Techs is literally insane. A judge who gives a child rapist, the worst form of rape there is, 60 days in jail is ludicrous. Not only should the child rapist be put to the death, the judge should be disbarred and thrown in jail as well. And you're calling this guy a hero? Maybe if your kid got raped for 4 years you might have a little different opinion, eh?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
i dont think that's what he meant... i see what you are getting at, and intellectually I'd have to say you are correct. just because i picture myself murdering someone does not mean i would, right? well, in this case, when he stated that we should "stay out of peoples bedrooms," I believe he was inferring that even if someone DOES molest children, that it is none of our business...
that is how i read it... and that's f'n sick.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I wouldn't say he's insane, but I can't agree with his take on this in any sense. I think it's sad, actually, that anyone would make a series of logical inferences in favor of this judge to turn his act of dereliction into an act of heroism.
As I've said before in this thread, if the good Mr. Hulett abducts, rapes, and murders this child, it will be a direct by-product of Judge Cashman's "heroism."
DonVito made a good point in his second-to-last post; if Cashman was indeed trying to change the system, it was at the very least inappropriate to use the child who was raped for 4 years as the 'example'.
sex is pleasurable , its not torture and is not in itself harmful in anyway. If people enjoy it then what's the problem with it? I guess if you think sex is evil then you reason perpetrating it on an innocent victim to be a terrible thing, even if they happen to enjoy it.
I seriously hope you're joking. I hope this is a new account that you made to be a total jackass on and wanted to incite some flames. If you think it should be legal for some asshat to rape a 6 year old girl for 4 years of her life and have no punishment, I'd rather you stay on the internet and stay away from the public. Rape is one of the most emotionally scarring "activities" that can happen to someone, and to a 6 year old it's absolutely terrible. She may never be able to live a normal life just because a stupid pedophile gets his kicks off of hurting children. It's sick.
1) First of all we're talking about CHILDREN. If it was between two people above the statutory age then this point would be irrelevant but she wasn't.
2) Second, in focusing on pleasure and sin, you ignore the concept of "consent". There's a reason why people of a certain age are considered capable of agreeing to do something, versus an infant who is incapable of doing so. The victim was 6; I think it quite obvious that she had no concept of sex and was thus unable to 'agree' to the activity. Even IF she was, she would have no real understanding of the consequences and would be somewhat susceptible to cajolery/threats (to a certain extent this can apply to a mentally retarded person above the age of consent). You may think that the line being drawn is arbitrary but that's a different and debateable proposition than implicitly assuming one can give consent freely.
3) Continuing on the last point, enjoyment is beside the point. Whether or not the victim enjoyed it does not take away from the fact that the victim had no say in the matter of sexual activity which was undertaken against their will. You don't have to be a rabid religious fundamentalist or superstitous person to disapprove of rape, much less against a child. Applying this silly logic, you can say that kidnapping a victim is OK as long as they're into BSDM and would thus derive some sort of gratification from their situation even though they're clear-cut victims.
I respectfully say that you have a rather narrow view of sex and are ignoring other considerations.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
are you SERIOUSLY advocating that sex with a 6-10 year old girl is "OK," as long as she supposedly "enjoys it;" and that we, as a society, should just mind our own busines?!?! wow... i dont know what to say... i mean, wow... (i know what I want to say, but it would likely get me banned)
Pre-pubescent molestation IS sick and evil beyond comprehension! once again, if you are saying that you disagree, and that sex with children is OK, then YOU are evil. I really hope you're not one of my neighbors...
The defendent in the case in question should have been shot or hung. period.
Yeah, I'm going to have to jump on the bandwagon here and say that sex with any pre-pubescent person must be criminal. Seriously, it's pretty obvious.
However, I'm not sure I see the logic behind the arbitrary 18-year-old limit. 15 sounds more reasonable, or even 13 or 14. When girls are actively seeking out sex, that's probably a good time to lift any attached crime.
However, I'm not sure I see the logic behind the arbitrary 18-year-old limit. 15 sounds more reasonable, or even 13 or 14. When girls are actively seeking out sex, that's probably a good time to lift any attached crime.
This Judge is obviously using this guy to make his point.
A shame the girl and her family bear the brunt of this Judge's Political Soapbox.
Sex offenders repeat at somthing like 80%, pedophiles repeat at something like 98%. Rehabilitation has little chance of working, yes it should be given a chance, but the judge isn't a legislator so he doesn't get to make those decisions. This is NOT the authority of the courts and he is being an activist judge and unfortunately the girl is going to bear the brunt of this, molested for years and this guy gets 60 days in jail.
How? I'd like to hear *you* describe how "getting treatment" will *definitely* protect "every single child".
Make that "His courageous stand got the Department of Corrections to treat more sex offenders while they are in jail so they *might not* assualt kids when the [sic] get out."
How do you quantify this?
Why is it that there is a faction that is totally in favor of statistics when they say that with treatment, a rapist won't rape again; yet are absolutely opposed to racial profiling. Isn't that statistics, too?
Repeat after me:
IT IS NOT A JUDGE'S JOB TO MAKE LAWS. A JUDGE'S JOB IS TO ENFORCE LAWS
I guess our system of government should only work the way it's supposed to when you want it too, eh?
First of all, forget about the girl and her family. Nobody has the right to revenge, which is the crux of that argument.
This is about deterrence alone--or at least it should be. The 60-day sentence only affects this one man, not other potential offenders. Would he be more or less likely to re-offend had he simply been given a 10-year sentence? I don't think there's any way to answer that question, which means the sentence imposed makes no verifyable difference other than taking away the man's freedom.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Nobody likes minimum sentencing laws but with ass-hat judges like this what choice do legislators have? You simply cannot give someone a slap on the wrist and counselling for repeatedly raping a child.
Prediction:
1. This judge will be impeached. Actions are under way for this right now. He'll be gone soon.
2. In addition to impeachiment the VT legislature will pass a minimum sentencing law directly related to this situation OR pass Megan's law which would have put this guy away for minumim 25 years.
Prediction:
1. This judge will be impeached. Actions are under way for this right now. He'll be gone soon.
2. In addition to impeachiment the VT legislature will pass a minimum sentencing law directly related to this situation OR pass Megan's law which would have put this guy away for minumim 25 years.
I can say with near certainty that had he been given a 10-year sentence, he would be extremely unlikely to re-offend during that time period. Hence, I'd support a 10-year (or much, much longer) sentence to afford others protection (at least for the time period the rapist was in prison) from a known predator.
As I said, NO ONE HERE read the article:
NOW REPEAT AFTER ME - IT'S NOT A LAW, IT'S A PRISON POLICY. IT IS NOT LEGISLATED - THE HEAD OF THE DEPT OF CORRECTIONS SIMPLY MADE HIS MIND UP ABOUT IT.
And this judge simply showed him the errors of his ways.
Future Shock
the only kind of "rehabilitation" rapists and child molesters should undergo is in kind... if the guy liked to have sex with little girls, they oughtta let gay guys pay violently rape this man for a price, the family gets justice, the state gets a little more money and the gay guys get their kicks... it's a win/win/win situation
I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again, the judge should be disbarred and the rapist should get a fate worse than death
I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again, the judge should be disbarred and the rapist should get a fate worse than death
Rape is one thing and certainly a truly heinous crime. Yes that is traumatic to anyone.
An activity that is willfully participated in and enjoyed can not be traumatic though. There is a certain stigma attached to sex and especially for young people that their enjoyment of sex would even amplify the guilt and shame they feel. It's not the sex that causes that but its the stigma they feel brought about by society's attitude towards sex. Its no different than say the first time you had sex with another man when you were 18 and felt ashamed of yourself afterwards, this is before you learned to deal with and accept your sexuality., just as an example even if fictitious
Take away the stigma by changing society's attitude towards sex and being more accepting that all people have some degree of sexual feelings and can take pleasure in sex and it's not wrong. Kids wont grow up thinking they are bad or sick if they enjoy sex or masterbaiting and their sense of self esteem is unbruised. In those circumstances willingly participating in a sexual encounter they enjoy would have no harmful effects whatsoever. So you see it is not sex that is traumatic, it's your attitude towards it that is traumatizing those kids.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I agree. I also think 10 years in prison is better than no years. The idea that this kind of person can be "treated" is a joke. Pedophiles probably cannot be treated and do not need treatment--rather--they need life imprisonment. The Vermont law is also to blame for imposing a sentencing cap of 10 years.
In defense of the judge...what he might have been thinking but not saying...is:
"10 years from now, everyone will have forgotten about this guy. But if I sentence him to 60 days and create a public outrage, it is almost guaranteed that an enraged member of the public will kill this guy or cripple him."
No. But it should not be recognized as proper or legitemate through marraige certification or other means.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter