Political Discussions
Should John Hinckley be released?
Posted by satijournal • 6/18/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: politics, reagan
In this article, the author argues that John Hinckley, who has was found not guilty of shooting Reagan by reason of insanity, is now sane and should be released.
One of Hinckley’s friends in St. Elizabeths was Leslie deVeau, who was sent there in 1982 after she shot and killed her sleeping 10-year-old daughter with a shotgun and then, in a botched suicide attempt, blew off her own left arm. She and Hinckley met at a dance at St. Elizabeths and at one time considered themselves engaged. DeVeau was released from St. Elizabeths in 1985 and from outpatient supervision in 1990.
That’s right: A woman who killed her 10-year-old with a shotgun was released from St. Elizabeths after only three years, but Hinckley still sits there after nearly 27 years, even though he didn’t kill anybody.
The difference? Hinckley shot the president of the United States.
www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23867.html
The fact that Hinckley is dating a woman who shot her own child shows that he's not maybe he's not quite as sane as the author claims.
User Comments
-
If it's "curable" it's probably not "insanity". Mental diseases that cause what we call "insanity" can be managed, but not cured.
Why the hell was she released (and after 3 years?)?!
But do I think he should be released? If his symptoms are manageable, and he has shown no further incidents of violence, then yes. I think 27 years for an attempted murder is certainly a debt paid in full. He should, however, be required to stay on/in a program to help him continue to manage his illness in a way that allows him to contribute to society in a meaningful (non violent) way.
As should all mental facility patients. -
Does this one-armed woman look anything like Jodie Foster. 0_o -
An assassination attempt on a president or any elected official is an attack on our democracy. (Although it could be argued that some of the tactics Reagan used to get elected was also an attack on our democracy.) Crimes such as election fraud tend to have trivial penalties, though.
-
I've never heard of Reagan being accused of election fraud during either of his landslide victories. Sometimes "the people" just do things contrary to their own self-interest.
-
Nothing has ever been proven, but there have been serious accusations:
"A conspiracy between a presidential candidate and a hostile foreign power against an incumbent president would seem to be without precedent in American history. But if Reagan struck a successful deal with Iran and captured the presidency in 1980, it would explain why he agreed to the bizarre alliance with Iran in 1985 and 1986: He had gotten away with it before."—B. Honegger and J. Naureckas, In These Times, July 7, 1987.
The charge has been raised, first in the Middle Eastern and European press and now in the US, that in 1980 while Jimmy Carter was frantically negotiating for an early release of American hostages in Iran, members of the Ronald Reagan campaign staff made the Ayatollah Khomeini an offer he couldn't refuse—badly needed US arms and spare parts for his war with Iraq if he kept the US Embassy hostages in Tehran until after election day.
www.wrmea.com/backissues/1087/8710001.html
Here's another one:
www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/104
NOTE: I just did a quick search for this topic. The legitimacy of these sources have not been verified. -
...and then he turned around and sold/gave Saddam biological and chemical weapons
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
Similar things have been suggested about the Saudi's, price of oil, and the last election -
And of course, there's Bush's business ties to Saudis and the bin Laden family. Is it any wonder we've been attacked? This all started with Reagan.
-
AND Osama Bin Ladin's involvement in the Mujahideen of Afghanistan...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
