60-Day Jail Sentence For Raping A Child For 4 Years???

[crobs808]

Where is the outrage over this? The judge in Vermont gave a 60-day sentence (2 months in jail) to a guy who raped a female child from ages 6-10.  She was molested and abused for 4 years of her life.  This man has RUINED her life, and the judge, Judge Cashman, gave this guy only 2 months in jail! WHAT? Where is the protection for our kids?!

I found that the only news organizations making a big deal out of this are the Washington Post and Fox News...Oh yeah, the only two predominantly conservative news organizations.  Where is CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? That's right, they don't care.  CNN commented "This is a local story out of Vermont, and does not concern the national news scene"...WHAT??? The fact that a guy got 2 months for raping a child for 4 years of her life doesn't concern the nation?

EMAIL --> governor@vermont.org to make a stink about this.  We all must email this governor and let him know this judge, Judge Edward Cashman, must be throw out, and Jessica's Law must be passed.

(Jessica's Law = mandatory 25yr sentence for sexual assault on a child)

~ Connor

[crobs808]

60-Day Jail Sentence For Raping A Child For 4 Years???

[lightprocess]

Link to an article please?

[Intuit]

He might've been a Priest... in which case it was fortunate that he was even tried at all.

[mikevalla]

No link to any article?

[Reflex]

This case btw is being distorted heavily.  The 'man' being reffered to is mentally retarded and had no idea what he was doing was wrong.  He is confused about why people are even upset.  The judge, who has a reputation as being one of the most hard-assed conservative judges in the country btw, attempted to lock him up for the appropriate sentence, but the state told him that they would NOT give him the counseling/treatment that he needed while he was in prison.  The judge felt that since the guy was not aware of his actions being wrong that he needed counseling, as there is little point in jailing someone who dosen't even understand their crime.  He gave him 60 days in with an order for him to stay supervised for several years afterwards and be under psychiatric care/counseling so that he could learn what is wrong here.

The sad thing here is that the judge to date has been a favorite of conservatives since the early 80's yet one sentence that is out of line with their agenda, no matter what the circumstances are, and they turn on him like a pack of hungry wolves.  When you read the facts of this case the reason the judge does it this way is fairly obvious.

[VorLonUK]

I don't know where Vermont is but a quick google brought up a local news site and the story Crobbs raises is on the front page Here

Story follows on here

It certainly is an awful story and I've skipped through the text and am still unsure as to why he got such a light sentence.


Edit: Reflex's new post casts a totally different perspective on the story.

[lightprocess]

Thanks for clearing that up Reflex. Actually, can you provide a link too?

[crobs808]

here's  alink that doesn't distort the truth, so you can actually get the REAL story

Actual News Story

#1 - here is some more information on this judge's track record...he NEEDS to be thrown out, period...

===
"The only responsible newspaper in Vermont seems to be The Burlington Free Press, which has not only called for Cashman's removal, but has also reported his bizarre behavior on the bench in the past.

According to the paper, Cashman once told a 20-year-old rape victim she had experienced "one of the harsh realities of life." The woman broke down in tears in the courtroom. And Cashman later apologized.

Also the paper reports that advocates for battered women have complained about Cashman's insensitive treatment of the abuse victims. There is no question the state of Vermont must find a way to remove Judge Cashman from the bench or face the wrath of the American people. Vermont depends heavily on tourism. And millions of Americans are furious about this."
===

#2 - and on another ongoing persistent note...i still find it funny lightprocess that you always need someone else to hold you hand to guide you to a new story or information about something when we live in a day in age where it takes two second to find a link or news article yourself.  FYI - real life isn't like school...nobody is going to be there everyday to give youa  worksheet or a handout that lays out all the answers for you.  stop being lazy, get with the program, everyone else is able to use google without whining about it.

~ Connor

[lightprocess]

Well seeing how there appear to be two sides to this argument I'm curious to see where you're getting your material from. You really need to work on your habit of assuming too much.

[crobs808]

Originally posted by: Reflex

This case btw is being distorted heavily.  The 'man' being reffered to is mentally retarded and had no idea what he was doing was wrong.

SURVEY SAYS....wrong!

He was deemed confident to stand trial, and gave a confession to his acts, saying he DID rape her for 4 years, and in court he said he knew it

this is taken from the court transcript, if this quote from the judge doesn't make your blood boil (saying that state costs are more important over a victims rights) then you need to do some sould searching...
http://burlingtonfreepress.com.../BT16051113.PDF



you work in the JUDICIAL branch!!! that is the sole purpose of the courts, to inforce laws, and impose punishment for violators!!! who else is supposed to impose sentences and punishment?? that is your job!! and money is more important that the victims' rights? nice one there judge, see ya, impeach him. period.

~ Connor

[crobs808]

Originally posted by: lightprocess
Well seeing how there appear to be two sides to this argument I'm curious to see where you're getting your material from.

yeah, i forgot...me posting links to FOX news and burlington press doesnt count because i am not using far-left slanted liberal media sources.  im actually using fair and balanced sources...yeah, heaven forbid i actually do that.

~ Connor

[lightprocess]

Well, your sources (Fox excluded since the link is dead, as well as you last one) seem to depict the man as a normal sex offender, while Reflex seems to be emphasizing the fact that the man is mentally retarded. That sounds like two sides to me.

Actually, I don't see how this could be a 'liberal' or 'conservative' issue. Really this whole case revolves around the man's mental state. No room for partisan politics here.

[Reflex]

From a Burlington Free Press article:

The full sentence Cashman imposed has several layers. Hulett pleaded guilty to three felonies and received a total sentence of five years and 60 days to life in prison; Cashman suspended all but 60 days.

Cashman ordered Hulett to enroll in and pay for a treatment program after his release. Failure to comply with that or any of the other 21 conditions of release would trigger the longer term in prison.

In other words, if he fails to comply with his release conditions, he gets a minimum of 5 years, up through life in prison.  That would mean that if he re-offended, we'd never see him again.

In court papers filed Tuesday, Cashman wrote that his decision was difficult because the Corrections Department determined that Hulett qualified for sex-offender treatment only after his release from prison. Hulett, the department concluded, presents less risk than other sex offenders to commit a similar crime.

The judge disagreed, writing that Hulett would be far likelier to assault others after his release if he were imprisoned for years without treatment.

So if he chooses to impose the 8 year sentence the prosecuters were asking for, the offender gets out in 8 years with zero treatment for the problem.  Chances of reccurrence would be much higher in that scenerio.

From the article on the topic at AOL News:

Judge Edward Cashman should be the darling of conservatives: 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 Cashman's most-publicized case before this one, he threw Arthur and Geneva Yandow in jail after they refused to help prosecutors make a case against their son, a suspect in a rape. The parents said it would violate their Roman Catholic beliefs; Cashman, himself a Catholic, argued otherwise.

Yeah, real liberal softy, this guy.

The Corrections Department had concluded that Hulett was unlikely to commit another such offense, and Vermont does not provide sex-offender treatment to such inmates until they reach the end of their jail time.

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

Once again, if the state had provided treatment while he was in prison, he would have imposed a longer sentence.

"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.

And here is the real issue, the perpetrator is mentally disabled and did not understand what he was doing.

In summation, the perpetrator is mentally incompetant and does not even understand his crime.  For some reason rather than having him put in an institution, the prosecuter decided to get him thrown in jail.  The judge realized the problem and instead arranged a simple way for him to get the treatment he actually requires since the state refused to do so when he asked if they could treat during the sentence.  And everyone goes nuts.

Dosen't mob mentality rock?  Why even have judges, we could simply legislate sentences for all crimes and have juries decide all guilt or innocence.  At least that would satisfy the mob, since justice does not appear to be the goal of the people any longer...

[crobs808]

Originally posted by: lightprocess

Well, your sources (Fox excluded since the link is dead, as well as you last one)

link works just fine, and no, the mans mental capacity is not on trial as they have a phsychologist perform a test pre-trial to see if he is mentally capable of standing trial, which he was, and that is why this is a 100% legitimate outrage

~ Connor

[crobs808]

Originally posted by: Reflex
Cashman ordered Hulett to enroll in and pay for a treatment program after his release. Failure to comply with that or any of the other 21 conditions of release would trigger the longer term in prison.

In other words, if he fails to comply with his release conditions, he gets a minimum of 5 years, up through life in prison.  That would mean that if he re-offended, we'd never see him again.

you are right...criminals should be able to rape 2 children for a total of 8 years of their lives before we really take them seriously

~ Connor

[lightprocess]

My bad, the Fox link wasn't working the first time I tired it. Your *.pdf is still broken though. Anyway, according to Reflex' source, the man has a "borderline intellegence level" and the maturity of a 12-14 year old. That sounds like a mental handicap to me.

[Reflex]

Originally posted by: crobs808
link works just fine, and no, the mans mental capacity is not on trial as they have a phsychologist perform a test pre-trial to see if he is mentally capable of standing trial, which he was, and that is why this is a 100% legitimate outrage

~ Connor

Ability to stand trial does not mean someone is necessarily capable of understanding the charges.  Its already been stated that he dosen't understand the charges.  I don't really see your point.

you are right...criminals should be able to rape 2 children for a total of 8 years of their lives before we really take them seriously

~ Connor

Re-offending does not necessarily mean going after a young girl again.  It could mean violating parole in any way, shape or form.  In his case he'll be registered as a sex offender, which means he won't be able to even go near children, so if he violates that he would be tossed in jail.

What I want to know is what is the point of giving him 8 years if when he comes out he hasn't a clue what he did wrong?  Maybe your missing the fact that he dosen't get the problem at all.  If he gets out and has no idea why he went in, chances of him re-offending again are extremely high.

[mikevalla]

Originally posted by: crobs808

here's  alink that doesn't distort the truth, so you can actually get the REAL story



Actual News Story

There is no question the state of Vermont must find a way to remove Judge Cashman from the bench or face the wrath of the American people. Vermont depends heavily on tourism. And millions of Americans are furious about this."

Mmmm.... Fox News, always unbiased, and reporting nothing but the truth.

[lightprocess]

And the article is written by Bill O'Reilly of all people..

[Intuit]

Written by O'lielly ?

Okay... throw it out and burn the harddrive it was put on.


Seriously, the sentence should *still* be for the full term, however if the state was unwilling to council the man while in prison then commute part of that term to some psychiatric prison... I mean "hospital".  

Mentally unstable or not, a criminal is still a criminal.  They shouldn't get a more lenient sentence, only a different one that may better suit the individual's mind set.


EDIT: Oh and by the way, cut it with that "Liberal Media" nonsense... if the media was *truly* liberal they would've been  challenging the President on his BS from the get-go... and they're barely following *any* of the tens of scandals coming out of this cridministration.  The "liberal media" never even batted an eye when the "Anti Consolidation Laws" were repealed, NPR slandered and their President replaced.  Two days ago, the "Liberal Media" was going along with the administration stating for the eighteenth time that "#2 alqueda man killed" and didn't even ask whether Pakistan approved the bombing run.  Two days later they're now reporting the total opposite!? They don't challenge the vice Pres or the Pres when their questions are repeatedly dodged and on and on and on... so cut it with the "Liberal Media" non-sense...

[Babar]

Crobs, I am deeply offended at your instinuation that the liberal media doesn't care about rape. What do you think liberals are, rapist-condoners?

[Texmaster]

First of all, Reflex couldn't be more wrong if he tired which isn't unusual.

After all, he did say child molestation is no more tramatic than a car wreck or being caught in a building fire in another thread about child molestation.

Go ahead and deny it Reflex, I have your quote ready.  Make my day.

There is no evidence this guy is menatally challenged.   As Crobs said, he has been deemed fit to stand trial.  The mentally challenged people are the parents of this girl and that isn't a joke, its reality.

And we now have discovered that this guy invited his friend to rape this child who is also now going to be charged.

And Reflex, no one cares if he is a conservative.   He is on record saying he doesn't believe in punishment.

I know you want as a liberal to form some wedge here but that aint gonna work.

This judge is scum no matter what his political philisophy is.  

It is his job to enforce the law as it is written, not to suspend a sentence because he is personally against the current state of treatment.

The most sickening thing about this entire thread are the few people who are so full of hatred towards other posters they can't see the facts about this case.

This man RAPED a little girl for 4 YEARS.

His sentence was 60 days of served time.

That is WRONG on every legal and moral level possible.   This little girl is entitled to equal justice under the law.   That is not what this sentence dictates.

There isn't a single law that says a judge is legally justified in limiting a sentence to make a political statement on treatment.   NOWHERE.

He needs to go.   This shouldn't be a partisan issue.  Everyone should support removing this judge.

[Babar]

I agree with Tex. This isnt a partisan issue, and the punishment doesnt fit the crime. Trying to MAKE this a partisan issue, especially by trying to instinuate that liberals condone rape, is beyond wrong.

Regardless, this guy deserved far more than he got.

[Reflex]

Texmaster - Several news reports have stated that this man is mentally disabled.  My argument is predicated on that fact.  If it is untrue, then I would agree the punishment does not fit the crime.  However if it is true, then the punishment is actually just about right.  Being called 'fit to stand trial' and being mentally competant are not the same thing, there are mentally retarded people all over in our prison system, its not uncommon at all.  However the defendant's ability to comprehend the crime is relevant when sentencing, and had you read the Judge's opinion, he was planning on giving the prosecution what they wished for(they asked for 8 years) until he was informed the state would NOT give the defendant the counseling he needs to actually understand the crime, and that after the 8 years he would have been let go without any idea of what he did wrong.

With that in mind the judge was absolutely correct to decide that the defendant would be just as much a threat in the future, as he had no idea what he did wrong in the first place.  His sentence as it stands forces him to get the treatment he needs, and imprisons him as long as life if he fails on any of the 21 conditions laid out.  He dosen't have to rape a child to get tossed in for life, he simply has to not follow any conditions laid out(including counseling and contact with children rules).

The judge acted in the only way that I see that he could have to ensure this man was not a further threat to children.  If he had given the prosecuters what they wished for all we would have had was a potential predator back on the streets in 8 years with no conception of what he did wrong.

If there is new evidence that the defendant is faking his mental handicap, by all means provide it.  But at this point I have read repeatedly that he is a child mentally, and until that changes I don't see what other option the judge had at his disposal.  He is not allowed to legislate the law he'd like to have from the bench, he can only work with what he has got(and bear in mind he has little ability to defend himself due to restrictions put on his position).