Would Democrats want Lee Harvey Oswald free?
By Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 | PolicyI’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.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
26 Responses to "Would Democrats want Lee Harvey Oswald free?"
I’ll bet Jodie Foster isn’t too happy either.
I don’t agree with any leniency due to “mental health issues”. That said, Hinkly should get the same treatment as any other who attempts murder. If that means he has done his time and now gets out, so be it. If that isn’t enough punishment for you, then push to change the penalties. Actually, it is not enough punishment for attempted murder in my view, but I know my idea of an appropriate level of punishment has few supporters.
I was 12 when this happened. The extent of my political activism at that time was picketing the neighborhood movie theater for charging kids 12 and over adult prices for PG films but not letting them into R films without an adult.
As a Democrat I’ll be the first person to answer your question.
He should go free! He served his time, let him out.
….just joking.
Seriously, though. I don’t buy the whole insanity thing and even if he is insane he was competent enough to plan out an assassination attempt on a President.
The fact that he gets to walk the street for even one day a year is disgusting.
I don’t support the death penalty but if I did he’d be the perfect, for lack of a better word, candidate.
Personally, I say lock this monster up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.
Btw, while we’re on the topic of murders getting out of prison early, what do you think of Malcolm X’s murder being released?
Being a firm believer in the death penalty, he should’ve been pushing up daisies long ago. Absent that, no parole for murderers…period.
Maybe he will get a reality show “My life with Jodie”, a huge book deal, or will be a target for someone trying to get a reality show or book deal. I can’t relate to the radical/fanatical perversions of Islam but in a case like this, Islamic justice for this nut sounds appealing.
The last thing we need right now is decades of jihadist progressives crawling out of the sewers and elevating Hinckley to Prophet status for his attempt to assassinate the father of modern Conservatism in addition to his threats against a woman who is a focus of his insanity.
First of all, I don’t believe for a second that Lee Harvey Oswald actually shot JFK. That’s why Oswald had to be shot the next day, before he could legally defend himself.
That said, I don’t believe a Hinckley release is “inevitable”. In a NGRI case, you’re going to need multiple psychiatrists willing to signoff on Hinckley’s mental state, then a judge to agree. The catch is that, were Hinckley to act up once freed, those psychiatrists would be legally open to malpractice suits. Who wants to put their careers on the line for that?
What does this have to do with Democrats?
“I wonder would Democrats have wanted Lee Harvey Oswald to walk the streets again had he lived passed 1963? Would there be no outcry to his already being free nearly a third of the year?”
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?
Sorry, but I had to do it.
I certainly hope that Hinckley is sane enough to realize that the unreasonable but persistent rumors about Obama and Jodie Foster could not possibly be true.
Henry….you’re not a conspiracy nut, are you?
I do not believe this is an “R vs. D” issue but I’ll play along.
I do not believe he should be free. If you shoot the President, it should be judged as a higher crime(higher standard) and result in life in prision or a death sentence. If you take a shot at the nations’ leaders, you are trying to distroy our country and you should be held accountable for that higher crime.
JMO
Mr. Bailey: This is a R/D issue! The Left’s perspective is that the seriousness of one’s criminality, or (in this case) insanity, should be judged in the light of the political views of his victim(s). I think that this is Mr. Kirwin’s original point here.
Perhaps Sirhan Sirhan and John Hinckley should be treated the same.
“Henry….you’re not a conspiracy nut, are you?”
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
Committee members
* Thomas N. Downing, (Virginia) First Chairman
* Louis Stokes, (Ohio), Second Chairman
* L. Richardson Preyer, (North Carolina)
* Walter E. Fauntroy, (District of Columbia)
* Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, (California)
* Christopher Dodd, (Connecticut)
* Harold Ford, Sr., (Tennessee)
* Floyd Fithian, (Indiana)
* Robert W. Edgar, (Pennsylvania)
* Samuel L. Devine, (Ohio)
* Stewart McKinney, (Connecticut)
* Charles Thone, (Nebraska)
* Harold S. Sawyer, (Michigan)
Conclusions regarding the JFK assassination
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#Conclusions_regarding_the_JFK_assassination
James, if you actually studied the case, you’d laugh at the conspiracy idiots.
That committee relied on the Dictaphone evidence which only later was proven to have been recorded after the shots took place.
I know this case through and through. The conspiracy theories are laughable when compared to the actual evidence in the case.
Oswald was a shrewd dedicated compulsive socialist left wing communist conspiracy unto himself.. way ahead of Barack Sr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xU7Lhd7Wwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijBqqbSzq_Y&feature=related
Brian: Are you aware of the theory that JFK was killed by the Russians to court favor with the Vietnamese upper crust upset about Kennedy’s involvement, less than a month prior, in the death of Ngo Diem? There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that Oswald was very likely a Russian agent. If he was the successful shooter, as many doubt, he had the skills to pull it off. Using a mail-order, military-surplus bolt action rifle (that had a reputation as being militarily worthless) made him look like a lone wolf. The KGB could have provided him with a weapon that would have made the outcome more of a certainty. Or, did he serve a role similar to that of a ‘rodeo clown’, distracting the bull and the audience from the important actors? I am not advocating this as an explanation of what happened – just as something to consider. You are apparently a student of this event. One thing we can probably all agree on is that it is not likely that an investigative committee of Congressmen knew much.
And Oswald, a suicidal non-marksman, would’ve been left to ride a bus and hail a taxi as his getaway from this Russian-planned shooting?
Do you honestly think that anyone counting on Oswald being part of some grand conspiracy would wait until after he’s arrested to try to silence him?
Yes — the rodeo clown would.
Of course, no one found any bullets except those fired by the so-called rodeo clown.
I watched Ruby shoot Oswald on “live” national TV. At the time my family lived in Northern Virginia about 6 to 8 miles from the White House.
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories
Single bullet theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory
Brian,
Oswald a “non-marksman”? He was a former Marine.
You claimed to “know this case through and through”?
@Jim Cunningham — re: these “persistent rumors about Obama and Jodie Foster”
Are you insinuating that President Obama is a lesbian?
If so, it would explain a lot about the First Lady’s upper arms.
James Hawkins, I thought I was the only one old enough to remember the terrible day of live TV when you had no warning, it happened right in front of your eyes and you are left standing there in shock, realizing what you just saw. Yes, I saw it too. I’ll never forget those images of Walter Cronkite crying on TV when he announced our President was dead, (he wiped a tear away). We all cried with him.
When Reagan was shot, it was dejavu. Thank God Hinkley did not succeed. Why would we give him another chance of infamy?
Since being Republican means having concern for the rights of the individual over the rights of the many, then as an American citizen, even Lee Harvey Oswald would want the Republicans on his side (wasn’t the guy he assassinated a Democrat?). So the real question here is…Would Republicans want Lee Harvey Oswald free?
Brian: Hinkley should stay in jail. Its’ not a partisan issue. Sirhan should stay in jail too.
Oswald: You only think you’ve studied the case if you come to this conclusion.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.