Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reagan shooter Hinckley to seek freedom at hearing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 12:34 PM
Original message
Reagan shooter Hinckley to seek freedom at hearing
Source: CNN

On the day he shot President Ronald Reagan, 25-year-old John Hinckley Jr. left in his hotel room a letter addressed to young actress Jodie Foster, with whom he was infatuated. The letter began:

"Dear Jodie. There is a definite possibility I will be killed in my attempt to get Reagan."

But on March 30, 1981, Hinckley survived. His gun empty after he fired six shots at the president in less than two seconds, Hinckley was tackled by police and Secret Service agents. He was rushed away and all but disappeared into custody for the past three decades.

On Wednesday, a federal judge will begin a week and half of hearings on whether Hinckley eventually should be released from the mental hospital where he has been a patient since his 1982 trial ended in a jury verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/justice/reagan-attacker-h...



RFK's assassin Sirhan Sirhan is also seeking release from prison.
Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
digidigido Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. You mean son of Vice Presidents contributor seeks freedom
after trying to kill President Reagan before his brother had dinner with the Vice Presidents son.
Google Hinckley Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. Hinckley still could have been insane.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/...

Not saying he was or he wasn't, but, if he were insane, the relationship between his family and the Bush crime family could explain his obsession with getting Reagan. Trouble is, if he were sane, the relationship between his family and the Bush crime family could explain his obsession with getting Reagan, too.


"BushHinckley family connections

According to the March 31, 1981, edition of the Houston Post, and reported by AP, UPI, NBC News and Newsweek, Hinckley is the son of one of George H.W. Bush's political and financial supporters in his 1980 presidential primary campaign against Ronald Reagan; John Hinckley, Jr.'s elder brother, Scott Hinckley, and Bush's son Neil Bush had a dinner appointment scheduled for the next day.<19><20>

Associated Press published the following on March 31, 1981:

The family of the man charged with trying to assassinate President Reagan is acquainted with the family of Vice-President George Bush and had made large contributions to his political campaign ... Scott Hinckley, brother of John W. Hinckley, Jr., was to have dined tonight in Denver at the home of Neil Bush, one of the Vice-President's sons ... The Houston Post said it was unable to reach Scott Hinckley, vice-president of his father's Denver-based firm, Vanderbilt Energy Corporation, for comment. Neil Bush lives in Denver, where he works for Standard Oil Company of Indiana. In 1978, Neil Bush served as campaign manager for his brother, George W. Bush, the Vice-President's eldest son, who made an unsuccessful bid for Congress. Neil lived in Lubbock, Texas, throughout much of 1978, where John Hinckley lived from 1974 through 1980... Sharon Bush, Neil's wife, said Scott Hinckley was coming to their house as a date of a girl friend of hers. "I don't even know the brother. From what I know and I've heard, they (the Hinckleys) are a very nice family and have given a lot of money to the Bush campaign. I understand he was just the renegade brother in the family. They must feel awful," she said.<21>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr .


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Keep him in. He's refusing cross, and that should not be an option.
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 01:09 PM by msanthrope
"The U.S. attorney's office has told the judge that if Hinckley does take the stand at the hearing, it wants the right to question him. Hinckley's lawyer, Barry S. Levine, replied that Hinckley will testify only if the judge does not allow any cross-examination.

The hospital motion for Hinckley's eventual release was filed under seal, unavailable to the public. However, in answering that, the government said the motion proposes a series of eight new visits of 17 to 24 days each to Hinckley's mother's home.

After that, the government said, the hospital wants "the sole discretion to place Hinckley on convalescent leave" and to do so "without any further review by this court."

No immediate decision is expected during the court hearing. In the past, the judge has taken some time before issuing a written ruling."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/justice/reagan-attacker-h...


Sorry, but if he wants release, he needs to take the stand and answer some questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. What questions would he have to answer ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. presumably the same sorts of questions that would be asked of any
person seeking release after being found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Why should he get a pass on being cross-examined?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I wasn't implying he should get a pass. I was just curious as to
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 02:29 PM by russspeakeasy
the types of questions he would be asked on direct and on cross.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
25. I Think He's Done His Time
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 11:24 AM by ProfessorGAC
He's been in jail for going on 30 years and the guy he shot didn't die. This is an attempted murder case. How many people spend 30 years in jail for attempted murder? And he was found NG due to incapacity. This seems to be crossing over into an unconscionable sentence, no matter if the victim was POTUS or not.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Actually, he's done no 'time.'
Seriously. His confinement was not a punishment. And, if he is not presently a danger to himself, and others, I agree that he should be released.

However--how can a court determine facts if Mr. Hinkley will not submit to cross? A court, as a fact-finder, should not be restricted in this inquiry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Our Definition Of "Time" Differs
A mentally competent defendant would not have spent this much time in involuntary holding. Yeah, i agree he was a few bolts loose, and he was a danger to others.

I'm not sure that the cross examination helps anything. So we differ there, too. They will hear the testimony of psychiatrists and therapists, and if they feel his danger to others has abated, that should be enough to release him.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. If you follow the link in post #30, you will note that his drs. were unaware that his stalking
activity had started again.

Ultimately, the fact finder is the judge--and while I think the testimony of the medical officials should be weighed and taken into consideration, the government retains a significant interest in ascertaining that he is no longer a danger.

At the very least, the court should be able to inquire of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Any question the government poses to him.
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 02:59 PM by msanthrope
Specifically, the government might wish to question him on his current state of mind regarding Mrs. Reagan, Ms. Foster and her family, and the Bradys.


They might wish to question him about things he has stated during treatment, his future plans, his ability to integrate into society, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Gottcha. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Yeah, the hell with his Fifth Amendment right not to submit and not to have that counted against him
Jaysus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. Um, try Allen v. Illinois. 478 US 364 (1986)
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 12:10 PM by msanthrope
Mental Health proceedings are not 'criminal' proceedings for the purposes of the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. Why? Because the purpose of mental health evaluation is not punishment, but treatment. Here, the determination revolves around treatment, not punishment.

Of course, anything that Hinkley reveals cannot then be used against him in a criminal proceeding. But he has no right to invoke the 5th.

You might try reading the case.

****

Let me explain something about constitutional law...IMHO, quoting an amendment while failing read the relevant, and on point SCOTUS decisions that concern that amendment tend to lead to facile analysis.

Besides which, if you are going to use an amendment to fall back on, I would suggest you try the 14th's Due Process clause--that DP calls for the protection of the 5th due to the loss of liberty at stake. It's not a great argument. But it's better than just trying to invoke the 5th on its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. Charlie Manson and a few of his bunch are seeking release too. Manson himself is probably pushing 80

by now.

Manson has been denied parole something like 13 times.

According to Hinckely's wikipedia page he's allowed to leave the hospital unsupervised to visit his family every now and then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Also this: "Sirhan Sirhan Seeks Prison Release"
Lawyers for the man convicted of assassinating Senator Robert Kennedy say they have new evidence that their client is innocent.

Attorneys for Sirhan Sirhan say he was hypnotically influenced to fire shots at Kennedy as a diversion while the real gunman fired from another spot.

more

'Tis the Season, I guess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. It's in the OP, but it's apples and oranges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bosonic Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Jodie Foster must be thrilled
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. Fuck him.
Nuff said.

Fuck Reagan too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Hinkley (and Sirhan) should be behind bars for life.
I am appalled that the man has unsupervised home visits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Hickley was NOT convicted of any crime.
Hickley was NOT convicted of any crime. He was ruled "insane" and thus never had the mental capability to have the "intent" to kill Reagan. Thus he is in a mental institution for mental treatment NOT as punishment for anything.

As to Sirhan, he was found guilty of murder, and thus is in prison as punishment for committing that murder. He Killed Robert Kennedy in 1968, it is now 2011, thus he has been in Jail as punishment for 42 years. That is a LONG TIME of punishment. We can debate if that is sufficient punishment, but Sirhan case is completely different from Hickley's. Hickley's institutionalization is NOT punishment but Treatment and as such the test is simply is where Hickley is is "the least restriction placement for a person with his mental problems? His mental health providers are saying NO, he can live with his mother subject to some limited supervision. Under the rules as to people in Mental institutions today (a change started by Reagan when he was Governor of California in the 1960s), which is "what is the least restrictive placement for a person with his mental restrictions today, given his treatment and medication", this seems to be at home with his mother.

Remember Hickley is in an institution for MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT, not as punishment, and as such the test is NOT that he should be punished more, but what is the least restrictive placement where he can be placed AND still NOT be a threat to himself or others. That is what the Judge gets to decide and that is mostly based on what the treating mental providers report NOT what Hinckley or the Federal Prosecutor says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I never said Hinkley was guilty of a crime and realize that
Sirhan was found guilty; regardless of Hinkley's insanity-based "not guilty", IMO he is too much risk based on his history to ever be outside a closed institution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. "Preventive Detention" is NOT Consitutional
Thus the only way to keep Hickley in any institution is to show he is a danger to himself or others. His mental care providers are saying he is NOT a danger to himself or others. Given that finding, there is no legal grounds to detain him.

Please note it is still up to a Judge to determine if he is no longer a danger to himself or others, but once that decision is made, the law is clear. If Hickley is a danger to himself or other he must stay in his institution, on the other hand if the judge finds he is NO longer a danger to himself or others he must be released.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. How can the judge make a determination if Hinkley won't submit to questioning?
I agree he should be released if he is found not to be a danger.

But I want the government to question him about this behavior---


"Wick, who is Chief Pharmacist at the Hospital, testified about her interactions with Hinckley. She stated that she first met Hinckley when she offered to lend him a book in late February or early March 1995. Wick testified that Hinckley then began making fairly frequent, and always unannounced, visits to her office. Over the course of these visits, Hinckley gave Wick audio tapes of music he had recorded, including one " 'love song' " that contained Wick's pet name for her daughter. Wick also discovered that Hinckley had been gathering information about her personal schedule with her daughter. Id. at 559. This continued for about three weeks, until Wick's staff members told her that they believed she was spending too much time with Hinckley. Wick testified that she then informed Hinckley that he could not come to her office without calling first. Hinckley nonetheless continued to make unannounced visits, and Wick had to repeat her instruction. At that point, the Hospital pharmacy began to receive a high volume of hang up calls. When Wick answered the phone, Hinckley would identify himself as the caller. Wick testified that she reported these problems to Dr. Maureen Christian, Hinckley's therapist, and then began to avoid Hinckley completely. See id. at 559-60. According to Wick's testimony, however, she had to file an incident report with the Hospital in September 1995 because Hinckley had disobeyed instructions by delivering a package to her.

SBIP--

Wick further testified that she now sees Hinckley on the third Monday of each month, when she attends a meeting in the Acute Care Hospital building. Wick stated that Hinckley is frequently standing in the lobby when she arrives, and described one such encounter that took place in March 1996: " ' glares at me. He stares at me. I guess the kids would say, he stares me down.... I went to the elevator, and as I went to the elevator, re-situated himself so he could keep me in his line of vision apparently.' " Id. The district court credited Wick's testimony, and found that Hinckley had offered no evidence to rebut it. See id.

The government's expert witness, Dr. Patterson, also testified. Patterson agreed with Hinckley's experts that Hinckley's psychotic disorder and major depression are in remission. However, he did not agree that Hinckley would not be dangerous to himself or others if allowed to have unaccompanied visits in the community with his parents. See id. Here, Patterson cited a number of factors. Patterson explained: "The last time Mr. Hinckley was in the Community, unattended or unsupervised, the risk of dangerousness was extremely high. That was 16 years ago. Therefore, you have to consider past history and what factors went into his having committed that offense, and his subsequent improvement as observed by hospital staff and as reported by himself and by others, and the psychological testing that demonstrates some improvements in some areas and some concerns that some very core personality issues remain unchanged." Id. Patterson also based his opinion on Hinckley's "relationship" with Wick, stating that it bore some " 'striking similarities to the 'relationship' ... that he had with Ms. Foster' " and raised questions about whether Hinckley was obsessively infatuated with Wick. Id. at 560-61. The doctor stated that Hinckley's behavior toward Wick was significant because of Hinckley's history of stalking people, including
President Carter, President Reagan, and Jodie Foster. Patterson described this past stalking as ultimately leading to Hinckley's assassination attempt on Reagan. See id. at 561.

But, in the district court's judgment, Patterson's description of Hinckley's past and continued propensity for deception and secretiveness, especially with respect to those responsible for treating him, was the most important factor that the doctor cited. Patterson observed that Hinckley's treatment team did not know about his "relationship" with Wick until nearly six months after the two had met. Patterson believed that this was consistent with Hinckley's history, including the failure of several mental health professionals who were treating Hinckley prior to his assassination attempt to detect Hinckley's psychosis and the failure of the Hospital on several occasions during Hinckley's commitment to detect behavior that represented continuing symptoms of his mental illness. See id. As Patterson elaborated: "There have been in the Mid-'80's, let's say in '83 to '88, a number of situations where Mr. Hinckley has not told people that are his treaters what he's actually thinking or doing. They relate to collecting pictures of Jodie Foster. They relate to requesting a nude caricature of Jodie Foster. Even up into the day before a hearing on the matter, Mr. Hinckley stat that it had no sexual content, was not nude. They relate to his writing Ted Bundy, his writings about Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson. And none of his treaters knew that from Mr. Hinckley telling them until he was confronted with it by third parties revealing that information to Hospital staff." Id."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Excuse me, double post. nt
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 01:31 AM by PufPuf23
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. No.
This was a throw-away-the-key crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. A crime he was ruled "NOT GUILTY" of doing
Thus you want to throw the key away from a person who was found NOT GUILTY? Think about that before your answer.

Hickley was found insane, and thus NOT mentally capable of ever having had the Intent to kill Reagan. Since that time he has been in mental institutions for treatment of his mental problems NOT as punishment for ANYTHING. If his mental treatment calls for more visits with his family, why would oppose that MENTAL TREATMENT? That is what he is in an institution for, Mental Treatment, NOT as punishment.

A secondary concern is his ability to make sure he does no harm to himself or others, given his shooting of Reagan this is a concern. If the mental professionals no longer believe he is a harm to himself or others, then there is no longer any legal justification to keep him in such an institution. Now, if he is a threat to others or himself is up to the Judge to decide, but the issue is narrow, given his treatment and medications he is a danger to himself or others? Given limited controls, he is to live with his mother, checks by his mental health providers, there is NOTHING to justify NOT leaving him go live with his mother.

To use a term developed since Reagan Started the move to close down all the Mental Institutions in the US (Reagan started to movement in California, when he was governor in the 1960s), "what is the least restrictive care for a person with his mental condition". That is the legal test, and right now that sounds like the proposed restrictions on Hickley once he is released, meets that test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. How is least restrictive care to be determined if Hinkley is not crossed or otherwise examined by
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 11:50 AM by msanthrope
the court?

I agree with you that the purpose of his incarceration was not punishment--it was treatment.

But how is the court expected to be a fact-finder (i.e. did the treatment work?) when Hinkley refuses to submit to cross?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Actually, it wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
20. What do psychiatrists say?
If he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, he is to be hospitalized until he is no longer rendered, by his insanity, a danger to himself or others. He is not either sentenced to a mental institution for life, nor given a "get out of jail free" card.

So, what do psychiatrists say about whether he is a danger to himself or others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tom Ripley Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
24. Money buys justice
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC