ap

Skip to content
In this Nov. 18, 2003 file photo, John Hinckley Jr. arrives at U.S. District Court in Washington. Evan Vucci, Associated Press file)
In this Nov. 18, 2003 file photo, John Hinckley Jr. arrives at U.S. District Court in Washington. Evan Vucci, Associated Press file)
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Getting your player ready...

In Colorado, defendants accused of first-degree murder but found not guilty by reason of insanity “spent an average of 7.4 years” at the state hospital.

Colorado is not Washington, D.C., of course, but its experience (and that of other states) with the legally insane does suggest that John Hinckley Jr. has been confined for decades in part because of his notoriety. If he had tried to shoot someone other than the president of the United States, his supervised release more than 30 years later would not be as controversial as it is.

Hinckley, who unloaded several shots in the direction of President Reagan in 1981 and injured four people, including the president, is scheduled for a Wednesday to determine whether he should be allowed to spend more time outside St. Elizabeths Hospital, and perhaps not to have to stay there at all.

If Reagan’s former press secretary, James Brady, were still alive, it would be awkward to grant Hinckley any more freedom than the 17 days a month he already enjoys at his mother’s house in Williamsburg, Va.

But Brady died last August.

Indeed, there was public discussion when Brady died over whether Hinckley could be charged with murder since a medical examiner concluded his death was the result of wounds from the attack, which left him severely debilitated.

In January, federal prosecutors announced they would not bring murder charges against Hinckley. That was no doubt the proper call given the amount of time that had passed, but now Hinckley’s future has reached another milestone.

Some will say that when a man tries to kill the president and very nearly succeeds while also inflicting terrible injury on someone else, he should remain confined for the rest of his days. But to apply this judgment to Hinckley would make a mockery of the jury’s verdict, which was not guilty by reason of insanity.

If Hinckley was insane but is no longer a threat to the community, then he shouldn’t be confined simply because of his notoriety.

So long as he adheres to a strict schedule of supervision and treatment, he should have the same chance as others who received that sentence for a regulated life outside of a hospital.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

More in ap