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

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: 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.

Too bad you haven't a shred of evidence to support your theory on his mental capacity.   If it were as hindered as you claim, the court would have found it before trial.

Editorials aren't a good source for material Reflex.

I see you ducked responding to the car accident quote comparison to child rape you made.  

Good for you.   I'm glad to see you have stopped denying you said it.   It sure does paint a grim picture of how lax you feel towards child rapists and how callus you are to the victims of this crime.

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).

What part of its against the law for a judge to allow his personal beliefs on current treatment for a child rapist interfere with passing judgment DONT you understand?

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.

That has to be the dumbest statement you have ever made here.   Not that it isn't in good company with many of your other statements but to sit here and pretend this judge is protecting children by giving a man who raped a child for 4 YEARS, brought in a friend to do the same and given a 60 day incarceration sentence is not only the dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread, its also one of the most reckless.

Protect the children by giving him 2 months in jail?    My God Reflex how moronic is that?    Gee, wouldn't he be safer BEHIND BARS and not on the street where he has ACCESS to other children?

Lets just say for the moment despite all the evidence you are right and he didn't know what he was doing.    How on God's green earth is it helpful to children to put someone back on the street in 60 days to do it AGAIN?

Seriously Reflex check your meds out, you have to be off your schedule.  And that isn't a joke, its  genuine concern.

 

f 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.

Another theory of yours based on ZERO fact.  Where is the medical report supporting your BULLSHIT assumption that this guy didn't know what he was doing?

And if he didn't how did he invited a FRIEND to do the same thing?  Answer the question Reflex.

Your ignorance about the facts of this case and your flagrant disregard to protecting children from child rapists really gets me wondering about you.

If there is new evidence that the defendant is faking his mental handicap, by all means provide it.

You haven't even proved he IS mentally challenged.   Prove that first.   Medical Records, a court ruling on it, SOMETHING  besides your opinion.

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).

Yet me managed to bring in a friend to rape the same girl.

Reflex, your callousness towards this child is absolutely astounding and your blind defense of this child rapist is equally as troubling.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: 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.

Thats EXACTLY right.   Jackass conservatives lumping all liberals in with a CONSERVATIVE judge and claiming they all dont care would be to deny the GOVERNOR is a REPUBLICAN.

[Rocky]

Crobs, you are a sad individual.  Somehow you try to turn a conservative judge's ruling who isnt compassionate towards womens rights into a liberal conspiracy?  You have got to be joking.  I guess you thought it was time to come out from behind the big head and show your true meek self. This thread is ridiculous. You know why?  Cause we all basically agree, but your past predjudices with each other are forcing you to try to find a reason to argue about it. Its ok to agree guy. We all agree on 99% of the issues, but that 1% turns us into viscious attack dogs sometimes, especially on relatively simple issues such as this.  Was the crime horrible?  Yes.  Does the guy deserve to be punished? Yes.  Can this guy fully understand what he did and why he is being punished?  No.  Did he know it was wrong? Yes. Did he know the full extent to why it was wrong?  Probably not.

But bottom line, will the girl or her family every recover or forget this happened? No. Will anything that happens to this somewhat to greatly mentally challenged man change that? No.

[Intuit]

The Paper Tiger won't respond... he runs....

ENOUGH with this "Liberal Media" non-sense...

[Reflex]

Too bad you haven't a shred of evidence to support your theory on his mental capacity. If it were as hindered as you claim, the court would have found it before trial.

Editorials aren't a good source for material Reflex.

Have you actually read the two links I posted?  One was a national news story(AP via AOL News) which stated clearly that the man has the emotional capacity of a 12-14 year old and the mental capacity that was stated at 'borderline'.  My argument is based *entirely* on those facts, not on any other part.  If that is not true, then I absolutely agree with the 'lock him up for life' group here.  If it is true, however, then I feel the judge acted appropriately given the circumstances.

I see you ducked responding to the car accident quote comparison to child rape you made.

Good for you. I'm glad to see you have stopped denying you said it. It sure does paint a grim picture of how lax you feel towards child rapists and how callus you are to the victims of this crime.

I have chosen not to respond because you are intentionally quoting me out of context.  I believe we have reffered to this as 'strawman'.  If you do this, don't expect a response from me, your are behaving in a manner that can only be considered defammatory.  I would appreciate that if you do this in the future you not only include the quote that supports your views, but my responses to such quotes since I spent several posts clarifying my point, which you conveniently ignore.  In fact, for future reference, actually produce the quote itself rather than reframing it how you'd like it to be.  If you cannot do this, then don't bring it up.

Much appreciated.

What part of its against the law for a judge to allow his personal beliefs on current treatment for a child rapist interfere with passing judgment DONT you understand?

The part where he is protecting society.  Releasing the man in 8 years with no idea of what he did wrong and no protection against him repeating it would be irresponsible and negligent in the extreme.

That has to be the dumbest statement you have ever made here. Not that it isn't in good company with many of your other statements but to sit here and pretend this judge is protecting children by giving a man who raped a child for 4 YEARS, brought in a friend to do the same and given a 60 day incarceration sentence is not only the dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread, its also one of the most reckless.

Protect the children by giving him 2 months in jail? My God Reflex how moronic is that? Gee, wouldn't he be safer BEHIND BARS and not on the street where he has ACCESS to other children?

Lets just say for the moment despite all the evidence you are right and he didn't know what he was doing. How on God's green earth is it helpful to children to put someone back on the street in 60 days to do it AGAIN?

Once again, this is based on the news articles stating that the man is mentally retarded.  Under the judge's sentence the man has strict rules for *life*, under the prosecuters request he was locked up for only 8 years and then released without restrictions.  The judge did a better job protecting society, releasing someone 8 years later who dosen't know what they did wrong is a recipe for disaster, which you fail to address at all.

Seriously Reflex check your meds out, you have to be off your schedule. And that isn't a joke, its genuine concern.

Warning number two.  Stop with the personal insults.  Third strike and your out.

Another theory of yours based on ZERO fact. Where is the medical report supporting your BULLSHIT assumption that this guy didn't know what he was doing?

And if he didn't how did he invited a FRIEND to do the same thing? Answer the question Reflex.

Your ignorance about the facts of this case and your flagrant disregard to protecting children from child rapists really gets me wondering about you.

Will you post a link about this?  I don't spend all day studying every super sensationalized news case that pops up, and I am going on what I read initially on the AP.  I'll ask that your news source be something mainstream(ie: AP/Reuters sourced) rather than O'Reilly and such.

As for wondering about me, what exactly do you mean by that statement?

You haven't even proved he IS mentally challenged. Prove that first. Medical Records, a court ruling on it, SOMETHING besides your opinion.

Second link in my posting explaining the case on the first page of this thread.

Reflex, your callousness towards this child is absolutely astounding and your blind defense of this child rapist is equally as troubling.

Not blind, or callous.  Going on the facts I have available.  I see no reason to punish someone who is incapable of understanding their crime unduly, they need supervision and treatment, not punishments for crimes they do not understand.  It has nothing to do with the girl and everything to do with what is wrong with the caretakers.  I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that a developmentally disabled man was left alone with a little girl for four years and NO ONE caught on to what was happening.  I find it shocking that no one here yet has asked "Where were the girl's parents?" or "Who was responsible for this man?"  Your concern about punishing the individual who according to what I have read so far is not even more than a child himself is disturbing to me, do you not find parents at all responsible for the actions of their children?  Someone was responsible for the girl and someone was likely responsible for the man as well(if the reports of him being mentally retarded are true).

Tell me, do you really think the girl's parents are competant?  How about the man's caretaker?

EDIT: BTW, before I take credit entirely for the caretaker responsibility angle, I'll point out that Intuit raised it to me in a PM already as well.

[Babar]

Reflex, citing the fact that, or asserting that, this guy is mentally retarded and therefore deserves lighter punishment or no punishment at all neglects the inevitable fact that he maintains the capacity to again perform the act in question.

Mental retardation may lead to a "broken" sense of right and wrong, I'll grant you that, but if that sense of right and wrong is snookered, then it's not going to be fixed when he's out on the streets again in 6 months.

I view this as a public safety issue.

And besides, how many 12-14 year olds (since it was cited that this guy had the emotional capacity of a 12-14 year old) go out and rape the same person for years?

It's wrong to let a guy out and pray that he doesn't do anything, and threaten him with lifetime jail sentence. He needs to stay in jail, not later, but NOW. At least then he has the possibility of getting the mental health aid he needs through prison therapists.

By putting him back out on the streets you're just ASKING for him to go back to jail (and in the process, tally up another "unfortunate" victim--is this really the goal of letting him go?)

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Intuit

The Paper Tiger won't respond... he runs....



ENOUGH with this "Liberal Media" non-sense...

Be man enough to quote who you are referring to Intuit.

[Reflex]

Reflex, citing the fact that, or asserting that, this guy is mentally retarded and therefore deserves lighter punishment or no punishment at all neglects the inevitable fact that he maintains the capacity to again perform the act in question.

No disagreement here.  And like I said, I'm citing it from the national media articles.  If he is not actually retarded then everything I have said is irrelevant and he should not be let out of jail for the rest of his natural life.

Mental retardation may lead to a "broken" sense of right and wrong, I'll grant you that, but if that sense of right and wrong is snookered, then it's not going to be fixed when he's out on the streets again in 6 months.

Read the conditions.  There are 21 very explicit ones.  Failure to meet any of them will put him in jail for as long as life.  Given the nature of his crime, I'd be suprised if he ever got parole.  This was not a slap on the wrist in the way many seem to think.

I view this as a public safety issue.

So did the judge, read his opinion on the issue.  He felt it was very unsafe to put an untreated man who did not know what he did wrong back on the street in 8 years with NO restrictions and NO treatment, which is what the prosecuter wanted.  He asked the state to treat the man during the sentence and was told "No, we don't do that."  His choice was to let a man back on the streets who will likely commit the same crime again, or impose a sentence that would allow him to control his life to such a degree that makes it far less likely that there will be a second victim.

And besides, how many 12-14 year olds (since it was cited that this guy had the emotional capacity of a 12-14 year old) go out and rape the same person for years?

That is his emotional maturity.  His intelligence was measured as 'borderline'.  It is not unusual for developmentally disabled individuals to bond with children, as they are the only members of society they can truly relate to.  Caretakers are supposed to keep a close eye on this because the bond can go to far.  Despite having a child-like intellect and maturity, they still have a full set of hormones that are at adult level, which means they will have desires that a child will not, despite their mental state.  Have you ever worked with the mentally disabled?  A good friend of mine has spent her life doing so, I'd suggest reading up on it.  This is why I say that IF it is true that the man is retarded, the caretakers were extremely negligent, especially since this went on for four years.

It's wrong to let a guy out and pray that he doesn't do anything, and threaten him with lifetime jail sentence. He needs to stay in jail, not later, but NOW. At least then he has the possibility of getting the mental health aid he needs through prison therapists.

The judge was informed by the state that he would recieve NO treatment in prison.  That he would be released in 8 years with no outpatient program or controls of any sort.  That is the basis of why he did things as he has, to maximize the amount of time the man can recieve treatment since he will recieve none in prison(the state has responded by stating they will change that, we will see if they do so).

Read the links I posted.  That is what I am forming my opinion based on(as well as my own experience with the mentally disabled).  If the man IS competant of understanding his crime, my entire argument is irrelevant.  I would not be arguing this if I had heard nothing about the man's mental state.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Have you actually read the two links I posted?  One was a national news story(AP via AOL News) which stated clearly that the man has the emotional capacity of a 12-14 year old and the mental capacity that was stated at 'borderline'.  My argument is based *entirely* on those facts, not on any other part.  If that is not true, then I absolutely agree with the 'lock him up for life' group here.  If it is true, however, then I feel the judge acted appropriately given the circumstances.

Good.  Then we agree on that.  The problem with that story as the rest is that not only did the court NOT find this to be true, but that article nor you have produced any medical history or evaluation that would corroborate that theory.

And if he were that medically challenged, how could he have the capacity to invite another child rapist over to do the same thing?

I have chosen not to respond because you are intentionally quoting me out of context.  I believe we have reffered to this as 'strawman'.  If you do this, don't expect a response from me, your are behaving in a manner that can only be considered defammatory.  I would appreciate that if you do this in the future you not only include the quote that supports your views, but my responses to such quotes since I spent several posts clarifying my point, which you conveniently ignore.  In fact, for future reference, actually produce the quote itself rather than reframing it how you'd like it to be.  If you cannot do this, then don't bring it up.

Not a problem!

Your direct quote:

In most cases it does not destroy the child's life. They grow up, overcome their hardship, and move on. Its just another bump in the road. A potentially traumatic one, but then so is surviving a car wreck, rape, kidnapping, murder attempt, building fire, etc.

No out of context, no straw man.   You compared child rape to a car accident, murder attempt or a building fire.    Not only is it not even close to being on the same level as any one of these incidents, it shows an incredibly callus attitude towards children sexually victimized in this way.

Much appreciated.

Not a problem.  I have no issues quoting your directly and removing all doubt of your hypocrisy.

The part where he is protecting society.  Releasing the man in 8 years with no idea of what he did wrong and no protection against him repeating it would be irresponsible and negligent in the extreme.

So he should be released in 60 days without any treatment?  Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Once again, this is based on the news articles stating that the man is mentally retarded.

Now its retarded huh.   Once again, I ask for the evidence for this in the form of a medical opinion or document.  

Under the judge's sentence the man has strict rules for *life*, under the prosecuters request he was locked up for only 8 years and then released without restrictions.  The judge did a better job protecting society, releasing someone 8 years later who dosen't know what they did wrong is a recipe for disaster, which you fail to address at all.

Once again you allow your biasness in favor of a child rapist to overwhelm any sense of security for this girl or the other children this man will have access to once he gets out of jail.

And the 8 years was NOT the maximum.   this sicko could have been locked up for 20+years.

I'll ask the question again which you keep ducking.    If he is so retarded, how could he invite his friend to join in the rape?

Warning number two.  Stop with the personal insults.  Third strike and your out.

Go ahead.  Keep threatening.   Its amusing to say the least.

And a concern is not a personal attack.   I really do worry about you on this position.

Questioning someone's educational background is a personal attack.   I doubt you warned yourself for doing that at least twice to me.

Someone took a shot at your weight in another thread about body armor.  No warning was given.  Where was your warning to them?  

This hypocritical attitude of yours only targeting me for your "warnings" just shows you aren't fit for the position of a mod.

Will you post a link about this?  I don't spend all day studying every super sensationalized news case that pops up, and I am going on what I read initially on the AP.  I'll ask that your news source be something mainstream(ie: AP/Reuters sourced) rather than O'Reilly and such.

So if O'Reilly reports it he is lying?  lol  Fine, I'll post another link

BURLINGTON, Vt. --The young girl who was the victim in a child sex abuse case in which the perpetrator got a minimum sentence of 60 days also was abused by a second man, authorities have alleged.

That revelation is the latest twist in a controversy surrounding Judge Edward Cashman's sentencing of Mark Hulett. Hulett, 34, of Williston, had pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the girl from the age of 6 to when she was 10.

Derek Kimball, 33, of Hinesburg, whom authorities describe as a friend of Hulett's, was arrested in October and is charged with sexual assault on a victim less than 10 years of age, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He was later released on $25,000 bond and a series of conditions, including that he not contact the victim or any girls under the age of 16.

(....break...)

Court papers in Kimball's case say the girl told investigators that both Kimball and Hulett had sexually assaulted her in a number of separate incidents.

Detectives met with Kimball at his job at the Chittenden Solid Waste District in South Burlington on Oct. 7, according to court papers. During the interview, Kimball acknowledged the abuse and was arrested, according to the detectives' accounts in the court affidavit.

link

I'll stand by for you to dismiss it and go back to defending the child rapist.

As for wondering about me, what exactly do you mean by that statement?

Can't answer.   You warned me!   lol

Second link in my posting explaining the case on the first page of this thread.

Nothing in that link says any medical evaluation or study was performed on this man and no where does it say he didn't know what he was doing.

Not blind, or callous.  Going on the facts I have available.  

Assuming retardation despite no evidence offered or found in the courtroom is not going by the facts.  That is going on assumption and bias.

I see no reason to punish someone who is incapable of understanding their crime unduly, they need supervision and treatment, not punishments for crimes they do not understand.

There goes that assumption again.   No evidence whatsoever has been found that he didn't know what he was doing and since you didn't even know about his friend, you obviously don't know enough about the case.

It has nothing to do with the girl and everything to do with what is wrong with the caretakers.  I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that a developmentally disabled man was left alone with a little girl for four years and NO ONE caught on to what was happening.

I see you didn't read again.  The PARENTS are mentally challenged.  That is how he got away with it for so long.

I find it shocking that no one here yet has asked "Where were the girl's parents?" or "Who was responsible for this man?"  Your concern about punishing the individual who according to what I have read so far is not even more than a child himself is disturbing to me, do you not find parents at all responsible for the actions of their children?  Someone was responsible for the girl and someone was likely responsible for the man as well(if the reports of him being mentally retarded are true).

Read more carefully Reflex.  The parents were mentioned.

Tell me, do you really think the girl's parents are competant?  How about the man's caretaker?

Sigh.   read above.

[Intuit]

Originally posted by: Texmaster

Originally posted by: Intuit
The Paper Tiger won't respond... he runs....

ENOUGH with this "Liberal Media" non-sense...

Be man enough to quote who you are referring to Intuit.

Be smart enough to look directly above my post TexMaster.  

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Intuit

Be smart enough to look directly above my post TexMaster.  

Call me crazy, I'd rather have someone be clear about their intentions than rely on implying their challenges.

[Reflex]

Good. Then we agree on that. The problem with that story as the rest is that not only did the court NOT find this to be true, but that article nor you have produced any medical history or evaluation that would corroborate that theory.

And if he were that medically challenged, how could he have the capacity to invite another child rapist over to do the same thing?

This link does not state that he decided to have a sex party with his friend and the girl.  It states that this is a friend of the offender and he also took advantage of the girl.  A bit of a difference there.  Your stating as fact that he offered the girl up to his friend as some sort of playtoy, when in fact the friend was fully competant and is just as likely to have taken advantage of her himself(or even possibly encouraged what was going on).  Read your own story, it also backs up much of what I have been saying.

No out of context, no straw man. You compared child rape to a car accident, murder attempt or a building fire. Not only is it not even close to being on the same level as any one of these incidents, it shows an incredibly callus attitude towards children sexually victimized in this way.

No followup?  Even there I am not factually incorrect, you CHOSE to interpret that as a 'fender bender' when it could just as easily meant "multi-car pileup with traumatic head injuries" which is more along the lines of what I meant(and said later on in the thread).  My contention at the time was that child sexual abuse is a bad thing, but it is not the worst thing a child can possibly go through in their life, and is more dependant on adult reaction to it and other factors in terms of its impact than a lot of people acknowledge.

Not a problem. I have no issues quoting your directly and removing all doubt of your hypocrisy.

Then quote it all, not just the parts that are convenient for you.  I shouldn't have to respond to my own posts because you took them out of context.

So he should be released in 60 days without any treatment? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

The only person who has said that is you.  He is being released in 60 days into a treatment program as part of his conditions.

Now its retarded huh. Once again, I ask for the evidence for this in the form of a medical opinion or document.

Developmentally Disabled and Mentally Challenged are the politically correct terms for what used to be known as Mentally Retarded.  Ask anyone in the field, the terms are interchangable.  If you want evidence in terms of medical documents, I am not a doctor and do not have direct access to people's personal medical records, however the AP reported it as fact and you can take it up with them if you disagree.  This is why I have qualified my entire argument on the "If it is true that he is Developmentally Disabled" argument.  If he is not, I *agree* with you and the others, implying that I do not is false.  If he is mentally retarded, however, then yes I think the judge was reasonable.

And the 8 years was NOT the maximum. this sicko could have been locked up for 20+years.

The prosecuter asked for 8 in light of the perpetrator's mental condition.  The judge agreed until he found out that there would be no treatment if this sentence were handed down.  Could he have given 20?  Maybe, it depends on the state laws, judges don't create law or sentences, they can only sentence what a charge allows under law and are supposed to take the prosecution's requests into mind.

I'll ask the question again which you keep ducking. If he is so retarded, how could he invite his friend to join in the rape?

Addressed above.  The article you pointed to did not state that he ever did this, only that a friend of his also took advantage of this girl.

Go ahead. Keep threatening. Its amusing to say the least.

And a concern is not a personal attack. I really do worry about you on this position.

Questioning someone's educational background is a personal attack. I doubt you warned yourself for doing that at least twice to me.

Someone took a shot at your weight in another thread about body armor. No warning was given. Where was your warning to them?

This hypocritical attitude of yours only targeting me for your "warnings" just shows you aren't fit for the position of a mod.

You have a particuliar pattern of attacking myself and others, and have been banned in the past for this behaviour.  As for my fitness to be a mod, feel free to leave and find another board if you have issues with the administration here, this is not a democracy, its a privately owned forum.

Nothing in that link says any medical evaluation or study was performed on this man and no where does it say he didn't know what he was doing.

Like I said, take the methodology up with the AP.  Its thier article but it reported his state as fact.  The judge also felt that way if you read his actual ruling rather than the O'Reilly version.  You say 'the court' decided he is competant, but the judge IS the court and decided otherwise.

Assuming retardation despite no evidence offered or found in the courtroom is not going by the facts. That is going on assumption and bias.

Seeing as how I have not met the man, I can only go by what is reported about him, and what the judge had to say about him.

I see you didn't read again. The PARENTS are mentally challenged. That is how he got away with it for so long.

This is new information to me, although you haven't provided a link to an article about it.  However it just moves the question up the chain: Who was responsible for them and how did they allow this kind of negligence to persist for so long?  Generally there are case workers for the children of the mentally disabled, or even live in caretakers, someone should have noticed during a four year span, and someone chose to do nothing.

Now, your new article is very interesting.  First off, lets correct the link since it was just a highly edited version of a Boston.com article.  Lets see the new information provided:

Derek Kimball, 33, of Hinesburg, whom authorities describe as a friend of Hulett's, was arrested in October and is charged with sexual assault on a victim less than 10 years of age, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He was later released on $25,000 bond and a series of conditions, including that he not contact the victim or any girls under the age of 16.

He could face up to life in prison if convicted. Kimball's case is not being handled by Cashman but by Judge Michael Kupersmith.

I see nothing there about being 'invited to abuse' the girl by Hulett, only that he also took advantage of her(who he did likely meet through the Hulett).

Cashman sentenced Hulett on Jan. 4 to 60 days to 10 years, along with two other suspended sentences. At the sentencing hearing, the judge said state Corrections Department officials had told him that Hulett would not receive sex-offender treatment while in prison because he was deemed a low risk to re-offend.

The judge said he worried that without treatment, Hulett would emerge from prison more likely to commit new crimes. He imposed a long list of stringent conditions on when and how Hulett could be released, including that he get sex-offender treatment, setting the stage for potentially a life sentence.

And here is what I have been saying all along about the judge.  Informed that he would recieve NO treatment he adjusted the punishment to ensure that Hulett got the treatment he required in the only way available to him.

The media coverage has been criticized by some who have studied the case. Republican Rep. Michael Kainen, a lawyer and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the Vermont House, said Friday, "If it were accurately reported, I think there would have been a little less furor."

Ah, so the Republicans in Vermont feel as I do, that this is being mis-represented and blown out of proportion by the media.  Is Michael Kainen also a child-rapist apologist?

That comment came two days after Human Services Secretary Michael Smith said the Corrections Department would shift gears and offer Hulett sex offender treatment while in prison.

That prompted prosecutors on Friday to file court papers asking Cashman to reconsider the sentence.

This can only be a good thing.

Thank you for the link, very informative and nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks that only part of the story is being reported.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

This link does not state that he decided to have a sex party with his friend and the girl.  It states that this is a friend of the offender and he also took advantage of the girl.  A bit of a difference there.  Your stating as fact that he offered the girl up to his friend as some sort of playtoy, when in fact the friend was fully competant and is just as likely to have taken advantage of her himself(or even possibly encouraged what was going on).  Read your own story, it also backs up much of what I have been saying.

LOL   Not even close.  You are inferring he was not invited over and invited himself.  You are inferring he was never introduced to the girl but went in by himself.  You infer that these two who both are sexual predators would not talk about their common interest.

Its sad to see how easily you are influenced by your own bias.

No followup?  Even there I am not factually incorrect, you CHOSE to interpret that as a 'fender bender' when it could just as easily meant "multi-car pileup with traumatic head injuries" which is more along the lines of what I meant(and said later on in the thread).

Where did I say fender bender in this thread Reflex?   Now you are in trouble.  lol   You are grasping at other threads hoping you can cover up your incredible screw-up by trying to shift the blame.

My contention at the time was that child sexual abuse is a bad thing, but it is not the worst thing a child can possibly go through in their life, and is more dependant on adult reaction to it and other factors in terms of its impact than a lot of people acknowledge.

That is NOT what you said.   You were extremely specific citing specific examples comparing them to child molestation when none of them even come CLOSE to that level of damage to a child.

Then quote it all, not just the parts that are convenient for you.  I shouldn't have to respond to my own posts because you took them out of context.

Nothing was taken out of context.   Nothing was misquoted.  Only now after you were caught AGAIN, you try and recharacterize your statement after the fact.   You and mayor Nagin have a lot in common.  He tried the same thing after making an outrageous statement.   No one believed him either.

The only person who has said that is you.  He is being released in 60 days into a treatment program as part of his conditions.

Is he out of jail?  YES

Is he free to drive around town?  YES

He is NOT under supervision Reflex.  He is FREE.   Its no different than parole and guys on parole have been known to re-offend.   You are willing to subject children to that chance.  I am not.

Developmentally Disabled and Mentally Challenged are the politically correct terms for what used to be known as Mentally Retarded.  Ask anyone in the field, the terms are interchangable.  If you want evidence in terms of medical documents, I am not a doctor and do not have direct access to people's personal medical records, however the AP reported it as fact and you can take it up with them if you disagree.

I take it up with you and your blind faith in an article without factual evidence.   Then you take it a step further and claim he didn't know what he was doing which has NEVER been proven.

This is why I have qualified my entire argument on the "If it is true that he is Developmentally Disabled" argument.  If he is not, I *agree* with you and the others, implying that I do not is false.  If he is mentally retarded, however, then yes I think the judge was reasonable.

You did not always use "if" in front of those statements of yours.

Once again, easily proven.

The part where he is protecting society. Releasing the man in 8 years with no idea of what he did wrong and no protection against him repeating it would be irresponsible and negligent in the extreme.

No if there.

I see no reason to punish someone who is incapable of understanding their crime unduly, they need supervision and treatment, not punishments for crimes they do not understand.

Gee, no if there either.   Shall I post more or are you going to admit you did NOT use the word "if" when talking about his mental capacity?

The prosecuter asked for 8 in light of the perpetrator's mental condition.  

And the judge had the freedom to go higher.  You know damn well that is true.

The judge agreed until he found out that there would be no treatment if this sentence were handed down.

Right there.   If he allowed his personal objections to influence his judgment he broke the LAW.    Are you going to deny this too?

Could he have given 20?  Maybe, it depends on the state laws, judges don't create law or sentences, they can only sentence what a charge allows under law and are supposed to take the prosecution's requests into mind.

No maybe, he absolutely could have.  Once again you show your lack of knowledge on the case.

Addressed above.  The article you pointed to did not state that he ever did this, only that a friend of his also took advantage of this girl.

Right Reflex.   His friend just happened to come over and just happened to rape this girl.   And of course, these two had no idea they shared this common sick practice.  You infer all day long with this guy's defense.   How about inferring some guilt once in a while?

You have a particuliar pattern of attacking myself and others, and have been banned in the past for this behaviour.

Wrong again.  I have NEVER been banned.   Your gross overstatements and false accusations continue.

As for my fitness to be a mod, feel free to leave and find another board if you have issues with the administration here, this is not a democracy, its a privately owned forum.

Yes it is.  Where people share ideas....and people like you share their hypocrisy.

Like I said, take the methodology up with the AP.  Its thier article but it reported his state as fact.  The judge also felt that way if you read his actual ruling rather than the O'Reilly version.  You say 'the court' decided he is competant, but the judge IS the court and decided otherwise.

Its not my fault you didn't do the research and relied on your personal bias to reach your conclusions.

The FACTS are the court case NEVER said he was mentally challenged or didn't know what he was doing.  That is pure speculation which you tried to reinforce in favorable unreliable sources.

Seeing as how I have not met the man, I can only go by what is reported about him, and what the judge had to say about him.

If you are only going on what is being reported, why are you ducking the court ruling where his mental capacity was NOT a factor?

This is new information to me, although you haven't provided a link to an article about it.  However it just moves the question up the chain: Who was responsible for them and how did they allow this kind of negligence to persist for so long?  Generally there are case workers for the children of the mentally disabled, or even live in caretakers, someone should have noticed during a four year span, and someone chose to do nothing.

Yes Reflex.   Don't blame the child rapist, blame the parents.     I really do worry about you.   Take it as a personal attack again if you wish.   You seem to enjoy inferring attacks where they don't exist and ignoring those that actually do exist.

Now, your new article is very interesting.  First off, lets correct the link since it was just a highly edited version of a Boston.com article.  Lets see the new information provided:
Derek Kimball, 33, of Hinesburg, whom authorities describe as a friend of Hulett's, was arrested in October and is charged with sexual assault on a victim less than 10 years of age, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He was later released on $25,000 bond and a series of conditions, including that he not contact the victim or any girls under the age of 16.

He could face up to life in prison if convicted. Kimball's case is not being handled by Cashman but by Judge Michael Kupersmith.

I see nothing there about being 'invited to abuse' the girl by Hulett, only that he also took advantage of her(who he did likely meet through the Hulett).

So you are willing to infer his mental capacity but when two child molesters get together and molest the same girl you think it was never discussed between the two.     How pathetic is that.

Cashman sentenced Hulett on Jan. 4 to 60 days to 10 years, along with two other suspended sentences. At the sentencing hearing, the judge said state Corrections Department officials had told him that Hulett would not receive sex-offender treatment while in prison because he was deemed a low risk to re-offend.

The judge said he worried that without treatment, Hulett would emerge from prison more likely to commit new crimes. He imposed a long list of stringent conditions on when and how Hulett could be released, including that he get sex-offender treatment, setting the stage for potentially a life sentence.

He was still released Reflex.  Free to roam around.   You are willing to take the chance he will re-offend when he is out.   I prefer jail where there is a ZERO percent chance he will harm more children.

And here is what I have been saying all along about the judge.  Informed that he would recieve NO treatment he adjusted the punishment to ensure that Hulett got the treatment he required in the only way available to him.

Its against the law Reflex.   How many times must I repeat myself?   A judge's personal opinions of the criminal system cannot influence his sentencing which it did.

Why are you so willing to give a pass on breaking the law?

Ah, so the Republicans in Vermont feel as I do, that this is being mis-represented and blown out of proportion by the media.  Is Michael Kainen also a child-rapist apologist?

YES.  Any other questions?   Of course if you had actually read my statements you would have seen I've slammed conservatives and republicans who have tried to defend this guy or those who label all liberals as soft on child rape.

And funny how he just like you didn't back up his statement.

That comment came two days after Human Services Secretary Michael Smith said the Corrections Department would shift gears and offer Hulett sex offender treatment while in prison.

That prompted prosecutors on Friday to file court papers asking Cashman to reconsider the sentence.

This can only be a good thing.

Thank you for the link, very informative and nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks that only part of the story is being reported.

Since you didn't even know half the story but continued to pretend you did, that's quite a statement.

[Reflex]

LOL Not even close. You are inferring he was not invited over and invited himself. You are inferring he was never introduced to the girl but went in by himself. You infer that these two who both are sexual predators would not talk about their common interest.

Its sad to see how easily you are influenced by your own bias.

We don't know how it happened.  The fact is that two men each abused the same girl.  The two men knew each other.  That is ALL we know.  Everything else is a fantasy invented by other people based on what they personally either think or wish the facts were.  Until more facts come out, there is no way to know, and I am not going to invent a fantasy to make something seem worse than it already is.  I prefer the facts, not invented fiction which may or may not prove true.

Is he out of jail? YES

Is he free to drive around town? YES

He is NOT under supervision Reflex. He is FREE. Its no different than parole and guys on parole have been known to re-offend. You are willing to subject children to that chance. I am not.

Read the conditions of his release.

I take it up with you and your blind faith in an article without factual evidence. Then you take it a step further and claim he didn't know what he was doing which has NEVER been proven.

Once again, you cannot prove a negative.  I can only go by the articles, I don't assume or invent facts to suite my worldview.  I pointed to the AP article, which was carried on a wide variety of news sites and in news papers.  Since I am not a doctor I simply do not have access to his medical records or evaluations, so there is nothing I can say on the topic.  I read it in the AP which is considered by most to be a credible source.  You can dispute it, but you also cannot prove that he did know what he was doing and that he is mentally competant.  The judge is the ultimate representative of the court in this case and he felt otherwise.

You did not always use "if" in front of those statements of yours.

Once again, easily proven.

Just because you havne't been able to figure it out, does not mean it isn't the case.   You seem to have acknowledged it now, so you can make that assumption going forward.  I am not going to put an 'if he's retarded' before every single sentence I type.  Its been stated and I've stated it since very early in this thread.

And the judge had the freedom to go higher. You know damn well that is true.

I don't know the maximum punishment in this case.  What I do know is that the prosecuter asked for no more than 8 years.  The reasoning for the judge's descision is spelled out in the court papers.  I'd suggest reading them since you haven't apparantly.

Right there. If he allowed his personal objections to influence his judgment he broke the LAW. Are you going to deny this too?

Yes, I can deny that.  Only part of his job is to punish the lawbreakers, the other part is to look out for the public interest.  He felt that releasing someone at some point in the future with no treatment and no idea of what he did wrong was not looking out for the best interests of the public.  It wouldn't matter if it was two months, 8 years, or 30 years, if the person recieved zero treatment they are just as large a threat as when they went into prison.  The judge ensured that this would not happen with the conditions of his judgement, which I suggest you read.

Right Reflex. His friend just happened to come over and just happened to rape this girl. And of course, these two had no idea they shared this common sick practice. You infer all day long with this guy's defense. How about inferring some guilt once in a while?

Addressed above.  However I often wonder about people who frame complex and twisted sex scenerios regarding crimes.  Do they enjoy thinking about it and making it out to be worse than the facts say?  I don't get this at all.  Law is about facts, and we have few of them in this instance.

Wrong again. I have NEVER been banned. Your gross overstatements and false accusations continue.

Another moderator told me they had banned you for a week previously.  If this is not true I apologize, however your warnings stand and personal insults will result in banishment.

Its not my fault you didn't do the research and relied on your personal bias to reach your conclusions.

The FACTS are the court case NEVER said he was mentally challenged or didn't know what he was doing. That is pure speculation which you tried to reinforce in favorable unreliable sources.

Actually I relied on a widely accepted mainstream media account.  And the court also believed this as well, its outlined in the court's decision on the case.

If you are only going on what is being reported, why are you ducking the court ruling where his mental capacity was NOT a factor?

In the end the court did decide it was a factor.  The judge is the ultimate representative of the court.

Yes Reflex. Don't blame the child rapist, blame the parents. I really do worry about you. Take it as a personal attack again if you wish. You seem to enjoy inferring attacks where they don't exist and ignoring those that actually do exist.

You have apparantly not worked with the developmentally disabled or you would know where I am coming from with this statement about responsibility.  I have and its the basis of my argument, which is predicated on the guy being mentally handicapped in the first case.

So you are willing to infer his mental capacity but when two child molesters get together and molest the same girl you think it was never discussed between the two. How pathetic is that.

Once again, invented scenerio.  There has been no evidence of this positive or negative.  In fact, the judge ruled that the defendant in the first case had no idea what he was doing was wrong.  So who knows how the two interacted, they may not have ever talked about it, or they may have and the one not known it was a bad thing.  No way to know with the information that is public at this time.

He was still released Reflex. Free to roam around. You are willing to take the chance he will re-offend when he is out. I prefer jail where there is a ZERO percent chance he will harm more children.

As opposed to being released at some indeterminant point in the future with no supervision at all.  Yes, your solution is so much better.  Read the terms of his release, its not like he is allowed to do whatever he wishes.

YES. Any other questions? Of course if you had actually read my statements you would have seen I've slammed conservatives and republicans who have tried to defend this guy or those who label all liberals as soft on child rape.

And funny how he just like you didn't back up his statement.

Whats to back up?  Its a fact that the media reporting in the newspapers that raised a ruckus did NOT present all the facts of the case that were in the decision itself.  The judge's statements regarding the mental competance of the convicted were not even mentioned in the earliest articles from the local paper that started the storm, nor did O'Reilly mention it.  They have carefully omitted any and all facts that could make this appear to be a more complex situation than is politically convenient for them.

[Babar]

Oh. I think I figured out why Crobs called the judge "liberal." One word: Vermont.

Stereotype anyone?

[crobs808]

Originally posted by: Rocky

Crobs, you are a sad individual.  Somehow you try to turn a conservative judge's ruling who isnt compassionate towards womens rights into a liberal conspiracy?...

hmm, never said one word about women's rights, so i guess rocky's post is null and void

~ Connor

[crobs808]

Originally posted by: Babar
Oh. I think I figured out why Crobs called the judge "liberal." One word: Vermont.
Stereotype anyone?

wow...i never called the JUDGE liberal, i called the MEDIA liberal by not covering saying it was a local issue, not a national issue.

how typical to take words out of context to try and make a point.  that is what you must do since the words i actually DID say were 100% valid

wow, so many invalid posts for just one thread, thats 2 so far.

~ Connor

[lightprocess]

You realize the 'liberal media' has nothing to do with this case right? This case has a unique twist to it that the judge has to deal with.. there are no 'liberal' or 'conservative' sides to it.

[Intuit]

Originally posted by: Texmaster
Call me crazy, I'd rather have someone be clear about their intentions than rely on implying their challenges.

What are you f*ing blind ?

Get a grip Tex.


Yo Crobs... Check it out dude...
(the rest of ya's too... might get a giggle outta my post there...)

[crobs808]

Intuit - wake up and pay attention, i posted on that thread multiple times, dont need to link me to it.

~ Connor

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: lightprocess

You realize the 'liberal media' has nothing to do with this case right? This case has a unique twist to it that the judge has to deal with.. there are no 'liberal' or 'conservative' sides to it.

Actually its sorry to say the liberals do have a serious role to play.   The reason liberals especially in Vermont have been defending this guy is because his brother in law is a powerful liberal player in Vermont politics.

It really is amazing.

This shouldn't be a liberal vs conservative issue but it is, at least for some who defend this SOB

Remember, Martha Stewart got 6 months and she only lied.

Another judge in Vermont gave someone 60 days for swearing at her.

This guy gets 60 days in jail for raping a little girl and having his friend do the same for 4 years.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Intuit

Originally posted by: Texmaster

Call me crazy, I'd rather have someone be clear about their intentions than rely on implying their challenges.

What are you f*ing blind ?



Get a grip Tex.

Get specific Intuit.  Everyone else can quote who they are talking to.   Only you seem to have that drawback.

[Rocky]

"This guy gets 60 days in jail for raping a little girl and having his friend do the same for 4 years. "


By a conservative judge, so if you guys actually want to make this into a political issue, you are going to lose that fight every day and twice on sundays.

[Reflex]

Originally posted by: Rocky
"This guy gets 60 days in jail for raping a little girl and having his friend do the same for 4 years. "

By a conservative judge, so if you guys actually want to make this into a political issue, you are going to lose that fight every day and twice on sundays.

It only takes disagreeing with the establishment once to lose all credibility you may have had as a conservative nowadays.

By contrast if you agree even once with a 'liberal' point of view, or even give such points of view a fair hearing, you are then branded a liberal for life.

BTW, the judge revised the sentence today to 3-10 years after he got the state to agree to treat him while he was serving his sentence, which is consistant with what his reasoning was the entire time.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"This guy gets 60 days in jail for raping a little girl and having his friend do the same for 4 years. "

By a conservative judge, so if you guys actually want to make this into a political issue, you are going to lose that fight every day and twice on sundays.

Rocky, if you had actually read this thread you would have seen that we have already menitoned he is a conservative judge many times over.

And if it isn't turning into a political issue please list all the liberal writers who have supported getting rid of this judge.   The facts are he is the brother in law of a powerful liberal political figure in the state and that is most likely the reason they are defending this judge.   Do some research before posting.   Please.


This judge blackmailed equal justice under the law.  Not only is that morally wrong, its blatently illegal.  But somehow this escapes the attention of those posting who celebrate the law being broken if it suits their political philipsohy.