“What Jaycee Dugard endured is beyond comprehension, but it should be patently obvious that California taxpayers weren’t responsible for what happened to her. …This is all about money and saving face; nothing about responsibility.” [Bruce Maiman, Sacramento Bee]
2 Comments
When I first heard about the California Legislature giving Jaycee Dugard $20 million I thought it was a joke. It has been a basic rule in this country that the government is not responsible if a citizen is harmed or killed by a criminal. Thousands of convicts are released every year on parole; many others get probation. This case essentially sets a precedent that the government is liable anytime a parolee or probationer harms someone, enshrining the principle of strict liability. It is well known that parolees and probationers have a high recidivism rate but it is almost impossible to determine which ones are likely to reoffend in advance. Think of the moral hazard that’s been created; I guarantee you will see untold numbers of crime victims looking for handouts of taxpayer money in California. Of course the politicians in California don’t care since it is not their money and it is easy to be extravagant when it is not coming out of your pocket. No wonder why the state is going broke. Also, this $20 million is tax-free and, while not minimizing what Miss Dugard went through, clearly excessive. Did any portion of this go to pay attorneys’ fees and, if so, how much?
Considering how big a failure occurred here on the part of the state, its not surprising politicians wanted the case to go away… Even if the state was ultimately not held to be liable for a legal reason, who wants to go down on record as voting against the payout to the plaintiff in this case? More generally, maybe there there should be liability for law enforcement when they screw things up royally… Bad things happen, and the vast majority are not the fault of the police, but every so often they screw it up so badly that it cries out for liability.