Topic: Kidnap victim Jaycee Dugard: Cashing in on taxpayers

[IronDioPriest]

Now I've gone and lost sympathy for this woman. She suffered terribly, and her life was literally ruined beyond comprehension.

But now she's going to sue Unca Shuggah?

Perhaps I should keep my sympathy intact. It's likely that she's mentally and emotionally stunted, and being led around by the nose by attorneys looking to cash in.

Dugard sues feds over failure to monitor abductor

... The complaint alleges that the federal government's negligence allowed Garrido to be free to kidnap Dugard. The complaint said federal authorities were aware he was still dangerous yet failed to revoke his parole and send him back to prison....

<snip>

...Dugard's lawyers list a number of incidences in the complaint of alleged misconduct by federal authorities from failing to get Garrido proper mental health treatment to not providing adequate information to state authorities when he was transferred to their charge. They also say authorities neglected to take steps to ensure Garrido wouldn't commit another crime...

[LadyVirginia]

I disagree IDP.

How else does one hold those people accountable? 

I know, I know.   
But that's not everyone's preference--some do prefer the legal system.

Dugard is seeking unspecified damages from the federal complaint that she says she will donate to her nonprofit organization to help other victims.

Unfortunately, it will come from the taxpayers.  It should come from the pockets of those who failed to act.

[IronDioPriest]

People are always seeking someone or some entity from whom they can extract compensation for their misfortune. The person responsible for the evil perpetrated is the scumbag who kidnapped and raped Dugard.

To go after taxpayer dollars reeks of opportunism to me, even though as I said, it is likely the opportunism of lawyers.

[LadyVirginia]

People are always seeking someone or some entity from whom they can extract compensation for their misfortune. The person responsible for the evil perpetrated is the scumbag who kidnapped and raped Dugard.

To go after taxpayer dollars reeks of opportunism to me, even though as I said, it is likely the opportunism of lawyers.

I think people charged with public safety and whatnot have a duty to act properly.  If a citizen can't sue then those people/agencies have no incentive to carry out their duties in a responsible manner.

We're talking about scum there was reason to be vigilant about monitoring.  Those people failed to bother. And it contributed to her suffering for 18 years. 

I don't know the law but maybe she can't sue the individuals personally.  But even if she can I don't see any other way to hold government agencies accountable except by suing. 

[IronDioPriest]

I hate to invoke a slippery slope in DEFENSE of a justice system that I generally loath due to its incompetence.

But if we are going to have a system that allows felons back into the population after serving a sentence, I don't see how it's possible to allow victims to sue the government for failing to protect them from released felons without encouraging a flood of such lawsuits.

What percentage of violent crime is committed by someone released from prison?

Extrapolate that and imagine if suing the government for supposedly failing to protect people from such felons became the norm.

I don't see how anybody wins, or how the taxpayer is not the clear loser.

Just my opinion. Interesting subject to contemplate.

[LadyVirginia]

If the taxpayer is outraged at having to foot the bill for damages then it is up to the taxpayer to pursue changing how these agencies are run by demanding incompetent employees be replaced and the agencies' policies reviewed.

Sure there are lots of repeat offenders but this wasn't strictly a case of a felon unknown to anyone going off and committing another crime. There were reasons to follow up on him.  Obviously, Dugard's lawyers will argue the employees failed to carry out their jobs.

Dugard's lawyers list a number of incidences in the complaint of alleged misconduct by federal authorities from failing to get Garrido proper mental health treatment to not providing adequate information to state authorities when he was transferred to their charge. They also say authorities neglected to take steps to ensure Garrido wouldn't commit another crime.

It says Garrido tested positive for drugs and alcohol while on parole, a violation for a sex offender, but was never punished. It also says authorities ignored reports of sexual misconduct, including a complaint that Garrido showed up at his former victim's work and made an "alarming" comment to her.

"Inexplicably, the federal parole authorities responsible for Garrido's direct supervision disregarded the victim's concerns as mere hysteria," the documents say.

After the incident, Garrido's counselor recommended electronic monitoring, but his parole officer disregarded it as "too much of a hassle," according to the complaint.

I guess I always err on the side of the right to seek redress in the judicial system and letting the parties sort it out regardless of motives.

[charlesoakwood]

That's the case, there were multiple reasons to revoke his parole.  They can pay her or put the atzholes in prison who were responsible for that convict staying on the street.  Start doing that and they will start doing their job.

Make sure someone is truly eligible for parole then make sure he obeys the rules.  Don't fine the govt. a pay off is easy.
Put them in prison.  Allow them to get a feeling for what they are responsible.

[LadyVirginia]

Just my opinion. Interesting subject to contemplate.

Ah, yes.  A nice change to discuss something other than that man in Washington!  I enjoyed it.

[IronDioPriest]

I do see the need for there to be a remedy for judicial system/law enforcement incompetence or negligence. I just have a philosophical problem with what seems to be a society-wide mindset that says if something bad happens to you, someone must be made to pay you a large sum of money, and if the person who caused the harm has no money, you go after whatever entity to whom a lawyer can draw a correlation, however tenuous.

The correlation may be justified in this instance, but in too many instances, the entity being sued is cornered into settling the case or risking going to trial and losing to the whims of a fickle jury prone to hand out large sums to victims out of sympathy.

So I guess what I'm saying is that after contemplation, my distaste is more on principle than on the specifics of this case. I don't like it that the taxpayer can be held over a barrel when a crime victim wants to sue the government because their assailant wasn't given the "proper" government mental health treatment, or wasn't handled by parole officers in a way that only hindsight can guarantee 100%. It is too arbitrary, and opens the taxpayer up to exposure to financial risk that I do not think necessarily belongs there.

I like Charles' idea. How about we codify negligence of this sort, and make it a criminal offense? Put people like the ones who failed Jaycee Dugard in prison. That'll cost money too, but at least the taxpayer gets something in return - as in - real justice instead of this justice-by-windfall litigation crap.

[LadyVirginia]

IDP, you make a great point.  One in which I can relate to somewhat.

Years ago we got a letter from a lawyer asking for $35,000.  He was careful not to threaten legal action but it was pretty clear what our choice was supposed to be.

It was also pretty clear that the rehabber who'd purchased our house had run into some problems and thought extorting cash from us would be the remedy.

My husband wrote the lawyer a letter pointing out that his client was tearing apart the house and that was more likely the reason for the problems and not our failure to inform the purchaser of defects in the house (of which there were none--at least that we were aware of).

Never heard from them again.  It really burned me that they thought we'd hand over $35,000!  I suppose they probably were counting on us to negotiate a smaller sum.

As to your point, civil liability seems a poor substitute for criminal behavior which is what this Dugard situation probably is.

[Glock32]

I heard on Rush's show yesterday that she already got a $20 million settlement from the state of California (which has no money). Now going after the Feds too? It's true, I can't imagine what she went through. Her whole childhood and young adulthood were stolen from her. But I really can't help but believe she is now being manipulated by a gaggle of lawyers seeing dollar signs.

Why not put Garrido on ice, and part his ass out like a broken down car? Surely someone somewhere would pay for a kidney, a liver, a cornea, whatever. Give Dugard the salvage title on that POS and let her get restitution that way.

[IronDioPriest]

Yep, the woman will be rich, and her lawyers along the way. And truth told, I don't begrudge her some kind of help from somewhere that will set her up comfortably for life, because it's highly likely that she is incapable of every holding meaningful employment. I'm certain she's disabled by her ordeal, having spent her entire life from age 11 to 29[?] having no contact with the outside world.

The thing is, there will be many along that path to riches who will believe someone who went through what she went through "deserves" to be paid. But going after big bucks from government is a step away from the same kind of mentality that overtook people in the aftermath of 9/11 - something terrible happened, pay the victims money. Somebody must pay. Go after the deep pockets, and don't dare protest or you're a cruel heartless bastard.

[Thresherman]

Unfortunately you sometimes have to sue the govt to effect change.  The amount in California was not enough, they should have had to pay 20 times that or more and then maybe the even the liberals would be demanding accountability from the faceless bureaucrats that allowed this to happen.  If they would have had to pay that much, then maybe the democratic fools who populate the statehouse would also start demanding accountability.  It is sad but true, but the practicioners of infallable big governemnt have to have their noses rubbed in it before they can see the truth.  While to us, $20 million is a staggering amount of money, to them it is chump change and no one gets upset over chump change.  I don't like it, but it is the fact of the matter.

[charlesoakwood]

It's not their money.  Good to see you Thresherman. 
Those that did not do their job, failed at their responsibility will get a letter in their file.
I'm not saying she shouldn't get some money too.  I'm saying also, those that failed and their supervisors
should suffer such a penalty that all others with that responsibility will be highly motivated to do their job.

Maybe let her part them out too.



 

[John Florida]

It's not their money.  Good to see you Thresherman. 
Those that did not do their job, failed at their responsibility will get a letter in their file.
I'm not saying she shouldn't get some money too.  I'm saying also, those that failed and their supervisors
should suffer such a penalty that all others with that responsibility will be highly motivated to do their job.

Maybe let her part them out too.

 



 

 The letter should read you're fired, no pention not medical no nothing will be forth coming and you mat be criminally responsible.

[IronDioPriest]

That's part of the rub. If the state or federal governments pay her a windfall, how will the actual individuals who failed be held accountable?

In my opinion, firing them is the very least action that would be satisfactory and actually address the problem.

[John Florida]

That's part of the rub. If the state or federal governments pay her a windfall, how will the actual individuals who failed be held accountable?

In my opinion, firing them is the very least action that would be satisfactory and actually address the problem.

 I hate to say it because it is taxpayer money but those idiots helped ruin her life.