AIBU to think a man accused of throwing a child into a crocodile enclosure should not get bail?

[YourKeenOliveNewt]

Aibu to think the man who threw an unknown 3 year old into a crocodile enclosure shouldn't be out on bail?

If anyone could provide any insight into the reasoning behind why was granted bail I would be very interested to hear it.

AIBU: He's a danger to society
AINBU: Innocent until proven guilty

The news has reported that he has learning difficulties and was there with 2 carers. The fault lies with those supervising him. Where would you suggest he was “locked up”?

I mean they have asked people not to speculate online while they’re investigating and while I understand that you feel like you need to approve what’s going on and what action they take - it’s got nowt to do with you

Your poll is silly. If he has additional complex needs he needs care not prison!

Get real @YourKeenOliveNewt
It's upsetting for those impacted. MYOB

He has special needs and requires carers. Not sure how you didn't know that, given that news outlets have reported this.

So the public should decide what happens? What not just get rid of the police and courts and just go with 'well it should be this' of course ignoring all the not everyone agrees on everything, sure this will end well

Not a popular opinion, but I’d think anyone who requires carers, and with carers is still capable of severely hurting/disabling/killing other people, be it children or adults, does need to be locked up for societies protection. Special needs don’t trump everyone and lease in societies safety but you’ll get nowhere in this front, doing anything accordingly politically incorrect and will have the woke clutching at their pearls (because if it’s not a direct attack on them individually, then fuck everyone else).

It’s an extremely shocking and distressing case.

However, the perpetrator in question, who I assume lacks mental capacity, given he was not fit for police interview, will be in secure 24hour residential care.

There will be lengthy risk assessments, safeguarding reviews and internal investigations going on within the care setting he was living under, along with the police investigation.

In this instance, “out on bail” does not mean “free to walk the streets to potentially harm more children”.

If you’ve got no insight into why bail was granted you need to avail yourself of the facts reported in the news reports.

This could have been the perpetrators first ever incident of violence or harm.

Are you suggesting society is to “lock up” all people who have intellectual disabilities? This was an incredibly rare incident.

With two carers required? 🤔 Sure, Jan. People with or without intellectual disabilities don’t just hiff a toddler into a crocodile pen totally out of the blue.

It might be the first time he’s caused such severe harm; it absolutely will not be the first time he’s done something unpredictably off the rails.

It does sound counter intuitive.

Trying to think of any murderers (or would be murderers) who haven't been detained after their crimes... and none come to mind!

Learning difficlties are not the same thing as learning Disabillities which i imagine this man has the former is something thst can affect a persons ability to learn such as Dyslexia but nor a persons IQ
The latter affects every part of somones daily living and capacity to understsnd and can range from mild to profound.

I’m assuming you’ve never worked in care, secure units or in mental health before?

There are many instances where individuals need support, escort and chaperoning with 2 or more carers. It’s not just for physical violence and aggression.

I very much doubt hes wandering around freely.

No doubt. They must be extremely profound if he lacks the capacity to understand not to do basic harm to other living creatures in a way that most preschoolers can.

Given he has the body and strength of a full-grown man, the safeguarding failure here seems to be just as profound.

Well yes clearly something has gone wrong.

@DangerQuakeRhinoSnake

Those other murderers probably almost certainly had mental capacity, though.

Given that this particular man was not mentally fit to be questioned, and has carers, he must have pretty severe learning difficulties.

I’m sure there are other examples, severe physical disability, for one, but that wouldn’t be likely to overlap with the ability to suddenly cause extreme physical harm to another.

As you seem to have some experience in the field, perhaps you can speak to how common it is for a 30-year-old with high care needs but absolutely no previous history of aggression to suddenly perform an act of extreme harm?

I venture to suggest that the first thing that’s gone wrong is that this person has been allowed to share a space with children.

It is extremely uncommon for a 30 year old man with high care needs, with no history of violence to suddenly perform an act of extreme harm such as this. I have not come across this in my career.

People with high care needs with history and capability of violence who are deemed a risk to the public are often risk assessed for every community outing. Sometimes people have gradual community access: no leave, escorted leave in the care facilities premises, escorted leave to the shop etc and so on. There may be certain legalities around this person such as if they are sectioned under the Mental Health Act, are subject to a CTO (community treatment order), subject to forensic restrictions (MOJ section 41) or subject to DoLS.

Secure care is extremely complex. Something very very wrong has happened which is why there needs to be extensive internal and external multi-agency investigations and reviews to take place to support with the police investigation, and to explore the full timeline of this man’s care and the circumstances surrounding the events of what happened on Thursday.

There's a reason we have a defined legal system and a judiciary.

It's so that people who, by their own admission, are uninformed (to the point they don't even have all the information made public, let alone the full story) don't sit in judgement and make arbitrary decisions.

Innocent women died at witch trials driven by the hysteria of the ignorant and uninformed.

This is the kind of BS MNer reaction that would argue for similar, or sit knitting by the guillotine.

And shows zero empathy for any of the parties in the case.

I can’t vote because it’s not clear cut. Yes, he’s a danger to society but it appears from what we are told that he has a very low level of understanding. He needs secure care but where and how is not clear.
We don’t have enough information yet but possibly there was a failure to do an adequate risk assessment.
We don’t know the full facts that the people making decisions are party to.

It’s highly unlikely that he is ‘out on bail’ in the sense that most of the general public picture it. We, quite rightly, have no idea what bail conditions he is on. Speculation at this point by a baying mob without the full facts is dangerous and doesn’t help anyone involved.