Don't Let Hinckley Roam Free

(2 of 3)

There is an inherent irony to the insanity defense. Initially, prosecutors claim the defendant isn't insane, he's accountable for his actions and should be punished. The defendant claims his mind is so ravaged by mental illness he can't be held responsible. Then the roles reverse. Once the defendant, now the patient, has been in a mental institution for a while, the claim is: I'm fine; I've been treated; I'm no longer a danger to society. The government then says no, he's too unstable, too ill. Keep him locked up.

There have been efforts to get Hinckley out since the late 1980s. They were unsuccessful until his attorneys came up with the strategy of arguing that there had been a misinterpretation of a District of Columbia law that had made it necessary for a federal judge to sign off on Hinckley's proposed furloughs. They contended that this was not clearly stated in the law, and in January 1999 they won.

To determine how calculating Hinckley is, it seems valuable to look at the shooting itself, and at the time preceding it. Hinckley had an all-consuming passion--to be a headline news story. Everything he planned, thought, considered was aimed at that goal. On March 30 he was clearheaded enough to stand outside the Hilton without attracting the attention of the Secret Service. Prior to that day, he studied Mark David Chapman, John Lennon's assassin. Like Chapman, Hinckley brought along a copy of The Catcher in the Rye; he also kept a diary and wrote letters meant to be found later. And he stalked other public figures before that awful day.

Hinckley didn't intend to fail. He intended to kill the President. He failed narrowly--because of fast thinking on the part of the Secret Service, because my father was strong, fit, a fighter and because God didn't intend for him to die that day.

Gavin de Becker, the security expert and author, told me that in Hinckley's case, "the wrongness of the act was part of the appeal." That hardly fits into an insanity defense, which is based in large part on the contention that the individual cannot distinguish between right and wrong. According to Joseph diGenova, who was the supervising attorney for the government in 1982 when Hinckley was tried, he has got away with a lot over the years. In the late 1980s diGenova was one of the attorneys who blocked Hinckley's first attempts to get out on supervised visits. At that time it was learned that Hinckley had been writing to mass murderers Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. But the doctors at St. Elizabeths--the doctors pushing for Hinckley's day passes--didn't know that because they weren't searching his room, believing this would invade his privacy.

DiGenova still objects to the day-trips--supervised or not. The Secret Service "shouldn't have to spend its time, and taxpayer money, following John Hinckley out into the community where the current President lives," he says. "Hinckley should be confined to the environment of St. Elizabeths." Congress could actually overturn the recent court ruling in Washington because the District, unlike the states, is under congressional jurisdiction on such issues. That's exactly what diGenova believes should happen. "Congress should amend this immediately," he says. I hope this will inspire people to write to their representatives.

Beyond all the legal issues, the speculation about psychological disorders, there is this: in a matter of minutes lives were shattered. Jim Brady will never be the person he was; my father and agent McCarthy have scars that run much deeper than the flesh. All because one young man wanted to be famous. Now Hinckley says he's sorry. But is he sorry for what he did, or only sorry that he didn't succeed completely?

Neither Sarah Brady nor my mother has ever spoken publicly about Hinckley; I'm sure just the syllables of his name cut cruelly into wounds that never really healed.

Tim McCarthy is now chief of police in Orland Park, Ill. "I don't hold a grudge against John Hinckley," he says. "I was doing my job. But as for him getting out on visits, I hope they're right in their assessment of him. I'm not a psychiatrist, but he already demonstrated his willingness to take lives. I just hope they're right."

My brother Ron asks rhetorically, "Is Hinckley being treated differently because his parents can afford high-priced lawyers? This is not usually the way we treat presidential assassins. We tend to come down hard on people who try to kill a President. It's a crime against the nation. If his parents are working up to asking for a full release, they should think long and hard about what they're doing."

My older brother Michael believes that's exactly what may be coming. "This is the first step toward complete exoneration for Hinckley. He committed the horrible crime of shooting three people with the intent to kill. Should he get more leniency because he failed in his ultimate mission? What if our father had died? Would the jury have made the same decision? And if Hinckley wants to impress someone again, what will he do?"