• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

James Brady Death ruled a Homicide.

Buck Ewer said:
James Brady had brain damage from the gunshot to his head ... but he was far from brain-dead.
His campaign for the passage of the Brady bill was assisted by his wife but it wasn't her idea ... it was his.
Ronald Reagan who was shot and almost killed in the same hail of bullets, voiced his support for the Brady Bill, saying the 1981 assassination attempt might have never happened if the Brady Bill had been law. This reversed his 1975 stance on handgun control.
Like so many human beings, a personal assault and tragedy reversed his views on gun control.
Sarah supported her husbands bill but to imply that she was the only proponent of it is a fallacious construct.
Click to expand...

Actually the Brady Bill would not have stopped Hinkley from getting the 25 caliber pistol he uses in the assassination attempt.
 
No statute of limitations on murder. You nail someone in the head and they die from it why does time matter. Get a rope for Mr. Hinckley.
 
cpgrad08 said:
So if you shoot a person, they survive and die twenty years later it can be called a homicide.

Reagan aide Jim Brady's death ruled homicide
Click to expand...

From my perspective, we're talking two different things here - we're talking about a coroner's findings (a medical/scientific cause of death) and a legal finding (homicide). Unless the coroner acted in a most political and unscientific/medical way, which I've seen no evidence of, the findings are supported by science. This doesn't mean, however, that a prosecutor is required to accept the finding in a legal sense and lay charges against Hinkley.

It is quite interesting from a legal perspective. Imagine the possibilities for expansion of the principle - is it possible for a mother to be involved in a homicide if her actions during pregnancy led to her child dying prematurely after birth? There are many such possibilities and don't doubt that some enterprising prosecutor, out to make a name for him/herself, won't pounce at the chance.
 
How can Hinckley be convicted of murder when he was already found not guilty of attempted murder?
 
Paleocon said:
Why? If professional judgment holds that he is no longer dangerous, then why should they not work toward rehabilitation?
Click to expand...

Their professional judgement has been erroneous over and over in the case of Hinckley. Repeatedly after feeling he was safe to be in public they have found his attempt to be a penpal with Ted Bundy, Lynnette "Squeaky" Fromme, and attempted to get Charles Manson's address. After being banned from his contact or material on Jodie Foster they have found her pictures in her room and attempt to obtain nude drawings of her.

Even the AMA has been in favor of abolishing the insanity defense in criminal trials. The states of Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Utah, do not even allow the insanity defense.

I don't see no reason to return to trial to allow him to bask in the tv spotlights either. If he is insane then keep his butt off the streets. He has fooled the psych specialists one too many times.
 
Crosscheck said:
Their professional judgement has been erroneous over and over in the case of Hinckley. Repeatedly after feeling he was safe to be in public they have found his attempt to be a penpal with Ted Bundy, Lynnette "Squeaky" Fromme, and attempted to get Charles Manson's address. After being banned from his contact or material on Jodie Foster they have found her pictures in her room and attempt to obtain nude drawings of her.

Even the AMA has been in favor of abolishing the insanity defense in criminal trials. The states of Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Utah, do not even allow the insanity defense.

I don't see no reason to return to trial to allow him to bask in the tv spotlights either. If he is insane then keep his butt off the streets. He has fooled the psych specialists one too many times.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he shouldn't be out. Nevertheless, there is no reason to have a blanket prohibition on insane murderers being given supervised release.

Source regarding the AMA? Even if so, the AMA and four states do not have more collective wisdom than thousands of years of jurisprudence.

Do you support abolishing the insanity defense?
 
Goshin said:
After two decades, seems a bit unreasonable.
Click to expand...

You mean after being PARALYZED for 20 years from a gunshot wound. If the paralysis was the cause of death, what difference does it make how long it took?
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, we're talking two different things here - we're talking about a coroner's findings (a medical/scientific cause of death) and a legal finding (homicide). Unless the coroner acted in a most political and unscientific/medical way, which I've seen no evidence of, the findings are supported by science. This doesn't mean, however, that a prosecutor is required to accept the finding in a legal sense and lay charges against Hinkley.

It is quite interesting from a legal perspective. Imagine the possibilities for expansion of the principle - is it possible for a mother to be involved in a homicide if her actions during pregnancy led to her child dying prematurely after birth? There are many such possibilities and don't doubt that some enterprising prosecutor, out to make a name for him/herself, won't pounce at the chance.
Click to expand...

If the shooting caused the death, homicide is the legal definition of what occurred. While it's just a formality at this point, it's still how it works.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063620943 said:
How can Hinckley be convicted of murder when he was already found not guilty of attempted murder?
Click to expand...

He hasn't been convicted of murder, and I doubt he will be.
 
Thrilla said:
at this point, the legal system is not involved.... it's medical detemination, nothign more.

I highly doubt Hinkley will be charged...and if they do decide ot charge him, the prosecution will have one helluva hill ot climb ( double jeopardy comes into play, as does his officially being designated "insane")
Click to expand...

That would be the thing, he was found innocent of the incident by reason of insanity. I would think that saying he had a sudden moment of clarity would be kind of a stretch.
 
Summerwind said:
That seems like quite a leap. I hope this doesn't stand the test of law or time. Too bizarre.
Click to expand...

We should all live long enough to see the effects of gunshot wounds to Gabby of Arizona, I'll imagine she is going to have complications throughout her entire life.
 
rocket88 said:
That would be the thing, he was found innocent of the incident by reason of insanity. I would think that saying he had a sudden moment of clarity would be kind of a stretch.
Click to expand...

It may have already been mentioned, but doesn't your country have double jeopardy? If he was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity, wouldn't he have been tried for all aspects of the crime at the same time? And if so, is it not impossible for him to be tried now on a part of the indictment that was included in the first case?
 
Deuce said:
Are you really referring to incidental exposure to something that may or may not cause cancer to a bullet?
Click to expand...

No, I am referring to a fact that any exposure, be it a bullet, the sun. even your birth leads or whatever to death at some point. We don't say people who died of cancer because of exposure to (insert item that can cause cancer) by (insert company or whatever) as murder victims. Despite the fact we know certain things cause cancer like Asbestos and the maker.
 
Paleocon said:
Perhaps he shouldn't be out. Nevertheless, there is no reason to have a blanket prohibition on insane murderers being given supervised release.

Source regarding the AMA? Even if so, the AMA and four states do not have more collective wisdom than thousands of years of jurisprudence.

Do you support abolishing the insanity defense?
Click to expand...


Yes, there are some people who are truly insane and there are some people I believe who are just truly evil. Am not saying hang Hinckley but am saying he should never be released.
The public's safety comes way before allowing Hinckley's desire to enjoy the freedom of a law abiding citizen. It has already been proven the hospital thought he was changed and then find out his activities included being a penpal to Ted Bundy.

I don't know if Jeffrey Dahmer was insane or just plain evil as hell but do you believe he could have been rehabilitated and allowed to return to society?
 
CanadaJohn said:
It may have already been mentioned, but doesn't your country have double jeopardy? If he was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity, wouldn't he have been tried for all aspects of the crime at the same time? And if so, is it not impossible for him to be tried now on a part of the indictment that was included in the first case?
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it.
Hinckley will never own another gun and he will never be tried again.
He is insane.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It may have already been mentioned, but doesn't your country have double jeopardy? If he was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity, wouldn't he have been tried for all aspects of the crime at the same time? And if so, is it not impossible for him to be tried now on a part of the indictment that was included in the first case?
Click to expand...

I think so, but I'm not sure how that all works. Technically, he was never charged with the murder of James Brady, so it's not totally the same crime.

Either double jeopardy or the fact that his insanity would have applied to Brady's shooting as well as it was all one incident.
 
austrianecon said:
No, I am referring to a fact that any exposure, be it a bullet, the sun. even your birth leads or whatever to death at some point. We don't say people who died of cancer because of exposure to (insert item that can cause cancer) by (insert company or whatever) as murder victims. Despite the fact we know certain things cause cancer like Asbestos and the maker.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure why you think those two situations are remotely related.
 
Crosscheck said:
Yes, there are some people who are truly insane and there are some people I believe who are just truly evil. Am not saying hang Hinckley but am saying he should never be released.
The public's safety comes way before allowing Hinckley's desire to enjoy the freedom of a law abiding citizen. It has already been proven the hospital thought he was changed and then find out his activities included being a penpal to Ted Bundy.

I don't know if Jeffrey Dahmer was insane or just plain evil as hell but do you believe he could have been rehabilitated and allowed to return to society?
Click to expand...

Dahmer did not seem to lack either understanding of the criminality of his conduct or control of his actions, rather his killings seemed to be the result of compulsions, which do not suffice for insanity under Wisconsin law (nor should they IMO).

I have no idea of if he could have ever been safely released had he been committed.

I agree that public safety comes first, that is after all why we confine insane defendants. What I'm saying is that it is possible for people to be cured or otherwise become non-dangerous (not that Hinckley specifically is), and if this happens then they should be given supervised release, since safety (rather than punishment) is the only moral justification for confining insane defendants.
 
Paleocon said:
Dahmer did not seem to lack either understanding of the criminality of his conduct or control of his actions, rather his killings seemed to be the result of compulsions, which do not suffice for insanity under Wisconsin law (nor should they IMO).
Click to expand...

Between the two, Dahmer and Hinckley, I would think that Dahmer qualifies as the truly insane one. What Dahmer did was beyond human comprehension. Hinckley did his task to achieve notoriety and succeeded.

As for release of someone such as Hinckley with such a violent background I do not believe it is worth risking the public with someone who has proven not to be completely honest with the mental health team. Things could be worse for Hinckley, he could have been confined to a wheelchair.
 
It is a fact the stress shortens the lives of a great many people.

Otis a fact that children cause a lot of stress.

Ergo, all kids are homicide suspects?
 
Crosscheck said:
Between the two, Dahmer and Hinckley, I would think that Dahmer qualifies as the truly insane one. What Dahmer did was beyond human comprehension. Hinckley did his task to achieve notoriety and succeeded.

As for release of someone such as Hinckley with such a violent background I do not believe it is worth risking the public with someone who has proven not to be completely honest with the mental health team. Things could be worse for Hinckley, he could have been confined to a wheelchair.
Click to expand...

Obviously it wasnt beyond human comprehension, otherwise it wouldn't have been committed by a human. In any case insane =/= depraved. Dahmer committed acts as a result of necrophilic compulsions, however he didn't lack control of his actions, as evidenced by the fact that the acts were premeditated. Inability to comprehend right and wrong wasnt the issue in his case. Hinckley on the other hand acted under severe delusions, and clearly was sufficiently detached from reality to be unable to understand right and wrong.

You may be right. I'm only saying that there is nothing wrong on principle with releasing an insane murderer.
 
Paleocon said:
Obviously it wasnt beyond human comprehension, otherwise it wouldn't have been committed by a human. In any case insane =/= depraved. Dahmer committed acts as a result of necrophilic compulsions, however he didn't lack control of his actions, as evidenced by the fact that the acts were premeditated. Inability to comprehend right and wrong wasnt the issue in his case. Hinckley on the other hand acted under severe delusions, and clearly was sufficiently detached from reality to be unable to understand right and wrong.

You may be right. I'm only saying that there is nothing wrong on principle with releasing an insane murderer.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess this is the Y in the road where we split. Someone who killed someone in a an act such as a bar fight I could see being released from prison. I remain suspicious of the mental health team accuracy in determining the success of rehabilitation of someone of violent past.

Thanks for the chat as we have come to that Y.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It may have already been mentioned, but doesn't your country have double jeopardy? If he was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity, wouldn't he have been tried for all aspects of the crime at the same time? And if so, is it not impossible for him to be tried now on a part of the indictment that was included in the first case?
Click to expand...

Yes. We do have double jeopardy. And it would probably apply with John Hinkley. Even though the charge is now homicide rather then attempted murder...it is still the same crime. I seriously doubt that it will re-prosecuted. It is simply that the legal definition of the crime has been changed based on the fact that Brady's death was a complication of the shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom