If this is what you got from what I wrote, you are wrong. I'm not saying that "mentally challenged" people should be locked up ... hell, half the people I work with would be in jail! (that's a joke, y'know). What I'm saying is that a 3-year-old must be protected from an adult with violent tendencies.
You imply that because the baby wasn't hospitalized as the result of the attack (a "bad experience" as you characterize the beating) this is not a big deal. Well, I think it is. How badly would the baby have to be beaten for you to say we need to protect an innocent child from another attack ... a bruised cheek perhaps? ... or maybe something more serious like a broken arm would spur of your interest.
It's good that your cousin in Canada is able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, but that's not always the case (as you no doubt know). All I'm saying (and taking some mild "hits" for it) is that people who are violent need to be controlled and, in some cases, locked away. That's all.
Exactly; it’s the violence that is the issue; not the mental illness.
Suppose he had snatched an infant from a stroller and punched it, or knocked over a 90 year old lady.
I find it disturbing that some here are minimizing acts of violence when a mentally ill person commits them. Having a disability doesn’t make you beyond the reach of the law.