What Would You Decide? The Case of John Hinckley Jr.

Every week, Mind on Trial examines cases through three lenses: the forensic evidence, the neuroscience, and the legal outcome. But before we tell you what the law decided, we want to know what you would decide. Read the facts below. No outcome. No verdict. Just the case. Then tell us in the comments: what would you decide?

The facts

On March 30, 1981, a 25-year-old man named John Hinckley Jr. walked up to the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington D.C. and fired six shots at President Ronald Reagan. Reagan was struck by a bullet that lodged an inch from his heart. Three other people were wounded, including press secretary James Brady, who suffered permanent brain damage. Hinckley was arrested at the scene. He did not attempt to flee.

Hinckley had no prior criminal record. He had no history of political extremism. He had not been hired or radicalized by any group. His motive, as he later explained it, was to impress the actress Jodie Foster, with whom he had become obsessed after watching the film Taxi Driver more than fifteen times. He believed that assassinating the president would make Foster love him.

In the months before the shooting, Hinckley had been under psychiatric care. His treating psychiatrist had assessed him as not dangerous and had not recommended hospitalization. He was on medication for depression. His parents had been advised to encourage his independence.

At trial, Hinckley's defense team argued that he was not criminally responsible for his actions because he was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of the shooting. Prosecutors argued that Hinckley knew exactly what he was doing and chose to do it. The psychiatric evidence was contested. Defense experts testified that Hinckley was suffering from severe psychosis and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. Government experts disagreed, arguing that Hinckley's careful planning, his travel to Washington, and his deliberate positioning outside the hotel demonstrated that he understood what he was doing. The jury deliberated for four days.

What would you decide?

Before you read anything else, answer these three questions in the comments.

One: is John Hinckley Jr. criminally responsible for shooting President Reagan?

Two: if you believe he had a mental illness, does that change your answer, and why or why not?

Three: what sentence, if any, do you think is appropriate?

Come back next week for the full Mind on Trial analysis, including what the jury actually decided, what the neuroscience says about Hinckley's mental state, and why the verdict changed American law forever.

What Would You Decide? is a recurring series on the Mind on Trial blog. We present the facts of a real case before revealing the outcome, because the most important question in neurolaw is not always what the law decided. It is what you would decide, and why.