This will make Jim happy

[Gob]

The man who stalked and shot President Ronald Reagan is edging closer to being released after almost 30 years in a mental hospital.

According to court records, the forensic psychologist at his hospital has testified that John W. Hinckley Jr has 'recovered to the point that he poses no imminent risk of danger to himself or others.'

The college drop-out, who was possessed by a terrifying obsession with actress Jodie Foster, has already been freed for several visits to his ageing mother in Williamsburg, Virginia.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1Hqk1UY5E

[dales]

He should never be freed, regardless of his present mental state.

[Scooter]

Sure, forget about the fact that he was found not guilty, string him up anyway

[Sue U]

He should never be freed, regardless of his present mental state.

Why?

[Big RR]

I agree Sue, why do you feel this way Dales?

[dales]

He tried to kill the POTUS.

[Scooter]

A jury found him guilty of attempting to assassinate the President? Could you provide a link to that please, because I am having trouble tracking down that version of the story.

[Long Run]

The question is whether he should be treated like an ordinary person who committed the same crime and was found innocent only because the government could not prove he was sane. Or, alternatively, should committing an act of violence against a high government official -- a successful or unsuccessful assassination attempt -- result in a life long prison sentence (either in the mental hospital or penitentiary). I can see arguments both ways. However, that question seems to have been answered since he has been out of the hospital to his mother's home on supervised 10 days furloughs. I doubt his mom can provide lasting structure given her age (he's 55). I'd feel better about releasing him if Tony Hill said it was okay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_in_the_Blood, and we knew he was qualified for employment in a job other than driving a taxi.

[Gob]

Ah, another McDermind fan!

[Jarlaxle]

He is a poster child for why there should be no "insanity defence". Yes, he's nuttier than a sack of cashews. All the more reason to lock him up forever.

[Scooter]

So the fact that he was clearly insane makes him an example of why there should be no insanity defense?

Who, then, should be able to avail themselves of an insanity defense, if not the clearly insane?

[Sue U]

So the fact that he was clearly insane makes him an example of why there should be no insanity defense?

Who, then, should be able to avail themselves of an insanity defense, if not the clearly insane?

Duh! The insane should just be locked up, for life, no defense, no questions asked! The delusional and mentally incapacitated are always 100% responsible for eveything they do, regardless of whether they can tell right from wrong, or believe they are under attack, or are subject to irresistable compulsions. And they'll always be nuts! Just throw away the key, why are we wasting time, even!

Sheesh.

[Jarlaxle]

So the fact that he was clearly insane makes him an example of why there should be no insanity defense?

Who, then, should be able to avail themselves of an insanity defense, if not the clearly insane?

There should be no "insanity defence". End of story.

[Scooter]

Sure, schizophrenics, mafia hit men, no moral difference at all, all cut from the same cloth.

[Sue U]

Yeah, but what about the schizophrenic Mafia hit men?

[Scooter]

Being so delusional that he pictures his intended target as a Teletubbie isn't exactly going to be conducive to advancement in the organization.

[Sean]

What about the sanity clause?





Someone had to do it...