People Magazine

[jazerelle]

Nah he missed that get out of jail free pass. Just got sentenced so hasn't gone yet.

 

[jazerelle]

PG doesn't give a s**t about Jaycee or the girls. He wants the world to know what a great person he is, what a lovely family he created, and how he now has the power to heal because of his fantastic black box. And Nancy is just as bad.

*jumps of ranting box and goes back to work*

 

[kbl8201]

garrido failed to get jaycee to do his bidding, if he fails to get the girls to do it, maybe we'll get lucky and he'll off himself.

 

[jazerelle]

Wouldn't that be great. I keep looking for that in the news actually.

 

[FlaJohn]

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)

PG already had a "life" plus 50 year sentence for a kidnapping and rape conviction yet he got out in less than 10 years, which is why I so strongly support the death penalty. I've seen to many monsters commit more heinous crimes after getting out early from a "life" sentence... :furious:

 

[Natal]

PG already had a "life" plus 50 year sentence for a kidnapping and rape conviction yet he got out in less than 10 years, which is why I so strongly support the death penalty. I've seen to many monsters commit more heinous crimes after getting out early from a "life" sentence... :furious:

The "life" sentence was 5 years to life, there was never an expectation that he would actually spend life in prison. But, since it the sentence did cover life, that would have been the reason for the life parole. The federal sentence was 50 years, he served 11 years and then did another 11 on parole. I'm guessing that they use some sort of formula to calculate how much you actually do, it would appear to be 45% with half in prison and half on parole, assuming good behaviour.

 

[jazerelle]

Well obviously the "good behavior" did not happen.

 

[JBean]

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?

We have a law on the books that they must be assessed, in person, by 2 psychiatrists to determine if they are a danger prior to release. It is called Jessica's Law. As of today this law is not being enforced, but rather they are being paper screened by a psychiatrist. Most of us know that it is virtually impossible to get an accurate assessment without actually interviewing the offender.

so what many Californians want is to enforce the current law. this complaint is coming from our mental health department professionals. They know that the law is not being followed and realize the danger to our communities. this isn't about locking everyone up, this is about following a law to have them assessed properly before release. lives and rape victims would have already been spared if this was already happening.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4892662#post4892662"]California Dept. of Mental Health Illegally Releases 17 Thousand Sex Offenders - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Natal]

We have a law on the books that they must be assessed, in person, by 2 psychiatrists to determine if they are a danger prior to release. As of today this law is not being enforced, but rather they are being paper screened by a psychiatrist. Most of us know that it is virtually impossible to get an accurate assessment without actually interviewing the offender.

so what many Californians want is to enforce the current law. this complaint is coming from our mental health department professionals. They know that the law is not being followed and realize the danger to our communities. this isn't about locking everyone up, this is about following a law to have them assessed properly before release. lives and rape victim would have already been spared if this was already happening.

California Dept. of Mental Health Illegally Releases 17 Thousand Sex Offenders - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Yes, I know that, but even a live interview would not be adequate, the only real way of knowing would be if these doctors had extensive contact with the inmate prior to release, and that is not going to happen nor is it required by the law. The main criteria they would use in those interviews would be if the inmate admitted to the crime and expressed remorse, which would evident from paper documentation anyway. The guy accused of killing Chelsea King for example would not have recieved a negative psych report if he had admitted to the crime and expressed remorse - faced with the possibility of not being released after his sentence was complete and instead going to an asylum until he did confess and express remorse, what do you think he would have told those psychiatrists? PG was released with good reviews and we saw what he did, because he told them the right things. This law might be on the books but it is not going to solve the problem.

What has people up in arms is the misunderstanding that all of these people should be and would be committed when in fact very few would be, and most of those that would have been probably are with the system they are currently using. It comes down to return for the cost. I would guess that someone reviewed the process and decided that those funds would be spent more effectively somewhere else in the system.

 

[JBean]

Yes, I know that, but even a live interview would not be adequate, the only real way of knowing would be if these doctors had extensive contact with the inmate prior to release, and that is not going to happen nor is it required by the law. The main criteria they would use in those interviews would be if the inmate admitted to the crime and expressed remorse, which would evident from paper documentation anyway. The guy accused of killing Chelsea King for example would not have recieved a negative psych report if he had admitted to the crime and expressed remorse - faced with the possibility of not being released after his sentence was complete and instead going to an asylum until he did confess and express remorse, what do you think he would have told those psychiatrists? PG was released with good reviews and we saw what he did, because he told them the right things. This law might be on the books but it is not going to solve the problem.

What has people up in arms is the misunderstanding that all of these people should be and would be committed when in fact very few would be, and most of those that would have been probably are with the system they are currently using. It comes down to return for the cost. I would guess that someone reviewed the process and decided that those funds would be spent more effectively somewhere else in the system.

Actually,the mental health professionals within the system are "up in arms" about the fact that Jessica's Law is being ignored. There is a greater likelihood, in my opinion, that potential repeat offenders will be identified with enforcement of the law that is already on the books as opposed to the sytem of passing them through with a paper screening. It is the mental health insiders that are telling us that the laws are not being followed and that it is having a detrimental effect.
LOL,it is further frightening if someone is reviewing our current laws for cost effectiveness and making unilateral decisions as to which ones to enforce and which ones not to.
Strip everything away and we have a solid law on the book that is not being enforced. None of our laws in a vaccum will solve any of our problems.

http://www.klaaskids.org/Attorney_General_Complaint.pdf

 

[kbl8201]

i would think they learned something from jaycee, obviously they havent.

they arent learning anything from chelsea or amber either.

 

[songline]

We have a law on the books that they must be assessed, in person, by 2 psychiatrists to determine if they are a danger prior to release. It is called Jessica's Law. As of today this law is not being enforced, but rather they are being paper screened by a psychiatrist. Most of us know that it is virtually impossible to get an accurate assessment without actually interviewing the offender.

so what many Californians want is to enforce the current law. this complaint is coming from our mental health department professionals. They know that the law is not being followed and realize the danger to our communities. this isn't about locking everyone up, this is about following a law to have them assessed properly before release. lives and rape victims would have already been spared if this was already happening.

California Dept. of Mental Health Illegally Releases 17 Thousand Sex Offenders - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Well JBean....My daughter is not the most mentally balanced person, (bipolar and....)
sometimes I think she needs to get balanced when she goes of her meds for long periods....but when she senses any danger of getting put in any hospital....
SHE can act very sane, and baffle most doctors. in fact it baffles me too. Just went through such an episode AGAIN most of the past 2 months.

SO I really do not care what laws are on the books, I have not seen a whole lot of justice on any of these threads.
but I sure have seen a lot of loonies that get away with more then they should.