(CNN) -- Phillip Garrido was registered as a sex offender, required to meet with parole officers and fitted with an ankle bracelet to track his movements -- but nothing prevented him from being around children, according to a victims' advocacy group.
Garrido, who is charged with kidnapping and raping Jaycee Lee Dugard -- a young woman who police say lived with her two daughters in a huddle of tents and outbuildings hidden behind Garrido's home -- was arrested last week along with his wife Nancy. Both have pleaded not guilty.
Here's what really bothers me about this story:
He was sentenced in 1977 to 50 years at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, for kidnapping, because he abducted Hall in California and transported her across the state line to Reno, Nevada, where he raped her in a warehouse, according to court documents. A Nevada court separately sentenced him to five years to life for the rape conviction, the Reno Gazette-Journal reported.
Got that? 50 years. In 1977. That means he should have been in jail when he kidnapped 11 year old Jaycee. Why was he out?
After more than a decade at Leavenworth, Garrido received a federal parole but was sent to Carson City, Nevada, in January 1988 to serve his rape sentence. However, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal, he was automatically eligible for state parole because of the time served in federal prison.
A decade. Think about that. The man was sentenced to 50 years in a Federal prison, yet was out on the street in 10 years. That's only 20% of his sentence. In this case, justice wasn't merely blind; it was deaf, dumb, and stupid as well. The government had zero interest in keeping this predator behind bars, seeing him fit to be released after serving only a small portion of his sentence. Once can only wonder how little time he'll serve for keeping human chattel for decades...
And yet people wonder why we carry guns...
That is all.
6 comments:
Jay, I'm a firm believer in taking rapists, and especially child molesters, and letting them sleep off their punishment. Yeah, a nice dirt nap for them...
BTW, I have three kids, two daughters and a son. Maybe that's why I feel that way about this.
As it turns out, I grew up in the same little burg where this guy kept his captive. Not only that, I actually lived down the street from him at one point, as a kid.
And I agree, child molesters and rapists don't deserve second chances.
Get this: Arrrnald is lobbying to release 40,000 prisoners back onto California streets to ease his irresponsible over-spending. Isn't that just lovely. How many child molesters, gang bangers, house breakers, drug addicts, illegal aliens, drunk drivers, felonious assaulters, et. el. will that work out to be?
I'm with Rick on this... and I don't even have kids.
As long as the evidence is better than testimony, anyway... don't want to kill those the innocent.
I'll settle for mandatory castration and lobotomy of any they let out on the street again. (On the basis that castration lowers sexual urges and lobotomy greatly inhibits spontaneity),
Or, having seen the desired punishment of child molesters and also seen the FACTS about BS convictions like the McMartin case and the one in Wenatchee Washington that maybe we might wanna hold off on the lynching of ACCUSED abusers. Juries Do make mistakes, especially where child molestation is the subject.
The case in question would have easily been taken care of by what I've been calling for for nearly 20 years: Eliminate parole and make any violent or sex offender do 85% of the sentence.
And for mister Constitution First: You really think we should spend $23,000 a year housing drug addicts? That's so stupid it hardly bears mentioning, but given the rest of your post, I seriously doubt you have a clue about actual penology.
Bill: having a sex offender serve 85% of their sentence is a nice start. Then pop it up to 100%, and start giving out longer sentences.
Predators do NOT rehabilitate. Doesn't happen. Even those who have undergone castration can continue to be a problem: they don't get off on the sex, but on the control. If you want me to go into detail, hit my site: not gonna profane Jay's comments section with that info.
As far as drug users and the like, I happen to agree with you: there are WAY too many "criminals" in the system, based only on drug use or sale. But that's a discussion for another time...
Post a Comment