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

You are wrong. The majority of people who need Carers with them all the time need this help to prevent accidental harm to themselves - traffic, getting lost, fallling into water etc. I’m sorry that parents, families and friends of learning disabled people have to read this.

What are the implications for the carers who were supposed to be monitoring him?

I am not a carer but I work in healthcare. Yes, if carers were in their phones when they are supposed to be working that would be an issue.

What kind of 'issue' though?

A disciplinary issue?

A criminal negligence issue?

In that case the carers should also prevent them causing harm to
someone else, because hurting someone never ends well for anyone?

Two people rather than one would be needed if the person may need help with changing an incontinece pad during their trip or if they might want to go off in their own direction and need staff to steer them or they self harm eg head banging - loads and loads more reasons that don’t involve risk to others or a history of having “done something unpredictably off the rails”. There is a low threshold for choosing two or more carers are needed in the community in a novel and unpredictable environment. The decision that the person was safe to be in this environment with this number of carers will be absolutely scrutinised so better not to speculate.

One or other or both.

@Helpless0190
I dont know what the answers are with adult social care. Its woefully inadequate. But there are some service users who cannot be in public safely.

The situation and incident you describe are very concerning.

Cleary this man could be a danger and should not be sent out into the community with carers who don't have the capacity to physically restrain him.

But I don't see how adult social care of this type (not the care for the aged) is ever going to be adequate. Each individual's needs are so different and very labour-intensive. It's a huge concern, isn't it, and as you say - there's a massive turnover of personnel because some of these men are frankly frightening, especially if they're big and strong. It's a problem for society and I'm one of those people who believe there's not necessarily an answer to every problem...or at least, not one that everyone will find palatable.

What makes you think he won't be locked up? It's virtually inevitable that the bail is conditional on him being kept in secure accommodation.

But what point are you making? Obviously this man is being kept away from the public. He doesn't need to be remanded in custody to achieve that.

Please tell me you don't really believe that the term "disabled" can only refer to physical disabilities.

If you are incapable of forming the required mental intent for a crime, then you haven't committed a crime.

None of us have seen this man's risk assessments. You can't just "lock them up" indefinitely forever in case they might hurt someone. We don't even do that in prisons for people who have hurt someone.

Sure, but you can keep them confined if they have been aggressive and only take them out with exceptional supervision - and not frequently and not where there are likely to be large numbers of children. Such people need to be in institutions (sorry, but they do) where they have a range of activities available and plenty of trained staff if things kick off.

Oh - and the woman who saved him should get the George Medal.

No, it wouldn't. Prison guards are not trained to deal with people with profound learning difficulties and mental illnesses, and there aren't enough of them as it is.

He isn't being given a pass, and indeed it is nonsense to say that violent men in general are always given one. This man needs to be in secure accommodation, and I'm quite sure he is.

Calderstones the last hospital dedicated to care of peoole with learning disabillities closed in 2024 ...

They usually are “locked up” in some form. You can call it supported housing or something else, but they are in secure accommodation with a lot of support - having been risk assessed as needing 2:1 support absolutely indicates this person was a high risk and his carers should have been trained and attentive to risk.

If you have driven at 70mph over a Zebra and killed a mother and child they are still dead. The criminality here is irrelevant - somebody whose inability to think things through to a dangerous extent has to be prevented from doing dangerous things.

The answer is probably to spend more on carers and less on disability per se - people this vulnerable do not need money directly they need services and yet much of the system handles money. So we have people employed to write claims for them, and people employed to ensure the claims are paid and people employed to pay out the money for services and people employed to stop claims when they reach the amount of savings that mean you have to use them up … It is a mess.

Just looked it up and in my county there is a high-security adult male mental health unit for men who have committed serious offences.

I hope the man in the crocodile incident has been “bailed” to a place like this.

As has been explained multiple times. Needing two carers does not necessarily mean that they are potentially dangerous.

My post was deleted by MN but I’ll answer this.

No, that is not what I am saying. I don’t think a venue crowded with pre-school children is an appropriate outing for an adult man with learning disabilities, widely reported in this sad case to be DS, however his intellectual age is assessed he has the strength of a man, he was allocated two carers (who surely have questions to answer), at 30 I very much doubt it was the first time he had ever displayed a potentially violent lack of impulse control nor societal norms of behaviour in public. There are countless better options to have taken that particular client, and if he is representative of a group visit that day, I don’t think it was a reasonable choice.

To suggest I am bracketing every human of any age with DS together, or the myriad very different manifestations of a “learning disability” is incorrect - I have worked bank night shifts in a local residential home for brain-injured children, a little practical experience but more than no experience, with some non-verbal pre-teens, I have not parented a differently-abled child, neither have I been involved in day care nor outings with that group of children.

I am sorry that my post caused offence.

Because the purpose of prisons is, at least partly, rehabilitation. If this man can’t be rehabilitated because he lacks the cognitive ability to understand that what he has done is wrong, what do you suggest happens other than lock him away indefinitely in a secure facility?

That's the role of secure facilities over prisons though.

When things happen people often want people to go down the criminal and prison route because it seems "fair". The problem with the prison route is that mostly people get released after a set time frame, regardless of the rehabilitation.

Secure facilities where people are detained under the mental health act or mental capacity act have no end date. Its when the person is felt to be safe.

This is often much more effective for people who are at risk to others via their own mental health

Take for example a man with schizophrenia assaults you on the street. He might got to prison for a few months, if he meets the criminal threshold but also might get suspendedsentence etc. You want him in prison of course. He will come out regardless of if he is taking meds or worse than when he went in. They come back in the community the same as they went in and you have to wait for something "bad enough" for them to go back to prison

Alternatively they can be held in hospital indefinitely. They might be out earlier (but not typically because usually they are on a forensic section where they get transferred to prison if its too early or because the initial offence wouldn't have had a lengthy sentence attached). However they also might stay longer until there is absolute certainty they are well. They are then released under supervision with certain rules, they might be able to be recalled for skipping medicine for example. Equally if they seem unwell again, you can act based on predicted risk rather than waiting for something to happen

I know prison seems like the harsher more punishing route but its in my opinion less safe

Tell that to the parents of the child literally thrown in a crocodile enclosure and now in hospital receiving treatment that no crime has been committed.

It doesn’t matter how appalling the incident was or what the parents think. There is a legal definition of what a crime is-and it is likely this incident does not meet it.