WARNING SICK - Homeless woman tries to snatch baby & eat its arm

[the_std]

I don't believe there's anything wrong with you believing different things than I do, generally speaking.

What I do think is wrong is this particular point of view. I think it's wrong because I believe we should help EVERYONE who needs help. I don't believe that helping people who have dangerous mental illnesses necessarily detracts from treatment for veterans or people with Alzheimer's, because if we successfully treat these people, they can contribute to society, and contributing to society is what is going to, in the end, help the people with Alzheimer's or veterans. I believe that locking them away or killing them is ending the potential of a human life, which is one of the most tragic things on the face of this earth.

I do not believe that these people are criminals, because their actions are either not within the realm of their control or they are being influenced by their disease in such a way that their actions are not their fault. Even if they prove to be beyond treatment, they can still contribute to the world through being the subject of research so that we can prevent similar fates befalling the people who end up with the disease later down the road. I believe that these people are marginalized and destroyed in many different ways because the average person does not understand the devastation that a mental illness can wreak upon a person if left unchecked, and that is a very scary thing. Obviously I do not want innocent people hurt, but I want to treat the root problem, not the symptoms.

Therefore I find your view on this subject to be abhorrent and truly sickening, as well as tragic beyond measure. But, like I said in my last post, I am not going to change your mind. Nor am I trying to change your mind. I am merely explaining my point of view so that you will understand why I disagree so completely with yours. Go ahead, think whatever you want. It just makes me sad that you feel this way about these people.

[blas87]

We have different values.

I am glad that people can find good and hope in people that others like me refuse to find good or hope in. I don't trust or care about people like the woman in the OP or my cousin. I hate him. I want him dead. Sure, it's not a good way of thinking, but since I'm wired differently than you, I think moreso of the families of the children he hurt, not to mention the kids themselves, and all of the problems they will have growing up. Knowing that my family apologizing for him will never be enough. Knowing that their childrens' innocenses were taken away by an evil deviant who doesn't even care what he did to them.

I don't think of how we can fix him or the woman in the OP. I think of how in the hell are we going to make sure that the victims of these people can put their lives back together and move on and hopefully one day go back to normal, and hope that these incidents don't essentially ruin the lives of the victims involved. For me, the feelings of the victim and family come and remain before I even consider the offending party. And they always will.

[the_std]

You can consider the victims without totally condemning the people hurt by their actions. And that is all I am going to say, I am bowing out of this debate because I am far too upset to continue.

[linguist]

soldiers who are so traumatized they are losing grip of reality.

how do you know this woman wasn't at some point traumatized? she'd clearly lost her grip on reality.

as for that, would you be in favor of treatment for a traumatized soldier who suddenly believed himself back in a warzone and began attacking people? if so, how is this mentally ill woman any different? or should we just kill the soldier, too, since he's just a mentally ill criminal now?

[Rapscallion]

how do you know this woman wasn't at some point traumatized? she'd clearly lost her grip on reality.

By approximately the same knowledge you have that she had?

I can see interesting attitudes here. It's the line between the safety and rights of the individual (Blas) versus the safety and rights of the society in which they find themselves (STD).

At that point it's where you draw the line. Are we as a society willing to save ourselves through the deaths of others who are proven harmful? Can we afford both the financial burden and moral burden of locking them away? Is it more moral and enlightened to take the risk and let the provably dangerous out to try and look after themselves on the streets?

I take the view that the middle option in this case is best. The rights and safety of the many for me override the rights and safety of the individual. Keeping provably dangerous people in safe environments has to be a better option.

There's a guy at work who's batshit insane on a cyclical basis, but he's protected by people who should know better. Several people have been damaged mentally by stress from dealing with him. Of course he holds a company officer position. His mania is 'narcissistic personality disorder', something that once occasioned me to put in his review feedback that he was a liar or deluded, but in either case he could not be trusted. The people who were protecting him had to suffer his explosive reaction to that one (I can back this shit up), yet by the time my next review came around he'd rationalised it in his mind as his immediate colleagues (protectors) having laughed at these allegations.

As I've remarked on many occasions, he may have a mental condition, but it's everyone around him who suffers from it.

Should people provably dangerous be killed? I hate to go down that route save for the very worst cases. Lines shift over time. They could go from more self-presevertion attitudes towards convenience. I don't have any qualms about the deaths of criminals who knowingly killed others and were judged as sane. On the question of whether or not incarceration is less humane than death? I honestly cannot answer that one.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Don't bother trying to reason with the pitchfork and torches crew. There's no room for compassion when you have that much righteous indignation built up.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I'm not trying to reason with any one side in particular. I'm displaying my views on the topic.

Rapscallion

[Eisa]

What I find interesting is that when something horrific happens, people go "they must have been mentally ill."

Why? Why can't someone have full reasoning capabilities and just REALLY want to do something fucked-up and evil? There are evil people in the world. Not mentally ill. Not gonna be helped by anything. Evil.

[siead_lietrathua]

What I find interesting is that when something horrific happens, people go "they must have been mentally ill."

exactly. hell the son of sam made up his mental illnesses of seeing and hearing demons, etc, to get a lighter sentance because he knew people would believe it.

but even those with mental illness can be incurably evil. related example would be albert fish, who was a pedo and a cannibal. he was diagnosed with "religious psychosis",saw hallucinations and whatnot. definatly what one would consider a mentally ill person. but he mutilated, killed, and ATE people. i doubt too many people cried when he hit the chair.

the woman in the op might be mentally ill. it doesn't excuse the fact that she tried to cannibalize a child. she should be incarcerated the same way a sane person would. what if she had succeeded, and this was an article about finding the mutilated remains of a child instead of one with a thankfully happy ending? would people still be rallying behind the idea she may be ill? or would we all be in agreement that this person is, essentially, a rabid dog that needs to be dealt with.

cuz frankly, if i ever lost my brains to the point where eating baby is the same as eating mickey-d's, then PLEASE, kill me!

[Dreamstalker]

Why should a person be killed because of actions that were caused by a MEDICAL CONDITION?

How do we know what she did was caused by a treatable medical condition? Key word being treatable. A 'medical condition' defense for rape generally doesn't work. Mental defect, maybe but even that's put through the wringer and not all 'criminal' mental defects can be treated.

Why can't someone have full reasoning capabilities and just REALLY want to do something fucked-up and evil? There are evil people in the world. Not mentally ill. Not gonna be helped by anything. Evil.

Exactly. Sociopaths come to mind (the neighbor who stole our credit cards seemed normal, sweet-talked everyone enough to enable her to embezzle nearly a quarter-mil, conned her lawyer into getting her probation for a federal crime and did a nice job of faking remorse at her sentencing). I could do something completely fucked up, but I don't. Why? Because I have something resembling a normal moral compass.

[insertNameHere]

What I find interesting is that when something horrific happens, people go "they must have been mentally ill."

Why? Why can't someone have full reasoning capabilities and just REALLY want to do something fucked-up and evil? There are evil people in the world. Not mentally ill. Not gonna be helped by anything. Evil.

I was wondering to bring that point up. SO, If I choose to be "of sound mind" and try and eat your baby, I'm going to jail. If I actually kill and eat your baby, I'm going to prison or death. But if I'm mentally ill, I can get better treatment? I prefer people actually suffering the consequences of their action.

I still support the fact that nobody has a problem with killing rabid animals running around their children. So if a person is acting like a rabid fucking animal why can't the same apply. The amount of people who plead mental incompetence because they KNOW it will get an easier sentence when they did something serious is enough to want to make that route WORSE than prison. And like Ron White said in his one bit, "If the guy is too mentally incompetent to know we killing him for doing wrong? Why can't we give him the death penalty?"

I am fine with treating mental illness if it is treatable and they can get better but when the safety of the greater good is in favor of putting down a person who "unknowningly" keeps hurting others because they are fucked up in the head, oh well.

I ask you this, would you say the woman would still deserve help if she killed and ate the baby instead of failing at it, would you support death? or would she still deserve a chance for help?

[Lachrymose]

Do you really, truly believe that someone would have "full reasoning capabilities" and want to do something like that?

I'm not too sure.

[AdminAssistant]

I still support the fact that nobody has a problem with killing rabid animals running around their children. So if a person is acting like a rabid fucking animal why can't the same apply.

Because these are people, not dogs, cats, snakes, birds, or honey badgers. We treat people differently than we do animals. And if you feel that both deserve the same treatment, well, I hope you don't eat veal.

[linguist]

What I find interesting is that when something horrific happens, people go "they must have been mentally ill."

Why? Why can't someone have full reasoning capabilities and just REALLY want to do something fucked-up and evil? There are evil people in the world. Not mentally ill. Not gonna be helped by anything. Evil.

"evil" is a subjective term. mental illness is not. all else being equal, the simplest answer is generally the correct one. there is an enormously high rate of mental illness among the homeless. the majority of the population of sound mind wouldn't consider eating another human being to be an acceptable act. therefore, the most likely explanation is mental illness.

I still support the fact that nobody has a problem with killing rabid animals running around their children. So if a person is acting like a rabid fucking animal why can't the same apply.

flawed analogy. mental illness is, for the most part, treatable. rabies is not. symptomatic rabies always leads to death, so we put down rabid animals not only because of the danger they pose, but also out of mercy and compassion for the suffering of the animal.

And like Ron White said in his one bit, "If the guy is too mentally incompetent to know we killing him for doing wrong? Why can't we give him the death penalty?"

using a comedian's quote to support your argument? seriously? that pretty much throws any credibility you had out the window.

I ask you this, would you say the woman would still deserve help if she killed and ate the baby instead of failing at it, would you support death? or would she still deserve a chance for help?

if she killed and ate the baby and she is mentally fit, she deserves prison. if she is not mentally fit, she deserves to be committed to a mental hospital. i don't support death in any case, ever.

[Andara Bledin]

I still support the fact that nobody has a problem with killing rabid animals running around their children. So if a person is acting like a rabid fucking animal why can't the same apply.

As mentioned, animals are not the same as people. Any argument that stems from such a ridiculous assertion is shaky at best.

Aside from the fact that if a person were behaving in a manner that was putting a child at immediate risk, there would be little to no resistance to them being taken out the same as any other immediate threat.

^-.-^