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

Where has it been reported he was on escorted leave? Everything I’ve read just says he was with two carers.

I don’t really understand why the two carers is being seized on as a indicator of other factors. My mum was a support worker for adults with learning disabilities until she retired a few years and had clients they supported in pairs. All their clients lived at home or in supported accommodation and some of them had 2 carers just because they ran away when out.

I agree he is still a risk to society but we do not know the terms of the bail.

You would unfortunately be surprised. I am aware of somebody who was convicted of GBH in April and who is apparently looking at a ten year stretch, who is still wandering around freely pending sentencing some time in Autumn. He has never been on remand. Those of us who know him are honestly shocked, he is a very violent and unpleasant person. It has really made us lose confidence in the legal system.

Absolutely no one is saying that. How ridiculous.

Do people think prison is set up to deal with individuals with severe learning disabilities who need 2:1 care in the communitity? He may need to be somewhere secure but potentially already is, if he needed 2 people to take him to a public place. As for fitness to be interviewed, I interpret it in this case to mean he is either non verbal or has a cognitive capacity so low he would not be able to understand charges, communicate with lawyer, or be able to meaningfully answer questions. How would people propose to interview this person? Bail is appropriate in my view depending on the bail conditions and his residential situation - assuming it's 24hour secure care

Courts can put conditions on bail and so it doesn’t seem very likely that someone like this would be bailed back into exactly the same situation and any risk of something similar happening again. There will have been assessments to determine how to manage any risk. Courts will do this all the time but usually it’s not so high profile, which makes me think they will have been extra careful about it if anything.

Well it will come out, but I find it hard to believe there would be a situation where someone has assessed this individual and drawn the conclusion that he needs 2 carers but there has never been any impulsive or violent tendencies. It’s actually incredibly unlikely.

Well for a start he hasn’t been charged with anything so he can’t be remanded to jail. He has been released on conditional bail with what I imagine will be conditions to go to a secure mental health hospital as he wasn’t interviewed due to being unfit. The likelihood is he will stay there until he is deemed fit to be rearrested and interviewed if that point ever occurs. We don’t know what his disabilities are so we don’t know if he had mens rea or the capacity to know what he was doing was wrong. But if his issues are such he wasn’t fit to be interviewed then he won’t be wandering the streets

If he lacks understanding, what is the point? It has highlighted the fact that care the community can be dangerous, carers don’t always need the ability or strength to slow down or stop a disaster taking fold.
I would say he is in a mental health hospital for now.

Care agency staff often have to keep a record of everything on an app on their phones and some agencies or staff take this to extremes. One agency that worked with my son told staff to do minute by minute accounts which is unsafe because they spent all their time writing rather than ensuring my son's safety.

He may not have “chosen to push a child into the crocodile enclosure” at all. For all we know his level of understanding is at the level where he wanted to be at point B and something was in his way so he moved it, he may not have understood what he was moving or where he was moving it to.

What on earth makes you think he's being allowed to walk around, let alone being allowed back to visit a zoo?

All this speculation needs to stop. Not a single person giving an opinion knows the circumstances.

Anything is possible of course.

YANBU he's clearly dangerous. Two carers couldn't prevent him from trying to kill a random kid. He is clearly not safe to be out in public. Learning difficulties or not. The people currently responsible for him are clearly not capable, he needs to be in a secure unit. Obviously the police haven't been able to arrange that level of complex care within less than 24 hours.

An individual may need 2 carers for several reasons that don't involve impulsive or violent tendencies.

I agree though that considering what happened, it is unlikely to be true in this case.

I'm sorry that happened to your son. What the police told you is absolute nonsense. There are separate legal processes where someone is unable to stand trial.

In a secure forensic unit

People wanting to throw him in prison need to look at the law and blame that. It makes sense to me though.

What Is “Fitness to Plead”?
“Fitness to plead” is about competency to stand trial. It’s all about whether someone has the mental and cognitive ability to understand and take part in criminal proceedings. If a person can’t do this because of a mental disorder, brain injury, or learning disability, they may be found unfit to plead, meaning they cannot be fairly tried in the usual way. This idea has deep roots in law, stretching back to the 19th-century case R v Pritchard (1836). The judge in that case laid out the key questions that still guide courts today:

• Can the defendant understand the charges?
• Can they decide how to plead?
• Can they instruct their solicitor or barrister?
• Can they follow what’s happening in court?
• And could they give evidence if needed?

A place in a secure assessment and treatment unit can certainly be arranged in that time frame.

Prisons are already full to bursting, and certainly don't have the expertise or facilities to deal with those with severe learning disabilities. The point of refusing bail is not to punish the accused, because they haven't been convicted. It is purely to keep the public safe, stop the accused absconding etc. There is no reason to believe all of that cannot be achieved in a secure care home.

He didn't just push the child out the way, he picked them up and threw them in.

5p says this thread has been infiltrated by American provocateurs.

I was thinking of that boy who was thrown off the Tate building too. That man was out with his carers, again two of them. If a person needs two carers I’m immediately struck by that. Clearly that person is a risk. If that’s the case then for gods sake, keep them away from the public. Ffs. It’s not hard. If they pose even a mild risk then keep them away. Children deserve better. Nice for the grown adult to go to the zoo, but it should never trump the safety of the public.

I kind of miss the days when things were less 'complex'.

No you don't lock them up in case they MIGHT do something, but you should almost certainly lock them up AFTER they have done something.

It doesn't mean torture or ignore them forever, it just means keeping the public safe. If this man doesn't realise what he's done is wrong, then in all likelihood he might choose to repeat it.

I can't imagine this is a great advert for encouraging people into care work either.