I read all of the bru-haha over how we prosecutors, police and legislators that enact tough and stringent laws against sex offenders are so horrible to these "people". You've read it too, on the various blogs that like to talk about how we are out of control.

The prosecutor and police bashing websites like to tout all sorts of statistics about why our approach to treating sex offenders, particularly child sex offenders as dangerous people, is wrong and how much it violates "their rights".

And here's yet another reason why we need tough laws against sex offenders, including registration.

This stellar citizen, abducted an 11 year old child back in 1991. Amazingly, and thankfully, that child is still alive today, after all those years in captivity.

I'll be waiting for the ACLU and their ilk to be admitting they are wrong in arguing for lienency for sex offenders, but I won't be holding my breath.

Perhaps, if parolees and probationers for child sex crimes were forced to allow police or parole or probation officer random searches of their premises, we could have discovered this poor lady years ago before she had to bear children by this freak of nature.

The only question is whether the "we love sex offenders" lobby will want this reprehensible excuse for a human being to have visitation rights to his young children while undoubtedly incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Also, it's another argument against parole for sex offenders.

Another child sex offender who would have been better left in prison

Glad he was on GPS monitoring. That was a good use of money by the state.

The victim of the 1976 crime that led to this offender's prior pen trip and parole speaks out about how her life has changed, and of what was stolen from her.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/31/garrido.victim.lkl/index.html

How does an offender who gets a 50 year federal sentence AND a life sentence in Nevada get paroled after 11 years? That's the question thats finally being asked in this case, in today's L.A. Times.

Here's a few relevant quotes:

Former Assistant U.S. Atty. Leland Lutfy, who prosecuted the kidnapping case, said Monday that he was "amazed" because, at the time, he believed that defendants convicted of federal crimes were required to serve two-thirds of their sentences -- in this case, 33 years. That would have kept him safely away from Dugard, who was snatched from her quiet street in 1991.

"It makes no sense to me," he said in an interview.

Michael Malloy, who prosecuted the rape case in Washoe County, Nev., said the system "let everyone down, especially Jaycee Dugard. It doesn't seem an adequate sentence for the violent crime he committed in 1976."

And the only people who know, the U.S. Parole Commission, are not talking!

A spokesman for the U.S. Parole Commission did not return a call for comment about why Garrido was set free in 1988.

How did this happen?

A nice LWOP would have protected this child, and perhaps others we don't know about.

"Here we have a guy who is essentially under every kind of supervision we allow. Law enforcement had every tool available to them, and [the tools] failed," said Robert Coombs, spokesman for the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

Incarceration is the only prevention

"He served about 20 percent of his sentence, and it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out if he served only one-third of his sentence, Jaycee Dugard doesn't end up in the predicament that she's in," said Andy Kahan, a crime victims' advocate in Houston, Texas.

Citing revised federal sentencing guidelines, Kahan and Illinois defense attorney Stephen Komie concur that this is not something that could happen today.

"If he got 50 years, say, he would have 600 months. He would only get 50 months off. He would do 550 months," Komie said. "So this would not be repeated in the federal system again."

Added Kahan, "You're going to have to do at least a minimum of half of your term without any good time credits before you can even see the light of day or say hello to a parole board member."