I’m amazed there is not some outrage, some misgivings, some conversation from the left about the so-called “inevitable” release of John Hinckley, Jr.
The Daily Press reports that the man who almost killed President Ronald Reagan is close to being your neighbor.
Hinckley is already allowed to walk Virginia streets 102 days a year, and judges, lawyers and social workers think it’s just a matter of time before he’s free for the rest.
In my book, the only difference between John Hinckley and Lee Harvey Oswald was that Hinckley didn’t succeed.
I wonder would Democrats have wanted Lee Harvey Oswald to walk the streets again had he lived past 1963? Would there be no outcry to his already being free nearly a third of the year?
You shouldn’t get bonus credit for failing to succeed in the murder you attempted. Had Reagan been killed, would we even be discussing Hinckley’s freedom?
I, for one, don’t care for his “insanity” defense that saved him from meeting the same fate he wanted for Reagan. We could talk for hours about the DC jury that issued the verdict that was so wrong, 83% of the public thought it was wrong, and Congress passed laws tightening the insanity defense from its misuses in this case.
Prior to this case, a defendant using the insanity defense didn’t have to prove he was insane. The prosecution only had to fail to prove he was sane. Now that’s insane, and it changed after this trial.
We are close to freeing a man who screamed “I’ll get you Foster” during Jodie Foster’s testimony at his trial.
Hinkley shouldn’t be walking the streets for 108 days a year now. He shouldn’t be any freer than Lee Harvey Oswald.
And Democrats should say so.
