John Hinckley Jr.’s former psychiatrist said the other day that the man who shot President Reagan hasn’t shown “any evidence of psychosis in the last 16 years” and should be allowed to visit his parents without supervision.
Isn’t it relevant that Hinckley showed evidence of psychosis and violence on that one occasion in 1981? Do 16 years of being a good, cooperative patient in a mental hospital in any remote way compare to the reality of living on your own and becoming both violent and insane? Aren’t there enough problems in the world today, especially for U.S. Presidents, without setting loose a violent killer of twenty years ago?
This whole episode shows why elevating insanity above legal responsibility for crimes is dangerous and senseless. It’s just a ploy to escape legal responsibility for one’s crimes. If somebody is so insane that he can’t control his violent impulses, then he shouldn’t ever be let loose. If you want to have him locked up in a mental hospital forever, that might be OK, but he shouldn’t be set free or allowed unrestricted visits to his parents. Psychiatrists who need to feel good about themselves and to enjoy the illusion that they’re actually doing something to cure such people have a vested interest in letting the Hinckleys of the world be released. We shouldn’t sacrifice our safety or the safety of our elected leaders in order to indulge a psychiatrist’s sense of professionalism.
Because of the political visibility of the Hinckley case, it’s unlikely he will ever be released. The same isn’t true for others who gain release because of alleged mental disorder–and its alleged cure.
