People Magazine

[songline]

i was actually thinking more seriously about this and then figured they'll probably give the award to the pilot who safely landed on the Hudson river

It is those type of Cheer leading replies......never mind...

 

[kbl8201]

i remember when this thread was exclusively 'the happy thread' and cheerleading was welcomed. oh well

 

[kbl8201]

therapist says jaycee is nowhere far along enough in her therapy to confront the garridos in courrt.

but, also states, outside of this, that jaycee has made friends with a cop, and also confirms that jaycee did in fact get her drivers liscence, on february second.

in a sidebar article, it states the garridos attorneys are probably both seeking plea deals to 'get less then life senteces' now how that would work for phil i dont know, since he's supposed to be in for life regardless. then nancy's lawyer is quoted as blaming phil for nancys action 'he's crazy as a loon, but manipulative as hell'

now i find that a strange quote from a guy who said at the feb 26 hearing that nacy was 'ecstatic' that she got to talk to phil and that 'she loves him.

seems they want to have there cake and eat it too

 

[Natal]

Phil ain't getting out, and thats that. Nancy, maybe, Phil, no way.

 

[kbl8201]

as i said, it didnt make any sense

but then again.....california is releasing 10s of thousands of sex offenders

 

[SunnieRN]

Very scary to say the least, 17000+ SO.

 

[Natal]

It doesn't mean they are all dangerous though. The people you need to be specifically concerned about are the ones that commit violent offences or are likely to re-offend (which apparently doesn't include most of the SOs). I assume that they would be filtering the folk they are releasing, and they would be mostly the non-dangerous type.

 

[kbl8201]

im not worried about horny 18 year olds dating a 17 year old or a guy pissing in the park. im worried about guys like garrido and chelsea and ambers killers, and there doesnt have to be 17000 of those to cause havoc

 

[SunnieRN]

It doesn't mean they are all dangerous though. The people you need to be specifically concerned about are the ones that commit violent offences or are likely to re-offend (which apparently doesn't include most of the SOs). I assume that they would be filtering the folk they are releasing, and they would be mostly the non-dangerous type.

No, it doesn't mean they are all dangerous, but even 1 who is would be too many. As far as filtering them prior to release, my trust in most LE agencies that are monitoring SO's is not at its highest level. There are too many repeat offenders out there causing havoc.

 

[Natal]

But you can't lock them all up, these are people who have served their sentences. If there is an issue with keeping dangerous offenders, then adjust all sentencing by legislation to be X to life, where X is the "punishment" component and "to life" is the protection of society component. Then, if someone is not dangerous, release them when their punishment is done, and if they are dangerous, just keep them in prison.

Using civil mental health institutions for that purpose is stupid. What happens if one of these folk is dangerous but not mentally ill? How could they rationalize committing someone like that and would it even be constitutional? And what about people who have been wrongly convicted and maintain their innocence - are they to be locked up in a mental asylum because they refuse to confess when their sentence is up?

 

[kbl8201]

ummmm natal they arent realising them cause there senteces are up.

 

[FlaJohn]

Considering the fact that the recidivism rate among SOs is at least 25%, this means that California just made sure that they'll have about 4,500 new victims of sex crimes. :furious:

 

[Natal]

So, were you planning on providing the $400 million or so a year it would cost to lock them up?

 

[kbl8201]

natal whats more important, losing money to taxes or losing loved ones to perverts?

 

[Natal]

It's not my taxes, I don't live in California. But, if I did, I would prefer the money be spent productively rather than locking up tens of thousands of people, who have allready served their sentences, in mental asylums. Especially if the state was allready in a poor financial situation.

 

[BeenaBobba]

It's not my taxes, I don't live in California. But, if I did, I would prefer the money be spent productively rather than locking up tens of thousands of people, who have allready served their sentences, in mental asylums. Especially if the state was allready in a poor financial situation.

CA prisons are horrendously overcrowded, too. IMO, CA's three strikes law makes things even worse. Instead of protecting society from dangerous offenders like PG, there are nearly innumerable people locked up for life because they were convicted of three or more less serious felonies (e.g., drug violations). Not only that, but the sex offender registry is littered with people who are on the list for peeing in public or for having sex with a seventeen-year-old (even when they're eighteen). IMO, that also takes attention away from the more dangerous offenders.

 

[Natal]

Considering the fact that the recidivism rate among SOs is at least 25%, this means that California just made sure that they'll have about 4,500 new victims of sex crimes. :furious:

The largest data set I could find on the recidivism rate is a Department of Justice statistics report for 9691 men released after serving time for sex offenses in 15 states in 1994. You can read it here. According to them the recidivism rate for new sex offences for those folk is about 2% per year after release (start reading from page 24 for the sex crime stats). They tracked for three years, so it isn't clear if that rate holds steady or starts to plateau as you go further out in time. There are other studies which show higher numbers, but they have much smaller sample sizes and consequently are less accurate. The DoJ study showed a 43% rate of returning to prison over those three years, but the vast majority of those cases involved non-sexual crimes.

 

[jazerelle]

Hello out there. On a way happier note. Just read today about a local sex offender. He raped his niece when she was 12. He got life on her testimony alone. so if this is the way juries are going, then its a sure thing PG will get life and hopefully NG too.

(Please note the IF in that sentence)

 

[kbl8201]

jazz the cynic in me says he'll be one of the 17000 released......

 

[not_my_kids]

One of the newly illegally released SO's killed a girl 4 days post release...their screening process is a bit lacking it would seem.

As far as Jaycee not being far enough along in the process to see them in court, I'm not surprised. There is nothing tougher than that will be. Empowering, yes, but she will need to be in a place where she can be empowered by the experience. The G's have nothing to gain by Jaycee healing, they won't be helping the process. She needs to be ready and thankfully it seems they are mindful that she will get there, she can't be rushed there.

I don't think the G's stand much of a chance of getting out. High profile cases have better outcomes. No one wants to have the political responsibility for the next Jaycee, and no one wants the media to start digging at them next, as would happen if they gave out light sentences for this particular case.