http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/02/BA961E84CN.DTLJaycee Dugard to get $20 million in settlement

Kidnapping victim Jaycee Dugard and the two children authorities say she had with her alleged abductor - a paroled sex offender - will receive a $20 million payout from the state under a settlement lawmakers approved Thursday.

Dugard, now 30, was kidnapped in 1991 from South Lake Tahoe when she was 11 years old and discovered in Phillip Garrido's backyard Antioch compound in August.

In a claim filed against the California Department of Corrections in February, Dugard and her family accused the agency of "various lapses," and said she and her family suffered "psychological, physical and emotional injury" while she was held as a virtual sex slave for nearly two decades. Her children are now 12 and 15 years old.

Dugard's alleged abductor, convicted kidnapper and rapist Garrido, was on parole in California for a decade of her captivity. In the claim, Dugard said she would have been discovered sooner if the department and agents had effectively monitored Garrido.

Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 54, have been charged with 29 criminal counts in connection with the case and have pleaded not guilty.

A joint statement from the state Department of Justice and Dugard said the $20 million will "help them reunite with their family and obtain the services and treatment that they need to overcome their ordeal in an environment that is free from unwanted press scrutiny."So this is America, where the deepest pocket always pays, regardless of whether they're responsible. Kind of like a perverse implementation of politically correct socialism, except we go further and reward greedy lawyers and the even greedier families who hire them (and use their victimized children as cash cows).

It's a nice way to punish the taxpayers in a down economy, throwing money at a bunch of people who don't deserve it, most certainly not from us, as we're not the ones who abducted the kid.

Not that I'm blaming the legislature or governor. They were smart to accept $20 million, because otherwise the verdict would be $20 billion, or the entire GDP of California, or whatever other number some greedy lawyer can convince 12 people preselected for their stupidity and ignorance to write on a piece of paper.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/02/BA961E84CN.DTLSo this is America, where the deepest pocket always pays, regardless of whether they're responsible. Kind of like a perverse implementation of politically correct socialism, except we go further and reward greedy lawyers and the even greedier families who hire them (and use their victimized children as cash cows).

It's a nice way to punish the taxpayers in a down economy, throwing money at a bunch of people who don't deserve it, most certainly not from us, as we're not the ones who abducted the kid.

Not that I'm blaming the legislature or governor. They were smart to accept $20 million, because otherwise the verdict would be $20 billion, or the entire GDP of California, or whatever other number some greedy lawyer can convince 12 people preselected for their stupidity and ignorance to write on a piece of paper.

You are a bit too harsh here Tuda. First of all, the money was given to the victim and to the children that were forced on her by her abductor. You can hardly claim that being held captive for two decades and being forced to have sex with a man any time he felt like it is not physically, mentally and emotionally damaging.

Regarding how much responsibility the local government has, that is a more difficult question to ask. It is obvious that the man should have been monitored more closely, but in all honesty I can understand that nobody ever entertained the thought that he was hiding a slave in a cage in his backyard, carefully hidden from sight. In hindsight it is easier to say that the parole officers who visited his house should have looked, but that does not mean it is entirely reasonable to expect these officers to be near omniscient.
I think it is reasonable to say they did let this woman down, but it is hard to say what they could have reasonably (without the benefit of hindsight) done differently to prevent this horrible thing that happened to her. Under the circumstances it seems honerable to not quibble (too much) since they can not give her back those 20 years nor can they undo all the terrible things that happened to her. Money can not compensate for that, but it can at least make sure she is not going to continue to suffer for what happened to her and what she has to live with for the rest of her life. And as a society we did fail her badly, so it is not unreasonable that society does what it can to make amends, even in such an impersonal matter.
The real problem I have with this is that there are a great many other people who are also failed by society and who do not receive any compensation for that. This woman only gets attention because what happened to her is so horrible even compared to the every day horrors that other people suffer through.



Eri

You are a bit too harsh here Tuda. First of all, the money was given to the victim and to the children that were forced on her by her abductor. You can hardly claim that being held captive for two decades and being forced to have sex with a man any time he felt like it is not physically, mentally and emotionally damaging.Well, she wasn't exactly held captive in shackles. She could have fled if she had wanted to. Maybe she didn't want to.

And it is morally wrong to reward people with money as compensation for bad feelings; the courts should reward money to compensate for economic damages only.

But those matters are besides the point. Even if you believe that what she went through earned her $20 million (well, $13.3 million, with $6.7 million going to her lawyer, who can also now retire to some tropical island), there is no reason whatsoever that the innocent taxpayers should serve as the bad guy's whipping boys. I didn't abduct her, or have sex with her. The guy who did should be the one paying for it, not me.It is obvious that the man should have been monitored more closely, but in all honesty I can understand that nobody ever entertained the thought that he was hiding a slave in a cage in his backyard, carefully hidden from sight.She was not a slave in a cage, or always hiding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard#Captivity

Well, she wasn't exactly held captive in shackles. She could have fled if she had wanted to. Maybe she didn't want to.

Tuda, that is a despicable argument, even by your standards.
Go read the stories of battered women. I would say go talk to a few of them but considering how cruel and insensitive you have shown yourself here I think it would be wrong to subject those women to you. At least not until after you -know- a bit more about what those women suffer and why they -can not- escape (not with outside help).

I doubt you ever had to contemplate being raped Tudamorf. To you it is a story of something that happens to others, not the realistic probability it is to women. And you certainly did not have to suffer it when you were eleven years old. Day in day out. You never had to slowly feel the hope of escaping your nightmare die on you. You never had to accept that you would never see your family and friends again and that there would never be an end to the hell you were living in.

I am not saying you can not discuss subjects like this but kindly remember that what to you is abstract is an all too real nightmare to a great many women, and show some restraint before you lash out with remarks like this (the likes of which are a big part of the reasons why to this day so few rape victims are willing to press charges. They know that they will be subject to crude and insensitive accusations that it was their own fault that they were assaulted and raped).


And it is morally wrong to reward people with money as compensation for bad feelings; the courts should reward money to compensate for economic damages only.


I am not normally one to argue with you on this point. I even said that giving this woman money but not all the other victims is not right. But that does not diminish the fact that she greatly suffered, nor that after what she had to live through she can never have a normal life again. She will never be able to trust a man again, and I doubt she will trust women either. She will forever live in fear of strangers, she will have nightmares for the rest of her life. She has no education and very little chance to get enough of it to get a job that she can support herself and her two children with. Talking about those children, she may love them, but that love will always be tainted with what was done to her to get them.
So do not try to pretend that this woman has not suffered great harm these past 20 years.


But those matters are besides the point. Even if you believe that what she went through earned her $20 million (well, $13.3 million, with $6.7 million going to her lawyer, who can also now retire to some tropical island), there is no reason whatsoever that the innocent taxpayers should serve as the bad guy's whipping boys. I didn't abduct her, or have sex with her. The guy who did should be the one paying for it, not me.


No, you did none of those things to her. But we all -are- part of society, and society did not enough to protect her. It is the whole point of society that we stand by each other in good and in bad times. Regardless of the guilt question there is the simple point that human decency demands that we as a society do what we can to help her, now that we know of her fate and what we as a community could and should have done to prevent it. Claiming that the man abducting and raping her should pay for the damage is woefully inadequate as he is not going to be able to supply for even a fraction of what she is going to need to recover. Not to mention that he is going to be in jail for the rest of his life (or might even be executed as far as I know, and then who is going to help her?).
In all honesty, 20 million dollar is a laughably inadequate compensation for what has happened to her, but then no amount of money is going to make up all those lost years, the pain, the fear and humiliation she suffered through. And yes, it is guilt money that she has been given by that jury. That still does not take away the simple fact that it will be many years before she will be able to support herself and her children.



She was not a slave in a cage, or always hiding.


And surely you are not so moronic as to believe that she was paraded in front of the parole officers when one of them visited the house.

And in case you still do not realise it: Abuse victims are shackled not by chains but by fear and by being made to feel they deserve what happens to them. This man abducted her when she was eleven. He will have threatened her, he will have told her that if she tried to escape he would murder her family. He will have told her day in day out that she was worthless and only good to serve him because he was the only one who could stand to be with her. Once she had children those would be subject to retaliation should she disobey or attempt to flee. He will have used every trick he could have thought of to make her psychologically dependend, and with a child it is sadly not all that difficult generally to completely warp their sense of self and their self esteem. By the time she was fiften the thought of trying to escape likely had been beaten, threatened and driven out of her.
So next them when you feel the need to let your financial outrage get the better of you, kindly look at the facts first before you let your mouth run with you.


Eri

Eri,

The question is why do Panamah, Tudamorf, and I(and all the other Californians) have to pay her retribution for her captivity, when we did not do it to her?

At least not until after you -know- a bit more about what those women suffer and why they -can not- escape (not with outside help).You mean (feminist propaganda aside) that they don't want to. But that's besides the point, which is:No, you did none of those things to her. But we all -are- part of society, and society did not enough to protect her. It is the whole point of society that we stand by each other in good and in bad times.Bad things happen to good people all the time. Should we give each of them $20 million too, so that they feel better?

Given that the average American makes $1-2 million in lifetime earnings, you are talking about enslaving about a dozen people for life in order to pay her $20 million so that she can retire to some tropical island -- something that she never deserved and could probably have never achieved on her own merit, if she weren't abducted.

How do you morally, or even practically, justify mass slavery to compensate for bad feelings?

That's a good way of looking at it.

You are enslaving 10 Californians for life to pay for her retribution.

Who had nothing to do with her ordeal.

Eri,

The question is why do Panamah, Tudamorf, and I(and all the other Californians) have to pay her retribution for her captivity, when we did not do it to her?

If not us, who is going to help this woman?

She is going to need psychological help to recover from the trauma and from the stunted development that was forced on her.
She is going to need schooling.
She is going to need to support her two children.
And she is not going to be able to do any of that if she is forced to work three minimum wage jobs (since she can not get any job that pays a reasonable salary).

The whole -point- of society is found in its root word: social.

Otherwise we have nothing but people who try to steal every advantage from others that they can while contributing nothing. And American capitalist society will be no better than the Russian communist society that it decried for a century. Both ultimately are societies where a few smart people reap all the benefits by forcing the larger part to pay for it.


Eri

If not us, who is going to help this woman?

She is going to need psychological help to recover from the trauma and from the stunted development that was forced on her.
She is going to need schooling.
She is going to need to support her two children.
And she is not going to be able to do any of that if she is forced to work three minimum wage jobs (since she can not get any job that pays a reasonable salary).She can already get free psychological help and free or low cost schooling.

Day care doesn't cost $20 million either.

All the services she needs are already available to her, and everyone else, paid for by my tax dollars.Otherwise we have nothing but people who try to steal every advantage from others that they can while contributing nothing.You have just perfectly described this woman's family and her lawyer.

You mean (feminist propaganda aside) that they don't want to.

Tudamorf, please just shut up. I would ask you what you know, but it is clear from everything you say on this subject that you have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know the first things about rape, nor about rape councelling. You have not the tiniest clue about battered women, their psychological trauma or anything else regarding this subject either. The only good thing I can say about you is that you are so clueless that you also have not the first thought about how women get trapped in such situations where the lucky ones escape to a battered women shelter (most victims just end up dead before officialdom takes notice).

And then you have the nerve to draw out feminism as an insult to discredit everything these women suffered.

I know you will be unable to even understand how incredibly insulting your comments are towards all the victims, and you certainly will be unable to accept that there are things you have not the first clue about. So I will just shut up after this post since even reading what you write on this subject makes me feel dirty.
In fact, I rather not talk to you for a long while even indirectly through these forums.

But that's besides the point, which is:Bad things happen to good people all the time. Should we give each of them $20 million too, so that they feel better?

If you had bothered to read what I wrote you would have noticed that both times I said I felt that this woman was singled out for a compensation because in her case a pedophile was involved and that there are a great many victims of other crimes that go ignored because their case never makes the national news. Yes, it is arbitrary and no I do not think it is right that only one person receives a compensation.


Given that the average American makes $1-2 million in lifetime earnings, you are talking about enslaving about a dozen people for life in order to pay her $20 million so that she can retire to some tropical island -- something that she never deserved and could probably have never achieved on her own merit, if she weren't abducted.

How do you morally, or even practically, justify mass slavery to compensate for bad feelings?

That is an incredibly stupid, or rather selfish argument. You see the money as -your- money being given away and you do not want to share.

But it should not come as a surprise since the average American (whom you seem to represent in this) sees society only in the light of how it can benefit him (or her), not as something they are part of. I remember having similar trouble trying to get the concept of insurance across. I am not going to try again. If the concept of society, or insurance, is so alien to you then no amount of explanation I can come up with is going to enlighten you. I can only say that I sincerely hope you never will be the victim of a serious crime or accident that leaves you unable to work, because then you probably will finally understand but then it will be far too late.


Eri

You have not the tiniest clue about battered women, their psychological trauma or anything else regarding this subject either. The only good thing I can say about you is that you are so clueless that you also have not the first thought about how women get trapped in such situations where the lucky ones escape to a battered women shelter (most victims just end up dead before officialdom takes notice).Why is it that women who lack strength of will, confidence, self-determination, and courage are portrayed as suffers of some syndrome, who need an army of well-paid feminist specialists to help them?

Whereas men who display the same attributes are simply laughed off as losers?

Your feminist code implies that women are inferior to men -- which is ironic, not only because women are clearly superior, but also because it would mean that the goal of feminism isn't to elevate the status of women, but to depress it so that feminists have something to do.

Yes, I do know why women stay with abusers even though they can physically leave. That isn't the issue. The issue is why you portray them the way you do.

See, if all you do is try to insult me and tell me to shut up, it reinforces my belief that you have no basis for your opinion. Which leads to the same question I would ask a religious zealot, are you actually in on the fraud or just a pawn of those who are?That is an incredibly stupid, or rather selfish argument. You see the money as -your- money being given away and you do not want to share.Of course it's my money, I earned it through my labor. Jaycee Dugard didn't.

As for sharing, I am not a libertarian (they are short-sighted hypocrites). I believe in taxes and redistribution of wealth for the greater good.

But I'm still selfish. I want to know that that money is actually going towards some good that will ultimately help society, which will ultimately help/support me, or persons/things/opinions I care about or believe in.

Here, all I see is a woman, her family, and her lawyer, leaching money for no good purpose, and in fact taking it away from other good purposes.If the concept of society, or insurance, is so alien to you then no amount of explanation I can come up with is going to enlighten you.But insurance benefits me directly.

If I have a small statistical chance of incurring a very large loss that I couldn't absorb financially, it is far more logical for me to pay my statistical share of the loss into a pool, than to either try to build up a pool of my own or to gamble.

With insurance, I'm buying a worthwhile service, the ability to buy only my statistical share of a possible future loss.

What am I buying here?