Vt Judge decides 60 days is enough for child rapist

[FuzzyBee]

Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005

There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.

"Punishment is a valid purpose," Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued to Judge Edward Cashman.

"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does. The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider," Andreson added.

But Judge Cashman explained that he is more concerned that Hulett receive sex offender treatment as rehabilitation. But under Department of Corrections classification, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense so he does not qualify for in-prison treatment.So the judge sentenced him to just 60 days in prison and then Hulett must complete sex treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.

Judge Cashman also also revealed that he once handed down stiff sentences when he first got on the bench 25 years ago, but he no longer believes in punishment.

"I discovered 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.

The sentence outraged the victim's family who asked not to be identified.

"I don't like it," the victim's mother,in tears, told Channel 3. "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," she added.

Hulett -- who had been out on bail-- was taken away to start his sentence immediately.

link

I wonder if this judge is in an elected position? It seems to me that part of his duty is to dole out punishment, but that could just be me.

I guess as long as the rapist "feels better" after his "rehabilitation", then everything's ok. :disgust:

 

[3chordcharlie]

I have my doubts about the accuracy of psychological assessments, and therefore about the risk of reoffence, but I share the opinion of the judge that punishment is not terribly effective. I imagine if the convicted could have received treatment in prison, he would have been given a longer sentence.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is absurd. The judge is in dereliction of his duty to protect the public, and to further the cause of justice. He should, in my view, resign if he is unwilling to do his job.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have my doubts about the accuracy of psychological assessments, and therefore about the risk of reoffence, but I share the opinion of the judge that punishment is not terribly effective. I imagine if the convicted could have received treatment in prison, he would have been given a longer sentence.

Punishment is terribly effective. If you're a criminal nobody has to worry about doing bad things while you're in prison. That's about as simple as I can put it. Isn't civilian security from these people the most important issue?

 

[piasabird]

I believe there has to be a consequence for a person's actions. One count of rape sent a well-known boxer to jail for 8 years. Remember Tyson? If you want to reform this guy, I suggest you chop his testicles off, and then amputate most of his peins down to about 2 inches. No punishment can equal the crime and no amount of reform will ever work with a sexual deviant like this.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Punishment is terribly effective. If you're a criminal nobody has to worry about doing bad things while you're in prison. That's about as simple as I can put it. Isn't civilian security from these people the most important issue?

Actually what you're describing isn't punishment per se - it's what's known as specific deterrence (that is, the individual offender is deterred from re-offending while he's confined). Punishment is literally that - punishing the offender because of the wrongfulness of his actions.

I realize I probably sound like I'm splitting hairs, but these are quite different concepts to criminal litigators and judges. In this instance, the judge apparently found that, per the prosecution's experts, this guy was at low risk to re-offend, so no need for specific deterrence, he wouldn't receive treatment, so there'd be no rehabilitative benefit, and the judge simply doesn't believe in the benefit of punishment or general deterrence, so he wouldn't increase the sentence for that reason.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I believe there has to be a consequence for a person's actions. One count of rape sent a well-known boxer to jail for 8 years. Remember Tyson? If you want to reform this guy, I suggest you chop his testicles off, and then amputate most of his peins down to about 2 inches. No punishment can equal the crime and no amount of reform will ever work with a sexual deviant like this.

That's not as simple a question as the layperson might think.

In general sex offenders have a relatively high rate of recidivism, but there are many shades of gray in the mix.

Specifically (and contrary to the common lay-belief), the sex offenders least likely to re-offend are those who molest children within their own families. Those likeliest to re-offend are those who rape adult women they don't know.

All of that being said, this offender sounds to me to be extremely dangerous, and in many ways similar to one I sent to prison for life. I can't begin to explain how enraged I'd be if that judge had given him 60 days.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: DonVito
In this instance, the judge apparently found that, per the prosecution's experts, this guy was at low risk to re-offend, so no need for specific deterrence, he wouldn't receive treatment, so there'd be no rehabilitative benefit, and the judge simply doesn't believe in the benefit of punishment or general deterrence, so he wouldn't increase the sentence for that reason.

*Or*, the judge is attempting to use his bench to make his point about punishment.

 

[palehorse]

absolutely SICK!

The judge should be fired, and the rapist should be shot.

The social-communist New England states are a very scary place to live... (and i'm from there!)

 

[techs]

There are morons everywhere. He won't be a judge for much longer.

 

[marvdmartian]

A .30-06 bullet between the eyes as he steps outside the prison (after his exceedingly long 60 day sentence! :disgust: ) would be a good deterent for this pedophile! :|

Throw in a good hoss whippin for that idiot judge, and we have a winner!! :thumbsup:

 

[sdifox]

Does it really matter? He's gonna die in prison.

 

[zendari]

This guy should be hanging out with the hippies in hawaii, not being a judge.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: DonVito
In this instance, the judge apparently found that, per the prosecution's experts, this guy was at low risk to re-offend, so no need for specific deterrence, he wouldn't receive treatment, so there'd be no rehabilitative benefit, and the judge simply doesn't believe in the benefit of punishment or general deterrence, so he wouldn't increase the sentence for that reason.

*Or*, the judge is attempting to use his bench to make his point about punishment.

Or, the man in question is well connected with the higher-ups in VT.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is absurd. The judge is in dereliction of his duty to protect the public, and to further the cause of justice. He should, in my view, resign if he is unwilling to do his job.

Sounds like the judge had some sort of PC "revelation". He's worthless as a judge now.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: DonVito
In this instance, the judge apparently found that, per the prosecution's experts, this guy was at low risk to re-offend, so no need for specific deterrence, he wouldn't receive treatment, so there'd be no rehabilitative benefit, and the judge simply doesn't believe in the benefit of punishment or general deterrence, so he wouldn't increase the sentence for that reason.

*Or*, the judge is attempting to use his bench to make his point about punishment.

Or, the man in question is well connected with the higher-ups in VT.

True - or even "higher-ups" in the city or county.

 

[engineereeyore]

How can you be a judge and no longer believe in punishment? Wow.

 

[Rainsford]

Now this, my friends, is an activist judge. This guy doesn't respect the law or the legal system he is supposed to represent, instead using his position to preach his personal views. And I agree with most of what's been said here, maybe he shouldn't be shot, but he certainly shouldn't be a judge any more.

 

[zendari]

And some guy gets the same sentence for attacking a moose.

Text

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now this, my friends, is an activist judge. This guy doesn't respect the law or the legal system he is supposed to represent, instead using his position to preach his personal views. And I agree with most of what's been said here, maybe he shouldn't be shot, but he certainly shouldn't be a judge any more.

I think it's just as likely (and maybe even more likely) that this guy was politically pressured to go easy on the guy, because this just might cost him his job..... and it should!!!

 

[Aimster]

http://www.google.com/search?client=fir...udge+Edward+Cashman&btnG=Google+Search

 

[AragornTK]

the rapist deserves a fate worse than death and that judge deserves to spend the next 5-10 years with men he's sent to jail. Telling them how he no longer believes in punishment of course.

If he did that to save his job, I'm surprised he didn't kill himself. Who could let a rapist go with a slap on the wrist after he REPEATEDLY raped a young girl?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now this, my friends, is an activist judge. This guy doesn't respect the law or the legal system he is supposed to represent, instead using his position to preach his personal views. And I agree with most of what's been said here, maybe he shouldn't be shot, but he certainly shouldn't be a judge any more.

I think it's just as likely (and maybe even more likely) that this guy was politically pressured to go easy on the guy, because this just might cost him his job..... and it should!!!

Or maybe even less likely. Presumptions get you nowhere.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Fallout so far:

Burlington, Vermont -- January 5, 2006

Vermont Judge Edward Cashman is coming under fire for handing out a light sentence to a child rapist.

The judge says did it because he no longer believes in punishment and he wants to speed the rapist's entry into a rehabilitation program.

Judge Cashman's short sentence for an admitted child molester triggered immediate public and political reaction with some lawmakers saying he should leave the bench.

Judge Edward Cashman's light sentence was the talk of the town. Wednesday he sentenced child rapist Mark Hulett to 60 days in jail. Hulett admitted he raped a little girl countless times when she was between 7 and 10 years old.

Prosecutors said Hulett deserved at least 8 years in prison in part as punishment.

But Judge Cashman said the 60-day sentence guaranteed that Hulett would get into sex offender rehabilitation quickly or face a possible life sentence. He said he had no choice because the Corrections Department classified Hulett as a low risk offender meaning he can't get treatment until he's out of jail.

And more importantly the judge announced that after 25 years on the bench, he no longer believes in punishment.

Almost everyone we spoke with in Burlington on Thursday had heard about the case, but we found no one who liked it.

"We were actually talking about it at work this morning. It just does not fee as if justice was done. Seems like a really serious crime with a pretty small consequence," said Joan Robinson of Burlington.

"I was dismayed to see that someone who had committed such a serious crime against a young child would be given less of a prison sentence than for instance someone who got a second-term DWI," said Paul Poss of South Burlington.

"It just seems really sad to me that was the judge's decision. And I hope that other judges look at that decision and see it as the wrong decision,"explained Robyn MaGuire of Winooski.

It's absolutely amazing based on what's going on in the United States with sex offenders, registry, non-registry, and so forth, that somebody could get a 60-day sentence and get off that easily. It just seems impossible to me that a 60-day sentence is logical," said Bill Polk of Panton.

Now the judge's ruling apparently sparked some political fires at the statehouse. Republican lawmakers have scheduled a press conference for tomorrow to call for mandatory minimum sentences. That's a direct response to Judge Cashman's ruling.

On the other hand, several defense lawyers toldChannel 3 the judge's decision was "fair", "brilliant" and "beautifully reasoned."

Some Republicans have started calls for Cashman's removal from the bench.

But they may have to until Judge Cashman's six-year retention hearings in March 2007. Legal experts say it is highly unlikely his sentencing decision would qualify as an impeachable offense. And as for any Judicial Conduct Board disciplinary action, the judge's behavior would have to be unethical, not just unpopular, to get him in trouble.

link

I think the key sentence in this article is:

[T]he judge announced that after 25 years on the bench, he no longer believes in punishment.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have my doubts about the accuracy of psychological assessments, and therefore about the risk of reoffence, but I share the opinion of the judge that punishment is not terribly effective. I imagine if the convicted could have received treatment in prison, he would have been given a longer sentence.

"Not terribly effective" at what? The SOB repeatedly raped a child and should do at least 8 years in prison as punishment for his crimes. You, and this idiot judge, are wrong.