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

Well there is a reason why victims don't get to judge or sentence their perpetrators trials - because fair, legal justice matters.

What (appears to have) happened is terrible, but public safety will already "come first", it just might come in the form of a hospital order rather than prison. Capacity and intentions are really important parts of our law. If you had a random heart attack at the wheel of your car and veered into someone on the pavement, would it be fair to go to prison for life for murder?

I don’t disagree that public safety of children should come first.

However, our current HMP prison service is completely unsustainable and not appropriate for the level of care this man will require. Including a prison hospital wing.

Do not call people “ridiculous” when you clearly have a total lack of experience and knowledge of the complexities of secure care.

What a crazy thing for her to say. Of course you’re going to let go of a 3yr olds hands at the zoo. You do not expect someone to throw your child into the crocodile pit. Just absolutely horrendous, can’t imagine what the family went through. All credit to the female owner who jumped in for him, what a brave and selfless thing to do, takes an incredible amount of courage.

Prison would be a disgustingly unfair and cruel option. I do however agree he should be in a secure unit now but one where he is treated with kindness and his clearly very high needs compassionately met but not allowed out in public due to the danger he poses.

Well, in this case, obviously. My point is that this man didn’t throw a three-year-old into a crocodile pit because he has learning difficulties. Plenty of people have those.

He did it because he will undoubtedly also have known issues with aggression and emotional regulation, which is the part that is being elided by calling him “vulnerable”. No. The vulnerable person in this case was the child who is now in hospital with critical injuries.

I think it’s wildly unreasonable to expect two carers, making just above minimum wage, to have the responsibility of making sure this man doesn’t cause the public harm when out and about. The man shouldn’t be in public places now he’s proven to be such a danger. He clearly needs to be in a secure unit.

He certainly wasn’t being cared for at the time was he?

Until this case has been fully investigated, none of us knows what happened, what the motivation was, whether it was completely random (and therefore couldn't be predicted at all) etc etc.

Even with "known issues of aggression" - I highly doubt anyone thought he would wake up that day and throw a child to crocodiles. There is a very wide spectrum of "known issues of aggression" - from isolated, mild incidents years ago, to regular and serious violence. There are plenty of (many, many) people without LD who have hit people at some point in their lives or otherwise shown aggression and we don't lock them up indefinitely.

Both the perpetrator and the victim can be vulnerable. Obviously in this moment the child was much more vulnerable, but that doesn't negate the (presumed / speculated) vulnerabilities or lack of capacity of the perpetrator.

If an adult requires two other adults to prevent him from doing harm to small children in public, then yes, he does require locking up somewhere, whether that’s jail or a specialist facility.

This. You don't just say "well he didn't mean to kill a 3 year old he's learning disabled". Unfortunately if someone is prone to such incredibly dangerous behaviours, intentional or not, the public must be kept safe from them.

If anything i would say the spontaneity/unpredictability makes it even more dangerous

It will be technical bail. He may have been sectioned, or housed somewhere secure. Custody suites aren’t set up for people with very complex needs and the investigation is likely to take a long time. There are also complex legalities around fitness to detain, fitness for interview, and then, much later, fitness to plead. They won’t have just opened the police station door and shoved him out.

The thing is, this could have been his first violent incident. He may have had two carers with him because of vulnerability, toileting issues, risks to himself etc. We don’t know the details. This could be his first incident of aggression to others.

It will now go on his risk assessment, obviously. But for everybody, if they are violent, there always has to be the first offence and this could have been the one for this man. The carers may be as shocked as everyone else. I’m sure the details will come out.

This is the same as the Tate wtf

It’s a similar case to the man who threw the boy off the Tate a few years ago… Also had severe learning difficulties. The fault surely lies with the carers.

this thread is ill advised given that the matter is sub judice.

I actually think it's quite different from what I've heard so far.

He planned it, this doesn't sound planned (though I stand to be corrected as more information comes out). He was also fit to be interviewed if I remember correctly and had autism & mental health issues but not an intellectual disability.

Sure, Jan.

Where has this one come from? Just because it’s rightly been called out as unreasonable to use ‘Karen’ as an insult doesn’t mean it should be replaced me another name!!

Why does the suspect's vulnerability or discomfort matter? The carers on their phones didn't chuck a kid into a crocodile pit as much as people want to blame them for this incident. The crime should stand alone. Chuck a child into a crocodile pit and you should be dealing with GBH/attempted murder of a child charges, not being bailed and going home to sleep in your own bed. When did we become so uncomfortable with just applying the punishment for the crime? The consequences of the crime to the victim don't change so why should they be different for the perpetrator.

Oh come on. People have distinctive personalities that are evident over time. Sudden extreme violence doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere in a person who has previously given no indication of a tendency towards it. A serious learning disability makes it even more vanishingly unlikely that he’s been masking a tendency for violence for 30 years.

Care in the community failed

This man had such a level of additional needs he wasn’t able to be interviewed. He has 2 carers at all times.

my friends son is severely mentally disabled and has two full time carers. He is also impulsive and does stuff. All I can compare it to is him.

if he did this, there would be absolutely no point in jailing him, he would not understand what he has done. Or even why he shouldn’t.

the issue here lies with the carers and how this happened. The police are now trying to work out whay to do, and even if he can be held criminally responsible.

The Brady Bunch.

Abhorrent idea.

I work in mental health. And the one thing I have learnt over 30 years is that people can always surprise you. You cannot predict what people are going to do. Genuinely.