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

Then it seems he wasn’t fit to be out in public in the first place. If he isn’t responsible for his actions and he’s a danger to others he should never have been out. How utterly disgusting

He has probably been bailed to a forensic unit of some kind depending on what kind of learning difficulties we are talking, as in what level.

Tosh.

So you are suggesting that in these circumstances a) throwing a child into a crocodile pit is not a crime and b) ergo since no crime, case closed; no further action.

If somebody lacks the capacity to undestand that they have commited a crime they wouldnt be treated in the same way as any other crminal
Because how can a person who doesnt understand what they have done be prosecuted ?
That doesnt mean case closed no further action far from it
There would be investigations into how it has happened up dated risk aaaessments
The person may be moved to a more secure unit.

CutlewKate is correct, there must be mens rea (‘guilty mind’). Several killers have been found not guilty by reason of insanity and instead detained under the mental health act indefinitely and sent to secure psychiatric hospitals like broadmoor or carstairs - these are hospitals not part of the justice system.

The action would be to keep this man permanently safe in a secure unit, away from the public, and not risk it happening again.

I think if even if there has been one episode where others have been put at risk, or suffered harm, the perpetrator should be in a secure unit and not released as no one can be certain they won’t repeat it, even after they’re deemed to be safe following assessments. It’s too much of a risk.

What counts as putting others at risk?

Say you have an young adult with down syndrome who gets really upset and pushes a care giver. Is that enough for them to be shut away forever? How hard does it have to be? If its throwing an item, is a phone ok but not a cup?
Lots of parents of kids with autism will have been hit by them.

That's not the standard we have for anyone else that if you do something non criminal you arent allowed back out again.

There is a wide range of risk that means its not cut and dry

There is no reason to keep someone locked up in a secure unit who had been deemed safe.
The law wont allow it, and we don't have the facilities to keep them all.

I said where someone had been put at risk or suffered harm

That is not a high enough threshold when the care system is such that others may suffer harm as a result of forcing someone without capacity to do something they don’t want to do and pushing back (possibly quite violently) is their only way of saying ‘no’. There have been many cases where the ‘care’ has been shown to be abusive www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-20092894

And if they are assessed as safe later on then there is no reason to keep them locked up.

And how many times has someone been deemed to be safe, only to commit atrocities when released?

And how many people are, and pose no risk and don't hurt anyone ever again.
Or should they be locked up forever? Where?

Well its up to the professionsls who are involved in the persons care and doing the risk assesments to decide if somone no longser poses a risk
No system is perfect but in the real world people have to work with the law
Its impossible to give gaurantees that there is no risk at all.

Sadly, professionals have often failed!

@Allseeingallknowing You won't win. There are a few people absolutely determined to exonerate the man, no matter what.

Thrown a toddler to the crocodiles? Never mind. He can't be held responsible for his actions, so no harm done. And the care home has organised a trip to Alton Towers next week, it would be a real shame for him to miss out.

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a risk assessment. The organisation I used to work for provides supported accommodation for people with LDs, and I gather fromn LD colleagues that this is normal in the sector. Organisationally, they were strict about them, every RA had to be "desktop" reviewed 3 monthly and F2F reviewed at least annually.

I was in welfare rights and most of my work with clients was done over the phone, but I still used to have to do a risk assessment/risk management plan for every client I worked with. Some clients would be involved with 2 or 3 projects, and each project had to do their own risk assessment, because the work often involved different settings.

No. I’m not suggesting that at all.

And how would they know he was dangerous if he'd never shown signs of this sort of behaviour before?

You can't keep vulnerable people locked away without good reason, the CQC would be down on you like a ton of bricks if you did.You'd probably have to get a DoLs order too, from either the LA or the Court of Protection, depending on the status of establishment.

None of us know what the perpetrator was like physically, but there is clearly a problem when carers have to deal with large, strong young men. I'm not absolving the carers in this situation - again, we don't know exactly what happened - they may or may not have been negligent - but the near impossibility of restraining such a person if they decide to become aggressive is a worry.

A pp upthread mentioned a case in which a young man with LD repeatedly insisted on having an ambulance called 'or else he'd kill someone'. And empty threat, maybe - but who knows, and who's prepared to test it? When such people are institutionalised there will presumably usually be staff specially trained and strong enough to restrain a burly man with LD?? It's clearly no good sending someone like this out into the world with a couple of petite women (or men).

IMO if you do the crime, you should do the time. And throwing a child into a pit of alligators is a crime, whichever way you look it. If the law says otherwise then the law is wrong.

You keep saying that, like a broken record.

No one is saying no harm done.

I keep saying it because it is true.