwaterback: Well, basically, what CarnalK said. I’d add that the psychologists know what to expect from people with Hinckley’s psychological disorders and can presumably tell the difference between his condition and normalcy. If they cannot, the whole endeavor of psychology is thrown into question, something I don’t think is justified, given the successes it’s had.
Well this has been a fun debate, no slanderous slashes thrown in any direction (well, almost none ).
I would have started this thread in GD if I had known the courteous demeanor of the participants it would attract.
Like the end of many great debates, I guess all we can do is agree to disagree.