It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vermont judge under fire

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Judge Edward Cashman is currently under scrutiny by Conservatives in Vermont for his sentencing of a sex offender to Sixty day in jail. Thirty-four year old Mark Hulett was recently convicted of sex crimes against a Six year old child over a four year period.
 



www.cnn.com
He's a churchgoer, a former prosecutor, a Vietnam vet and a member of the bench known for his hard-line stands. A decade ago he jailed for 41 days the parents of a suspect in a rape case because they refused to cooperate with prosecutors.

In the past few days, though, Cashman has been vilified by conservatives on TV and on blogs. On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA."

And several Vermont Republican lawmakers have demanded he resign or be impeached.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I am upset that we have judges like this!! Any adult convicted of sex crimes against a child should serve some time, significantly more than Sixty days. I am all for giving counseling to people, but this guy violated a child!! Give him some prison time!




posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
From your link



Cashman said he would have imposed more jail time -- a three-year minimum -- if the state promised treatment while Hulett was jailed.


The judge was right to do this IMO. He's trying to draw attention to the problem of inadequate measures to treat sex-offenders in prison. Prison doesn't cure anyone of anything. Recidivism rates bear that conclusion out.

The guy is getting hammered on by the talking heads because he imposed a light sentence, and maybe they're right... (but the prisoner was deemed unlikely to offend again by the DoC)

I'm gonna hazard a guess though, and say the talking heads are too stupid/conceited to see the point of the judge's ruling. It's not because he's soft on child molesters. It's because he's more interested in preventing further instances of molestation than he is in playing politics. Good on him for that, I say.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Conservatives, liberals, they are all bothered by this injustice. This judge ought to be investigated for possibly taking part in child molestation himself, which would cause him to be lenient.

Jackass!!!


By the way, does this imply that liberals arent bothered by this? I'm not saying the author of this thread, i've heard the term "conservatives are livid over this" Right- they are the only ones with morals.


They should give the labeling a break, for Pete's sakes.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
How can they say he's "unlikely to offend again"? That's a joke. All you have to do is answer their questions in the right manner, and you can get past anything they do to "examine" you. It was probably a five minute interview, where they asked him "Are you going to do it again?" and he said "No." I don't care why the judge did it, there are better ways than telling the family "I'm sorry, but there are other families out there, and I'm looking at the long term here." and giving this ******* a 60 day sentence for raping this little girl. He could have been sentenced to jail time, with tratement added to the sentence, or any other number of things.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
This guy Cashman makes me sick. 60 days in jail for a man who raped a 6 year old girl repeatedly over a 4 year period!!

Treatment is fine, but you need to keep these people off the streets. You don't use the sentancing of a child rapist to make a political point!

In 2 months his guy could be on the street with your kids thanks to Cashman!


-- Boat



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   


This judge ought to be investigated for possibly taking part in child molestation himself, which would cause him to be lenient.


What a horrible thing to say! Totally un-American. The judge in question has a long history of service. He's not exactly known for his leniency. His ruling was perfectly reasonable if you look at the evidence and not just the headline, as some are obviously wont to do.



"The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," the judge wrote. He also noted that Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old and did not understand why others were so upset by his actions.

In sentencing Hulett to 60 days, Cashman warned the defendant would get life behind bars if he failed to undergo treatment or comply with other conditions, including a prohibition against alcohol or living in an apartment complex that allows children.


Zaphod


How can they say he's "unlikely to offend again"? That's a joke. All you have to do is answer their questions in the right manner, and you can get past anything they do to "examine" you. It was probably a five minute interview, where they asked him "Are you going to do it again?" and he said "No."


That's not how it works. If you knew anything about the process in question it would be helpful to the discussion.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I've seen how the process works, and I've heard many horror stories about how it works. Yes, I was being slightly sarcastic and facetious about it, but as overworked as the DOC people are they don't always have the time to do in depth investigations, and some people working for them have become so cynical that they don't always follow through on everything as they're suppsoed to.


[edit on 1/14/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
He's trying to draw attention to the problem of inadequate measures to treat sex-offenders in prison. Prison doesn't cure anyone of anything. Recidivism rates bear that conclusion out.


This is probably the judges reasoning. Throughout the history of our country judges have used their rulings to change/create/annul law. Atleast I hope that is his reasoning, if not than everybody has a right to be angry. Alot of the posters following WyrdeOne should pay heed to his post...

Apparently some people need rabies shots?

- Attero

Edit: Thanks to this judges action the issue was brought in front of the entire nation, and there will be change.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by Attero Auctorita]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Let us make one thing perfectly clear, dgTempe; this guy is not a conservative. Let us also makeanother thing clear, there wouldbe not one liberal voice demanding the forgoing of labelling if it were a conservative.

Now that the political BS has been properly clarified for the dimwits who wish to play politics on this side of the Top Secret domains, let us make this perfectly clear as well, a pervert cannot be "rehabilitated". This nonsense lives only in the minds of the mentally debilitated. There is only one of two things that is proper for such creatures, to be locked up forever, or to be put down like a dog. Otherwise, other children are placed in danger.

Letme make this clear; another conservative/liberal comment will cause more than a simple MM warning tobe placed on the offender. Any questions from the hard of learning?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   


let us make this perfectly clear as well, a pervert cannot be "rehabilitated". This nonsense lives only in the minds of the mentally debilitated.


Most non-violent sex offenders can be rehabilitated and reintroduced into society (statutory rapists, flashers, panty thiefs, that sort of fella). Violent sex offenders are almost impossible to rehabilitate, they either cure themselves or they don't get better. Some states have spent millions on trying to rehab these people (Missouri springs to mind), and failed miserably, others have spent nothing and seen an improvement in recidivism rates. I don't know why.

I know that most people do what they consider right. Often the less serious crimes are motivated by simple ignorance of the suffering caused (I think the case we're discussing is of that variety). The worst, most intractable problems arise when an individual thinks it's right to take pleasure at the expense of another's suffering. That mentality is not easily changed, even drugs are not 100% effective. In those cases, TC might be right, life in prison or execution.

For a long time in the US those were the standard punishments for rape and molestation (when they were prosecuted which wasn't all that frequently). I think it's only in the last 20-30 years that laws have become so lax that sexual predators are doing months, or no time at all. I don't know why the switch took place. If someone were to rape my wife or daughter, I can guarantee I'll kill them if the state doesn't.

Anyway, I just thought of another angle. Is it possible the judge is doing someone's father a favor? I know if I had kids and they were molested, I would be praying day and night for their attacker to be released, just I could get my hands on him. I wouldn't be able to get to him in prison, but on the outside he's fair game for all manner of accidents and such. Just a thought, I doubt the judge would go in for a plan like that. By all accounts he's a stand-up guy.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Rehabilitation? Screw that... this guy should be PUNISHED.

It is sad that very little punishment actually goes on in prison anymore.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
It is sad that very little punishment actually goes on in prison anymore.

I doubt that this is true. I think this is why they have something called 'rule 43' in the UK, so that prisoners who will be targetted for punishment by other prisoners (mostly sex offenders and ex-law enforcement personnel, I believe) are segregated, righlty or wrongly, for their own safety.

'Screw rehabilitation' seems a little short sighted to me.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The only problem I see is it was a man now if it would have been a woman and young boy 60 days would seem quite harsh. If it was a female school teacher and good looking there would be no time and no complaints at all. It's just the way it is now days.

mikell



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
[edit on 16-1-2006 by craig732]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan

Originally posted by craig732
It is sad that very little punishment actually goes on in prison anymore.

I doubt that this is true. I think this is why they have something called 'rule 43' in the UK, so that prisoners who will be targetted for punishment by other prisoners (mostly sex offenders and ex-law enforcement personnel, I believe) are segregated, righlty or wrongly, for their own safety.

'Screw rehabilitation' seems a little short sighted to me.


I guess I should have specified that I meant there is little punishment by authorities.

I don't know how prison is in the UK, but in New York State in the USA most prisons are a joke. Prisoners get to roam the jail, work out, watch cable TV, cook in their cells, etc. They are only locked in their cells for 7 hours at night when they sleep.

They bring the most ridiculous lawsuits against the prisons and win. In one case that New York State lost, the entire prison system is now required to have at least 3 flavors of ice cream available to all inmates. This was because an inmate who was allergic to chocolate sued because only chocolate ice cream was available.

Yeah, prison is not a picnic because they can't actually leave the jail, but they live better in prison than A LOT of poor New Yorkers.

And, in my humble, uneducated opinion, child rapists cannot be rehabilitated. Even if I am wrong and they can be, they do not deserve to be. They deserve to have their weenies cut off and to be locked in a cell 24/7, and to be raped daily as they did to the poor defenseless child.

Let's stop making the criminal the victim and make them pay for their heinous acts.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Thomas, i was trying to say, that in my opinion, this is neither a liberal nor a conservative issue.

In my eyes, the judge did not do justice to that poor little girl.

No matter what political affiliation he happens to be.

*scratches head*



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Hi guys,

this guy was found guilty of a serious sexual offence against a minor; this is one of the most heinous crimes known to civilised people. Therefore, this Judge has to first think of the immediate protection of the public by the sentence he hands down, only then can he address any issues of addressing offending behaviour.

The Judge can only give guidance as to the behavioural programmes required to aid rehabilitation, this afterall is not his field of expertise.

It is for the prison authorities to ensure that an individual has the opportunity to address their offending behaviour, the individual has the choice whether to participate or not. Refusal to participate has obvious effects on the eligibility of parole and their perceived likelihood of re-offending should be assessed prior to liberation.

In essence it is for the offender to address offending behaviour and it is for the Judge to pass sentence on the findings of a Jury - never the twain shall meet, and for this reason I believe this Judge has overstepped the mark. He is not employed in politics and should he be unhappy at the lack of rehabilitation programmes available to offenders he knows that he can use his considerable clout to approach the appropriate authorities with his concerns.

TC it is my experience that there is a higher than normal rate of re-offending from particular types of offenders; you are quite correct in your assertion that these type of offenders not only re-offend but many actually create alliances and become involved in paedophile rings with other like-minded prisoners on their release.

Best Wishes

J



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join