Judge Dread: Meet the man who freed the man who shot the President

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | December 18, 2003 | Lowell Ponte

[Uncle Jaque]

We understand from FOX News that the Secret Service will be "keeping an eye" on Hinkley as he enjoys his new-found freedom.

I certainly hope they do!

Let's hope that Hinkley will not blow his nose without it being duly monitored and noted.

And if (or, as I suspect, "when") he slips off of the reservation and starts stalking his next victim, I for one would not be terribly devistated if he is simply turned up one Morning lying cold and stiff in one of Washington's many dark allys with "two in the hat", just for safe keeping.

Washington can be a pretty dangerous town to lurk around in at night, they say.

[r9etb]

Mr. Ponte's rhetoric is a tad overheated, and more than a little wild-eyed. I'm thankful for that, though: I know not to pay attention to him in the future.

Friedman is no doubt a complete dough-head, but I really, really doubt that the judge's decision came as a result of being a Reagan-hating Clinton appointee.

[shrinkermd]

"The penalty for that outragious act, whether successful or not, should be death. In my opinion, intending to kill, but missing the target is no excuse for a lesser penalty!!

Yes, that is just the point. The hospital should not be used as a means of delivering a lifetime sentence the courts did not allow. The hospital and the doctors are there to treat Hinckley until it is safe to release him.

I also agree with you that there should be a harsher penalty for regicide regardless of the sanity or insanity of the accused. That is,attempting to assasinate the President would result in a death sentence or a lifetime incarceration depending on the findings of a court and jury. In the meantime, the federal prosecutors IMHO are trying to use the hospital as means to keeping Hinckley locked up after losing the criminal case to an insanity defence.

I once read the Hinckley case quite carefully. There is no question that Hinckley had a serious mental disorder. Even the defence psychiatrists came up with four serious personality disorders and the prosecution psychiatrists came up with a variety of psychotic conditions. In actual fact, I believe Hinckley suffered from "erotomania" or "Clerambault's sydrome" where the afflicted person believes that he is in love with a prominent person. These individuals are notoriously unstable and prone to repeated attempts to contact or impress the loved person. One way to think of people with erotomania is that it is a defence against a more serious psychotic condition.

A simple diagnosis was insufficient to make a case for an insanity defence even at that time. Unfortunately, Congress had passed a legal test at the time that simply said to establish insanity one had to prove that the individual by virtue of the mental disorder lacked a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act. Of course, with this vague rule, the jury simply decided he was "nuts" and confined him to the hospital. Little did they comtemplate that the hospital and doctors would treat Mr. Hinckley sufficient for at least a partial recovery.

I don't think the judge erred for the above reasons. I also don't think he acted on a personal or political basis but simply followed the law as it is written. The law does not permit an indefinite confinement for a mental disorder except in cases of danger to oneself or others.

[murdoog]

A simple diagnosis was insufficient to make a case for an insanity defence even at that time. Unfortunately, Congress had passed a legal test at the time that simply said to establish insanity one had to prove that the individual by virtue of the mental disorder lacked a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act. Of course, with this vague rule, the jury simply decided he was "nuts" and confined him to the hospital. Little did they comtemplate that the hospital and doctors would treat Mr. Hinckley sufficient for at least a partial recovery.

Is the problem really with the law, or with the judge and jury?It seems to me that being obsessed with Jodie Foster doesn't automatically preclude an appreciation that shooting the President is wrong.

[tractorman]

Maybe the wacko Ohio sniper will go to D.C. on a target-practice vacation.

[shrinkermd]

"Is the problem really with the law, or with the judge and jury?It seems to me that being obsessed with Jodie Foster doesn't automatically preclude an appreciation that shooting the President is wrong.

It is all a matter of opinion. You are right in that simply having "erotomania" or being in love with Jodi Foster does not preclude conforming one's conduct to the requirements of the law. This issue is usually decided by a Judge and Jury: it is possible they are wrong but that is the system.

From my perspective, Congress and State Legislatures fail to make the decision to confine some people indefinitely on the basis of their potential criminal activity. The law, the prison personnel and many politicians hate indeterminate sentences and see them as unconstitutional; however, once they face a problem such as Hinkley they then try to use a mental ward to assuage the problem and their conscience.

In many states, including Minnesota, the M'Naghten test is the test for sanity. Here, the question is whether one "knows the what they are doing or does not know what they are doing is wrong." This is strictly a cognitive test and has many critics but if it had been applied to Hinckley IMHO he would have been in the criminal justice system forever. I also think the prosecution in this case lacked sound judgement --they had an opportunity to plea bargain (Hinckley wanted it) but they refused. The prosecution must have believed they could defeat an insantity defence--of course, they didn't.

[Dante3]

Friedman looks scary in a wimpy way. Nancy Grace on Court TV was outraged, said if Hinckley is "cured," as one guest maintained, then its time to keep him in jail.

[ZULU]

This guy and "judges" like him are public enemies. They should be impeached, and lose their licenses to practise law.

Are the psychiatrists who approved Hinckley's release the same ones who approved Alphonse Rodriguez' release - REMEMBER HIM?

Or, maybe it was o.k. to release him because he tried to shoot a Republican president.

[ZULU]

"In Judge Paul L. Friedman, we have the perfect ideological example of why and how Democrats rule – not just make rulings, but rule the nation – from the bench. In an earlier time we were “a government of laws and not men.”

But nowadays men in black robes arrogantly and arbitrarily declare the law to be whatever madhouse-opening thing they wish. The Democrats have loosed insanity and lawlessness upon our world, and wherever they rule no human being is safe."

Everything that is wrong with AMerica is stated in those two paragraphs - "ACTIVIST JUDGES."

[Eva]

I am not sure about this Hinkley case. He had a long history of mental illness before the attempted assassination. He looks fine now, but that is probably due to psychotropic medication, which is administered in a hospital setting. The danger lies in releasing him without supervision to make sure that he does not go off his medication.

[Donaeus]

The law does not permit an indefinite confinement for a mental disorder except in cases of danger to oneself or others.

I may be wrong but doesn't trying to assassinate the President constitute being a danger to others? President Reagan wasn't the only one shot that day as Hinckley fired on him. We all know about the injuries of James Brady, but at least one Secret Service agent was struck and others were narrowly missed. I am not a firearms expert by any means nor a psychologist, but I find it incredible that someone suffering from a "mania" and using an unfamiliar weapon could do the damage Hinckley did in the window of opportunity he had. Operating a handgun takes focus and control especially when aiming on a moving target. IF Hinckley was affected by a maniacal episode during the shooting he would have had no focus or control because he was out of his mind. IF he had focus and control in relation to his weapon and target then he was "in his right mind" and aware of exactly what he was doing therefore NOT incapable of discerning the rightness or wrongness of his actions.

[TomasUSMC]

You don't put someone in Jail just because they are a threat. Every good American should be a threat to his own government if that government should try and become tyrannical. The best reason to jail someone is to PUNISH THEM. What is being confused here is healing and punishment. If Hinkley is healed of his mental illness, great. So now then, it is time for him to do time for his punishment phase. If judges did not count the mental illness confinement time against prison confinement, things would be a whole lot different. I reckon mental illness pleas would be less apealing.

[July 4th]

Man...I forgot that guy was still alive.

[technomage]

I do believe this editorial misses the point.

Well, in my opinion, anyone, ANYONE who shoots a President, should never, NEVER be free ever again, sane or insane.

My God, this should have been a no brainer. By releasing him, it sends the message that "Hey, you can shoot the President of the United States and not spend the rest of your life in jail". Could be lot's of kooks are thinking about this.

Leave it to a liberal scum radical judge. Deep down inside his little brain, part of him was delirious with joy because he could get back at Reagan, even a little.

"The Stench From The Bench Is Making Me Clench!!" M.S.

[TomasUSMC]

Judge Friedman is a terrorist loving worthless scum of the earth dog. Anyone who takes a shot at any President of the U.S.A. should never see the light of day. If that person is crazy he still should never see the light of day. I hope Michael Reagan shows up at his house and beats the living crap out of him. (Hinckley and the Judge)

Crazy people, sick people, blind people, all people need to be held responsible for their actions. If its not your fault, it is still you who did it. Otherwise people will always come up with an excuse why it was not something under their control. Take responsibility for your actions, if the victim decides to forgive you then thats another story.