John Hinckley, who tried to assassinate Reagan, granted unconditional release

[Alligatorob]

One thing that rankles a bit with me is the assumption that Hinkley's crime was worse that others because he was targeting POTUS.

I agree, I believe all victims are equal. If I gave a different impression, my bad. Its just that Hinkley and Reagan are who we have been talking about in this thread.

I believe any murderer, first and probably some second degree murderers should never be released. Manslaughter and other killings may be different. I believe life in prison should apply to spouse or intimate partner killers the same as presidential assassins. Those found insane at the time may be treated differently in confinement, but I don't see ever releasing them either...

In the US presidential assassinations are handled a little differently, they are federal crimes which allows the FBI to be involved, most murders here are state crimes, no FBI role. For investigation and prosecution I think that makes some sense, but I don't think sentencing or prison terms should be different.

Disingenuous use of numbers, Alligatorob. It's not about statistical probabilities.

I don't think so, statistical probabilities are what we deal with all the time, the basis of many rational decisions. Your odds of being killed by a released murderer you meet are more than a thousand times greater than by your intimate spouse. Not a risk I think reasonable for people to have to take.

You are right, as I said originally, there are probably more people killed by intimate spouses in total than by released murderers, but only because there are more intimate spouses on the streets than released murderers. Sorting out the dangerous intimate spouses from the vast majority of safe ones is hard, the convicted murderers easy.

I am with you on domestic violence, I have not looked up statistics, however I suspect a lot of those intimate partners who end up killing have shown violence in the past. We need to do a better job of figuring out how to prevent that escalation...

 

[Irwin]

Disingenuous use of numbers, Alligatorob. It's not about statistical probabilities. It is about actual dead people. I'm pretty sure the parole board was careful to weigh up the probability of Hinkley attempting to win a lady's heart by shooting someone. The reason for his parole condition that he not approach certain people would be at their request because they would have been consulted by the parole board. Not unreasonable but not necessarily an indication that he still has designs on any of them.

One thing that rankles a bit with me is the assumption that Hinkley's crime was worse that others because he was targeting POTUS. Reagan's life, as I see it, was not more important than that of a mother of several small children who was throttled in her own kitchen. As people, neither is indispensable, especially to those who love them or depend on them. However, a president is replaceable and the constitution spells out how that will happen when any president dies or is killed while in office. To his family however he is irreplaceable. With that in mind, the assassination of a president is a tragedy but so is the random shooting of a common man working behind the counter in a gas station.

The life of a president as a person is no more important than anyone else's, but when you assassinate a president, you're doing harm to the entire country. It's an attack on our democracy. While it's true that there are procedures to be followed in the event of the death of a president where the vice-president takes the helm, the people voted for the president — not the vice-president, so the political ramifications need to be taken into consideration.

Many people's lives are considered more important, so to speak, than just an ordinary Joe Blow's. If you kill a police officer, you're going to get far more time than if you kill the guy working at the local 7-11.

 

[WhatInThe]

Hinkley participated in a gangbanger's weekend in Chicago. He is a mass shooter.

If federal law allows for him to be released so be it. He shot 4 people. They seem to be forgotten and include Reagan's press secretary, secret service agent and police officer that were shot. After 40 years I guess they can't go wrong no matter what they do.

I thought with an insanity defense once one is considered competent they were to stand trial. What does the average gangbanger who shot mulitple people get under federal or dc law.

To top it off some still don't believe mentally disturbed kid did this on his own and that the Jodie Foster thing was for show and/or a patsie. I digress.

 

[ohioboy]

And technically if a person is deemed to be insane i.e. unfit to plead or or mentally unable to understand the nature of the charges, he or she is not put on trial in the usual sense nor deemed to be innocent or guilty. Therefore there is no sentence but they can be confined to a mental facility until deemed safe to be released.

I don't know how Hinkley's case was handled but his treatment would have depended on how his lawyers represented him.

This release, after reading on it again, is Unconditional, meaning he is no longer under court supervision anymore. When he was released years ago, there were many restrictions placed on him for his conduct, similar to probation/parole mandates. Now the restrictions no longer apply.

 

[Tish]

Hoping counseling sessions and blood tests showing he is compliant with medications are a condition for his release ...but it does read unconditional so dunno. I'd imagine Jodi Foster isn't thrilled about the unconditional bit.

I bet she is not thrilled one little bit.
Fingers crossed there will be blood tests.

 

[Warrigal]

This release, after reading on it again, is Unconditional, meaning he is no longer under court supervision anymore. When he was released years ago, there were many restrictions placed on him for his conduct, similar to probation/parole mandates. Now the restrictions no longer apply.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ohioboy]

Here is the Court Order and restictions of his conditional release in 2016.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_81-cr-00306/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_81-cr-00306-21.pdf

 

[Lawrence00]

It is nonsense.

 

[Warrigal]

Thanks, Ohioboy. If Hinkley has been under those conditions for the last 5 years I would think that he is by now a very low risk of offending. Justice administered with a degree of caution and wisdom IMO.

 

[ohioboy]

Thanks, Ohioboy. If Hinkley has been under those conditions for the last 5 years I would think that he is by now a very low risk of offending. Justice administered with a degree of caution and wisdom IMO.

Sure. It's like a scientific experiment of trial and error. Let's try a conditional release and see what happens, no error, experiment successful.

 

[Warrigal]

Unless every violent offender is either executed or locked up for the term of his/her natural life such "experiments" are inevitable. In the same vein psychotics should never be released from institutions either. The Hinkley "experiment" has lasted five years after 35 years of incarceration. I think the results are favourable for deciding to allow him his freedom.

Edit - I just heard that this unconditional release does not start until June next year.
It is still conditional on him not putting a foot wrong.

 

[Della]

For thoroughly defective humans like this, the guillotine should have been used.

Well that's about the most offensive thing I've read on the internet and that's a very wide source. Where does slightly defective end and thoroughly defective begin for you? Does needing glasses start the spectrum or maybe frizzy hair? I assume you yourself are without defect or you wouldn't be so quick to want someone's head chopped off. I thought only the Taliban was into that.

John Hinkley came down with a serious mental illness at the age where schizophrenia usually strikes. Before he was diagnosed and effectively treated he committed a terrible crime resulting from delusions and mental confusion. He was ill. What someone does while suffering a psychotic episode should not be as culpable as someone in their right mind. Reagan himself had dementia during his final years and fortunately he was not held responsible for the things he did and said during those years.

Hinckley has now been treated and his symptoms controlled for 40 years. The average time spent for murder is 13 years. He's done enough to satisfy me. Let him have his old age in peace.

 

[Alligatorob]

For thoroughly defective humans like this, the guillotine should have been used.

Well that's about the most offensive thing I've read on the internet

A good representation of our death penalty dilemma, and I can see both sides. I am pretty ambivalent on this one. I don't have a problem executing people I absolutely believe guilty of premeditated murder, that does not bother me. As an example, in the extreme, I am satisfied with executions we have done of folks like Bin Laden and Nazi war criminals. I am however very bothered by the knowledge we have probably executed some innocent people, the recent DNA and project innocence things have convinced me. And while I think putting innocent people in jail is awful, executing innocents is much worse... And I understand there are people who feel that government conducted executions are awful under any conditions. Not sure where the majority comes down on this, but we are split, lots of people on both sides.

I do however believe that anyone who has committed murder has crossed a bright line, and should forfeit the right to ever walk free again. Not only as punishment but to protect society as a whole.

All of the statistical evidence I have been able to find shows that convicted murderers upon release are much more likely than the population as a whole to commit violent crimes and murder again. You can argue individual cases, like John Hinkley, but without good statistical support I am not convinced. Predicting future behavior at an individual level is not an exact science, and probably never will be. We have to give most people the benefit of the doubt, but in my opinion not convicted murderers.

I am willing to pay the cost of keeping these people in jail for life, as a society we spend lots of money to lower our risks against things like automobile or airplane crashes, this is just one of those.