Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > James Brady, Homicide, and the Statute of Limitations

James Brady, Homicide, and the Statute of Limitations
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 05:25 PM
 
So the death of James Brady, press secretary to President Reagan subsequent gun control advocate, was just ruled a homicide. You heard that right ... the medical examiner has said that his recent demise was the result of the injuries he suffered when John Hinckley shot him 33 years ago. Now Hinckley has been a mental institution since then so it's doubtful that the government will waste time and money trying him for murder. If he was found not guilty by reason of insanity on the Attempted Murder charges before there's no reason to think the outcome would be any different this time. But suppose Hinckley wasn't off his rocker and had been convicted of Attempted Murder, served time, and was released years ago. And had been a model citizen ever since. Certainly the government COULD file 1st Degree Murder charges against him now because there is no Statute of Limitations on murder. The question I'm posing to the forum is SHOULD the government do so in such an instance? IMO it's one thing if the person had never faced any charges at all. But it's quite another if the person was tried and convicted of lesser charges for the same criminal act. Technically it's not "double jeopardy" but it just seems "wrong" to me if the government were to go after him again.

Discuss!

James Brady's Death Was a Homicide, D.C. Medical Examiner Rules | NBC4 Washington

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 06:07 PM
 
That's double jeopardy in sprit if not letter, IMO.

Edit: also... it's just stupid.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 06:31 PM
 
I see a big difference between Attempted murder and Successful murder. If Hinckley were ever about to be released, go for the homicide charge. As long as he's in the cackle factory, don't bother. Let the other patients serenade him for the rest of a long, long life.

That said, I can't recall a murder that took 33 years to mature. Toxic or radioactive poisoning maybe. But those weren't intentional, more like skipping safety steps to increase profit. Call it a Slowly Successful murder.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2014, 10:03 AM
 
That is retarded logic.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That is retarded logic.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 06:24 PM
 
Maybe I don't quite understand the legal situation, but wouldn't the prohibition of double jeopardy rule out a second trial? And besides, even if there were a trial wouldn't that automatically fall flat because he was found innocent for reasons of insanity in his first trial?

Whether he is deemed sane after 33 years of treatment should be irrelevant, only his mental status at the time of the assassination attempt should matter -- and it doesn't make sense that he was too insane to be culpable for attempted murder, but sane enough to be held accountable for a committed murder.

According to me, if he is found stable enough to be released from the mental hospital, he should be a free man. After all, he spent 33+ years in a mental hospital, that's plenty for attempted murder.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Maybe I don't quite understand the legal situation, but wouldn't the prohibition of double jeopardy rule out a second trial?
Technically no. Double-Jeopardy says that you can't be tried for the same charge more than once if you are found not guilty. This would be a different charge.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And besides, even if there were a trial wouldn't that automatically fall flat because he was found innocent for reasons of insanity in his first trial?
I can't imagine the government bothering to even try. He was found not guilty for reasons of insanity the first time and the guy is still institutionalized. No reason to think another trial would have a different outcome.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Whether he is deemed sane after 33 years of treatment should be irrelevant, only his mental status at the time of the assassination attempt should matter -- and it doesn't make sense that he was too insane to be culpable for attempted murder, but sane enough to be held accountable for a committed murder.
Now that is an interesting question. I'm no attorney so I can't say 100%. But your reasoning seems sound to me.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
According to me, if he is found stable enough to be released from the mental hospital, he should be a free man. After all, he spent 33+ years in a mental hospital, that's plenty for attempted murder.
Agreed.

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2014, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Technically no. Double-Jeopardy says that you can't be tried for the same charge more than once if you are found not guilty. This would be a different charge.
Not exactly true, OAW. Double Jeopardy states that you cannot be charged twice for the same criminal act meaning if you were tried for attempted murder, you cannot be tried again for that criminal act no matter what charge they're trying to stick you with. A subtle, yet very important distinction.


I can't imagine the government bothering to even try. He was found not guilty for reasons of insanity the first time and the guy is still institutionalized. No reason to think another trial would have a different outcome.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2014, 07:09 PM
 
Taking 33+ years to die is called old age. Maybe you could poison someone with something really slow acting. Guns don't take 30 years to kill someone. That medical examiner needs to get slapped down by his peers for showboating.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2014, 07:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Not exactly true, OAW. Double Jeopardy states that you cannot be charged twice for the same criminal act meaning if you were tried for attempted murder, you cannot be tried again for that criminal act no matter what charge they're trying to stick you with. A subtle, yet very important distinction.
Again, I'm not a lawyer but I'm not 100% sure this is the case. For instance, the same criminal act can result in both state and federal charges without violating the double jeopardy clause.

OAW
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2014, 10:54 PM
 
The federal gov needs a reason beyond murder to charge someone otherwise they have to leave it to the local jurisdiction.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2014, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Again, I'm not a lawyer but I'm not 100% sure this is the case. For instance, the same criminal act can result in both state and federal charges without violating the double jeopardy clause.

OAW
My understanding is it's same criminal charge which you can't be hit by twice. If you kidnap and then kill someone, you can be charged with murder, and then charged separately with kidnapping.

There are also edge cases where you do something like stand in Illinois and shoot someone in Indiana. Both states could nail you on that.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2014, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There are also edge cases where you do something like stand in Illinois and shoot someone in Indiana. Both states could nail you on that.
They could both sentence you and you'd have to serve both sentences one after the other?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2014, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There are also edge cases where you do something like stand in Illinois and shoot someone in Indiana. Both states could nail you on that.
I think this would trigger federal court jurisdiction, since the crime crosses state lines.

However, the above is a boring example. Any fool can stand in Illinois and shoot someone in Indiana. Try standing in Illinois and shoot someone in Ohio. Now there's a challenge.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2014, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I think this would trigger federal court jurisdiction, since the crime crosses state lines.

However, the above is a boring example. Any fool can stand in Illinois and shoot someone in Indiana. Try standing in Illinois and shoot someone in Ohio. Now there's a challenge.
Hang on, let me get out my ICBM.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2014, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I think this would trigger federal court jurisdiction, since the crime crosses state lines.

However, the above is a boring example. Any fool can stand in Illinois and shoot someone in Indiana. Try standing in Illinois and shoot someone in Ohio. Now there's a challenge.
I actually get the impression this isn't the case unless they could show a compelling federal interest, which they wouldn't be able to show for a garden variety murder.

That said, the two states would probably just pick one in this situation, so as to minimize risk of a successful appeal.

Likewise, individual jurisdictions can have their own DJ laws, so a double prosecution may not be possible in a particular scenario, even though constitutional.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2014, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hang on, let me get out my ICBM.
I've thought one potential metric for what constitutes an allowable "arm" under the 2nd can take advantage of the District sort of being its own (very tiny) state.

If you can stand on the opposite side of the city and reliably hit Virginia... then that's too much firepower.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 07:25 AM
 
First, Brady died from complications from being shot, so that makes it "death due to head wound," not "old age." Brain injury tends to cause all sorts of complications that can and often do lead to death. That it took 33 years for him to succumb merely testifies to the skills of the medical teams that treated him over the years.

Second, Hinkley was convicted of "attempted murder," not "murder." He is now subject to being charged with murder, which is a different criminal act and does not violate the concept of double jeopardy.

Third, as far as I know there is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. This is where things like decades later convicting the people who murdered civil rights workers come from.

I doubt that any current action will be taken. Hinkley has been denied early release every time, and he didn't do so well with the attempt to liberalize his visits with family, so he's not likely to ever go free. But if he does, there's a murder count waiting for him. This isn't as stupid as it seems; it's a motivator for the parole board to keep him in prison for the length of his sentence, and it acknowledges that he was criminally responsible for Brady's death.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Second, Hinkley was convicted of "attempted murder," not "murder." He is now subject to being charged with murder, which is a different criminal act and does not violate the concept of double jeopardy.
Hinckley was not convicted of attempted murder, he was found innocent for reasons of insanity, i. e. the court found him not culpable for the crimes he committed.

That's why another trial (if it ever comes to pass) is just a farce for everyone involved. Like I wrote earlier, »it doesn't make sense that he was too insane to be culpable for attempted murder, but sane enough to be held accountable for a committed murder.«
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This isn't as stupid as it seems; it's a motivator for the parole board to keep him in prison for the length of his sentence, and it acknowledges that he was criminally responsible for Brady's death.
A mental hospital is not supposed to be a substitute for a jail, and due to Hinckley's insanity, he is not criminally responsible for Brady's injuries death. Instead of pretending a mental hospital is a prison, Hinckley should be released if his doctors find he is fit to be released.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 07:58 AM
 
Yeah, if he was found to be too crazy to be criminally culpable, he should be released when/if his doctors find that he's sane enough to leave. None of what's happening now changes the fact that he was originally found to be incapable of being guilty of attempted murder.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 06:13 PM
 
I'm fairly certain that 33 years later is not a speedy trial. We're not talking about a crime that was uncovered 33 years later.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 07:45 AM
 
Correction: the mental hospital is supposed to help Hinkley overcome his insanity. He was not responsible due to his mental status, but once he is "cured" of the insanity he then suffered, he can (probably, most states take this stand) be tried for his actions.

"Insanity" is a legalistic term that has no clinical meaning. He was found to have lacked the capacity to "know right from wrong" in the sense that his delusional state prevented him from seeing the world the way most of the rest of us do. But legally this status is considered at least potentially temporary.

So he was found responsible for the crime, but not criminally liable because he was delusional at the time. From a functional standpoint there is no real difference. He is almost certainly never going to be "cured" to the point that he can be re-charged with any crime or released from custody. Further, he is still evaluated by a parole board, but instead of simply looking at whether or not he's "become a better person" or "made restitution" or some other basis for determining a convict is worthy of parole, the board has multiple mental health professionals' evaluations of Hinkley's mental state and progress in treatment to assess. So since his mental illness is not going anywhere, and since he will remain incarcerated until such time as that might change, he was essentially sentenced to life without parole - though the system still goes through the motions "just in case."

Blaze, none of the civil rights workers' "disappearances" were "discovered" decades later, and most of them were found within months of their disappearances. It's not about when the crime occurred. Nor is "speedy trial" related to exactly when the crime occurred, it's about the machinery of the legal system not unduly drawing things out once a criminal charge has been filed.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Correction: the mental hospital is supposed to help Hinkley overcome his insanity. He was not responsible due to his mental status, but once he is "cured" of the insanity he then suffered, he can (probably, most states take this stand) be tried for his actions.
That doesn't make any god damned sense. It's like saying I could be convicted of shoplifting at 20 for something I stole when I was a four-year old that was hungry and wanted a candy bar.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Correction: the mental hospital is supposed to help Hinkley overcome his insanity. He was not responsible due to his mental status, but once he is "cured" of the insanity he then suffered, he can (probably, most states take this stand) be tried for his actions.
That makes no sense (even if you're right that this is legal in some states). Zero. Either you are or aren't culpable for a crime, because of your mental status at the time of the crime. Your mental status 10 years before or 30 years after the crime are irrelevant.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
"Insanity" is a legalistic term that has no clinical meaning. He was found to have lacked the capacity to "know right from wrong" in the sense that his delusional state prevented him from seeing the world the way most of the rest of us do. But legally this status is considered at least potentially temporary.
»Insanity« is not a medical diagnosis, but a medical diagnosis is the basis for finding someone »innocent for reasons of insanity«.

Edit: I have the impression that some people who think like you think someone gets off easy when he is found innocent for reasons of insanity and sent to a mental hospital and a prison. Why do people assume that 1 year in prison is hard while 1 year in a closed mental hospital is a vacation paid for by the state? While it could be just the opposite: if Hinckley had been found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to 25 years, he would have been released 7 years ago. He doesn't have the same rights now, doctors have to find that he is well enough so as to not pose a threat to himself or the public.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Aug 20, 2014 at 01:34 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Blaze, none of the civil rights workers' "disappearances" were "discovered" decades later, and most of them were found within months of their disappearances. It's not about when the crime occurred. Nor is "speedy trial" related to exactly when the crime occurred, it's about the machinery of the legal system not unduly drawing things out once a criminal charge has been filed.
Exactly, they knew who he was and what he did and had "proof" 33 years ago. You have to charge him then. You can't sit on proof of a crime for a more opportune time. It would be different if they didn't know who shot him until he died and they pulled the slug out an found a ballistics match.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That doesn't make any god damned sense. It's like saying I could be convicted of shoplifting at 20 for something I stole when I was a four-year old that was hungry and wanted a candy bar.
How in the hell can he be tried now for something that he couldn't rationally control then? That's the same as being charged with someone else's crimes.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why do people assume that 1 year in prison is hard while 1 year in a closed mental hospital is a vacation paid for by the state?
I was thinking much the same thing. Inmates in either facility might not want to switch places.

The funny farm is not what it used to be a century ago. For example, they no longer charge admission for tours like a zoo. But they can dope you up as they like. And it may get hard to sleep after a few years, listening to the groans and laughter every night.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I was thinking much the same thing. Inmates in either facility might not want to switch places.
To me, this attitude has even dangerous side effects, because people who in my layman's view are sick (pedophiles) are sent to jail rather than a mental hospital for otherwise they're not punished. In most jails the treatment of mental illnesses is abysmal, so that I expect it's much better for society if these people are properly treated and only released when they are healed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 07:37 AM
 
Double jeopardy deals with being charged with the SAME criminal act, so unless you were found innocent at age 4 for breaking into the store but not charged with stealing that candy, then you could not be later charged with that theft. Unless some major new evidence appeared, that is; this is allowed in most, if not all states.

The concepts of "guilt," "responsibility" and "culpability" have different and specific meanings in the US legal system. Hinkley did indeed take all of the actions that led to Brady's injuries, yet he was found not legally responsible at the time due to his mental illness, though there was no question that he was personally responsible for all of his actions.

The legal concept of "insanity" is that it is treatable, and potentially successfully treatable. That would mean potentially a person who committed a crime could be "cured" and rendered competent to stand trial for his crime at some point in the future, though at that point other legal concepts can come into play that could essentially prevent a finding of guilt. After some reading, I'm not entirely clear what the actual legal standing of Hinkley's status at trial was. He may have been committed to the mental hospital because he wasn't found competent to stand trial (he couldn't understand or participate in the proceedings) or he could have been committed because he was found too mentally ill to be responsible, whether or not he was "legally competent" to stand trial.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 07:43 AM
 
If he was "legally incompetent" when he committed the crime, found Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can he ever be tried again for it? He wasn't sane when he did it. It's not like that suddenly rolls back time and makes him rational in the past.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 09:19 AM
 
@Glenn
None of your arguments address why curing a mental illness at a later point restores culpability at the time of the crime. The point is not about being able to stand trial here, the question is really about whether the accused is able to be held responsible.

For instance, you can conceivably make an innocent reasons of insanity plea because you were incorrectly medicated or had a brain tumor. Here, the insanity is only temporary, and unlike mental illnesses, more sharply defined.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 09:27 AM
 
I guess you could be to mentally ill at the time of the trial and not at the time of the crime.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I guess you could be to mentally ill at the time of the trial and not at the time of the crime.
Yes, but if the mental state at the time of the crime determines whether you're culpable for the crime.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, but if the mental state at the time of the crime determines whether you're culpable for the crime.
My though was that may allow them to defer prosecution until your mentally fit.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 07:22 PM
 
I'm not "arguing," I'm passing on what I learned in Abnormal Psych in regards to legal matters. And while Hinkley was found "not guilty by reason of insanity," there are other findings that are not legal exonerations.

I'll also point out that Hinkley's acquittal led to such an uproar that Federal law was changed with the "Insanity Defense Reform Act," which placed the burden of proof of lack of culpability on the defendant rather than requiring the state to prove "sanity" beyond a reasonable doubt. Hinkley was "whack" at the time of the crime, yes, but nowadays he probably would not have been acquitted because of this change in the law.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 07:26 PM
 
In some cases prosecutions are deferred pending mental health assessments and possible treatment. It's about whether the defendant can participate in his or her own defense though. It is my understanding that an organic cause for aberrant behavior is a positive defense, as could be inappropriate medication, as long as the medication was not self-administered.

And remember that here 33 years later there are a LOT of laws that are different because of Hinkley's case and others. It is harder to successfully plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and it is less common for people to be essentially sentenced to life in a mental institution for their crimes committed while mentally unfit.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,