U.S. judge will grant unconditional release of would-be Reagan assassin John W. Hinckley Jr.

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post


In this March 30, 1981, photo, Secret Service agent Timothy J. McCarthy, foreground, Washington police officer Thomas K. Delehanty, center, and presidential press secretary James Brady, background, lie wounded on a street outside a Washington hotel after shots were fired at President Ronald Reagan. (Ron Edmonds/AP)


A U.S. judge will grant the unconditional release of John W. Hinckley Jr. effective in June 2022, 41 years after he shot President Ronald Reagan and three others outside a D.C. hotel, the judge said at a court hearing Monday morning.

The court acted after the Justice Department agreed to end court supervision of Hinkley, who was freed from a government psychiatric hospital and granted conditional release to live in Williamsburg, Va., in 2016.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman said he will officially approve the terms in writing later this week. The unconditional release terms includes a final nine-month period of observation required by prosecutors and a government medical expert, but requires no further court action.

“At this point the ball is in Mr. Hinckley’s hands. The government agrees if the continues to do what he is doing between now and June 2020, he would be granted his unconditional release,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kacie Weston said. The development Monday is the latest for one of the nation’s most notorious mental health patients.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/john-hinckley-unconditional-release/2021/09/27/8e5f5286-1f9f-11ec-9309-b743b79abc59_story.html

[NurseJackie]

1. He'll need the equivalent of "witness protection"...

... so that he can withdraw into anonymity. I believe he's likely to become a target of the Reagan cultists.

[jimfields33]

3. I hope Jodie foster is protected from this lunatic

I don’t worry or care about him, but I want her fully protected.

[NurseJackie]

5. I'm sure he'll be monitored.

[jimfields33]

6. Let's hope. I don't know why he needs released.

[NurseJackie]

7. Because he served his sentence and is no longer considered to be a threat?

[jimfields33]

10. We'll see. I guess time will tell.

[NurseJackie]

12. Yes, it will.

[bigtree]

13. I'd think Jodie Foster is still 'horrified'

...and still considers him a threat.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1527773/jodie-foster-horrified-after-stalker-who-tried-to-shoot-down-ronald-reagan-is-set-to-be-released/

[NurseJackie]

14. Okay. Has she explored her legal options? Can she insist that he be locked away...

... in a padded room forever? I'm not sure how this would work... do her fears override the legal system and mental health experts who have been treating him?

[bigtree]

15. no, her fears don't override the court decision

...but I'm certain she questions this decision, just like the poster you responded to.

[NurseJackie]

16. What legal justification is there for keeping him locked up?

[bigtree]

17. hard to say from here :sarcasm:

...but releasing him to his 90 year-old mother isn't my idea of close supervision.

Moot point because the court has ruled, but it doesn't preclude anyone from questioning the decision, and it doesn't obviate arguments against release just because the judge ruled.

I think we'll soon see what a joke this release was.

[NurseJackie]

18. I'm sure they've considered everything.

And if they had any legal justification for keeping him locked up, they'd likely do so. For no reason other than my own unfounded suspicions, I imagine the risk of self-harm or suicide is greater than the risk of harm to others.

and it doesn't obviate arguments against release just because the judge ruled.

...or navel gazing.

[bigtree]

27. what a strange way to describe concerns about a convicted murderer being released 'unconditionally'

...navel-gazing?

Though, I'm guessing your own 'imagining' and 'unfounded suspicions' are way superior to any other argument.

[NurseJackie]

28. I'm honest enough to call it what it is and not take myself too seriously.

Though, I'm guessing your own 'imagining' and 'unfounded suspicions' are way superior to any other argument.

I'm honest enough to call it what it is and not take myself too seriously.

Others are more self-indulgent in their second-guessing of judges and mental healthcare professionals. That's strange.

[bigtree]

29. never disagreed with a judge's decision?

...wow.

That's really something.

Glad we don't all genuflect before judges' rulings.

[NurseJackie]

30. He's being treated fairly.

[Rhiannon12866]

40. This has been under consideration since 2016. And his mother has since died.

Link also contains the news report from 2016:

John Hinckley, Who Shot President Reagan, Granted Release From Supervision - MSNBC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017683913

[underpants]

8. Everyone in the community he lives in knows about him

His parents live in a golf course community in Williamsburg. As he slowly got release over the years he’s seen regularly taking walks. I worked there in the 80’s long before he started getting weekend releases to reacclimate into the world.

I worked on the course and everyone knew where his parents lived. Unless they moved. Everyone pretty much gives him and his family some consideration and space.

It’s not hard to figure out which course I’m talking about but I don’t think posting it or where his folks live is something that should be on DU.

[brooklynite]

33. WHAT Reagan cultists?

Reagan could never get nominated in today’s Republican Party.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Lunatic Reagan cultists who overlap a lot w anti-Bush tRumpanzees & anti-Clinton cultists:

Hinkley was in close with GHW Bush’s family.

Yes, documented and discussed years ago on FR. People around Bush family are killers just like Clintons.

10 posted on 2021-09-27 by Hostage (Article V)

[Ray Bruns]

4. That is a little harsh.

He also shot three other people including James Brady.

[oldsoftie]

25. I can only imagine what that post said......

[Journeyman]

11. Well, there's nothing more I need (or want) to learn from you . . .

[iemanja]

9. This is like Sirhan Sirhan

They should both stay in jail until death.

[JohnSJ]

21. Exactly.

[Sgent]

41. One was found guility

and one was not.

[Dawson Leery]

19. No.

[maxsolomon]

20. OK, I guess.

He's been out for 5 years already.

Who watches his crazy ass after March '23 & his mom dies, IDK. One assumes he'll be kept away from firearms...

[whistler162]

39. mom is dead, July 2021

[LudwigPastorius]

22. Sirhan Sirhan, Hinkley,...

Ugh, what's next...John Lennon's killer goes free?

[oldsoftie]

23. Its ridiculous isnt it? People like this should NEVER go free nt

[LudwigPastorius]

26. Maybe these people won't kill again, in the professional opinion of those who exam them, but...

that doesn't mean we, as a society, have to accept them back.

Their particular crimes should require that they remain locked up to (presumably) deter future assassins.

[oldsoftie]

31. I agree nt

[onenote]

36. Is the line for permanent imprisonment based on who the target is?

Seems a bit odd. Or should anyone who kills, or tries to kill, anyone else be imprisoned for life?

[oldsoftie]

42. "Aggravating circumstances" make a charge heavier. Yes, there is a difference.

Myself, I'd like to see all malice murderers get the needle. Change the law so it can only be sought in cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of guilt. Plenty of those cases around. Good example; Dylan Roof. Removes any chance of punishing an innocent.
Attempted murder of elected officials should be considered an aggravating circumstance & carry more weight. Its a threat to the order & function of society more than the attempted killing of you or me.

[onenote]

44. I hear you, but I think your approach is a slippery slope.

Does one (and if so how) distinguish between different elected officials. Is the threat to the order & function of society the same when the target is a member of Congress rather than the President? What about governors, mayors, city council members -- all "elected" officials. And what about non-elected officials -- for example, an attack on the Secretary of Defense. Or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. How does that compare to an attack on an FCC Commissioner or the head of OSHA? What about a general or admiral? Line drawing ultimately would prove to be arbitrary.

[BlueIdaho]

24. So they are having a special on presidential assassins this month? nt.

[Jon King]

32. Why should it matter who someone shoots or kills?

Why should anyone be granted release or not based on who they killed or shot. So if a homeless women is killed, her killer serves 40 years, her killer meets all the requirements to be released, that person is released.

I could not give a dang if its a famous person or politician they attacked. Whatever the protocol is, whether they killed a Kennedy or shot a Reagan or did the same to a random poor person, the rules should be followed.

The problem with the justice system is how arbitrary it is. These guys should be released if others have been released under similar circumstances.

[Ron Obvious]

35. Why it does matter

Because it can certainly be argued that an attack on a serving president is an attack on democracy itself.

I didn't like Reagan, but we can't allow for an attack on the president not to be treated considerably more seriously than an attack on a private citizen.

[onenote]

37. Then pass a law making an attack on a president punishable by life in prison with no

chance of parole. Period. Even where the person is found not guilty by reason of insanity.

[onenote]

38. Should the insanity defense be abolished?

Should a person found not guilty by reason of insanity be considered incapable of recovering?

The issues aren't as simple as some the posts here seem to assume.

[Marthe48]

43. Watch out everyone

n/t