John Hinckley freed…
…and goes to live with his elderly mother:
John Hinckley is now 61 years old, and as the judge wrote, “suffering from arthritis, high blood pressure, and various other physical ailments like many men his age.”
That’s irrelevant, IMHO, although it’s a sobering reminder of the passage of time.
Hinckley tried to kill a president in 1981, and he nearly succeeded. He left James Brady with permanent brain damage, as well. Hinckley was judged not guilty by reason of insanity and has been residing in a mental hospital rather than a prison, and now his release comes under the following conditions:
Under the terms of the order, Hinckley is not allowed to contact his victims, their relatives or actress Jodie Foster, with whom he was obsessed. Hinckley also will not be permitted to “knowingly travel” to areas where the current president or members of Congress are present. The judge said Hinckley could be allowed to live on his own or in a group home after one year.
“Mr. Hinckley shall abide by all laws, shall not consume alcohol, illegal drugs… shall not possess any firearm, weapon, or ammunition and shall not be arrested for cause,” Senior U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ordered…
Saint Elizabeths Hospital says he no longer presents a danger to himself or others. Doctors report his depression and psychosis are in full remission. In court, his lawyer described a man who plays guitar, goes to movies and browses in bookstores.
He has already been spending time living in the community with his mother.
I tend to lean on the side of thinking this was the wrong decision in this particular case. Without going back and re-arguing whether he should have received a not guilty by insanity verdict in the first place, I’ll say that it’s a combination of two factors that makes me say that Hinckley should have remained where he was. The first is the unpredictability of the behavior of a person with that degree of illness, even if in “remission.” Add to that the extreme gravity of his crime, and I don’t see how you can justify the action the court took today.
I can’t imagine that Jodie Foster’s feeling too great about it, either.
Neo, I agree with you 100%. I always wonder how these people (the judges) making these decision would decide if it were their own family member, or this person would be living next door to them.
I always wonder how these people (the judges) making these decision would decide if it were their own family member, or this person would be living next door to them.
The point of the justice system is to remove people from emotional entanglements like that. Of course, as we see, that doesn’t mean humans are suddenly right or righteous.
It is a tad better than lynch mobs going to jails and killing people, however. But the problem here is that the Judge and the system bears no responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Thus humans, tend to become corrupt in that system.
“I’ve got to get organizized,” Hr. Hinckley said upon release. “Too much sitting in my cell has ruined my body. From now on there will be fifty pushups every morning, fifty pullups . . . Every muscle must be tight. I want to look good for Jodie when we–wait, what’s that? She’s a WHAT???”
Ymarsakar–That is a good point, but now that our bureaucracy has evolved to the point where those making these decisions, by and large, live outside the framework (gated communities, high-end areas, access to government security) of John Q Public; thus, the responsibility/consequence factor, as you put it, is missing.
Jodie probably carries now.
I’ve always wondered about the “..shall not consume alcohol” condition. It appears to be a common condition of parole/probation. I understand not having a firearm, but not being allowed to have a beer seems wrong.
I have known at least a couple of dozen mentally ill murderers. I only counted them up this year – never knew there were so many. NH has the strictest Conditional Discharge statute in the nation, and I have been using that and doing training on it for 3 decades. Taking medication, going to appointments, not abusing substances of any kind, and following through with any lab work are the standard conditions. Even minor substance use leads to much higher rates of violence in the general mentally-ill population – I can’t imagine it’s any better among the NGRI’s or NCTST’s. No alcohol. None, nothing, at least for a long time. Are all of them completely out of control after smoking a little weed? Of course not. But it’s highly variable. I’ve had guys get into trouble after two beers (I don’t know about one.) No missed medication. While that is also highly variable, and some people can go for weeks off meds before the illness begins to creep back, I have seen people fall apart after a couple of missed doses.
However, the risk can be brought down quite low with treatment. It’s never zero, but it can get close to population baseline levels. Most of my murderers are out in the community, living independently, having jobs, friends. Someone like Hinckley is symbolically worrisome, but I’m betting he’s considerably less dangerous than a lot of other folks out there. I know people much crazier. Age is an enormous factor. Violence occurs far more among the young. Hinckley probably should have been out years ago. It just feels bad, because we know the story. You walk past people with worse stories all the time.
Unless, of course, if you guys want to bring all the once-violent folks back into hospitals forever, in which case we are going to need about ten times the beds and budget we have now.
“the problem here is that the Judge and the system bears no responsibility for the consequences of their actions.” Ymarsakar
Yes. I wonder whether Hinkley would have been released had the judge and psychiatrists responsible for his release, knew they faced an automatic and mandatory involuntary manslaughter charge, if he ever murders someone…
Assistant Village Idiot,
That encapsulates the problem nicely. It sounds like a crap shoot.
AVI:
But in addition to dangerousness, there is the gravity of the offense.
live outside the framework (gated communities, high-end areas, access to government security) of John Q Public; thus, the responsibility/consequence factor, as you put it, is missing.
No, I don’t mean that kind of responsibility. I mean legal responsibility. Lawyers and jury people get slapped with “contempt of court” or “perjury” or all kinds of other stuff, disbarred from the Bar association, as a penalty for BS in court.
There should be a way to track how many criminals have been let loose by judges, who ended up with certain casualties. Same for other lawyers.
As a legal penalty… well the Bar association won’t do anything about that, as they are corrupt too. They are slightly better than unions with mandatory fees and membership, due to the “voluntary status”, but hard to say. Some of them may have enforced member dues and what not, like I heard in California.
No, the only penalty they need is to be listed online, with their record, like Ebay. People can start with that.
Once a lawyer or judge has a reputation, the system will handle it themselves, just as it does on Ebay for people that care about ratings. Because ratings means influence amongst your customers and the people. They can always recuse themselves.
It is not an ideal solution. Merely a realistic one. If Judges are not in a community, so he can release crims into it free of mind, then allow the “internet community” to connect to those judges, via the information.
Humans are strange. Once their stuff gets posted online, suddenly they now care about their ratings and reviews… even restaurants.
Yes. I wonder whether Hinkley would have been released had the judge and psychiatrists responsible for his release, knew they faced an automatic and mandatory involuntary manslaughter charge, if he ever murders someone…
That is one concern. Technically, if the psychiatrists are such pros, they should be the ones overseeing Hin’s parole and care. This bureaucratic shuffling around tends to give people excuses like “I’m just doing my job, I’m just following orders, it’s not my fault”.
Giving people more authority, so that they have to deal with these individuals under the “State”, would promote more initiative.
It would also grind the bureaucracy to a halt, as everyone Covers themselves.
Have to give some praise here to California’s governor, Jerry Brown, for denying parole for Leslie Van Houten, one of the Manson killers. And that was after she’d gotten some sympathetic press coverage plus the parole board’s approval.
Yes, Ann. That one surprised me.
No. I want to put them in a rubber boat and beach the sons of bitches on South Georgia Island or some similar rock. “Be free my children. Joy to you among your kind!”
I’d say more about how I really feel about the mentally ill, but I don’t want to be impolite.
AVI,
Excellent comment, you gave me a short and to the point peek into what is involved when it comes to deciding which mentally ill and potentially dangerous patients to release or continue to hold. Hinkley is a poster boy for mentally ill and dangerous. Attempting to assassinate a president because one is obsessed with Jodi Foster is to put it mildly very, very twisted.
Does he deserve release, I have no reason to question the decision. However, those who make those decisions should be held to account when their decision results in harm to others.
My opinion is that anyone who attempts to murder the president should never get out of jail!
I understand the symbolic value of some crimes. For example, crimes against law enforcement do strike at the heart of safety, and letting those be treated lightly is an invitation to anarchy. Attempting to assassinate a public figure, in particular the overall leader, is also a statement of dangerous anarchism that should indeed be regarded as something beyond the simple facts of the crime.
If, from that, a person wants to take the view that assassins being released are right off the table, no discussion, I see the logic of that.
But if we are discussing the dangerousness of an individual, there are some predictors, and those are unrelated to the celebrity of any participant. None are guarantees, but we don’t have guarantees for anyone.
@DNW – I have to conclude that you are not aware that mental illnesses are generally not a matter of choice, no more than having Down’s Syndrome or getting hit on the head by you parents. Most are largely genetic. True, some conditions can be set off or even created by substance abuse. Others that are in some sense elective are related to choosing dangerous jobs, such as combat or exposure to toxins, that are done on your behalf. I don’t think you could sell the general public on the idea of abandoning veterans who had IED’s explode near them, or child-rape victims on an island, however. I suspect you have some personal story that colors your overall view.
parker:
So you believe in total and absolute liability for parole boards and/or psychiatrists who recommend release of any prisoner?
I guess no one will ever be released, then.
Used to be that only negligence or failure to meet a reasonable standard was actionable (for example, for medical professionals). Now we demand perfection, or we get to sue?
Fact is, these predictions will never be 100% accurate, and unless you want to completely shut down the parole system, and also keep all violent felons judged criminally insane locked up for life in mental health facilities, then we must accept the fact that errors will be made and unless there is negligence in the release, no one will be punished for mere bad judgment or inability to perfectly predict future human behavior.
“So you believe in total and absolute liability for parole boards and/or psychiatrists who recommend release of any prisoner?”
Of course not. But then that’s not the point, which is that liberal psychiatrists and/or parole boards and judges, frequently don’t apply a reasonable standard when release is considered.
“Bleeding heart liberal” comes to mind.
A “reasonable standard” would start with the admission that we have no cure for the criminally insane. And that until we do, release of them is just a societal form of russian roulette.
So too with sexual predators. Any discussion that doesn’t start with agreement that the criminally inclined have no moral compass and are predators is prima facie evidence of denial and intellectual dishonesty..
Geoffrey Britain:
I was responding to a comment that proposed an absolute liability, though, not a “reasonable standard” one, and that was the point.
In general yes, though I wonder about personality disorders, and whether they can even be said to have a conventional etiology, as opposed to being an intrinsic part of the organism which manifests them. And yes, I am aware that numerous forms of what we call mental illness have a predisposing genetic component and an assumed triggering event or condition. I was not aware that Downs Syndrome was genetic (though you may not have implied that) or that heritable conditions were truly random. Though looking again at what you say, I am not sure that you really are assigning anything to pure and completely statistically unpredictable mischance; but rather instead pointing to some particular innocence of moral intent.
But, so as to clarify what I was talking about, let me quote myself quoting you; along with the apparent context you had established in earlier paragraphs of your same comment.
You had said:
and then I quoted this part of what you were saying:
So, we are clearly talking about “once-violent” folks, and presumably of this kind: ” … mentally ill murderers. ”
Yes, that seem to be true.
Yes, so some people have a genetic and more or less proximate predisposition to the “condition” and some to precursor conditions or initiating conditions which result in presumably violent mental illness.
I doubt that I could sell the general public on the idea, nor would I want to, of leaving farmers injured in the fields out to die. So too for veterans with damage to a lobe of the brain caused by concussive shock or projectiles. Nor would anyone themselves sane or mentally healthy wish to send poor child rape victims off to an island as a consequence for their having been rape victims. So, I figure you must be insinuating that these rape victims have done something apart from suffering victimization. Perhaps like raping and murdering some one else’s child?
Other than observing how our social and political lives are needlessly crapped up by the mentally ill, not even taking into account the violent and murderous mentally ill, not too much.
I do recall that a grown retard once did try to roll a landscaping boulder down on me when I was a small boy. But he was not the kind of successful butcher of men that you were ostensibly adverting to. He should have just been kept in the house. Until he killed someone that is.
@DNW – I said nothing about randomness, because genetic illnesses by definition run in families. But people who have most mental illnesses did not do anything to end up where they are. Schizophrenia, BPAD, Depression, Anxiety Disorders, OCD, autism…you also could have been born with one of these. PTSD, even absent brain injury, is a very possible result of sending a young man into combat and having bad things happen near him. Raped or abused children sometimes suffer PTSD, and neglected ones can have attachment disorders.
I don’t see the justification for any society sending any of the above of to any island. Such a society would soon cease to cohere, as no one would believe others had any concern for them, so no one would sacrifice for the whole. Certainly no one would fight and die for a society that punished its returning soldiers. Your blanket statement is fairly shocking, in that the mere fact of gumming up other’s lives is enough makes the unfortunate worthy of exclusion. Do you think people with cancer should be similarly abandoned? Presuming not, what is your logical distinction between them?
Personality disorders might have a genetic component, and people who abuse substances are increasing their odds of setting off an illness, so we are certainly in grayer areas there. Yet even there all people do not necessarily have the volition we assume they do.