The twilight freedom of John W. Hinckley Jr.

John W. Hinckley Jr. is soon going home on “convalescent leave” to Williamsburg, Virginia to live with his 90-year-old mother.

The process for his release is set to begin as early as next Friday.

Hinckley is now 61-years-old and “suffering from arthritis, high blood pressure, and various other physical ailments like many men his age,” noted U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, who sits on the bench of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington D.C., in his 103-page opinion memorialized as an accompanying federal court order July 27.

While Hinckley suffers from some routine age-related physical ailments, Friedman found he has long been in “full and sustained remission” and no longer suffers in a dangerously demonstrable way from the mental illness that led to him shooting then President Ronald Reagan in March 1981, and the following year saw him found not guilty by reason of insanity, making him the most famous patient in the United States, innocent of criminality but still so dangerous in the eyes of the judicial system he had to be detained for the last 35 years at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. His release process, with reporting and myriad other conditions attached, could begin as early as Aug. 5, the judge determined.

In his ruling last Wednesday, Friedman found that Hinckley has received the maximum in-patient benefit possible at the federal psychiatric hospital and that he is ready to be returned to the community in his 60s to live out his remaining years.

The hospital opened in 1855 as the Government Hospital for the Insane and was the first federally-operated psychiatric hospital in the United States. During the Civil War, wounded soldiers treated there were reluctant to admit that they were in an insane asylum, and said they were at St. Elizabeths, the colonial name of the land where the hospital is located. Congress officially changed the hospital’s name to St. Elizabeths in 1916. Other famous – or infamous patients depending on one’s perspective perhaps – confined to St. Elizabeths include Ezra Pound, the expatriate American poet who made radio broadcasts from Rapallo, Italy between 1941 and 1945 on behalf of Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Italian regime during the Second World War. Pound was committed to St. Elizabeths in 1946 and remained there until 1958, when a treason charge against him was dismissed.

John W. Hinckley Jr. is a name that will likely always be a name that conjures up historical flashbulb photographic memories for the vast majority of Americans outside of St. Elizabeths Hospital who have not seen him in press photos since his trial ended in June 1982 and he was 27 years old, although he has been rarely photographed in public since then, including in Virginia on an unsupervised visit with family in April 2014.

But to most Americans, he is still the 25-year-old John Warnock Hinckley Jr.  photographed in the famous UPI picture riding in the backseat of a police car after his arraignment in U.S. District Court on March 31, 1981 – the day after he shot President Reagan.

Hinckley was armed with a .22-caliber pistol loaded with six exploding “Devastator” bullets when he opened fire on March 30, 1981.  All survived the attack, but several were seriously wounded, including the president.

Hinckley shot Reagan in the driveway outside the Hilton Hotel in Washington D.C. at 2:27 p.m. from just 10 feet away after the president had addressed the Building and Construction Workers Union of the AFL-CIO. U.S. Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy turned into the line of fire and took a bullet for the president, while another Secret Service Agent, Jerry Parr, roughly shoved Reagan into the presidential limousine, and then, as the Lincoln roared back toward the White House – per protocol – with driver Drew Unrue not knowing the president had been wounded, Parr, however, noticed Reagan was having difficulty breathing and bright frothy blood was coming from his mouth, ordered Unrue to turn the limousine around and race to George Washington Hospital, with its trauma centre, instead. Doctors said later Parr’s snap judgment call to detour to George Washington Hospital instead of continuing on to the White House, as planned, saved the president’s life.

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officer Thomas Delahanty was wounded in the neck by the second of Hinckley’s bullets and suffered permanent nerve damage to his left arm.

But the most gravely injured was White House press secretary James Brady, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury, shot at point-blank range to the left-center of his forehead, the bullet passing through both hemispheres of his brain. ABC began airing footage at 2:42 p.m.  ABC, CBS and NBC all erroneously reported that Brady had died. Partially paralyzed, Brady did die many years later at the age of 73 on Aug. 4, 2014. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia ruled Brady’s death to be caused by homicide as a result of the 1981 shooting, but authorities opted not to prosecute Hinckley further as the result of the finding.

In his July 27 opinion, in response to the federal government’s move to continue Hinckley’s detention at St. Elizabeths, Friedman wrote, “In 1981, John W. Hinckley, Jr. was a profoundly troubled 25-year-old young man suffering from active and acute and major depression. His mental condition had gradually worsened over the preceding years – beginning as early as 1976 – ultimately resulting in a deep obsession with the actress Jodie Foster and the film Taxi Driver.

“Mr. Hinckley began to identify with the main character in the film, Travis Bickle, who unsuccessfully plots to assassinate a presidential candidate in order to win the affections of a young woman.”

Friedman goes onto say that Hinckley “has been under the care of St. Elizabeths Hospital for over three decades. Since 1983, when he last attempted suicide, he has displayed no signs of active mental illness, exhibited no violent behavior, shown no interest in weapons, and demonstrated no suicidal ideation. The government and the hospital both agree that Mr. Hinckley’s primary diagnoses of psychotic disorder not otherwise specified and major depression have been in full and sustained remission for well over 20 years, perhaps more than 27 years. In addition, since 2006, Mr. Hinckley has successfully completed over 80 unsupervised visits with his family in Williamsburg, Virginia.”

During those visits to Williamsburg, Hinckley stops in at Retro Daddio, a local music store, about once a month, where owner Jen Thurman told the Associated Press she is on a first name basis with him and a photo on the wall of a young Jodie Foster seems to go unnoticed. “I’m alone in the store frequently with him, and he’s never creeped me out,” Thurman told the AP.

Hinckley also joins his mother for Sunday services at the Williamsburg United Methodist Church when he’s visiting, and volunteers at the local Unitarian Church.

In arguing for Hinckley’s continued detention at St. Elizabeths, the United States government found itself grasping at some thin reeds, pointing out that when he was released on a work furlough in 2011 he twice told his supervisors he intended to go to the movies, when in fact he went instead to a Barnes & Noble bookstore. OK. Those were stupid lies, especially given Hinckley will be closely and rightly watched by the United States Secret Service whenever he is free for the rest of his life. Criminally responsible or not, that’s part of the price you can expect to pay for shooting a president. Last year, during a release, he deviated from his approved itinerary and visited a musician friend, instead of a photographer. He admitted to the lie. So, yes, 35 years have not cured Hinckley to the point he’s perfect and honest in every way. That would be a state of character few of the always sane could claim. But is he a danger? Is his continued detention in the public interest?

Case like Hinckley’s are extremely difficult. In 1981, he may not have committed a crime because he was insane at the time, but it is beyond doubt he committed a terrible deed by any objective standard, legally responsible for his actions or not. But what now? Is his continued detention justified simply because of his notoriety if nothing else? Of course not. John Hinckley Jr. was a mentally ill man. If indeed that mental illness is now in long, full and sustained remission, as Judge Friedman found, it is time to send the 35-year patient home, as unpopular with the public as that may prove to be.

That and only that is how the ends of justice are served.

You can also follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/jwbarker22

 

 

If ‘Googled’ is a verb that needs no explanation, can there be any doubt the Internet is changing the very way we think?

“Plasticity and the human brain” was my original draft headline for this post. Seemed like a catchy enough way to draw readers in.

But before I could write this column with such a punchy “hed,”  I had to do a bit of research. On the Internet from my desk, of course. That’s when I got distracted. Which is rather the story of the Internet. They don’t call it the World Wide Web – with the emphasis on web – for nothing.

Sharon Begley, senior health and science correspondent at Reuters, was the science editor and the science columnist at Newsweek from 2007 to April 2011. In the Jan. 8, 2010 issue of she had an interesting piece called, “Your Brain Online: Does the Web change how we think?” Begley was commenting on Edge Foundation Inc.’s 2010 annual question by John Brockman to 109 philosophers, neurobiologists, and other scholars, which four years ago was: “How is the Internet changing the way you think?” Not so much, argued some scholars, including neuroscientist Joshua Greene and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, both of Harvard.

Others held a dystopian view. Communications scholar Howard Rheingold argued the Internet fosters “shallowness, credulity, distraction” and as a result that minds struggle “to discipline and deploy attention in an always-on milieu.” Evgeny Morozov, a Belarus-born researcher and blogger and the author of The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom and To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, who studies the political effects of the Internet, says, “Our lives are increasingly lived in the present, completely detached even from the most recent of the pasts … our ability to look back and engage with the past is one unfortunate victim.”

Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi of Claremont Graduate University writes that the ubiquity of information makes us “less likely to pursue new lines of thought before turning to the Internet.” The information is de-contextualized and satisfies our immediate research needs at the expense of deeper understanding, Csikszentmihalyi argues.

This is not exactly a new argument. Nicholas Carr wrote a similar piece in the July/August 2008 issue of Atlantic magazine with the genuinely catchy title: “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”  He argued the  online world has made it much harder to engage with difficult texts and complex ideas.

Carr wrote: “Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle. I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet.”

Carr followed up that 2008 magazine article with a book two years later, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brain.

I could go on, but truth is I got distracted around this point in my research. That happens with the Internet – a lot. My mind was soon enough recalling Quantum Leap, starring Dean Stockwell, as Al Calavicci, and Scott Bakula, as Dr. Sam Beckett, a scientist who becomes lost in time following a botched experiment.

It aired from March 1989 to March 1993 originally, a quick detour to Wikipedia confirmed for me. “I thought it was quite good at the time for the sociology more than the science,” I was soon explaining in an e-mail. “Interesting though because it is one of the last shows of its type to air before the Internet was just about to take off in a big way. There was e-mail in 1993 and a very early World Wide Web (WWW), but few people were ‘wired.’”

That might have been OK if that was as far as it went. But soon I was doing some comparative research on Wikipedia for the mid-1980s to mid-1990s sci-fi era. “I also quite enjoyed some of the episodes of Sliders, starring Jerry O’Connell as Quinn Mallory, which ran from from 1995 to 2000, focusing on alternate histories and social norms as the group of travellers  “slide” between parallel parallel worlds by use of a wormhole referred to as an “Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge,” I helpfully added after my brief mention of Quantum Leap.

“There was also a series called Max Headroom that aired briefly in 1987 and 1988. Edison Carter, played by Matt Frewer, who actually grew up in Peterborough, was a hard-hitting reporter for “Network 23,” who sometimes uncovered things that his superiors in the network would have preferred to keep private. Eventually, one of these instances required him to flee his workspace, upon which he was injured in a motorcycle accident in a parkade. Bryce Lynch downloaded a copy of his mind into a computer, giving birth to the character Max Headroom, as the last words seen by Carter before impact were “Max Headroom”, specifying vehicle clearance height in the parkade.

“Max Headroom also appeared as a stylized head in some TV ads against primary colour rotating-line backgrounds. He was known for his jerky techno-stuttering speech, delivering the slogan “Catch the wave!” (in his trademark staccato, stuttered digital sampling playback as “Ca-ca-ca-ca-ca-catch the wave”) in the rather disastrous Coca-Cola venture in the mid-to-late-1980s with “New Coke.”

An hour or so has now passed.

I agree heartily with Carr that the web “has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes … a few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.”

But the fact is that at about this point in reading Carr’s thoughtful treatise, Sergey Brin and Larry Page’s magic Google search engine somehow transported me to Don Terry’s article, “Lou and Me: ‘We work at a newspaper, a real newspaper’” in the January/February 2010 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, which you can be transported to as well via http://www.cjr.org/feature/lou_and_me.php?page=all.

Ah, yes. Lou Grant, the character played by actor Ed Asner in the show of the same name. Editor of the fictional Los Angeles Tribune. Moved from television news in Minneapolis, after being laid off supposedly after 10 years as Mary Tyler Moore’s boss on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, back into newspapers. But on another television show, if you can follow the thread. Debuted Sept. 20, 1977, Terry helpfully reminds me. That’s good to know since time can play tricks and get telescoped with age, I find.

By now, I’m thoroughly absorbed in the reverie of memory and have to remind myself I’m writing a column based on the plasticity of the human brain and how technology can change the very act of how we think and construct reality.

Take typewriters, like I used in journalism school. Friedrich Nietzsche bought a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball typewriter in 1882 and his style of writing changed, long before the World Wide Web and Google.

His already terse prose became even tighter and more telegraphic. “Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts,” Nietzsche observed.

How do I know this? I “Googled” it.