Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapper Wanda Barzee, now 79, has been arrested again after violating her sex offender probation by visiting parks in Salt Lake City where children gather.
At a Glance
- Wanda Barzee, convicted in the 2002 kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, was arrested for violating her probation by visiting Liberty Park and Sugar House Park
- Barzee claimed “God commanded her” to visit the parks, which she was prohibited from entering due to her sex offender status
- She was released early from prison in 2018 after serving 9 years of her 15-year sentence due to a miscalculation
- Elizabeth Smart has previously expressed outrage over Barzee’s early release and concern for public safety
- Barzee’s case highlights challenges in monitoring high-risk offenders after their release
The Arrest and Violation
Wanda Barzee, one of the individuals responsible for the notorious 2002 kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, has been arrested for violating the terms of her sex offender probation. According to Salt Lake City police, Barzee was taken into custody after visiting Liberty Park and Sugar House Park, areas she was explicitly prohibited from entering due to the presence of children and families. When questioned about her actions, the 79-year-old reportedly told authorities she was “commanded to by the lord” and that she enjoyed feeding ducks at the parks.
Barzee’s probation conditions were clearly established following her release from prison in 2018, including mandated mental health treatment, supervision requirements, and strict prohibitions against contact with the Smart family. The restrictions on park visits were specifically designed to keep her away from places where children frequently gather, addressing the nature of her previous crimes. Her violation demonstrates a concerning disregard for these conditions, particularly given the serious nature of her original offense.
The Original Crime and Sentencing
In 2002, Barzee and her husband, Brian David Mitchell, abducted 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart at knifepoint from her bedroom in Salt Lake City. During the nine months of captivity that followed, Smart was repeatedly raped and subjected to psychological torture. The case gained national attention both during the search for Smart and after her rescue in March 2003, when she was spotted walking with Mitchell and Barzee in Sandy, Utah, approximately 18 miles from her home.
Following her capture, Barzee eventually pleaded guilty in 2009 and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in 2010. However, she served less than nine years before being released in September 2018—five years earlier than expected—due to what authorities described as a miscalculation of her sentence. Mitchell, meanwhile, continues to serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole for kidnapping and raping Smart.
Smart’s Concerns Validated
Elizabeth Smart has been vocal about her concerns regarding Barzee’s early release. In previous statements, Smart described Barzee as someone who viewed her as a “slave” and participated fully in the crimes committed against her. Smart expressed particular alarm when Barzee chose to live near an elementary school after her release, questioning the wisdom of allowing a convicted sex offender such proximity to children. This latest incident seems to validate the concerns Smart raised about Barzee’s potential risk to the community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9CViQI2ClY
The probation violation raises significant questions about the effectiveness of monitoring systems for released offenders, particularly those with a history of serious crimes against children. Despite Barzee’s advanced age, her willingness to violate clearly established boundaries suggests ongoing challenges with compliance that cannot be overlooked by authorities responsible for public safety. Her claim of divine instruction mirrors the religious fanaticism that Mitchell used to justify their crimes against Smart more than two decades ago.
Challenges in Monitoring High-Risk Offenders
Barzee’s case highlights the complex challenges faced by law enforcement and probation services when monitoring high-risk offenders after their release. While the system successfully detected her violation in this instance, questions remain about the balance between rehabilitation opportunities for aging offenders and the imperative to protect potential victims, especially children. The restrictions placed on Barzee—including the prohibition from visiting parks—represent standard precautions for sex offenders, but their effectiveness depends entirely on compliance.
For communities where released offenders reside, cases like Barzee’s underscore the importance of vigilance and reporting suspicious behavior. While details of how authorities became aware of Barzee’s park visits have not been released, the swift response demonstrates that the monitoring system can work when violations are detected. As Barzee faces the consequences of her probation violation, her case serves as a reminder of the ongoing responsibilities that follow offenders long after their formal incarceration has ended.
