It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jaycee Lee Dugard girls were like 'brainwashed zombies'

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

If the penalty is not death then he should not be killed, what's the use of having laws if we don't follow them?

But considering that he was arrested and convicted, he should not have been released, just that, no need for "bullets in the head" or other type of penalty, they just had to keep their word, once convicted he must do the time.

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

And why should we pay to house these creeps for life? That's part of the reason they get let go. They are waste, and should be exterminated.

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

Then instead of asking for a "bullet in the head" ask for a change in the laws, if the law said that for that crime he should be executed then he should be executed, with no need for anyone to ask for "bullets in the head" for specific cases.

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:30 PM
Chances are this guy was let out to make room for drug offenders. Probably non-violent drug offenders.

This is the biggest whacked up part of this story. Nobody wants to address this point that make this situation that was created by a misguided justice system so incredibly wrong.

This girl and her two daughters are more victim in the huge list of victims on the war on drugs.

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:57 PM
Is Phillip Garrido a Serial Killer?

Police in Pittsburg, CA are investigating alleged Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapper Phillip Garrido in connection with a series of prostitute murders. According to the Sacramento Bee, Garrido is being looked at as a person of interest in murders that occurred in the Bay Area in the early 90s. Many of the victims from that spree were found in an industrial area where Garrido worked at the time.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Garrido is a viable suspect in these murder cases. He has the requisite history of sexualized violence as well as an apparent psychotic, religious mania often present in the sorts of serial killers who have committed similar crimes in the past.

Yeah, surprise, surprise.

What better way for the PTB to get people to keep voting for more jails and cops and judges, than by letting wackos like this live a life of crime. I wonder what his prison psyche report said.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:26 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:43 PM
reply to post by poet1b

I heard that too on the TV, and that could have more than one use, Garrido can be used to cover for someone else, but we can only know more about it if he really is formally accused.

PS: read your U2Us, please.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by habu71
reply to post by poet1b

It is NOT easy to get a legal warrant simply because someone is a convicted sex offender, the law requires that evidence enough for probable cause that a crime has been committed be ACCEPTED by a judge, who then can decide on WHATEVER BASIS HE WANTS, whether the warrant is issued. I, personally, have presented, along with the prosecutor, many, many cases of suspected abductions, abuse, etc, judged by all of us to be watertight, only to have a judge decide that no warrant is "deserved".

[edit on 8/31/2009 by gotrox]
Unless, of course, your neighbor seems to think you may have a gun----legal or not---somewhere on your property.
Even if you are an upstanding citizen who threatens no one.
The SWAT teams are only too happy to show up.

Where would she have been the last 18 years if her stepfather had been armed when he watched her being taken?

Where would this creep be now if all his victims had been armed?

Think about it.

[edit on 8/31/2009 by gotrox]

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by poet1b

It is almost as if nutcases like this are freed to prey upon the public in order to keep people paranoid.

Something that has crossed my mind a lot recently,why do judges and I`m talking about the UK and Europe here too,release paedophiles and sex offenders so early back into the public?
I mean what kind of world awaits us in the future,with all
these poor folk who have been traumatised through neglect one
way or really does not bare thinking about!

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by Elmer_Dinkley

Yes, I think this comes to the heart of the matter.

In my opinion the purpose of morality is to create communal trust. Someone who has done what Garrido did, kidnap a women, take her to a set up lair, and sexually molest her, using her like a sex toy, completely ignoring her humanity is taking a step that clearly demonstrates that he can not be trusted to live in the community.

He planned the whole thing, set up his lair in advance, and who knows how long he would have held this woman, and what he would have done with her if he didn't any place to keep. Most likely he was planning killing her, after having repeated sex with her to please his desires irregardless of how much it was a torture to her.

Anyone willing to do such a thing is an animal, and can never be trusted to live among human beings again, because they are predators.

There is another discussion I started about this. Chance are this guy is a serial killer, who probably kidnapped, repeated raped, and then murdered a great many young girls.

Considering the extent of the crime for which he was originally convicted, it is appalling that he was let out of prison.

This case in not getting nearly enough attention. This case is a very clear sign that we need massive changes in our legal system, how crime is treated, and how investigations are conducted.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:05 AM
The fact that this guys crimes were taken pretty lightly by all is quite alarming. That is true.

There is a problem in the system, with people who are intentionally pursuing an agenda of mudding the waters.

There are people who can rehabbed. There are people who should not have "the book thrown at them." If you're 19 and your girlfriend is 16, that's not a crime. If you happen to slip below the month boundary, a parole board or judge should be able to make a decent judgment call on your wrist slapping.

If you've kidnapped someone to take to a torture chamber....well then, you're not fit for the public. There is no known way of making that person "okay." That's not some crime of the moment. At that point it should be up to them to come up to the minimum lowest standard for release based on them being an extraordinary danger.

There is a time for mercy, and a time for consideration of rehabilitation. And there is logically events which do not lend themselves to rehabilitation or reintegration.

When they are being convicted, they have the privilege of innocence before assumption of guilt.

But there are some violent or heinous crimes, particularly if they are serial or mass, that should require a special designation that requires that person to have extraordinary proof of rehabilitation. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary evidence.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by Aeons

Yep, and exactly how hard is it to realize this basic understanding of right and wrong?

How could a parole board get it soooo WRONG?

It is almost like they want these guys out there, after all, the more criminals, the more need for jail and cops and parole boards and courts. Sad to say, but that is the reality.

A case like should give people pause. CA has a huge budget gap, but the want to increase the budget for courts and police, while cutting school funding.

Clearly, throwing money at the problem is not working.

It looks more like some trimming back needs to be done. There appears to be too much of a tangled mess.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in