9.25.2011

Should Children Have The Right To Sue The Government For Failure To Protect Them From Criminals? Part II



By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Anyone can bring a civil law suit against another person, organization and/or group. The laws are there for those who believe they have been harmed in some manner. There are many situations where tragedies occur and filing a law suit may be seen as a method to find relief for the harm one suffered.

Jaycee Part II.png
Jaycee Dugard
In the Jaycee Dugard matter, she has filed a law suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California. According to the complaint Dugard alleges the U.S. Government failed to supervise her kidnapper and rapist Phillip Garrido, who held her captive for 18 years and fathered two of her children.

So the major questions are, “Is the Federal Government responsible for allowing a kidnapper and rapist i.e. Phillip Garrido to run loose between 1991 to his apprehension in 2009?”  There is a multitude of issues which need to be taken into consideration. They are:

1.      Is the Federal Government responsible to protect every citizen from evil human beings, such as Garrido?
2.      Is the Federal Government responsible for the psychiatrist who examined and evaluated Garrido back in the middle 1980’s?
3.      Is the Federal Government responsible for the type of testing the psychiatrist utilized to evaluate Garrido back in the middle 1980’s?
4.      Is the Federal Government responsible for making the decision to allow Garrido to re-enter the community in 1988?
5.      Is the Federal Government responsible that during Garrido incarceration from the late 1970’s to the middle 1980’s Garrido did not receive sexual deviance counseling?
6.      Is the Federal Government responsible for the parole and supervision program that Garrido was under when he was released in 1988?
7.      Is the Federal Government responsible for not keeping Garrido incarcerated after he violated his parole in 1991; being released in 1993?
8.      Is the Federal Government responsible for the parole and supervision program that Garrido was under when he was re-released in 1993?
9.      Is the Federal Government responsible for reducing Garrido’s parole from extensive monitoring to a passive monitoring?
10.  Is the Federal Government responsible for not identifying and utilizing a more aggressive monitoring program which would have made Garrido behavior accountable and responsible to the Federal Government?
11.  Is the Federal Government responsible for the behavior of Nancy Garrido when Garrido was incarcerated between 1991 to 1993.
12.  Is the Federal Government responsible for not detecting that the Garrido’s had custody of Jaycee Dugard during the time frame between 1991 to 2009?
13.  Is the Federal Government responsible for the supervision process that Garrido was under during the years of 1977 to 2009?
14.  Is the Federal Government responsible for the psychiatrists who examined and monitored Garrido to make the determination that he could be released back into the community?
15.  Is the Federal Government responsible for the parole officers and parole system that was responsible for Garrido?

This “Is the Federal Government” questions are technical and thorough enough to demonstrate that there just maybe some culpability by the Federal Government, the criminal justice system and the Federal Government employees. The above questions are reasonable and logical and need extensive examination and evaluation.

Dugard’s attorney has the responsibility of finding the answers to my multiple questions. There are further questions that could be asked, but the foundation of the questions which are detailed above will have those in the criminal justice system asking is the Dugard matter an anomaly or is it the standard in the community of the criminal justice system which bears no responsibility by the Federal Government.

In this author’s opinion there is no doubt that the Federal Government, the criminal justice system and its employees failed to be responsible and do the right thing. Dugard’s presence at the Garrido residence during 1991 to 2009 should have been detected by the parole officers who were responsible for Garrido.

Garrido Part II.jpg
Phillip Garrido
It has yet to be intimately conveyed the steps that Garrido took to keep Dugard from revealing that she was a victim of kidnapping, mental, physical and sexual abuse. The reasons for the failure to detect Dugard’ s presence at the Garrido compound will eventually come out and this could make a difference if Dugard has a legitimate complaint against the Federal Government.

The psychological damage that Dugard suffered during the 18 years of captivation will play a major role in determining if she has a legitimate complaint. If Dugard does or doesn’t have a legitimate complaint the circumstances surrounding this case should make the Federal Government reevaluate where they were between 1991 to 2009 and what changes need to be made to make the criminal justice process work properly.

Tomorrow, I will continue the reviewing process of what took place between 1991 and 2009; the captivity time of Dugard. The questions about Dugard i.e. could she have escaped, could she have taken risks which would have exposed the Garrido’s and what steps did she take to find her freedom? These questions and more I will deal with as I research the victimization of Jaycee Dugard and the reasons for the criminal justice system who failed to protect her from a violent serial sexual offender.

This is

0 comments:

Post a Comment

All comments and feedback appreciated!

Criminology & Justice Headline Animator

Psychology

Law Books

Corrections

Sociology

Crime

Serial Killers

Criminology

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...