Hinckley to be released

Degeneratefk
Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
in A Moving Train
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
will myself to find a home, a home within myself
we will find a way, we will find our place
«1

Comments

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    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.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Surprising when this story ran here earlier - I (naively?) assumed that when you try to assassinate the President, you're in for life.
  • Degeneratefk
    Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    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.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • Who Princess
    Who Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    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.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • Degeneratefk
    Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    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.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,766
    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?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,784
    I wonder if he can purchase a gun .
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Who Princess
    Who Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    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.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • muskydan
    muskydan Posts: 1,013
    edited July 2016
    josevolution said:

    I wonder if he can purchase a gun .

    Stress your brain no further... He cannot
    Post edited by muskydan on
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    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?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    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.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,766
    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.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    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.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • even flow - question mark
    even flow - question mark Posts: 1,568
    An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 12,956
    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
    josevolution Posts: 31,784
    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 ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,143
    Let s just hope he doesn't run into Jodie foster.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • even flow - question mark
    even flow - question mark Posts: 1,568
    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!

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    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?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    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.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf

Categories