President Reagan's shooter John Hinckley wins unconditional release

[LennG]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-president-reagans-shooter-john-hinckley-wins-unconditional-release/ar-AAOSqAb?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz

A U.S. judge on Monday said he would grant "unconditional release" to John Hinckley, who wounded former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and three other people in a 1981 assassination attempt.

Personally, I find this deeply disturbing to allow anyone who tried to kill a sitting President, out unconditionally.

And this is after they are going to release the guy that killed Bobby Kennedy.

Sorry, but these guys should do 'hard time' without ever being able to be granted parole, if, for nothing else, than to keep anyone else from trying things like this. I don't care if they have been the perfect inmate, their crime and conviction should be life imprisonment with no parole.

Would Oswald be eligible for parole, if he had survived?

[DaveBrown74]

I certainly understand your viewpoint, but the idea of life in prison without the possibility for parole for attempted murder seems extreme to me. He's been locked up for 40 years for attempted murder. Surely it would have been less than that if it were anyone other than a President or someone of similar stature like the Pope, so he has already done extra time given who the victim was.

I'm not justifying what he did in any way, but 40 years seems sufficient to me for a crime that did not kill anyone or violate children in any way. There have been plenty of criminals who have been released from prison for worse crimes that caused much more death and suffering and did more damage. For example, should serial child sex abusers get treated better than this guy? How about someone like Robert Chambers, the preppy murderer who strangled a young woman to death in Central Park? How about traitors like Chrisotpher Boyce and Daulton Lee who sold high level government secrets to the Russians for cash? All of the above have been released from prison despite their crimes, some quite some time ago.

Should we just automatically lock everyone up forever who did anything really bad, with zero chance of ever getting out? I'm not sure I agree with that.

[LennG]

Sometimes, in a word YES.

Certain crimes should be life imprisonment, without ever being eligible for parole. That is the next step when the death penalty was abolished?

I understand the point you are making, 40 years is enough, MAYBE for a non-murder, but for a crime, especially one that is so grievous or against say the President, sorry, but I still believe that not being put to death, but serving the rest of your life in prison, is the way it should be. Harsh, maybe, but it needs to be done.

I am all for reform also, but not for specific cases. Guys rob banks, do dastardly deeds, even rape, in the end, there is no family saying that their loved one has no chance for getting out and enjoying some part of their lives, but the guy who murdered them now can. I find this wrong.

[DaveBrown74]

Sometimes, in a word YES.

Certain crimes should be life imprisonment, without ever being eligible for parole. That is the next step when the death penalty was abolished?

I understand the point you are making, 40 years is enough, MAYBE for a non-murder, but for a crime, especially one that is so grievous or against say the President, sorry, but I still believe that not being put to death, but serving the rest of your life in prison, is the way it should be. Harsh, maybe, but it needs to be done.

I am all for reform also, but not for specific cases. Guys rob banks, do dastardly deeds, even rape, in the end, there is no family saying that their loved one has no chance for getting out and enjoying some part of their lives, but the guy who murdered them now can. I find this wrong.

I hear what you're saying. I still think life in prison without even the possibility of parole for an attempted murder is extreme. I believe in a firm stance on crime and punishment, but there are limits. I don't want the US to be Singapore.

As for giving harsher sentences for attempting to kill certain kinds of people, I have a hard time institutionally valuing one human life more than another. If you're going to have a very harsh sentence for the attempted murder of a president, what about a vice president? Supreme court justice? Pope? What about a nobel prize winning doctor or scientist? How about a war vet? How about a fireman who has saved children from burning buildings? The President is an important, valuable person, but he or she is not the only living being worthy of such a description. I think when you start getting into the game of deciding whose life is worth what and trying to coordinate prison sentences accordingly, you get yourself into a pretty thick swamp of moral ambiguity and judgment pretty quickly. Also, who exactly has the power to make those decisions about whose life is worth what? Is that done by Congress? If so, that sounds crazy to me.

[LennG]

Let me say this again, or ask it, If Oswald was alive and serving his sentence for killing JFK, would you recommend him for parole after 40 years?

[DaveBrown74]

Let me say this again, or ask it, If Oswald was alive and serving his sentence for killing JFK, would you recommend him for parole after 40 years?

No, I would not. I consider first degree murder very different from attempted murder though.

[Ed Vette]

Attempted or unsuccessful murder. He very well could have killed him and changed the course of history. I'm with Len. That sentence should never be forgiven. No attempt on the life of a US President should.

[LennG]

No, I would not. I consider first degree murder very different from attempted murder though.

I will agree with you 99% of the time. Attempted murder is nothing like actual murder and the punishment shouldn't be the same. But, that 1% is when you try to assassinate a President. There, to me, it makes no difference if the attempt is successful.