Posted on 03/27/2011 2:08:19 AM PDT by Scanian
The man who stalked and shot President Ronald Reagan is edging closer to being released after almost 30 years in a mental hospital. According to court records, the forensic psychologist at his hospital has testified that John W. Hinckley Jr has 'recovered to the point that he poses no imminent risk of danger to himself or others.' The college drop-out, who was possessed by a terrifying obsession with actress Jodie Foster, has already been freed for several visits to his ageing mother in Williamsburg, Virginia.
[snip]
Despite government objections, a judge in 2009 extended his furlough privileges to a dozen visits of 10 days each during the past year and a half. Hinckley, who is now 55, is required to carry a GPS-equipped cell phone for tracking purposes any time he is away from his mother's home, and by court order, he is forbidden to talk to any media.
U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova, who helped oversee Hinckley's prosecution in 1982, said talk of his release is deeply worrying.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Psycho killer Quest que cest?
If this guy is all better now, then shouldn’t he serve a prison sentence for attempted murder?
Not even a locked-on ankle monitor? Just a cell phone that he can leave anywhere?! Unbelievable!
You just know that Obama and Holder would love to give Hinckley a medal for what he did.
Miss Foster should hire a few more bodyguards and maybe get herself a handgun.
Hinkley did it right. He shot a conservative POTUS in DC. Had he shot a liberal president in Texas, he would has been given a life term.
Pray for Jodie Foster. Regardless of her political views, she dont deserve this scumbag being let out.
No. There are two issues to be considered prior to adjudication for individuals who may be mentally ill and who have committed serious crimes.
The first is that of competency. Competency to stand trial includes having the cognitive where with all to be able to effectively cooperate with your defense. This is a very basic matter related to the individual's understanding of the court system, how if functions, the roles of those involved in it, the nature and seriousness of the charges, etc. An individual can be very mentally ill and still be competent to stand trial. In those cases where a judge finds someone incompetent to stand trial, the person can be hospitalized and treated to the point where they become competent to stand trial and then brought back to court. This may be what you are thinking of.
The other basic issue in this type of situation is whether or not the individual was criminally responsible at the time of the act. This is a more complicated question and where the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense enters in. This is what happened with Hinckley. Knowing some of the individuals involved in this case and having had the opportunity to discuss the court proceedings with them, I am of the opinion that he was criminally responsible for his actions. However, this is not what the court found. The court found him not guilty by reason of insanity, therefore, he is not guilty of a crime and cannot be punished for it. He lacked the mens rea that is, the "mind of the thing" and cannot be considered responsible for what he did.
I don't think this was the correct finding in this case but it is established in English law and American law since the McNaughton case in the mid 19th century.
Excellent explanation. It agrees with my understanding of the law.
MARCH 6, 2000:
A teacher in Manassas VA accidentally and unknowingly brought her small revolver onto school property. A coworker, checking her purse (she had left it on a table) discovered the weapon.
It did not matter that it was an accident and it did not matter that there was no criminal intent.
Jury recommended a 12 month prison term, a 2500 fine, and the teacher was dismissed.
How’s that for Mens Rea?
Jody has a crush on ZERO. . . . . .
But somewhat along those lines (while simultaneously off topic a bit) there is the case of Wilson v. United States (1968) in which Wilson committed a crime and while being pursued by police was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He sustained a closed head injury and had retrograde amnesia for the events of the crime. The court held that he was competent to stand trial although he could not relate any details to his defense attorney. This established that amnesia did not prevent a defendant from participating meaningfully in his defense. I think you could see the problems arising from an opposite finding, that is, anyone could claim they didn't remember what happened and there would be no way to challenge that claim.
Photoshop Reagan’s face over Obummers and make sure it is imprinted on HINKLEY’S MIND WHEN HE IS RELEASED.
I was just rereading this the other day,
http://theniceness.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/kurt-vonnegut-by-charlie-kaufman-part-1/
Typically, people never “recover” from a mental illness...I call BS.
I agree, I used to be a young Democrat....I recovered
I tend to agree. I look at it like alcoholism, you are an alcoholic or not. You never are "cured", that is why they always say "I am an recovering alcoholoic". I find it "iffy" to say the least that mental disorders are ever cured in the medical sense.
Will the forensic psychologist be held accountable if this dirtbag, hinkley, kills someone? Probably not.
Maybe BO/BS can invite Hinckley to the White House for a beer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.