Hinckley getting out after 35 years.

No politician with aspirations of continued public service, let alone higher office, has any incentive to ever release a convicted criminal.
 
cullennz said:
What about Manson?

Is he basically in prison till he dies?
Click to expand...

Yes. He will be 92 when he is next eligible for Parole,and no Governor or President will want the political heat for pardoning him.
 
Last edited:
However much his defense cost, his prosecution probably cost the same. We have an adversarial system. It only works when both sides are fairly represented. If you'd like to change to a more totalitarian system, your chance is coming up November 8th.
 
Well, this will give him time to rest up before President Trump appoints him to the Supreme Court.
 
Loss Leader said:
However much his defense cost, his prosecution probably cost the same. We have an adversarial system. It only works when both sides are fairly represented. If you'd like to change to a more totalitarian system, your chance is coming up November 8th.
Click to expand...

If the public defenders were as well-funded as the prosecutors, I think the justice system landscape would look very different.
 
quixotecoyote said:
If the public defenders were as well-funded as the prosecutors, I think the justice system landscape would look very different.
Click to expand...
Who has the burden of proof?

(The civil / tort system would also look different if both sides of each case were "evenly" funded." )
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, Hillary Clinton falls behind Trump in the polls for the first time and a judge appointed by Bill Clinton decides to let Hinckley out. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
 
Trebuchet said:
I didn't realize this was in the conspiracy forum. Or are you Just Asking Questions?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You'll be relieved to know this isn't the conspiracy forum. The discussion is about Hinckley being released from a psychiatric hospital. He was in there for attempting to assassinate a Republican president and shooting 3 other people. He is being released by a judge appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton. Those are the facts.

Do you think this is a good idea?
 
BrooklynBaby said:
You'll be relieved to know this isn't the conspiracy forum. The discussion is about Hinckley being released from a psychiatric hospital. He was in there for attempting to assassinate a Republican president and shooting 3 other people. He is being released by a judge appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton. Those are the facts.
Click to expand...
Your implication is beyond ridiculous and if you believe that there is any political motivation to Hinckley's release whatsoever, that is extremely sad for you.
Do you think this is a good idea?
Click to expand...
Releasing him? I don't know. Fortunately, I'm spared from such a decision since I'm neither one of the physicians treating him nor the judge making the final decision.

However, considering he is 61 years old, has not been convicted of a crime, and his treating doctors believe that releasing him is safe, I think there's a reasonable chance that releasing him won't endanger the public. I'm certainly in no position to argue with his treating physicians.

A 34-year sentence is well beyond what would be typically imposed on someone actually convicted of attempted murder.
 
Babbylonian said:
Your implication is beyond ridiculous and if you believe that there is any political motivation to Hinckley's release whatsoever, that is extremely sad for you.

Releasing him? I don't know. Fortunately, I'm spared from such a decision since I'm neither one of the physicians treating him nor the judge making the final decision.

However, considering he is 61 years old, has not been convicted of a crime, and his treating doctors believe that releasing him is safe, I think there's a reasonable chance that releasing him won't endanger the public. I'm certainly in no position to argue with his treating physicians.

A 34-year sentence is well beyond what would be typically imposed on someone actually convicted of attempted murder.
Click to expand...

In an era where most judicial decisions can be predicted in advance based only on which court is assigned to adjudicate them. why would this decision be immune to that kind of prejudice? Do you think a Reagan appointee would have let him walk? Are we saying that attempting to kill the leader of the free world should not be handled differently than a dumb kid who shoots a clerk in a convenience store?
 
I'm a little disturbed by the fact that you seem to believe that what a judge decides is determined entirely by which President appointed him.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
In an era where most judicial decisions can be predicted in advance based only on which court is assigned to adjudicate them. why would this decision be immune to that kind of prejudice? Do you think a Reagan appointee would have let him walk? Are we saying that attempting to kill the leader of the free world should not be handled differently than a dumb kid who shoots a clerk in a convenience store?
Click to expand...
The entire concept you propose is moronic and ignores all the facts that don't spring from perceived political bias. I won't address it further or again.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
In an era where most judicial decisions can be predicted in advance based only on which court is assigned to adjudicate them. why would this decision be immune to that kind of prejudice? Do you think a Reagan appointee would have let him walk? Are we saying that attempting to kill the leader of the free world should not be handled differently than a dumb kid who shoots a clerk in a convenience store?
Click to expand...
Weird
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Are we saying that attempting to kill the leader of the free world should not be handled differently than a dumb kid who shoots a clerk in a convenience store?
Click to expand...

I'll say it. It shouldn't be handled differently. Rule of law. All men created equal. We should all be equal under the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom