Hinckley to be released

Degeneratefk

A judge ordered that John Hinckley could be released from St Elizabeths hospital. He can now live in Virginia under certain restrictions. I'm of the opinion that he should be incarcerated until the day he dies.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/john-hinckley-jr-set-to-be-released/index.html

oftenreading

Fascinating. Really not a lot of information in that little article as to how the decision was made. I'll need to look into that further. Thanks for posting it.

hedonist

Surprising when this story ran here earlier - I (naively?) assumed that when you try to assassinate the President, you're in for life.

Degeneratefk

Either the hospital or the judge felt that he was no longer a threat to himself or to others. Yes hedo, I was also under that assumption as well.

Who Princess

If you were acquitted (as Hinkley was) by reason of insanity (he was diagnosed with schizophrenia), it can depend on the laws of the state where you're convicted. But if someone is deemed to no longer be a threat to himself or others, nothing can force him to be hospitalized. If he hadn't tried to kill the president, he'd have been released a long time ago.

Before anyone goes off on me, I'm just stating the facts. Most people acquitted by reason of insanity are not hospitalized for the rest of their lives. "Sanity" and "insanity" are legal terms, not medical. If he meets the legal requirements for release, he can't continue to be hospitalized.

Degeneratefk

Yea, not guilty by way of insanity is insane. Dude has no business being out. I see your point, but the dude shot the president. I have little to no compassion for him.

mickeyrat

gather he'd have been eligible much earlier but now with Nancy gone......

question I would have is if he is required to medicate to be released? what happens if he chooses , which would be his right to, to go off them?

josevolution

I wonder if he can purchase a gun .

Who Princess

mickeyrat said:

gather he'd have been eligible much earlier but now with Nancy gone......

question I would have is if he is required to medicate to be released? what happens if he chooses , which would be his right to, to go off them?

I read that he still has a treatment team and will have to follow a regimen. He has to be employed or do volunteer work 3 days a week and he's not allowed to leave the Williamsburg area without permission although I believe he will still have to go to the hospital in Washington periodically to meet with his team. He has to carry a cell phone with trackable GPS and he can't have contact of any kind with Jodie Foster, the Reagan family, or any president or presidential candidate. Also, he can't have any kind of social media account.

Yes, I'm sure he would have been eligible years ago. The length of time he's been confined is unusually long under the circumstances. Supposedly he hasn't been psychotic for 20 years.

I read a lot about his trial at the time because I was working at a mental health agency. Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is rarely used and is rarely successful. There was plenty of medical evidence to confirm his schizophrenia diagnosis but it helped that his family was wealthy and could afford those kinds of expert witnesses. Otherwise, he'd almost certainly been convicted and in prison for the rest of his life.

However you feel about the insanity defense, there is a longstanding legal tradition that people who are not in their right minds are not culpable. Some states have established a criteria of "Guilty but insane." Ideally that allows for people to receive treatment but still be punished for their crimes. I don't know how effective it's been.

John Hinckley is NOT a typical psychiatric patient. People with mental illnesses are rarely violent. He doesn't particularly have my sympathy either, other than that he was diagnosed with a terribly debilitating disease. Most people with major mental illnesses deserve compassion and a chance to live in their communities rather than being warehoused in psychiatric hospitals. What I would do about Hinckley, I don't know.

muskydan

josevolution said:

I wonder if he can purchase a gun .

Stress your brain no further... He cannot

rgambs

muskydan said:

josevolution said:

I wonder if he can purchase a gun .

Stress your brain no further... He cannot

Legality is the key there, he can easily buy a gun, it will just be a crime for him to do so.
But is it a crime for the seller? What if he comes to Ohio with a fake ID, since I wouldn't have to perform a background check or file any paperwork, would I be under risk of indictment? Sure, it's a crime to sell to a felon knowingly, but there is no requirement to verify so I wonder what would happen?

oftenreading

Who Princess said:

mickeyrat said:

gather he'd have been eligible much earlier but now with Nancy gone......

question I would have is if he is required to medicate to be released? what happens if he chooses , which would be his right to, to go off them?

I read that he still has a treatment team and will have to follow a regimen. He has to be employed or do volunteer work 3 days a week and he's not allowed to leave the Williamsburg area without permission although I believe he will still have to go to the hospital in Washington periodically to meet with his team. He has to carry a cell phone with trackable GPS and he can't have contact of any kind with Jodie Foster, the Reagan family, or any president or presidential candidate. Also, he can't have any kind of social media account.

Yes, I'm sure he would have been eligible years ago. The length of time he's been confined is unusually long under the circumstances. Supposedly he hasn't been psychotic for 20 years.

I read a lot about his trial at the time because I was working at a mental health agency. Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is rarely used and is rarely successful. There was plenty of medical evidence to confirm his schizophrenia diagnosis but it helped that his family was wealthy and could afford those kinds of expert witnesses. Otherwise, he'd almost certainly been convicted and in prison for the rest of his life.

However you feel about the insanity defense, there is a longstanding legal tradition that people who are not in their right minds are not culpable. Some states have established a criteria of "Guilty but insane." Ideally that allows for people to receive treatment but still be punished for their crimes. I don't know how effective it's been.

John Hinckley is NOT a typical psychiatric patient. People with mental illnesses are rarely violent. He doesn't particularly have my sympathy either, other than that he was diagnosed with a terribly debilitating disease. Most people with major mental illnesses deserve compassion and a chance to live in their communities rather than being warehoused in psychiatric hospitals. What I would do about Hinckley, I don't know.

Thank you for this information, Who Princess. It's particularly interesting if in fact it is the case that he has not had psychosis for years but continued to be hospitalized under these conditions. I know the relevant Canadian legislation but not the American as well, mostly because the legislation and legal standard varies from state to state. In Canada the assessment of whether someone gets increased privileges or even discharged is based on risk to the public, which doesn't necessarily correlate with degree of treatment response. I need to read up more on this case if I ever get a chance.

mickeyrat

oftenreading said:

Who Princess said:

mickeyrat said:

gather he'd have been eligible much earlier but now with Nancy gone......

question I would have is if he is required to medicate to be released? what happens if he chooses , which would be his right to, to go off them?

I read that he still has a treatment team and will have to follow a regimen. He has to be employed or do volunteer work 3 days a week and he's not allowed to leave the Williamsburg area without permission although I believe he will still have to go to the hospital in Washington periodically to meet with his team. He has to carry a cell phone with trackable GPS and he can't have contact of any kind with Jodie Foster, the Reagan family, or any president or presidential candidate. Also, he can't have any kind of social media account.

Yes, I'm sure he would have been eligible years ago. The length of time he's been confined is unusually long under the circumstances. Supposedly he hasn't been psychotic for 20 years.

I read a lot about his trial at the time because I was working at a mental health agency. Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is rarely used and is rarely successful. There was plenty of medical evidence to confirm his schizophrenia diagnosis but it helped that his family was wealthy and could afford those kinds of expert witnesses. Otherwise, he'd almost certainly been convicted and in prison for the rest of his life.

However you feel about the insanity defense, there is a longstanding legal tradition that people who are not in their right minds are not culpable. Some states have established a criteria of "Guilty but insane." Ideally that allows for people to receive treatment but still be punished for their crimes. I don't know how effective it's been.

John Hinckley is NOT a typical psychiatric patient. People with mental illnesses are rarely violent. He doesn't particularly have my sympathy either, other than that he was diagnosed with a terribly debilitating disease. Most people with major mental illnesses deserve compassion and a chance to live in their communities rather than being warehoused in psychiatric hospitals. What I would do about Hinckley, I don't know.

Thank you for this information, Who Princess. It's particularly interesting if in fact it is the case that he has not had psychosis for years but continued to be hospitalized under these conditions. I know the relevant Canadian legislation but not the American as well, mostly because the legislation and legal standard varies from state to state. In Canada the assessment of whether someone gets increased privileges or even discharged is based on risk to the public, which doesn't necessarily correlate with degree of treatment response. I need to read up more on this case if I ever get a chance.

for him there was a big outcry due to supervised trips a few years ago.

am sympathetic to the ill. plus my wife is a psych nurse so I get her insight on stuff as well on the clinical aspect of stuff.

oftenreading

mickeyrat said:

oftenreading said:

Who Princess said:

mickeyrat said:

gather he'd have been eligible much earlier but now with Nancy gone......

question I would have is if he is required to medicate to be released? what happens if he chooses , which would be his right to, to go off them?

I read that he still has a treatment team and will have to follow a regimen. He has to be employed or do volunteer work 3 days a week and he's not allowed to leave the Williamsburg area without permission although I believe he will still have to go to the hospital in Washington periodically to meet with his team. He has to carry a cell phone with trackable GPS and he can't have contact of any kind with Jodie Foster, the Reagan family, or any president or presidential candidate. Also, he can't have any kind of social media account.

Yes, I'm sure he would have been eligible years ago. The length of time he's been confined is unusually long under the circumstances. Supposedly he hasn't been psychotic for 20 years.

I read a lot about his trial at the time because I was working at a mental health agency. Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is rarely used and is rarely successful. There was plenty of medical evidence to confirm his schizophrenia diagnosis but it helped that his family was wealthy and could afford those kinds of expert witnesses. Otherwise, he'd almost certainly been convicted and in prison for the rest of his life.

However you feel about the insanity defense, there is a longstanding legal tradition that people who are not in their right minds are not culpable. Some states have established a criteria of "Guilty but insane." Ideally that allows for people to receive treatment but still be punished for their crimes. I don't know how effective it's been.

John Hinckley is NOT a typical psychiatric patient. People with mental illnesses are rarely violent. He doesn't particularly have my sympathy either, other than that he was diagnosed with a terribly debilitating disease. Most people with major mental illnesses deserve compassion and a chance to live in their communities rather than being warehoused in psychiatric hospitals. What I would do about Hinckley, I don't know.

Thank you for this information, Who Princess. It's particularly interesting if in fact it is the case that he has not had psychosis for years but continued to be hospitalized under these conditions. I know the relevant Canadian legislation but not the American as well, mostly because the legislation and legal standard varies from state to state. In Canada the assessment of whether someone gets increased privileges or even discharged is based on risk to the public, which doesn't necessarily correlate with degree of treatment response. I need to read up more on this case if I ever get a chance.

for him there was a big outcry due to supervised trips a few years ago.

am sympathetic to the ill. plus my wife is a psych nurse so I get her insight on stuff as well on the clinical aspect of stuff.

Indeed, mickey. I am always dismayed by the "hang 'em high" crowd's response in these cases where a treatable medical disorder is responsible for the actions. People with psychotic illnesses have enough struggle in their lives without that.

even flow - question mark

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

pjhawks

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again? I take it as a rational punishment that has been served which speaks directly to how fair our system can be. how many other countries in the world would someone attempt to assassinate the leader and not be executed themselves? for all the bitching people do about America doesn't this speak well of us?

josevolution

muskydan said:

josevolution said:

I wonder if he can purchase a gun .

Stress your brain no further... He cannot

It's not always so cut & dry ! But I hope he never has access to any weapons ...

mcgruff10

Let s just hope he doesn't run into Jodie foster.

even flow - question mark

pjhawks said:

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again?

In a word, NO!

oftenreading

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

If he was still "insane", and given his prior actions, I would be concerned as well. In the absence of other information I will assume that this decision has been made because his mental illness has been successfully treated and he is no longer a significant risk, so yes, it makes perfect sense. Unless you don't believe that people with psychosis can be successfully treated?

oftenreading

pjhawks said:

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again? I take it as a rational punishment that has been served which speaks directly to how fair our system can be. how many other countries in the world would someone attempt to assassinate the leader and not be executed themselves? for all the bitching people do about America doesn't this speak well of us?

Personally, I don't see any "punishment" is necessary if actions are directly due to a medical condition over which the individual did not have control. That's the way the law sees it as well, at least where I live. Psychosis is a neurological condition. How many people would genuinely want to punish someone who had a stroke while driving, plowed into a crowd of people, and killed several of them? Not many of us would want to see that person in jail serving multiple life sentences for murder, even though their medical condition caused them to kill people. Yet many want to see someone who injures or kills someone directly related to psychosis jailed for life, or given the death penalty.

even flow - question mark

oftenreading said:

pjhawks said:

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again? I take it as a rational punishment that has been served which speaks directly to how fair our system can be. how many other countries in the world would someone attempt to assassinate the leader and not be executed themselves? for all the bitching people do about America doesn't this speak well of us?

Personally, I don't see any "punishment" is necessary if actions are directly due to a medical condition over which the individual did not have control. That's the way the law sees it as well, at least where I live. Psychosis is a neurological condition. How many people would genuinely want to punish someone who had a stroke while driving, plowed into a crowd of people, and killed several of them? Not many of us would want to see that person in jail serving multiple life sentences for murder, even though their medical condition caused them to kill people. Yet many want to see someone who injures or kills someone directly related to psychosis jailed for life, or given the death penalty.

To equate somebody who is not able to function in society without the use of mood altering drugs to keep them from going off the deep end and somebody having a stroke behind the wheel of a car is a bit of a stretch. Ain't it?

Degeneratefk

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

oftenreading

even flow - question mark said:

oftenreading said:

pjhawks said:

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again? I take it as a rational punishment that has been served which speaks directly to how fair our system can be. how many other countries in the world would someone attempt to assassinate the leader and not be executed themselves? for all the bitching people do about America doesn't this speak well of us?

Personally, I don't see any "punishment" is necessary if actions are directly due to a medical condition over which the individual did not have control. That's the way the law sees it as well, at least where I live. Psychosis is a neurological condition. How many people would genuinely want to punish someone who had a stroke while driving, plowed into a crowd of people, and killed several of them? Not many of us would want to see that person in jail serving multiple life sentences for murder, even though their medical condition caused them to kill people. Yet many want to see someone who injures or kills someone directly related to psychosis jailed for life, or given the death penalty.

To equate somebody who is not able to function in society without the use of mood altering drugs to keep them from going off the deep end and somebody having a stroke behind the wheel of a car is a bit of a stretch. Ain't it?

No. It's not a stretch at all. That's exactly my point. Both people have neirological conditions that affected their behaviour.

Unless you are saying that psychosis is not a "real" medical condition?

Another example for you? Diabetes can affect your behaviour if your blood sugar isn't well controlled. Diabetics need medication to manage their condition. Should they be allowed in society?

oftenreading

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

The short answer is yes. Obviously, not everyone with psychosis responds well to treatment, but contrary to what most people probably believe the majority of people with schizophrenia or related psychotic illnesses will respond well to treatment and then be able to live their lives productively in the community. A small minority have such treatment-resistant illness that they won't be "sane" even with treatment.

And the severity of actions taken while psychotic actually bears no relation to whether someone is successfully treatable. What's more important, it also bears no relation to future risk to the public. That is very well supported in evidence that was unfortunately completely ignored by the former Canadian conservative government when they came up with their high risk designation for people found what we call not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (what the US calls not guilty by reason of insanity).

oftenreading

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

Unless I misunderstood your question, DF. If you are asking would a person who became "sane" be made to go back to to court face the charges again, then the answer is no.

Who Princess

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

As I said earlier, sane and insane are legal terms, not medical. Yes, people who have severe mental illnesses can be treated and function normally. Bipolar disorder has received a lot of attention in recent years, with an understanding that if people stay on their medications they can continue to be employed and have the same kind of life most of us want. What a lot of people don't realize is that bipolar disorder can be as debilitating as schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia isn't considered chronic until an individual has at least 3 episodes. I knew a woman who had been treated for schizophrenia. She had a responsible job, had been promoted twice when I knew her, and had received bonuses for outstanding work. She was married and hoping to have children. She wasn't "crazy" anymore. She didn't hear voices or have weird delusions. There's absolutely no reason why someone like that has to spend their life in a psych hospital.

Degeneratefk

oftenreading said:

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

Unless I misunderstood your question, DF. If you are asking would a person who became "sane" be made to go back to to court face the charges again, then the answer is no.

No, that wasn't what I was asking. Hinckley was found not guilty. So he can't be tried again. Makes you wonder if one can be found guilty even if he is insane. He still tried to kill the president. He is guilty. Maybe the legal terminology needs to be changed.

oftenreading

Degeneratefk said:

oftenreading said:

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

Unless I misunderstood your question, DF. If you are asking would a person who became "sane" be made to go back to to court face the charges again, then the answer is no.

No, that wasn't what I was asking. Hinckley was found not guilty. So he can't be tried again. Makes you wonder if one can be found guilty even if he is insane. He still tried to kill the president. He is guilty. Maybe the legal terminology needs to be changed.

Depends on your definition of "guilt", I guess. But your reasoning is part of why Canada moved away from that terminology to "not criminally responsible"; i.e. there is recognition in law that the individual committed the act but they are not being held legally responsible. If anyone is interested in the legal rationale of why I could go into it, but be warned, it involves some Latin....

And retreading your text, you have another question there. Yes, someone can certainly be found guilty and also be "insane" (that is, experiencing psychosis). It depends on how tightly the actions are linked to the psychosis. If you were really psychotic and you stole some chocolate bars because you were hungry and wanted them, you wouldn't be found NGRI (or NCRMD). If you were really psychotic and killed someone because you were angry at them because they took your chocolate bars, you would not be found NGRI. People with psychosis still have a range of thoughts and motivations, like anyone else.

Who Princess

Degeneratefk said:

No, that wasn't what I was asking. Hinckley was found not guilty. So he can't be tried again. Makes you wonder if one can be found guilty even if he is insane. He still tried to kill the president. He is guilty. Maybe the legal terminology needs to be changed.

The insanity defense is rarely used and rarely succeeds. So yes, people who are legally insane can be found guilty.

Hinckley's case is unusual because of who he attacked and because of his acquittal. If he had been convicted of, say, attempted murder, he would likely be paroled by now after serving 35 years. Especially if he'd shot some Joe Shmoe instead of the president.

oftenreading

As WhoP alludes, there are far, far more people with serious mental illness being found guilty of crimes and incarcerated than there are individuals being found NGRI.