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

I don't care what's wrong with them, anyone who throws my child into a crocodile enclosure is going in after them.

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?

Who isn’t potentially dangerous?

Agree.

For me its the potentially dangerous that is tricky.

Life is a weigh up of peoples rights and risk. I have the right to a life that includes a level of noise eg kids playing in the garden, my neighbour has a right to a peaceful life. Somewhere in between there's a discussion about whats reasonable

Its reasonable for me that people who pose an active threat are able to be detained under dols, capacity act or mental health act.

But potentially risky is harder. What level of risk that may not happen is enough to remove someone from society?
Ive worked with people with down syndrome who are a real delight, but in moments of fear can lash out. Do they never get to go to tesco? Do their own shopping? Go to the zoo? Because they shoved a carer when they were scared two years ago?

For me there isnt a black and white dangerous and not dangerous for anyone in society

Its right for me that this gentleman was bailed to a secure facility more in line with his needs (presumably) rather than straight to prison.

It absolutley isnt
As a student mentsl health nurse nurse i had a placement on a medium secure unit
Which is a step down from Broadmoor, Ashworth ,Rampton and Carstairs ( in Scotland )
Really grim place you had to unlock every door aa you wwnt through them and lock them behind you
Everything had to be approved by the home office
It cerainly wasent a walk in the park.

In normal circumstances, yes, but if the person carrying out the act does not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of that action and realise that it can cause serious harm or death, they cannot be held culpable for their actions.

That's why English & Welsh law* has had a defence of insanity for hundreds of years.

*Possibly Scottish law too, but it's quite different from E&W.

I've visited a couple of NHS forensic mental health units, and the hospital wing of a prison.

If I had to be detained in one or the other, I'd pick the prison hospital every time.

Thankfully we are well past the days when people with special needs get locked away. Other than being aware that there were two carers ( there would be a reason someone has two carers attending) who surely SHOULD be facing sanctions ; regarding the actual perpetrator , he quite probably literally has the age and understanding of a toddler, but in a full grown body ( think overgrown big sibling). He could have been lifting the child to get a better view, the child could have already been perched on railings and he clumsily knocked him over with no understanding of action and consequence. The error here is with two people failing to supervise closely and carefully enough. Sadly the owners may also be sanctioned for having a pen where it’s possible to heft a child over , although I don’t believe the Tate were penalised as I think/ hope there is something about reasonable expectations. Hopefully the poor child will make a recovery, but as to the circumstances, we none of us know fully what happened.

He is probably already in secure accommodation

Doesn't sound very secure!!

People often end up inside for more than they would in prison too with stricter conditions. Some of my patients had to pass through 12 layers of secure ward before being discharged

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/attempted-murder/

Say this gentleman goes into prison
likely for gbh. Max sentence is 16 years, but could be as low as 2, without intent isnt always custodial. Assuming at best he is charged with attempted murder which starts at 3 to 45 i think. Looking at the sentencing guidelines he isn't likely to fall into the higher ends that require a weapon, etc and is likely to fit the reduction categories in that its likely a first time offence, vulnerability, guilty plea etc

Assuming this is in keeping with him being an incredibly dangerous man, he is likely to leave prison exactly the same with no powers to do anything unless he is charged with something else. Alternatively probation but that will be an even shorter prison sentence

Actual treatment, and being released when risk categories are satisfied and with the power to recall him if he seems to be struggling seems far more safe in the longterm

Well obviously something went wrong when he was out with two carers but the point I was making is that he hasn't been bailed to roam around freely.

Two points really:

He hasn’t been charged with anything. If you’re not charged, then after a very strict time limit, you have to be released. It’s just a question of whether you’re released freely, or on police bail.

You’re probably thinking ‘but why wasn’t he charged?’. Which brings me to

We don’t know what happened.

I am confused, I thought he was escorted by two carers.

We have no idea of this man's needs, why he did it, and what his history is. Therefore, we've no idea how predictable this was, whether breakdown in processes led to this situation, or how much he can understand actions, harm or right and wrong.

Some thoughts though. Some people with learning disabilities who have a history of risk behaviours are regularly out and about in society all the time. That you don't hear of more of these kinds of incidents is because they are well supported both in learning different behaviours, and in being prevented to have the opportunity by carers who are constantly aware of the potential.

In fact you are less likely to suffer from the actions of learning disabled people who are out and about, than you are from non-learning disabled people, regardless of similar history, and as a percentage of each group. Learning disabled people are more likely to have their world restricted due to behaviour, illegal or not, then Dave down the pub who likes throwing his fists at the end of the night.

Yes, preventative measures fail (rarely), but then so does every kind of public protection measure, in whatever area of the law, care, mental health services, health and safety, fire prevention etc. It fails FAR less with people with learning disabilities, than anyone else, not least of all because they rarely have their own voice.

As additional info, my experience in this is flipping massive, the majority of people who due to intellect, neurodiversity, as well as additional mental health needs, may not udnerstand or be able to control their own behaviour and it's consequences, are not a major problem in society. That they are not is testament to the responsibility that professionals, carers and families take on, and the dilligence that they apply to protecting both individuals with disabilities, and the wider public

As always, knee-jerk reactions will always call for more restrictive measures to be taken, and then, when the next Panarama doc comes out showing the consequences of that, they'll ne calls for better care, meanwhile, professionals who actually understand the risk, will take measures that are extremely complex, and, the vast, vast majority of the time, get it spot on.

I think this is closer to stories like when kids kill babies accidentally. So when my youngest was born my eldest was 3 and we now know likely autistic. At the time I just knew I couldn't be more than arms length from him and the baby. Grabbing distance. And he loves her, he's cuddled and held and loves on her. But he has and has always had, angry outbursts. He could definitely have thrown her. Now at 8 it's very different but for some people with intellectual disabilities they won't ever progress beyond the stage my son was at at 3. Buy they are much bigger.

His carers should have been grabbing distance and physically capable of stopping him.

@Pacificwave the Tate man was unaccompanied - you referenced him in your post at 4.29 (although others have previously mentioned him) the posts from Xeno and X2boys referred to the Tate incident. You evidently pivoted to Huntingdon case but didn't make it explict so others continued in belief that this was a side bar conv about Tate

Officers don't make those decisions, he will have been assessed by a doctor or psychologist in custody. I've only ever had, in 10 years, one suspect deemed unfit for interview (much lower bar than unfit for trial) and he was interviewed at a later date when he had been prescribed his anti psychotic medication as at the time was in the middle of a psychotic episode. The question then is if he had capacity at the time of the incident, not since being on his meds etc.

I can only assume the suspect in this case has very serious learning disabilities to not even be fit to interview.

He has learning disabilities, he was on an outing with carers, I doubt he will be ever deemed fit to stand trial so they will need to come to some secure arrangement for his care I imagine. Meanwhile they may feel he is unfit to be detained but can live where he currently is, with restrictions on his movements outside of his care setting

If the charge is attempted murder, he should NOT be given bail. He should be accommodated in a secure unit as he is clearly a danger to others.

That would be under bail to the secure unit

There certainly had to be a lot of coincidences coming together to explain away him not having any capacity. It just so happened to be one of the most dangerous animals (not the meerkats or the penguins etc.) it just so happened he managed to outsmart and slip TWO carers (despite having no capacity) and he just so happened to have picked a child who was on their own whilst no one was around to stop him. Something isn't adding up.

Also sending out two women carers with him was a terrible idea-even if they were there they'd hardly be able to overpower him.

In this case, yes. You seemed to be talking about the tate modern case? In that case, he was allowed some freedom without carers.

The problem here seems to be a lot of people don’t understand what bail is. I work very closely with the police with young people and on some occasions they need to go into secure accommodation to protect themselves/the general public. If that happens, they are BAILED into the care of the Local Authority, where they are then placed in the secure accommodation. Bail doesn’t mean that a person is out walking the streets - it means that the police need further time to complete the investigation about whether to charge. There will always be always be bail conditions in place to protect themselves victim/public/perpetrators as the police have a duty of care where they have to do these things. If someone is bailed to a secure unit, their conditions may [will] involve that they cannot leave of their own free will.

You said you’d be ‘very interested’ to hear the reasoning from anyone who could offer insight. Hmm, very interested. So interested you haven’t bothered replying.

He may well already live in accomodation that he cannot leave alone ( locks on doors that he cannot open) and doesn't leave it without carers with him. My adult son who lives in supported living has this type of arrangement as is common for those with a severe learning disability for their own safety.