Want a Walking Definition of Activist Judge? Here You Go

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
LAW OF THE LAND
Judge gives child-rapist
60-day sentence
No longer believes in punishment: 'Anger doesn't solve anything'
Posted: January 6, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.

Judge Edward Cashman disagreed with prosecutors who thought Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston, Vt., deserved eight to 20 years in prison, reported WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vt.

Cashman said he's more concerned now about rehabilitation.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," Cashman told a packed Burlington courtroom made up mostly of people related to the victim.

Prior to the decision, Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued punishment "is a valid purpose."

"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does," she said, according to the Burlington TV station. "The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider."

Cashman said he wants to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment.

Under Department of Corrections classification, however, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense, which means he doesn't qualify for in-prison treatment.

Cashman, therefore, issued a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete sex-treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.

The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes "it accomplishes nothing of value."

"It doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court, WCAX reported.

Members of the victim's family were outraged.

"I don't like it," the victim's mother told the TV station, in tears. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house."
Link

Wow, just........ wow.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Cashman, therefore, issued a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete sex-treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.[/quote]

Alright, that's more than a 60-day sentence; it's mandatory treatment.

The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes "it accomplishes nothing of value."

"It doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court, WCAX reported.
Click to expand...
And the data side with the judge; he's absolutely correct that punishment is disconnected from justice, and that sentencing patterns over the past two decades reflect the former, and decreasingly the latter. Unless you admit that you would prefer to have a justice system based upon retribution and revenge (and thus devoid of justice), I don't understand your outrage (although, of course, I do understand your outrage; it's an irrational emotional response to a horrendous crime, rather than a reaction based on incarceration and repeat-offense trends over several decades. It's alright).
 
Locking up someone for 60 days is here is better than nothing, but thats about it. Its not a punishment that will put fear into them, no treatment will be given during his 60 day period (meaning he's off the street for 60 days vs the decade+ many judges would give, giving him more time to reoffend).

Its true prison has a lower deterremce effect on sex crime, and its true that overly harsh punishment doesn't accomplish much. But60 days accomplish little beyond saying "we caught you. He's not getting treated (wouldn't be either way), he's getting a slap on the wrist, and he'll be out of jail that much sooner, when at least before there would have been a significant period where he couldnot possible reoffend due to being in jail.
 
I'm no psychologist, but I wonder what studies exist of how inmates consider 60 days. Compared to 20 years it's small time, but it's still two whole months.

In terms of confinement it's a "slap on the wrist," but the role of our justice system is to provide sufficient punishment to prevent future offending, but not a bit more. We live in a day and age where sentences are egregiously long, and yet reoffending is disturbingly high (60%+ on average). The fundamental questions are these: Is 60 days sufficient to prevent future offense? and What are the recidivism rates for shorter versus longer sentences amongst certain kinds of offenses?
 
Since Mykey isn't at all upset, big surprise, let's put together this scenario.

This man received 15 days for every year he raped this little girl. Fact.

Mykey goes on ski vactation to Vermont. Mykey gets kidnapped by gay acid rocking biker gang. Mykey is used as a blow up doll for three days by said biker gang.

Maximum possible sentce based on pro-rated formula for sentencing in this case? 2 hours and 54 minutes.

After all, punishment just doesn't work.

So Mykey, want to go on vacation to Vermont? Maybe you'd like to live there. Raise some daughters, marry a woman. I'm sure you'd be very comfortable knowing how women are protected legally and the rapists run free.
 
Sentencing is not calculated that economically; judicial discretion makes certain of that (and, despite this judge's actions, I am no fan of them having discretion).

Your hypothetical is merely trying to antagonize me, and is completely irrelevant of the purpose of the criminal justice system. The question is not "how would I or somebody else feel if a criminal received a slap on the wrist?" The question is "does this policy work at either rehabilitating an ex-offender, or does it prevent future crime by them or others?" I don't care what the mechanisms are for preventing future crime, as long as they work.

You can continue with your hypersexual vignette, if it pleases you.
 
I read this story too and cringed when I saw the punishment. Though I'm against the death penalty, I am an advocate of harsh jail time. This man should not have seen the sun for at least 5-10 years.
 
How about them conservative activist judges.

Cade is a local woman who was set on fire by her husband.
In the Cade case, [Judge] Palumbo was denounced for his decision to dismiss the protective order, as well as for the way in which he spoke to Cade when she was before him.

When Cade told him she wanted "an immediate and absolute divorce," he responded: "I'd like to be 6-foot-5, but that's not what we do here. You have to go to divorce court for that," according to a recording of the proceeding.

On Oct. 10, Roger B. Hargrave allegedly went to the T-Mobile store in Clinton where Cade worked, doused her with gasoline and set her on fire. Cade, 31, is hospitalized with third-degree burns; Hargrave, 33, of Temple Hills, is charged with attempted first-degree murder and assault.

Palumbo's lawyer has said that the judge did not intend to dismiss Cade's protective order and that it was the result of a clerical error.

Carole Alexander, executive director of the House of Ruth, said she remembered a recent case in which a woman came before Palumbo with a crushed voice box after her husband had allegedly attacked her.

"Palumbo is there saying 'Speak up.' He is just going after her. He's very, very derisive in a jocular way. It's like, 'I'm going to impress you with how powerful I am.' It's totally inappropriate," said Alexander, who was not present but said she had heard a recording of the hearing.
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101827_pf.html
 
No Mykey, facts aren't antagonizing unless you don't like what they say.

By this judges ruling and subsequent reasoning someone raped for three days would see their attackers sentenced to 2 hours and 54 minutes of jail time.

If you find that antagonizing, sorry.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Since Mykey isn't at all upset, big surprise, let's put together this scenario.

This man received 15 days for every year he raped this little girl. Fact.

Mykey goes on ski vactation to Vermont. Mykey gets kidnapped by gay acid rocking biker gang. Mykey is used as a blow up doll for three days by said biker gang.

Maximum possible sentce based on pro-rated formula for sentencing in this case? 2 hours and 54 minutes.

After all, punishment just doesn't work.

So Mykey, want to go on vacation to Vermont? Maybe you'd like to live there. Raise some daughters, marry a woman. I'm sure you'd be very comfortable knowing how women are protected legally and the rapists run free.[/QUOTE]


Vermont is very safe, as long as you live there. If you don't, and people know that, your house may get broken into. Mine was broken into 4-6 times (once was buy an adult, the other times were by the same group of 2 kids and they're not sure how many times they did it except it was at least 3). But thats really the extent of the concern. The next danger would probably be stupid hunters. I even had a guy warn me to only take my dog out on a short leash and in front of the house, since it looked too much like a bear.
 
Camoor, I don't even know what this guys political affiliation is. I just know he was appointed and reappointed and confirmed by the Vermont legislature. I don't know if he's a liberal, conservative, D or R.

I was just going by the absurdity of his sentencing and how it in no way reflected sentencing guidelines.

Likewise the story you posted doesn't list a judge as conservative, liberal, R or D. So I'm curious how you take conservative away from that article.

Oh that and the fact that it's s completely different case and not on topic.
 
This really isn't an example of an Activist Judge. It's more an example of poor laws in the state of Vermont. The Judge wanted this guy to receive treatment as a sex offender but can't while he is an inmate because the state laws say that only inmates considered to be "Serious Offenders" ( he molested a girl for 4 years for Christ's Sake. Thats pretty damn serious to me) can receive treatment while in prison. However the prosecution only wanted this guy to serve 8 years in prison.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm no psychologist, but I wonder what studies exist of how inmates consider 60 days. Compared to 20 years it's small time, but it's still two whole months.

In terms of confinement it's a "slap on the wrist," but the role of our justice system is to provide sufficient punishment to prevent future offending, but not a bit more. We live in a day and age where sentences are egregiously long, and yet reoffending is disturbingly high (60%+ on average). The fundamental questions are these: Is 60 days sufficient to prevent future offense? and What are the recidivism rates for shorter versus longer sentences amongst certain kinds of offenses?[/QUOTE]

That is a significant problem, there hasn't been much done on that. There have been studies that incorporated that in regards to other issues, but in regards to punishment the evidence was conflicting (no benefit or minor benefit). But the ones I've seen dealt with murders and such, and the low end was still much longer than 60 days.

I think given the long history of the abuse, how prisoners view the crime (ie. a thief can become much more involved and accepted in prison life than a pedophile), and the extremely small punishment, I don't think studies that show a difference between murderes imprisoned 5 or 30 years would necessarily apply to a case such as this.

Though I do know someone who used to be a prison guard in alabama. He said that when they'd get a child rapist the prison guards would let the gang leaders know that the guy was a pedophile so they'd go after them (beat up, rape etc.). I'm not sure how common that is up north, though there's the potential to increase or reduce recidivism with that.

The Judge wanted this guy to receive treatment as a sex offender but can't while he is an inmate because the state laws say that only inmates considered to be "Serious Offenders" ( he molested a girl for 4 years for Christ's Sake. Thats pretty damn serious to me) can receive treatment while in prison.
Click to expand...

Those who examined him said he was a low risk to reoffend. I'm not sure what convinced them of that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Those who examined him said he was a low risk to reoffend. I'm not sure what convinced them of that.[/QUOTE]

I'll give you a hint. They suffer from a mental disorder, 10 letters, that begins with the letter "L".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'll give you a hint. They suffer from a mental disorder, 10 letters, that begins with the letter "L".[/QUOTE]

Let me guess, you suffer from Frist syndrome don't you? Ya know, where you just watch a tape or read an article and think you know more than someone actually working with the person?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No Mykey, facts aren't antagonizing unless you don't like what they say.

By this judges ruling and subsequent reasoning someone raped for three days would see their attackers sentenced to 2 hours and 54 minutes of jail time.

If you find that antagonizing, sorry.[/QUOTE]
As I stated before, sentences aren't calculated mathematically like that; it's a far messier and more arbitrary application.

What's your point again?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'll give you a hint. They suffer from a mental disorder, 10 letters, that begins with the letter "L".[/QUOTE]
Expert?
 
Count mikey, that's 6 letters.

You see mykey judges often use something called "precedent" when deciding how to rule on cases and will also cite or use this "precedent" in decding the outcome of future cases.

Now, if we were to use this "precedent" in sentencing future offenders it is not unreasonable to look at past sentences handed down by judges is it?

So now that we have this "precedent" that if you rape someone for one year the sentence is 15 days..... you rape someone for a weekend your sentence is less than one viewing of Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Now since most rapes may last 10 minutes to one hour we can then extrapolate from this "precedent" that the time taken to book said offender would be longer than his actual sentence.

You know, since "precedent" has legal standing.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Camoor, I don't even know what this guys political affiliation is. I just know he was appointed and reappointed and confirmed by the Vermont legislature. I don't know if he's a liberal, conservative, D or R.

I was just going by the absurdity of his sentencing and how it in no way reflected sentencing guidelines.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'll give you a hint. They suffer from a mental disorder, 10 letters, that begins with the letter "L".[/QUOTE]
So which is it PAD? Are you truly just pointing out one bad decision by a judge, or are you trying to insinuate that there is liberal bias in the courts?

You're going to have to get another ID if you want to play both sides ;)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Count mikey, that's 6 letters.

You see mykey judges often use something called "precedent" when deciding how to rule on cases and will also cite or use this "precedent" in decding the outcome of future cases.

Now, if we were to use this "precedent" in sentencing future offenders it is not unreasonable to look at past sentences handed down by judges is it?

So now that we have this "precedent" that if you rape someone for one year the sentence is 15 days..... you rape someone for a weekend your sentence is less than one viewing of Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Now since most rapes may last 10 minutes to one hour we can then extrapolate from this "precedent" that the time taken to book said offender would be longer than his actual sentence.

You know, since "precedent" has legal standing.[/QUOTE]

you fucking moron, they wouldn't use precendent in that way. In fact, your arguement about activists judges shows the fallacy of your "precendent" (because if they aren't slaves to law, they certainly wouldn't be slaves to precedent). Also, it is very unlikely that a lower court would even set precendent.

You write like you just learned the definition of "precedent" 10 mins ago.
 
OK lets say someone stole your car. The cops find the guy and he goes on trial and all that. But its too late your car is long gone. They find hes stolen alot of cars. How much time in jail would he get and how much time do you think he should get? Surely if he gets out in mere days he'll keep on doing it. 4 years of raping a girl is alot worse than stealing a few cars. This guy should be getting life. Who the hell cares if it costs the state a few hundred thousand bucks? Maybe they should stop wasting money on so many useless stuff if their so cash straped.
 
[quote name='usickenme'](because if they aren't slaves to law, they certainly wouldn't be slaves to precedent). [/QUOTE]

This judge was slave to neither.

Would you like to tell me where in legal statute or precedent he had any reasonable basis for such a sentence?
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']OK lets say someone stole your car. The cops find the guy and he goes on trial and all that. But its too late your car is long gone. They find hes stolen alot of cars. How much time in jail would he get and how much time do you think he should get? Surely if he gets out in mere days he'll keep on doing it. 4 years of raping a girl is alot worse than stealing a few cars. This guy should be getting life. Who the hell cares if it costs the state a few hundred thousand bucks? Maybe they should stop wasting money on so many useless stuff if their so cash straped.[/QUOTE]
How can you be so certain that the car thief will continue to steal? What proof do you have?

My argument is this: the role of the justice system is not to make you feel better, it is not to make the victim or the victim's family feel better.

Seeing PAD's arguments again reminds me of one of the more laughably repeated arguments that conservatives lob at their inherent superiority over liberals: the former are rational thinkers (cruelly so at times, they admit), the latter emotional buffoons who can't see past their blurred vision of reality as a result of the tears their bleeding hearts shed.

For future reference, let's keep this thread in mind when anyone attempts to drudge up that ol' attack. It is unarguable that PAD seeks no functional goal to the justice system; punishment is, in and of itself, perfectly sufficient for criminal activity. Anything that makes him feel better, regardless of how useful (or counterproductive) it truly is.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']This man needs a trial by jury, sick bastard needs to be put away for 60 years.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about 60 years, but a hell of a lot closer to 60 years than 60 days. This was a horrific crime. The judge should be impeached if he refuses to enforce the law because he doesn't believe in punishment anymore. He's applying his own beliefs instead of the law to sentencing in this case, and that is wrong and impeachable.
 
Fine than lets just have every single person who commits a crime serve no less than a few months. The most someone can get even for killing a bunch of people is a few months. I got a few months to spare and a few people i want to kill so when they do have sentences set very low ill be ready. I know that if i had a love one who was raped even once than i would want the person who did it to go away for a looooong time. I dont care if hes rehabilitated or not.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Fine than lets just have every single person who commits a crime serve no less than a few months. The most someone can get even for killing a bunch of people is a few months. I got a few months to spare and a few people i want to kill so when they do have sentences set very low ill be ready.[/QUOTE]

Just make sure you do it in Vermont and come before this judge, evidently.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Fine than lets just have every single person who commits a crime serve no less than a few months. The most someone can get even for killing a bunch of people is a few months. I got a few months to spare and a few people i want to kill so when they do have sentences set very low ill be ready. I know that if i had a love one who was raped even once than i would want the person who did it to go away for a looooong time. I dont care if hes rehabilitated or not.[/QUOTE]
Just like PAD, you're taking an emotive approach to punishment. You seem to accept the standard that punishment is an end in itself, and that you are concerned not about making certain the criminal is rehabilitated, but that you feel an arbitrary satisfaction based on revenge.
 
Mykey, you're a tool and a fool.

Forget punishment. What about sparing society at large for having to worry about this sick individual being on the street? Would you live next to him with a young daughter?

Put a guy behind bars for 20-40 years and you've spared 1 or 2 generations of women from having to worry about being preyed on by him. So the system doesn't cure him, doesn't fix him and doesn't correct him. It does take a preventative measure of seperating him from his would be victims.

It's amazing, I know you can't possibly believe the position you're taking. You're merely taking an oppositional viewpoint for the sake of being oppositional.
 
No; the corrections system is something that I study. When you consider a three-fold increase in the prison population over 30 years (from ~770,000 in 1973 to near 2.5 million today), coupled with a marginal reduction in crime rate, and recidivism rates well over 60% on average, I have to ask: what is the purpose in incarcerating a person for decades?

If you want to take the "criminal savings due to incapacitation" argument, why would you permit your elected representatives to let people out of prison? Such a philosophy can not be reasonably connected to letting people out of jail; if you want to prevent future offense from a person who has shown the capacity to commit a felony, then kill them where they stand, or incarcerate them for life. Both options will immediately rectify and potential future offending (outside of bars only, of course); anything less is a detriment to the philosophy you hold. This could radically alter our court system, and streamline criminal trials to merely proving or denying guilt; if you're guilty, you go down river for life; if not, sorry for the troubles, you're free to go. Of course, you'd have to be willing to foot the cost for incarcerating millions of people every year for the remainder of their lives. Call it "one-strike-and-you're-out" policies.

Anything less than incarceration for life needs to include some measurement of what an appropriate sentence is. You simply can NOT argue that, with recidivism rates showing that 3 out of every 5 released offenders ends up back in prison (not just arrested, not just indicted, but in prison; considering the prior two measures, it would be far higher), that our sentencing structure and treatment of prisoners during incarceration is productive towards reducing criminal activity in the United States.

All I'm arguing is this: any expectation that sentences need to be X number of years is based upon a tradition of prior sentences ("precedent," as you mentioned earlier), which changed to become much harsher to offenders beginning thirty years ago. All data point to harsher sentences being a compelte and total failure in preventing future crime (either from the offenders themselves, or other people in a general deterrence sense). So, in short, I'm deadly serious; any allegience you have to harsh sentencing is based upon a philosophy of running prisons that is a comlete and abject failure. That you cannot recognize that is understandable, because you don't know so much about the corrections system.

The wife is giving me dirty looks; gotta go out for the night. More later.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Mykey, you're a tool and a fool.

Forget punishment. What about sparing society at large for having to worry about this sick individual being on the street? Would you live next to him with a young daughter?

Put a guy behind bars for 20-40 years and you've spared 1 or 2 generations of women from having to worry about being preyed on by him. So the system doesn't cure him, doesn't fix him and doesn't correct him. It does take a preventative measure of seperating him from his would be victims.

It's amazing, I know you can't possibly believe the position you're taking. You're merely taking an oppositional viewpoint for the sake of being oppositional.[/QUOTE]

But after 20-40 years what have you released on the street? Rehabilitation and prison should go hand in hand, not something offered to those found criminally insane (a very small amount of people with actual psychological problem) and a few prisoners who are able to convince people that they need it.

I remember watching a program on child molesters. They had one guy who was on medication to lower his sexual desire. The guy was interviewed and said that he didn't know if the medicine was strong enough and that, when released, he didn't think he had the willpower to continue taking it. He was convinced that once released he would reoffend. He had told the prison either to have an operation done on him (there was something that could significantly reduce his interest in sex permanently) or to lock him up indefinately. The prison refused to do either.

Honestly if not arresting anyone could reduce crime then that is what I would do. Prison should be utilized to prevent future crimes. If locking someone up can make the person worse, then you are simply increasing the chance of there being another victim.
 
Keep more violent criminals in jail but let loose the drugies and give them the help. They havent hurt anyone. They can be rehabilitated easier thah a rapist. Shit also let loose all the people that embezzle millions of dallors. Whatever it takes to keep the murderers and rapists in jail. Also Illegals make up a good chucnk of the prison population. Do something about that.
 
Yep. Hey whatever it takes to take murderers and rapists off the street. By saving the drugies not only do you save their lives but you make more room for the ones that should be locked up for life. Now that i think about it yeah rape and murder should both get you life in jail. The victims and their familys have to live with it for the rest of their lives so the criminals should to, in jail. Now all those other murders such as people kiled cause of a drunk driver or really any murder that isnt planned are different. I dont know what to do with them.
 
On what evidence do you base your arguments Vampire Hunter? It may sound like a pious argument, but I'm merely looking for a solid basis on which you base your suggestions.

Nonviolent offenders recidivate at much higher rates than violent ones, just so you know.
 
On O'reilly they had a guest that explained how long the possibly was (if he violated parole), and the strictness of the parole this guy was on. That any violation, such as not attending treatment, would result in this guy being thrown in jail. I found an article on it (op-ed, but it matches what I heard elsewhere, its just there's so little info on him that isn't showing how absurd this is):

"I just don't think that the media has accurately portrayed what Judge Cashman did in the sentencing and what his concerns were," said Kaplan. "They sort of cherrypicked a few of his quotes and took them out of context."

Now take a deep breath, folks, because Kaplan's got it right. In fact, none of the Republican lawmakers who joined Sen. Wilton's Statehouse press conference Friday appeared to know anything about the facts in the case or Cashman's record, despite his 25 years as a Vermont black robe.

For example, the GOP legislative critics had no idea that Cashman is, like them, also a Republican! He was appointed to the bench by Republican Gov. Richard Snelling. Prior to that, "Cash" was a law-and-order prosecutor in Grande Isle County, an assistant attorney general and a Public Service Board commissioner.

Fox News may be portraying Judge Cashman as some kind of super-liberal "Vermont tree-hugger," but the fact is, he's got a well-earned reputation for tough sentencing. Just last month the Vermont Supreme Court overturned a life sentence he gave to a convicted murderer.

What Cashman's sentence actually did was ensure that Hulett will never again be able to live in the community unless he participates in sex-offender treatment. To get him into treatment, Cashman had no choice, under corrections department rules, but to give him 60 days to serve on the low end. Since the department has classified him as low-risk, Hulett is only eligible for counseling on the outside.

In fact, what Wendy Wilton and the bloodthirsty mob don't realize is that almost all Vermont criminals get out of jail at some point. And unless Sen. Wilton and her supporters pass legislation appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars for new Vermont prisons, offenders will continue to be released.

In his order upholding Hulett's sentence, Cashman laid out in detail the actual facts in the case and the only options before him -- items overlooked so far in press accounts.

In cases such as Hulett's, wrote Cashman, the court is presented with a "sentencing dilemma." It's a choice "between two less-than-ideal options. One option enhances the long-term risk to public safety, due to the future release of a hardened, untreated sex offender. This person would endanger our children and grandchildren. In order to avoid that risk, the other option would be to impose a low-minimum on a lengthy incarcerate sentence."

The fact is, Cashman sentenced Hulett to up to 10 years on the first count, three years to life on the second count and two to five years on the third count. He will be on probation and under state supervision until the day he dies! If he screws up or refuses treatment, he'll be behind bars for a long, long time. Hulett's release conditions prohibit him from any alcohol or drug use, or even living in an apartment complex that has children. He cannot have friends who have kids, go to a bar or possess or view pornography, among other restrictions. One violation would put him back in the slammer.

Calling this "a 60-day sentence for raping a child," as O'Reilly and Wilton have done, is a gross distortion of what happened.
Click to expand...

Also, and I'm sure the conservatives will want to blast the media here (ya right), is that cashman never said he does not believe in punishment:

The transcript of a court hearing shows that Judge Edward Cashman never said he no longer believed in punishment, as some have suggested.
Gov. James Douglas and other Cashman critics have repeatedly said Cashman's disavowal of punishment is a key reason for believing the judge should resign or be impeached.

The governor, speaking at his news conference Thursday, said "I know the judge has said publicly he doesn't believe in punishment."

Later the governor said, "I believe that if a criminal court judge doesn't believe in punishment than that individual really ought not to be on the bench."

But the transcript released by the court Friday of the court hearing in question shows that Cashman said, "And I keep telling prosecutors, and they won't hear me, that punishment is not enough."..

"I'm not doing this for the family," he said at one point. "My heart goes out to this family and I would hate to be in the situation this family is, but there's other families out there and there's other people who could be victimized and I'm trying to take the long view."

When told by a Corrections Department official that Hulett would not receive treatment while in jail Cashman said, "So he's going to sit in jail and do nothing?"
"Yes, your honor," said the state official, identified in the transcript only by his or her last name.

"And that's going to help us?" asked Cashman.

Another exchange came between Cashman and Ellen Squire, a victim services specialist for the Corrections Department. At one point Cashman asked Squire, "Why are you equating justice with lengthy incarceration?"

Cashman said he did not want to see another case like that of Edwin Towne, who was released after completing the state's then-new sex offender program in 1986 and a short time later killed 15-year-old Paulette Crickmore of Richmond.

"After 25 years of doing this ... if there's anything burned in my brain over the years, it's Ed Towne and what happened to Ed Towne with a 7-to-10 year sentence everybody felt good about, and I don't ever want to be in that spot. So if all you have offered the victims of this crime, the state, the Corrections Department, anybody else here, is retribution, you've misinformed them," said Cashman.

"Our job is much harder than just retribution," he said.

Cashman complained that the state was "setting up a situation here in this courtroom with these people and telling them somehow or another if he doesn't get a long term in jail, there's a failure...
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/14/transcript_cashman_did_not_say_he_did_not_believe_in_punishment/
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']On O'reilly they had a guest that explained how long the possibly was (if he violated parole), and the strictness of the parole this guy was on. That any violation, such as not attending treatment, would result in this guy being thrown in jail. I found an article on it (op-ed, but it matches what I heard elsewhere, its just there's so little info on him that isn't showing how absurd this is):

Also, and I'm sure the conservatives will want to blast the media here (ya right), is that cashman never said he does not believe in punishment:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/14/transcript_cashman_did_not_say_he_did_not_believe_in_punishment/[/QUOTE]

Very interesting. That certainly puts a different slant on the story, too bad most people will never hear it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Very interesting. That certainly puts a different slant on the story, too bad most people will never hear it.[/QUOTE]
Or, too bad most people seem to think that sticking someone in prison for years or decades, only to inevitably be released back into the population without any attempt at rehabilitation, is a grand idea, and one they are upset isn't being done to this criminal.
 
BURLINGTON, Vt. --A Vermont judge facing intense criticism for the 60-day jail sentenced he gave an admitted child molester changed his mind Thursday and increased the sentence to a minimum of three years.

Judge Edward Cashman said he would have given the three-year to 10-year sentence to Mark Hulett at the original sentencing Jan. 4, but at that point Hulett was not eligible for in-prison sex offender treatment. He now is.

Cashman, who has been criticized by top state officials as a judge who no longer believed in punishment, affirmed that punishment was a "valuable and necessary component of society's response to criminal conduct."

"As stated during the sentencing hearing, however, punishment is not enough of a response in some cases," Cashman said in court. "This is one of those cases."

Hulett, after consulting with his attorney, accepted the deal and will serve a minimum of three years in prison as part of a 10-year sentence. He will then spend the rest of his life on probation or parole. During his prison term, Hulett will undergo sex offender treatment.

In the three weeks since the original sentence Cashman has been vilified by television commentators, bloggers and even the governor who say he was too light on the crime.

Hulett, 34, had pleaded guilty to charges that he had sexual contact with a girl during a four-year period beginning when she was 6.

At his original sentencing, Cashman said the best way to ensure public safety was to get Hulett out of prison so he could receive sex offender treatment. Because the Corrections Department concluded that Hulett wasn't likely to reoffend, he wouldn't be eligible to receive sex-offender treatment until he got out of jail.

After Cashman announced the 60-day sentence, Gov. James Douglas called for the judge to resign and several lawmakers suggested he be impeached. On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA."

In the aftermath of Cashman's ruling, Human Services Secretary Michael Smith ordered the Department of Corrections to change its policy to allow low-risk sex offenders to receive treatment in prison.

In imposing the longer sentence, Cashman gave Hulett the option of withdrawing the guilty pleas he entered last summer. In addition to the three-year to 10-year sentence, Hulett will also serve two additional consecutive sentences that will keep him on probation or parole for the rest of his life.

After consulting with his attorney, Hulett accepted the longer sentence.

"I think it is fair," said Hulett's lawyer, Mark Kaplan, after the hearing. "I think it makes sense under the circumstances."

Gov. James Douglas said he considered the new sentence to be too lenient.

"It's 18 times 60 days, so it's certainly an improvement," said the governor. "Personally I think it's inadequate for a crime of that magnitude, but it is certainly better than the first decision."

Attorney General William Sorrell said he had wished for more than the three years but praised the judge for making the change.

"I would have rather seen it be a longer sentence as a message to other would be offenders, but I think Judge Cashman is big enough to change course," said Sorrell.

The families of Hulett and the victim left the courtroom without comment.

State Rep. Peg Flory, the House Republican leader, said it was too early to say whether Republicans will drop their resolution calling on the judge to resign. "I want to read what the decision is before I say," she said.

On his television program Thursday night, O'Reilly said the sentence "is still far too lenient" and that he will continue to push for Cashman to be moved to civil court.

"Cashman's concern for the rehabilitation of Hulett overrode justice for the abused child," he said. "This cannot happen in the USA."
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ve..._imposes_3_10_year_sentence_for_sex_offender/

I know this is legal in many countries, but is this legal here? Can a judge give a sentence and then increase it? Especially with no court proceedings in the meantime? I don't think it should be, and I don't like that it can be done. Honestly, if this is legal I'm suprised. I've always cringed when I'd see canada do this. It's not that I have a problem with this guy having a longer sentence, but how they went about it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://www.boston.com/news/local/ve..._imposes_3_10_year_sentence_for_sex_offender/

I know this is legal in many countries, but is this legal here? Can a judge give a sentence and then increase it? Especially with no court proceedings in the meantime? I don't think it should be, and I don't like that it can be done. Honestly, if this is legal I'm suprised. I've always cringed when I'd see canada do this. It's not that I have a problem with this guy having a longer sentence, but how they went about it.[/QUOTE]


A couple of times they mention the deal or accepting the deal so I'm assuming he had to agree to it before the sentence could be increased.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://www.boston.com/news/local/ve..._imposes_3_10_year_sentence_for_sex_offender/

I know this is legal in many countries, but is this legal here? Can a judge give a sentence and then increase it? Especially with no court proceedings in the meantime? I don't think it should be, and I don't like that it can be done. Honestly, if this is legal I'm suprised. I've always cringed when I'd see canada do this. It's not that I have a problem with this guy having a longer sentence, but how they went about it.[/QUOTE]

Bill O'Reilly said:
"Cashman's concern for the rehabilitation of Hulett overrode justice for the abused child," he said. "This cannot happen in the USA."
Click to expand...

:shock:
 
Though I'm glad to see this sex offendor go back to jail, I agree with Alonzo about the legitimacy of this new sentence. I'd be surprised if the offendor's lawyers don't appeal it. The judge messed up, but do two wrongs make a right?

BTW - any article that quotes Bill O'Reilly has lost my respect already.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Since Mykey isn't at all upset, big surprise, let's put together this scenario.

This man received 15 days for every year he raped this little girl. Fact.

Mykey goes on ski vactation to Vermont. Mykey gets kidnapped by gay acid rocking biker gang. Mykey is used as a blow up doll for three days by said biker gang.

Maximum possible sentce based on pro-rated formula for sentencing in this case? 2 hours and 54 minutes.

After all, punishment just doesn't work.

So Mykey, want to go on vacation to Vermont? Maybe you'd like to live there. Raise some daughters, marry a woman. I'm sure you'd be very comfortable knowing how women are protected legally and the rapists run free.[/QUOTE]

Completely outside of the legality/morality of this topic: PAD, you're using bad math. How many times was the girl raped in a year? Once, twice, three hundred sixty-five times? That really effects your 2 hr 54 min sentence calculation for the hypothetical gay rapist biker scenario, ya know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top