The Brady Bunch

Nobody else gets it.

James Brady, shot during the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life way back in the friggin 80's.

Brave man. Honorable man. Led the fight, afterwards, for better gun control legislation, and for all I promote and stand by the Constitution entire, I applaud the effort. [Different rant altogether.]

He was shot in the melon and has suffered the effects of his wound for the rest of his life....which ended yesterday, 8 August, 2014.The coroner ruled that Brady's death is counted as a homicide.

This is very bad, and nobody seems to see it.

Brady was 76 years old at the time of his death. A good age to do it, too. Lots of folks die at 76. Even more don't even make it that far. The coroner rules that Brady's death was caused by complications from his injury, an injury he sustained 33 years ago. He probably could have continued to remain not dead, even with the complications....EXCEPT THAT HE WAS 76 FRIGGIN' YEARS OLD!!! One would seem to think that a frail man of advanced years would not be able to fare as well as a younger man when suffering from the exact same injuries.

We can't even say that the injury shortened his life in any appreciable way, only that the quality of such life was reduced. It might be that Brady, should he have not been shot, would have led a completely different life, one filled with high fat foods, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking of cigars and cigarettes, late nights, poor sleep and very high levels of stress, assuming he remained in the political arena, which, considering he did so with great vigor (albeit in a much reduced, if more celebrity-driven manner) would suggest that he would have done so.

The fact is, that getting shot in the brain-pan may well have lengthened his life-span rather than shortening it!

So, how can something that may have had a beneficial effect on the "victim" be ruled a murder?

Aside from this, just think of the precedent this sets! If you injure someone, perhaps in a traffic accident, and the injuries he suffers impact his life in such a way that the complications stemming from them render him dead NO MATTER THE TIME-FRAME INVOLVED, since murder has no statute of limitations you can be charged with his murder, whether of the First Degree or not. Perhaps you could go to jail for manslaughter a quarter century after the infliction of the injury, your "victim" having taking that long to finally expire!

It's fucking ridiculous!

One person tried to tell me that it was simply a means of keeping John Hinckley Jr. in jail, that my adding yet another murder charge to his personal docket he'd stay away for a while more. Thing is, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He's been locked up in an institution ever since. Thing is, there was such an outcry concerning this verdict that the Federal Government drafted the Insanity Defense Reform Act, making such pleas that much more difficult to obtain. Now I'll quote the relevant Wikipedia article:

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was a law passed in the wake of public outrage after John Hinckley, Jr.'s acquittal for the Reagan assassination attempt. It amended the United States federal laws governing defendants with mental diseases or defects to make it significantly more difficult to obtain a verdict of not guilty only by reason of insanity.

Prior to the enactment of the law, the federal standard for "insanity" was that the government had to prove a defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (assuming the insanity defense was raised). Under the act, the defendant had the burden of proving insanity by "clear and convincing evidence." Furthermore, expert witnesses for either side were prohibited from testifying directly as to whether the defendant was legally sane or not, but could only testify as to his mental health and capacities, with the question of sanity itself to be decided by the finder-of-fact at trial. The Act was held to be constitutional (and the change in standards and burdens of proof are discussed) in United States v. Freeman.

It was criticized by psychologist Lawrence Z. Freedman for being ineffective: "If the attacker is rational mentally, stable emotionally, and fanatic politically, he will not be deterred. Nor will an irrational, affectively disturbed individual be deterred."

So basically, it seems to me to be a means to an end; to get revenge on the man who attempted to kill "Saint" Reagan. It all comes down to vengeance! With insanity that much more difficult to prove in a court of law, that particular defense has essentially been removed from the defense's kit bag, and now, perhaps, the "evil bastard will finally face justice!"

But beyond that, where does the legality of this really end? If you actually assault someone with the intent to kill them but you fail and are arrested, you will be tried for attempted murder. Whether or not you are found guilty, the individual remains injured, and suffers from these injuries for the remains of his life. Now, assume you are found guilty, and you spend a decade in prison. Afterwards, you are finally released and go on to rebuild your life. Meanwhile, the poor bastard you assaulted is also a decade older and is having complications due to his 10 year-old wound. One month later, he's dead, and you are now facing First Degree Murder charges...charges based on a 10 year-old assault for which you have already served prison time.

Do you know what Double Jeopardy is? Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. This means you cannot be tried for the same offense twice. However, you served time for attempted murder; now you are facing charges of First or Second Degree Murder, a different crime, and a much more severe one at that! The Double Jeopardy rule won't apply, since it's a different enough crime, but it is a crime based upon the very same act committed a decade prior!

You haven't seen the poor dead bastard for the whole of those ten years! You've not been near him, not spoken to him, not written to him; hell, you may have been in a completely different state of the Union entirely! And yet, you can now be tried and, depending on the state in which the incident took place, you may now face execution for an assault for which you have already served time!

In a judicial system that is based on and bound by precedent (which, I might add, I think is a really bad idea), this case sets a really, really bad one.

And nobody seems to get it.