WHY JOHN HINCKLEY SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED INTO SOCIETY
This article was run in The Virginia Gazette June 17, 2015. It addresses sound reasons that John Hinckley, would be assassin of President Reagan in 1981, should not be released from the mental facility where he has been housed since he was found "not guilty by reason of insanity." It is our considered judgement that releasing him to his octogenarian mother relying on psychotropic drugs to control his psychosis is a mistake and motivated by factors other than logic and objective determination of his condition. I invite all to comment.
THE JOHN HINCKLEY CASE – OUR INTERVIEWS BY THE AP
By Contributor, Joe Mann
The Gazette article, “Hinckley's Voice, Emotions Come Through in Court Documents (Gazette 6/6/2015) is the third in local papers by AP reporter, Jessica Gresko, since she interviewed and filmed me and my wife Carol in early April. She found me through blog posts from 2012. While both Carol and I gave the reporter much information as to why Hinckley should not be mainstreamed here, including massive opposition by Kingsmill residents, little of that was reported. At the end of the primary article our opposition was noted briefly with commentary that we were “not forgiving” as others were. “Forgiving” is not the issue, security of citizens is and I told her so. Others included the retired librarian from Eastern State Hospital where Hinckey was required to volunteer, a realtor who doesn't live in Kingsmill, but has shown “100's of houses” there. Also, the recently elected chairman of the Board of Supervisors said he'd “trust the doctors.” The librarian referred to Hinckley as a “sweet man.” Does a sweet man attempt to assassinate and wound our president, permanently incapacitate another victim, Jim Brady, who's recent death has been said to be due to his wounds? Oh, and there were two others less severely injured. But, never mind those details, Hinckley's psychosis has been “cured” as asserted by some “doctors.” Others claim he is “in remission.” When the reporter asked if we disbelieved the doctors, we explained why neither of these assertions can be considered absolute and are not valid justification for mainstreaming Hinckley.
Neither sociologists nor psychologists practice exact science. Unlike the exact sciences, conclusions are seldom derived from absolute data or other irrefutable information. Rather, they are deduced from personal judgment, interpretations of various behavioral situations and trends, not scientific laws. Worst of all, they are subject to prejudice and ideological bias, especially in a case like Hinckley's. When their conclusions are wrong, results can be catastrophic. So it has been with the mainstreaming of psychopaths and the criminally insane since the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. We discussed several of the cases, since the CMHA, of mass murders by mainstreamed criminally insane when they went off the psychotropic drugs.
Hinckley is on such psychotropic drugs. Contrary to claims by some, these drugs do not cure his psychosis. The drugs only control the condition at best – so long as he takes them. Neither does psychosis truly go into “remission,” as some diseases can. Rather, the drugs suppress the condition – again, so long as he takes them. That's the key! If he goes off the drugs the probability that carnage may result is high. Once again reality is being ignored. When will the “experts” learn? When will they recognize the negative results of their past decisions. Do their biases and their ideology blind them to the reality that such conditions are not cured with controlling drugs. Our assertion that Hinckley's underlying condition cannot be considered “fixed” was reported at the conclusion of the principle article and also in the video. We respect that, but it was not adequate.
We questioned why there is such a compulsion to “force-fit” Hinckley into a community that largely opposes it. And, why put him in the home of his aging mother? What happens when she dies? As previously reported, he has two siblings. Why do they not take charge of him?
While most of our input in the lengthy interview wasn't reported, immediate response to what was reported was overwhelming. We got calls from the TV networks, including NBC's Today Show, radio programs in three cities, Fox News and many individuals. Virtually all agreed with our comments. Of special note was the comment from the cameraman. “This interview is awesome. I'm coming away with a whole different perspective than I had.” The reporter and her editor weren't as enthusiastic.
This case is exemplary of the serious flaws in our mental health system, the CMHA and the courts as well.