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

[the_std]

So I suppose my question is this (to both sides): If it was reported that the assailant was under the influence of drugs, as opposed to being mentally ill, would that change your reaction to the crime?

If the person is high or under the influence, then I say prosecute them to the full extent of the law. The difference between drugs and mental illness is that, ultimately, drug use is a choice while mental illness is not. Now, if they're heavily addicted, I do feel a pang of sympathy, as there are many small societal reasons that can ultimately contribute to someone choosing to try drugs or being in a situation where they become addicted, but I will not give them special treatment because of it.

[Tsiyeria]

Interesting. On the topic of the OP, while it is true that the assailant is suspected of being mentally ill, she is also on probation for a narcotics charge.

Hubbard is on two separate probation terms, one for narcotics and one for battery, police said. Her prior arrests also include aggravated assault and carrying dangerous weapons.

In light of that, I would have to say that I would prefer she goes to jail, in a facility that has the capacity to care for someone with mental issues. I don't believe that her primary problem is her mental illness. (My opinion.)

[ZedOmega]

There's this thought just sprouting at the back of my mind wondering how many of the 'kill the psychotic bitch!' school have kids of their own. You know, the 'if it were my kid, that woman would be so dead' argument.

Now, let's look at the incident in question a little more thorougly. Don't worry, my not-so-level-headed opinion is coming in after this.

- The attack was made in public. Using the LA Times article linked in the OP's post for reference, there were witnesses to the attack, which helped to identify and arrest her.

- This wasn't a zombie-movie style incident, the woman had slammed the baby into a truck's railing to soften its arm up so she could eat it. Straight-up trying to bite the baby's arm off without preparation is a larger level of insanity than trying to tenderize it first.

- She'd already been arrested multiple times in the past. The narcotics charge which ended with probation may or may not have happened before the aggravated assault and weapons possession charges, and I haven't been able to find any details on the order in which the arrests were made. It doesn't change the fact that they happened, though.

Those three points, whether they prove she needs to be executed or institutionalized, are the central foci of this entire issue. Now, does she need to die for trying to eat a baby? Yes. Yes, she does. Is that on us to decide on, though? If it is, disband the Supreme Court.

The woman's a threat to public safety, psychosis or not. With her priors, if the justice system in LA will probably either throw her in prison flat-out or put her in a mental facility to try to clean her up. Either way, it's up to a jury to decide on that. If it's any comfort, any juror who submits a Not Guilty vote for that case deserves a good solid kick to the head.

[Andara Bledin]

- This wasn't a zombie-movie style incident, the woman had slammed the baby into a truck's railing to soften its arm up so she could eat it. Straight-up trying to bite the baby's arm off without preparation is a larger level of insanity than trying to tenderize it first.

Actually, she was trying to take the baby's arm off so that she could eat it. I imagine that in her deranged mental state, she thought that she could take the arm, leave the rest of the baby, and scuttle off somewhere private to dine.

If it's any comfort, any juror who submits a Not Guilty vote for that case deserves a good solid kick to the head.

That would depend quite strongly on what charges they went for.

As we've seen so very recently with the Casey Anthony case, if the prosecution gets too greedy and tries to get convictions for things that cannot be proven, the jury will find that they have no choice but to render a not guilty verdict, no matter how they personally feel on the matter.

^-.-^