Hinckley, again

[janswizard]

The doctors for John Hinckley are claiming that Hinckley is well enough for unsupervisored visits with his parents. " “I think it is important that the outings be part of a risk reduction strategy,” Montalbano said. “I believe that successful visits can actually make him less dangerous.” (I think I need a translation on that one.)

I also thought it was interesting that if the courts decide to allow him these unsupervised visits, then the Secret Service will be shadowing him at all times.

If he is supposedly "cured", then why the need to spend money for Secret Service people for him? (I'm sure it's to protect him before someone gets the idea to pull a Jack Ruby). IMO, it would be cheaper to keep him in the hospital rather than allowing him his freedom while paying salaries for G-men to be following him around.

Mrs James Brady has been very vocal about his release - she says her husband and their family are being victimized all over again by this whole thing. I would have to agree with her.

[cycloneye]

My opinion about this situation is that mr Hinckley must remain locked.

[mf_dolphin]

Lock the door and weld it shut!

[GalvestonDuck]

I'm sure Jodie Foster agrees with the "keep him locked up" advocates. So do I.

[Lindaloo]

This man is not even in prison!! He is in a mental hospital in Washington D.C. He more or less got away with the attempt on our President Reagan's life, Press Secretary James Brady ( who recovered from a bullet to the temple). IMO, he should be in a maximum security prison rotting away in a rat hole.

[stormy]

i agree keep him locked up and throw away the key. i guess u could say that everyone who shoots someone is crazy in my opinion.

[GalvestonDuck]

I agree. I don't believe he can be rehabilitated. He was clearly too fixated on Foster, Reagan, assassination, and "Taxi Driver."

[stormraiser]

I agree too. He's dangerous.

[Derek Ortt]

He was found not-guilty! He wasn't found guilty but insane. While he probably should have been shot immediately for treason, he was acquitted; thus, once he is released, keeping him in the mental institution is unconstitutional

[george_r_1961]

Since he cant be sent to prison he should be confined in a locked psychiatric facility for life..with only minimal privileges. The "Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity" Plea is a bullchit in my humble opinion.

[Derek Ortt]

I have to totally disagree as there are some people who really don't know what they are doing. A mental institution is NOT a place for punishment, but for treatment, just like a normal hospital. I am not a doctor, so am I entirely sure how Hinkley is? no. I'll let those with the years of training decide.

If he is rehabilitated, he should be released, just as a cancer patient is released. However, those who allowed him to remain free befroe the shooting should be FIRED if not SUED for malpractice as he was a threat long before he shot Reagan. The blame lies in those incompetent doctors and possibly family members who ignored the warning signs and did not administer the proper treatment in time

[janswizard]

If the family couldn't recognize the warning signs prior to the incident, would they be able to recognize them this time around? Unfortunately we all tend to make excuses for our loved ones at one time or another.

I wish I had saved the full article but the quote in my original post still worries me. It almost sounds to me that the doctors are still a bit concerned about his mental facilities - if they are still looking at risk reduction strategies, then they aren't that comfortable with giving him a clean bill of health. It says that successful visits can make him less dangerous. So what happens if he comes across a situation that he doesn't know how to handle? His parents have to up there in years - are they able to intercede or physically restrain him if he starts to lose control of a situation?

And what about the Secret Service? If he has to be shadowed by them, doesn't this tell us that someone out there is still questioning his condition and doesn't quite trust that he is not a danger to himself or others? And don't they have better things to do?

Edited: I found the article. It can be read here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/ ... index.html and http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/26/john. ... index.html