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

Good job you don’t make the law then! You can think what you want but it won’t change anything.

Hitting someone and giving them a black eye is a crime, no?
Then why did my gran get away with it then? She had dementia.

I think that people with severe LDs, especially when they are non-verbal, are incredibly vulnerable. Those caring for them are in a position of considerable power and authority, and the cared-for person is likely to have little or no understanding of their rights or of the responsibilities of those caring for them.

They may also have no way of reporting those who do them harm, or to understand that this is wrong. A person with a severe learning disability that means they have a mental age of 3 is every bit as vulnerable as a three year old child.

So what exactly are they arguing when they try to justify that potentially dangerous individuals should be allowed access to public spaces where they are surrounded by women and children?

The reality is that a distressed adult male can be extremely difficult for carers to physically restrain and, in the wrong circumstances, can pose a serious risk to those around him. This case demonstrates that.

And if serious harm is caused, why should there be no consequences at all? I'm not talking about prison if that isn't appropriate. But is it really so unreasonable to suggest that someone who has demonstrated they pose a significant risk to the public should no longer be taken into uncontrolled public settings?

There are plenty of opportunities for recreation, activities and entertainment in secure, supervised environments where unsuspecting members of the public are not exposed to that risk.

But we don't know what happened. So why comment?

If someone doesn't have the mental capacity to know what is right or wrong, they cannot legally be held responsible for their actions.

Yes 100%. As I’ve said - Muckamore.

That doesn’t mean there should be no consequences at all. Why is it so controversial to say that this individual should be kept away from the unsuspecting public? His need to be stimulated and entertained does not trump public safety.

This reminds me of the child thrown off the Tate modern tower in 2019. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4q9pxyv7go

No one is saying no consequences either.

Nobody is saying that arec they?

This man? Or any person with a Learning Disability who commits any crime? Because some posters on the thread have insinuated they mean all people with a Learning Disability for any "violence"

We don't even know this man has a Learning Disability or a history of violence or anything really, which is kind of my point, there is a very wide spectrum of both of those things.

Quite my 16 regularly tries to hit and bite staff at school
If he was in mainstream school and not severley cognitively impaired i have no doubt he would have been expelled and the police called
However hes at special school for children with severe and profound learning disabillties
So instead they try and pre empt and manage his behaviour
As he has zero concept of whats he done and how it impacts others.

He planned to do it though... he even told people he was going to do it.

No its your not very educated opnion
That doesnt make it true.

Which shows he had the cspacity to understsnd his actions.

No that's not true

You can plan an action and still not have capacity to make the decision

A small child for example can say to a parent they are going to run away from home, they can pack their bags etc but still not have the ability to weigh up the consequences of doing so. Being able to plan something doesnt mean you have capacity.

Jonty bravery is at broadmoor held under the mental health act because of illness but was deemed to have capacity at the time

If it was known that he planned to do it, then his carers should not have taken him there.

Not as often as well meaning but ignorant amateurs I suspect.

I totally agree, and his risk assessment should address that, by specifying a much greater degree of supervision when out and possibly by ruling out him going to the sort of environments where he may be able to put others in danger.

We don’t know he doesn’t have a DoLs order. Seems to me quite likely he does, we just haven’t got that info.

Quite obviously, as many people have said here, because he is being released into a situation where those responsible for his care, knowing what they know now, will be in a position to ensure the public safety. It's not difficult to imagine what this looks like - one assumes he is in a heavily supervised care situation, but that the risk he posed was not previously identified, hence the zoo trip with two carers who felt able to be somewhat relaxed in their level of vigilance.

I sincerely doubt he has exhibited this level of dangerous behaviour before - one assumes his carers would have been more alert otherwise, and that the excursion to the zoo would perhaps not have been planned in the first place.

People can surprise you with their actions. Bur, now they know they know.

It's a horrible, tragic accident, but I don't see who will be helped by persecution and blame of the individuals involved. The gentleman who carried out the offence clearly does not have capacity to answer for it in law, and his carers were clearly unaware of the risk he posed.

If the decision had been taken to keep him incarcerated, this would have only led to massive additional expense for the tax-payer (surely you realise that this to be done in any way humanely, a substantial amount of additional support would need to be provided in his prison placement.)

And he would suffer more. And from the sounds of it he is not capable enough to be considered morally responsible for his crime, and therefore does not "deserve" to suffer.

Do you honestly fear he will be roaming unsupervised around zoos during his bail period? Or is this an opportunity to make a disability point.

It could be an organisational failure, eg inadequate risk assessment of the man, inadequate understanding of the risk inherent in the environment they took him to, failure to train or brief appropriately the staff who were accompanying him.

Or it could be that all those things were fine according to the knowledge or experience of those involved in his care and that this was a completely new behaviour that couldn't reasonably be anticipated.

His carers didn't take him there. He was allowed to go out alone.

Being detained indefinitely in a secure mental hospital might not be punishment but is certainly not the easy option compared to to doing the time in jail.

i recommend ‘one flew over the cuckoo’s nest’ on the topic.