Questionable ruling
The judge who made the decision to allow would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley to enjoy periods of time away from confinement will almost certainly soon rule that he is to be a free man. Hinckley has a large cheering section, including those who have treated his severe mental illness, who advocate for him in assuring the court that it is “not likely” that he will harm anyone if and when he is fully released from custody.
The killer of presidential candidate Robert Kennedy has been imprisoned for forty-seven years. He would likely have been executed had the law permitted it at the time. Had Lee Harvey Oswald lived to stand trial and been convicted, he, too would surely have faced execution or life in prison without the possibility of parole for killing President John F. Kennedy. Hinckley came within a fraction of an inch of murdering beloved late Ronald Reagan, only fate intervening to prevent him from radically changing the course of history, and as we know, he destroyed the life of late White House Press Secretary James Brady and his late wife, Sarah.
The reasonable person would ask why the benefit of the doubt is so often given to the notorious and the wicked, why skilled jurists feel the compelled to give them another opportunity to destroy lives.
The judge handling the Hinckley case has stated that determining whether Hinckley is to be freed is a difficult decision. I am not sure that I believe him. Judges routinely seem to find it easy to free killers and would-be killers, in part because they bear no responsibility if and when the criminal commits additional crimes after being let loose.
I have always hoped to live in a country in which justice, punishment, and the protection of members of civilized society are paramount to law enforcement and the judicial system. I am consistently disappointed.
—
Oren M. Spiegler
Upper Saint Clair