Second thoughts usually are more reasonable and rational than first thoughts.
With that, I am having second thoughts about something that burst forth from my keyboard the other day about John Hinckley, the assailant who nearly killed President Reagan and gravely wounded White House press secretary James Brady.
I suggested it might be worthwhile to try Hinckley for murder, given that Brady died this past week from complications related to the brain injury he suffered when Hinckley shot at the presidential party in March 1981.
The earlier post is attached here:
Medical authorities have ruled Brady’s death a homicide. Hinckley was acquitted of the attempted assassination by reason of insanity.
Thus, the question: Should we try Hinckley for a crime after he’s been judged to have been insane when he committed it?
A Washington, D.C. jury rendered that verdict after the assassination attempt. I’m wondering now how another jury could rule differently were he charged and tried for murder in connection with James Brady’s death.
It’s tempting, I suppose, to try Hinckley for murder. Given that he’s been acquitted already for the very same act, it’s reasonable to ask: To what end?
High Plains Blogger 