|
The report itself noted, among many other things
that the defendant had “a pattern of unstable interpersonal
relationships; an identity disturbance manifested by uncertainty about
several issues relating to identity, namely self-image and career
choice; and chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom; features of
passive-aggressive personality disorder include resistance to parental
demands for adequate performance for occupational and social
functioning, combined with dawdling . . . inability to sustain
consistent work behavior . . . lack of self-confidence. . . “
According to Lincoln Caplan in The Insanity
Defense and The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr., “some reporters at
the trial dubbed these traits ‘dementia suburbia.’”
None of his problems, Dr. Dietz firmly told the
court, made him legally irresponsible. As Caplan wrote, “seen through
Dietz’s eyes, Hinckley became a lazy, fame-seeking, manipulative,
self-concerned, and privileged loner, who harassed his parents about
his inheritance, lied to them and tricked them out of money.” He had
not held a job for very long, Dr. Dietz indicated, because he simply
disliked working.
“The desire not to work can be traced back at
least to the time after Mr. Hinckley’s high-school graduation,” Dr.
Dietz claimed. “I think that Mr. Hinckley’s interest in the Beatles
is the earliest sign that I’ve been able to discern that he became
exceedingly interested in fame, in the notion of success, in fame in a
way that would not require a great deal of effort.”
Early in his questioning, prosecutor Adelman
asked, “whether at the time of the criminal conduct on March 30, 1981,
the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked
substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct?”
“On March 30, 1981,” Dr. Dietz replied, “Mr.
Hinckley, as a result of mental disease or defect, did not lack
substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.”
The witness went on to speak of the defendant’s
“long-standing interest in fame and assassination” and “study of the
publicity associated with various crimes.” John was able to think
clearly about such matters as what bullets would do most harm and how
he could get within range for a clear shot. John decided to shoot
when he did, Dr. Dietz said, because “He viewed the situation as
having poor security. . . . The Secret Service and the others in the
presidential entourage looked the other way just as he was pulling the
gun.
“Finally, his decision to proceed to fire,
thinking that others had seen him . . . indicates his awareness that
others seeing him was significant because others recognized that what
he was doing and about to do were wrong.
“These are examples of the evidence that he
appreciated the wrongfulness on March 30.”
While on the stand, Dr. Dietz quoted the
defendant as telling him of the assassination attempt: “You know,
actually, I accomplished everything I was going for there. Actually,
I should feel good because I accomplished everything on a grand scale.
. . . I did it for her sake. . . . The movie isn’t over yet.”
While Dr. Dietz was testifying, observers said
that John glared at him and during a break, seemed to swear under his
breath at the doctor.
|
