Tracking a Predator

(CBS)  Ever since kidnap victim Jaycee Dugard was found alive this summer, outraged Californians have been asking could it have been possible for convicted rapist Phillip Garrido to hide her for 18 years in his suburban backyard, father two children with his victim - all while being closely monitored by parole agents. He even wore a GPS ankle bracelet.

In a scathing report released Wednesday state investigators outlined massive missteps and missed opportunities by the department of corrections that prolonged Jaycee's imprisonment: failure to adequately supervise Garrido, failure to talk to neighbors, and even failure to properly train his parole officers, reports CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker.

"We determined that Garrido was only properly supervised 12 out of the 123 months it supervised him, a failure rate of 90 percent," said David Shaw, the California Inspector General.

Critics say the system for monitoring sex offenders is broken across the country. All 50 states have Web site sex offender lists for citizens to see if an offender lives near their house or a park. There are almost 700,000 registered sex offenders nationwide, but few officers to monitor them. In Florida, there are 40 sex offenders for every parole officer, in Colorado, its 26 to one in addition to their other cases. But the biggest problem critics say is failure to prioritize. States monitor teens convicted of "sexting," sending naked pictures of themselves over cell phones, just as they do child rapists, like Garrido.

"We need to separate the really bad from the not so bad, and make a determination who the really bad people are," said Robin Sax, a former sex crimes prosecutor.

Even worse, in many states convicted sex offenders are only required to send in a postcard with their address once a year. As a result some100,000 convicted sex offenders have dropped out of the system, disappeared altogether. Still, John Walsh, whose son was abducted 28 years ago, says states are balking at complying with a tough new federal laws to track and monitor sex offenders.

"The system is broken," Walsh said. "It's overwhelmed and I think the public is starting to realize that."

Perhaps most alarming, Garrido was being watched more closely than most sex offenders.

[MatthiasRice]

I have no intention of diluting what can in circumstances be particularly heinous and egregious crimes against children; however 1 in 1,000 (term used here at the minuteman project to nearly accurate figures) hardly constitutes legislative action on laws that had pre-existed at or before the commission of the crime and/or subsequent sentencing by any court in and throughout the lands of the United States of America. Furthermore, retroactive criminal law making has been seen throughout the world as quite simply oppression and tyranny; a factor for sanctioning and even war. Often; over the past 7 years now, I have wandered how the landmark decision by the supreme court in Smith vs. Doe rendering retroactive sex offender laws as non-punitive; "not punishment", yet during oral argument every justice on the panel either agreed or remained silent to the fact that deterring attributes had punitive effects; "punishment". Clearly the oral argument was mostly noted when Mr. Roberts stated that sex offenders rights were "outweighed" by societies desire to protect itself. When asked what he meant by weighing something Mr. Roberts points to a ?weighing? of the burden of registration and it?s adverse effects on the convicted sex offender; Such As: (1) Affirmative steps which need to be taken; (with no justification for the analogue of doing that), (2) interest of the sex offender from his public information being widely known; or in this case exploited, and (3) how this is the most efficient and economical way of making information available; of over some 100,000 cases in which individual states have used this landmark decision to leverage there legislatures ability to apply these laws retroactively of information which is already public, Versus as in Mr. Roberts words the interest of those in the position of, say, Megan Kanka?s parents; and in which no one at any time prevented Mrs. or Mr. kanka from finding out this information before hand which was public. However for the court to tell me what I am capable of, such as being able to take care of myself! I will indeed refuse to support any legislative action that in anyway undermines my intelligence and authority. The determinative question; according to Mr. Roberts, is whether the legislature meant to establish ?civil proceedings.? Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361. If the intention was to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry. If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and non-punitive, the Court must further examine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State?s intention to deem it civil. Because the Court ordinarily defers to the legislature?s stated intent; (in which the court allows great deference), only the clearest proof will suffice to override that intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Ultimately I question the states intent of why only the sex offender? Can not a neighborly drunk driver do harm? Or a murderer? Or arsonist? why is it necessary that only the sex offender be weeded out in such a way? Could we not have prevented the last murder or reduce the murder rate? Or the last deadly car crash or reduce fatalities on the road? Or perhaps prevented the last wildfire or reduce the number of people killed each year in wildfires? However well Mr. Roberts articulated his argument; and that is what he was there to do & that is what he gets paid to do, he ultimately failed to provide the panel with what exactly was the legislatures stated intent? As he was often quick to point out how only the clearest proof of evidence would suffice of the legislatures intent of this "regulatory scheme"; (which he ultimately failed there again to provide justice Kennedy with reason for the analog of taking these "affirmative steps" in the first place), was meant to be punitive. Furthermore, Mr. Roberts goes on to say ?It conveys simply the truthful, objective information that this individual was convicted of this crime, and the public is free to take appropriate action?; yet if this is simply the truthful information why does the state only include the bad & not the good (i.e. that this person has successfully completed a rehabilitation course or this was on the scale of sexual offenses on the lighter side), as far as objective information is concerned. Finally, for the issue of dangerousness?, it is true that the states are required to provide a disclaimer, and it does exist on every state website that at no time is the state claiming that any person or individual on this site is currently dangerous. While during argument, the stated intent was to simply inform and allow the individual to decide for themselves about any person or persons on the site.

[cfcamericadotorg]

Another thing upsets me about the Media Hype about the new underclass, the banished ones, those labeled Sex Offenders.

Americans and the Media support the murder of innocent little babies, they have renamed it Abortion. They rename the murdered little baby a FETUS, SO THEY CAN allow doctors to dissect it in the womb, and they call it Abortion.

Millions of abortions... Millions...

And also, why no reporting of the Millions of people murdered by Drunk Drivers? So far this year almost 11 THOUSAND ALCOHOL RELATED DEATHS, just this year alone, 11,000 dead men, women and children...JUST THIS YEAR alone!

But you know what,,, the media knows sex and violence sells, so what do they do... they brush all the other negative things under the rug, and push, as they always have SEX AND VIOLENCE.

What a great target for publicity, the nasty sex offender.. if write, video and product movie shows which include a sex offender... BAM, YOU HIT THE TARGET.

This country is pathetic. Producing sex a holics and murderers then, building prisons and jails to arrest and persecute what they have created.
What a lucrative way to do business. http://www.cfcamerica.org
Many reports of children as young as 8 years old branded as a sex offender. Whole families banished from society so HOLLYWOOD CAN MAKE MONEY.

[cfcamericadotorg]

How in the world can CBS speak of sex and violence and punishments for those who do them.

CBS is part of the problem. Look at one little thing, CBS supports David Letterman, Letterman thought it good humor to talk about a 31 year old man having sex with a child, Sarah Palin's daughter. On national tv.

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

COLD CASE, CSI .. and then from what I red, a real family show, THE GOOD WIFE...This show should help Americans lead lives full of morality and values.

How about prosecuting HOLLYWOOD for all the filth being pumped into the minds of our children, that is what is causing all the sex and violence acted out towards people.

Pretty hypocritical and ironic to see CBS producing stories about people who are going about doing what they have been BRAINWASHED into doing by THE MEDIA.
OMG, how utterly disgusting.

[willowjet]

My son was a college student (3.6 GPA) and had never been in any trouble before. He got on a legal chat site (must be 18 years or older) and an undercover detective got on. He told her he was 21, and she told him she was a few years younger than him, which would have made her 19. My son stated 3 times that he did not want to do anything illegal or with anyone too young. The detective asked him how young was too young, and he said 15 or 16 was too young, but she kept right on talking to him. One time, and one time only after misleading about her age, she said she "would be 16 in a month or two." My son discussed consensual oral sex with her, but never went to the place to meet her (said he wasn't sure of her age, and, even if he was, he just couldn't see himself doing something like that). It didn't matter -- he was arrested and was sentenced to a year in jail as a felon. The sentence was a plea deal offered by the DA, because he admitted the detective was ambiguous about her age. Our attorney wanted us to go to trial for entrapment, but my son's emotional state was not great at the time (ashamed, depressed to think his life would be ruined by his mistake), and, of course, you can't guarantee the outcome, especially since the Nancy Grace's of the world have people convinced that anyone and everyone is out to abduct and molest their young children. So now my son can't live with us, because we live too close to a church. It is doubtful he will ever get a decent job. His life was effectively ended for his youthful mistake at age 21 -- a victimless crime involving no violence or threat of violence that involved a professional ambiguous about her age. My son is no threat to anyone (as many in law enforcement, and even on the parole board, have admitted to us in private), but the state of Georgia wants to ensure that he is punished for the rest of his life. So many of the sex offender laws are just political grandstanding for votes -- they protect no one. Police chiefs and detectives know that it is a feather in their career caps to capture a "sex offender," so they entrap with impunity.
The positive news is that there is a lot of research, much by US and State Criminal Justice Departments, about these draconian laws being applied too broadly, so that as many people as possible are labeled "sex offenders." Research clearly demonstrates that the registry is ineffective and counterproductive. The next, even bigger step, is to get the legislators to create just, effective laws based on research, and not on popular hype.

[shelomith_stow]

Willowjet, your story breaks my heart. What is the most horrible thing about this is that it is repeated, over and over, across the country day after day. You sound strong, and you will need to be for your son. If you are not already involved with a support group and a group that is working hard to have some effect on these unfair laws, please get involved. The RSOL Forum is a good place to start; so is WWW.txvoices.com. My prayers will include you and your son; God bless.

[Oshunblu]

I am the mother of a young man, a soldier, stationed in Georgia and he was entrapped in one of these internet stings. I am always uplifted when I find someone with my story because it gives me hope. I wish there was a way all of us parents or wives of these internet hoaxes could come together and tell our stories, like on Dr. Phil or something. My son had just returned from Iraq and Georgia took his life away. There is no "truth" in these scenarios and in my America "truth and justice" must go hand in hand. I will remember you in my prayers.

[buchanan231]

Samuelstorns---please accept a big thank you from the families of the offenders who suffer from the endless attacks, even though their offences were victimless. No one knows the unintended consequences better then those families whose love ones have been placed on the registry.

We know the recidivism rate of sex offenders is the lowest second to one-murder. We know the majority (95%) of SO's are not considered dangerous. We know may paid their debt to society years ago and should be left to live in the free world. We know the hurt families endure. We have children, grandchildren, and others we love in the unednding, unnecessary pain brought about by ignorance.
We know because we feel it, too.

We are here to help with love and compassion: what we ask of you is to help us fight these unconstitutional, barbaric laws. We believe these laws have destoyed more lives, more families, than any in history and hope you will join us.

http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.com
http://www.pacwar.org (women against the registry)

[ClassicRoyal]

Amen and God Bless You - from a fellow hurting collaterally damaged family of a forgiven SO.

[suetiggers]

WHO?S ON THE REGISTRY???

The truly dangerous make up between 1% and 5% of the total population of people forced with the label and stigma of sex offender. Most do not deserve the label just as many who are in U.S. prisons don't belong there either. The prison system, esp. the Super Max system has become a for-profit business, which gives more political power to a state but also brings in additional funding. It is one of the main reasons that prisons are as overcrowded as they are. Crimes that in the past would have gotten a fine or short stay in jail now are putting people in prison for much longer periods.



MEN WHO ARE NOT DANGEROUS DO NOT BELONG ON THE SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRY

People on the registry (far too many innocent or not dangerous) have been murdered, committed suicide, had their homes set on fire, been evicted, lost their jobs,etc.. Stephen Marshall killed two men who were on the sex-offender registry in Maine. Immediately after, he took his own life. One of the men Marshall killed, Joseph Gray, was on the registry for raping a child. The other, William Elliott, was listed because he'd slept with his girlfriend before she turned 16.
Eighty-seven percent of people who were arrested for sex crimes had not previously been convicted study.of such an offense, according to a 1997 study. Just 14 percent of all sexual assault cases involved strangers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Who is on the Registry?
1. Romeo and Juliet liasons, false accusations of vindictive teens against an older teen (18 or 19)
2.False accusation by vindictive parents in child custody cases and/or family feuds- There are more of these than most people would believe. There are many reports of people who admit to having lied about being molested when they were younger. Now they would like to have the person wrongly convicted on their testimony set free.
3.mutual consensual sex- but being 3 yrs. and 1 day older than the willing teen (can bring and has brought multiple felony indictments)
4. Sex between consenting teen prostitute (who looks older and even may have lied about her age) with an adult male
5. Criminal charges that later are dropped for insufficient proof but not appealed in time, so still on registry
The number of true dangerous pedophiles is relatively small. But check out the registry. You're liable to see people who look like your mailman, grocery clerk,etc. And ones who look like they fit the profile could be the least guilty and vice verse. But the numbers are growing exponentially. And as long as opportunistic, unscrupulous politicians and a soundbite media, ala Fox /Nancy Grace type people who can make reputations out of this issue, it will breed fear and hysteria and ruin men (mostly) and their families lives who do not deserve to have this happen ! Where are the churches on this issue? Where are people who say they care about justice? Watch MSNBC?s documentary, Witch Hunt brought to anyone who wants to learn the truth about the way the laws have changed and are now abusing innocent people or people who are not dangerous by Sean Penn and two courageous filmmakers. .
To learn more, go to RSOL (Reform Sex Offender Laws ) or F.A.S.T. (False Allegation Support Team) http://false-allegations-team.com/fasthelp.html http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/index.php

[susanbanthony]

So many of the comments on here are right on track. I am the wife of a registrant. In 1984, he was 18 at the time of his offense which was for sexual abuse of a 15 year old girl. Like many others in his position, he took a plea deal for an offense that really amounted to typical teenage behavior (albeit still not right). He had no money, no family support, and three overworked public defenders in the course of a year, and registers for life in our state. He is now 43 years old, has two children, and a successful business in our community. Many of you reading this will say to yourselves "Well, she's biased and he must have done something really terrible to be a lifetime registrant." That is exactly what the system needs you to believe. In fact, I have done that myself to other registrants even though I clearly understand the flaws in the registry system and that the registry information and classification system is highly misleading. The facts speak for themselves, but the public is not privy to the facts, and the system isn't designed to give the public the real facts. It is designed to keep the public in fear, to encourage political pandering and fear mongering to get votes, and perpetuate itself.

Now, certainly, no one can agrue that we need a system that will protect children from predators and clearly there have been several cases recently that support that notion. But my argument is that the current system does not achieve that goal - And those whose solution is to apply extreme measures such as castration or the death penalty to all sex offenders are missing the big picture. My husband does not deserve castration or the death penalty for his teenage offense; nor does any other teenager in the same position. I would argue that the vast majority of registrants do not. Are there some who do? It would be unreasonable to think otherwise, and we need to demand that our politicians come up with solutions and not feel good legislation to get votes.

[shelomith_stow]

Yes, Mr. Walsh; the system is overwhelmed. How perceptive of you to take note of that in light of the fact that it is overwhelmed in large due to your misguided and attention-seeking efforts. Possibly now you can turn your charisma and charm to helping repair what you have helped break. You can begin with acknowledging the Department of Justice's studies which show that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is the lowest of any other category of crime. You could then go on to cite the statistics showing that more than 90% of crimes against children are committed by individuals who have never been arrested and are on no registry. Most often these are individuals known and trusted by the child, someone within their circle of family or friends, often within their own home. The 90% figure is also significant as that is approximately the number of those on sex offender registries whose "crimes" were non-violent, non-predatory, never involved a child or the rape of a woman, often were victimless, and pose no risk to the community, yet law enforcement must spend -again- 90% of their time and resources monitoring these folk, leaving the other 10% or less, the 10% including Philip Garrido "improperly" supervised. Mr. Walsh, you are an intelligent man; I am guessing that you already know all of this; I am now asking you to use it to really help protect communities. Work with meaningful efforts to pare the registries down to the pedopholes and predators--those for whom it was originally intended--and give law enforcement a 90% improved chance of helping create safer children and communities.

[bubbadubba]

I wish they would remove that skin cancer from the creeps nose, it is nasty.

[Spyderwasp]

Yes, Mr. Walsh we are balking at your 'tough' new law that really doesn't work and is just a matter of your greed just like the part of the bill that is written that gives you and The Center for Missing & Exploited Children mre money if your bill passes. So stop pretending to act like you care about children and not the money. Everyone knows sex offenders are the least likely to recidivate and your son wasn't murdered by one.