NationStates Jolt Archive

Last night, we talked about Abnormal Psychology and the law. We opened with the V. Tech shooting and the shooter. However, we talked about the Insanity plea and John Hinckley came up. For those who don't know, he's the guy who shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Now in the text book, they have an excerpt of John's letter he was going to send out to Jodie before he shot Reagan, like right before.

Dear Jodie,

There is a definite possibility that I will be killed in my attempt to get Reagan. It is for this very reason that I am writing you this letter now. As you well know by now I love you very much. Over the past seven months I've left you dozens of poems, letters and love messages in the faint hope that you could develop an interest in me...

Jodie, I would abandon this idea of getting Reagan in a second if I could only win your heart and live out the rest of my life with you, whether it be in total obscurity or whatever. I will admit to you that the reason I'm going ahead with this attempt now is because I just cannot wait any longer to impress you. I've got to do something now to make you understand, in no uncertain terms, that I am doing all of this for your sake! By sacrificing my freedom and possibly life, I hope to change your mind about me. This letter is being written only an hour before I leave for the Hilton Hotel. Jodie, I'm asking you to please look into your heart and at least give me the chance, with this historical deed, to gain your respect and love.

Now the parts I put in bold, clearly shows that John Hinckley knew what he was doing when he shot Reagan, and he knew the Consequences. However, I am surprised that he got off on the Insanity Plea.

Now in legal term, for a person to plea Not Guilty due to Insanity is this, that the person must show that he did not understand the consequences of his action nor what he was doing when the crime was committed.

I mean John Hinckley clearly knew what he was about to do in that letter, and what the consequences may be, so how come he was found not guilty due to Insanity?

I mean John Hinckley clearly knew what he was about to do in that letter, and what the consequences may be, so how come he was found not guilty due to Insanity?

it doesn't look to me like he knew it to be wrong, merely dangerous. its a sort of wide application of the m'naghten rules. the primary consequence he expected was that jodie foster would fall madly in love with him afterwards. we are talking some serious defects in reasoning here.

it doesn't look to me like he knew it to be wrong, merely dangerous. its a sort of wide application of the m'naghten rules. the primary consequence he expected was that jodie foster would fall madly in love with him afterwards. we are talking some serious defects in reasoning here.

You didn't read the bolded parts did you?

I will be killed in my attempt to get Reagan

By sacrificing my freedom and possibly life,

He clearly knew that by shooting the President he would either get killed or go to jail forever.

You didn't read the bolded parts did you?

He clearly knew that by shooting the President he would either get killed or go to jail forever.

sure, but that only indicates that he knew it to be risky, not wrong. imagine, if you will, that instead he decided to make a lesser love offering to jodie foster by swimming with dangerous jellyfish. he realize he could die in the attempt, but for him that is what makes it an excellent show of love and devotion.

sure, but that only indicates that he knew it to be risky, not wrong. imagine, if you will, that instead he decided to make a lesser love offering to jodie foster by swimming with dangerous jellyfish. he realize he could die in the attempt, but for him that is what makes it an excellent show of love and devotion.

I don't know about you, but if a person knows he's going to get killed or jailed for something, it generally means that well, it's a bad thing.

Last night, we talked about Abnormal Psychology and the law. We opened with the V. Tech shooting and the shooter. However, we talked about the Insanity plea and John Hinckley came up. For those who don't know, he's the guy who shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Now in the text book, they have an excerpt of John's letter he was going to send out to Jodie before he shot Reagan, like right before.



Now the parts I put in bold, clearly shows that John Hinckley knew what he was doing when he shot Reagan, and he knew the Consequences. However, I am surprised that he got off on the Insanity Plea.

Now in legal term, for a person to plea Not Guilty due to Insanity is this, that the person must show that he did not understand the consequences of his action nor what he was doing when the crime was committed.

I mean John Hinckley clearly knew what he was about to do in that letter, and what the consequences may be, so how come he was found not guilty due to Insanity?

1. To say he "got off on the Insanity Plea" is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant law and its consequences. John Hinckley, Jr., has spent the last 26 years in a mental hospital and will likely spend the rest of his life there. Hardly "getting off."

2. If that letter were the only evidence in the case, you would have a decent argument. As is, you are just being silly. You are vastly oversimplifying the law and cherry-picking the evidence.

I mean John Hinckley clearly knew what he was about to do in that letter, and what the consequences may be, so how come he was found not guilty due to Insanity?

Because his plan - kill Ron, get girl to fall fer me - was 'nuts'.

I don't know about you, but if a person knows he's going to get killed or jailed for something, it generally means that well, it's a bad thing.

Erm, hardly. Believing that an action is dangerous is in no way whatsoever equivalent to believing said action is morally wrong. It's pretty dangerous to protest government decisions in some countries - it's quite likely to get you jailed or killed, in fact. Does that mean that doing so is inherently a bad thing? Joining the army increases one's odds of getting imprisoned or killed - does that make it a bad thing?

I don't know about you, but if a person knows he's going to get killed or jailed for something, it generally means that well, it's a bad thing.

not in the sense of morally wrong. you do know what the word 'risky' means, right?

I don't know about you, but if a person knows he's going to get killed or jailed for something, it generally means that well, it's a bad thing.

No, it just means that he knows that it is a risky and illegal thing. Quite different than knowing that it's a bad thing. Secondly I'm curious as to why you say "got off" on an insanity plea. You DO know he spent over 20 years in a psyciatric hospital, right?

No, it just means that he knows that it is a risky and illegal thing. Quite different than knowing that it's a bad thing. Secondly I'm curious as to why you say "got off" on an insanity plea. You DO know he spent over 20 years in a psyciatric hospital, right?

Ok, so my wording was off, but I'm still preplex on how he got "Not guilty by reason of Insanity." The letter shows that he knew what he was doing, and that he knew what the consequences would be. I mean, yea the guy is insane, he has severe mental problems, even though, apparently on that moment when he wrote the letter and shot Reagan, he had a clarity in thought. He may knew it was risky and illegal, but shouldn't he had made the connection that because certain things are illegal means they are wrong?

but shouldn't he had made the connection that because certain things are illegal means they are wrong?

perhaps. but he didn't. that's sort of the point.

Being criminally insane should automatically carry the death penalty. It's a crime to keep those poor bastards alive.

perhaps. but he didn't. that's sort of the point.

I may have to get a tape of the John Hinckley trial and see what the psychiatrist that evaluated him says.

Being criminally insane should automatically carry the death penalty. It's a crime to keep those poor bastards alive.

Yea, and why not kill off the elderly too, I mean after all they're pass their prime, they should be put to death, or how about the handicapped/Disabled population? They're never going to be better than the rest of society, might as well kill them too!

Please, this is grown-up time, go back to Barney and Friends. :rolleyes:

He may knew it was risky and illegal, but shouldn't he had made the connection that because certain things are illegal means they are wrong?

No, of course not, he was fucking insane. Why are you assuming a level of rationality to someone that, by definition, is not rational.

That's the entire point of the insanity defense, that NO, he was NOT capable of making that connection, he was insane.

That's the entire reason behind the insanity defense, that this person was not capable of making that connection. If he were capable, then he wouldn't be able to utilize that defense.

No, of course not, he was fucking insane. Why are you assuming a level of rationality to someone that, by definition, is not rational.

That's the entire point of the insanity defense, that NO, he was NOT capable of making that connection, he was insane.

That's the entire reason behind the insanity defense, that this person was not capable of making that connection. If he were capable, then he wouldn't be able to utilize that defense.

Hmm, we really should change it from "wrong" to "illegal".

Sorry, not even close to the same things Mr. Dean.

They are danger to society as well as themselves and keeping them alive is I repeat, a crime.

Hmm, we really should change it from "wrong" to "illegal".

No, we shouldn't. To do so would entirely defeat the point of the insanity defense. The idea behind the insanity defense is that due to mental defect the individual does not believe his actions to be wrong. To change that to "illegal" would defeat the entire point of the defense.

Sorry, not even close to the same things Mr. Dean.

They are danger to society as well as themselves and keeping them alive is I repeat, a crime.

So are drunk drivers. What is your point?

No, we shouldn't. To do so would entirely defeat the point of the insanity defense. The idea behind the insanity defense is that due to mental defect the individual does not believe his actions to be wrong. To change that to "illegal" would defeat the entire point of the defense.

Well you learn something new everyday. I know that John is now being let out of the hospital like what, 3 nights in a row every week? Has that changed, or is it still just three nights a row out of the hospital, supervised?

Steely yes and they under the influence of something, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished.

A drunk driver that kills should be punished for murder in the same way as if they had shot them. I have never thought differently.

Saying that people shouldn't be punished for being crazy is ridiculous. It's actually more of a reason to get rid of them.