Idiot Judge in Vermont sentences repeat child rapist to 60 days...

[SirFozzie]

Ok boys, it's time to get on the beatdown bus... this judge "does not believe in punishment"??? That's his fucking job. Hope he gets impeached as a judge.


http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605&nav=4QcT

QUOTE
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.

Brian Joyce - Channel 3 News

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I hope that when her father kills him in 61 days that he gets the same judge.

[albionmoonlight]

I am generally in favor of judges getting discretion to sentence--much more than they actually get.

In this case, however, I think that the judge was dead wrong. It is the role of the legislature--limited only by the constitution--to decide whether to punish and for what and for how long.

The judge may beleive that punishment does not work. The judge may even be right, but Nicole Anderson said it best, ""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 . . . ."

This is a matter that should have been left to the people.

[Mr. Wednesday]

It's inherently impossible for punishment to fail, because the goal of punishment is to provide restitution to society. In that sense, the sentence is a travesty.

[Icy]

Yeah he needs rehabilitation... i hope he will get raped his ass in jail the same amount of times that he did to the little girl so he will learn how did he hurt that girl. I wonder if the judge would have considered rehabilitation if the raped girl was his own. News like that really anger me :/

[rkmsuf]

Isn't there some kind of judge police?

[vtbub]

Isn't there some kind of judge police?
The legislature here renews every five years. I do not know when he is due, but suffice it to say there was some angry phone calls on the radio this morning.

[gstelmack]

It's inherently impossible for punishment to fail, because the goal of punishment is to provide restitution to society. In that sense, the sentence is a travesty.What? How is sending someone to jail providing restitution?

The goal of punishment is prevention through deterrence: making the price of committing the act higher than the benefit provided from the act, thus preventing the act from occurring in the first place. Or, to prevent repeat occurrances (which is what you're usually doing with children).

[rkmsuf]

The legislature here renews every five years. I do not know when he is due, but suffice it to say there was some angry phone calls on the radio this morning.

Cue the flying bag of feces throw at front door followed by a "You sh*t on my house!"

[Toddzilla]

I hope that when her father kills him in 61 days that he gets the same judge.

You are teh winner of the thread.

[Lathum]

mindboggling

[Ben E Lou]

I hope that when her father kills him in 61 days that he gets the same judge.[Carl Lee Hailey]YES they deserve to die and I hope they burn in HAYULL!!![/Carl Lee Hailey]

[Klinglerware]

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.


That caught my eye. I do see the judge's point here. You have a sex offender that the state refuses to classify as a potential re-offender, so he won't get in-prison treatment. Prosecution was not asking for a life sentence, so the guy is going to get out no matter what. What the judge did was pretty extreme, but considering that the alternative was still a non-life sentence (but with no treatment), I could see why the judge did it.

[vtbub]

That caught my eye. I do see the judge's point here. You have a sex offender that the state refuses to classify as a potential re-offender, so he won't get in-prison treatment. Prosecution was not asking for a life sentence, so the guy is going to get out no matter what. What the judge did was pretty extreme, but considering that the alternative was still a non-life sentence (but with no treatment), I could see why the judge did it.
FYI, The prosecution asked for 8 years.

[ISiddiqui]

That caught my eye. I do see the judge's point here. You have a sex offender that the state refuses to classify as a potential re-offender, so he won't get in-prison treatment. Prosecution was not asking for a life sentence, so the guy is going to get out no matter what. What the judge did was pretty extreme, but considering that the alternative was still a non-life sentence (but with no treatment), I could see why the judge did it.
Yeah, that part of the article makes the judgment seem more sensible than it did at first. Though it still won't make anyone happy.

[Mr. Wednesday]

What? How is sending someone to jail providing restitution?

The goal of punishment is prevention through deterrence: making the price of committing the act higher than the benefit provided from the act, thus preventing the act from occurring in the first place. Or, to prevent repeat occurrances (which is what you're usually doing with children). There's clearly more to it than that, or we wouldn't have the death penalty (which IIRC has been shown not to have any deterrent effect at all). If the goal is merely to prevent repeat occurrences, then the judge is right -- you're going for rehabilitation, not punishment.

[st.cronin]

There's clearly more to it than that, or we wouldn't have the death penalty (which IIRC has been shown not to have any deterrent effect at all). If the goal is merely to prevent repeat occurrences, then the judge is right -- you're going for rehabilitation, not punishment.

It's not exactly true that the death penalty has been shown to have no deterrent effect. Death penalty opponents say that, but the studies are pretty inconclusive. It's not the sort of thing that you can set up a clean control for.

[Kodos]

Punishment can also be used to remove the person's chance to commit offenses. AKA, if they are dead or in jail or castrated, they can't hurt little girls any more.

In this case, if I were the judge, he would be castrated, jailed, and then made dead after spending quality time with the other prisoners.

[Klinglerware]

FYI, The prosecution asked for 8 years.

Yes, it was only 8 years. The recidivism rate for these crimes are pretty high, so he would likely do it again. In some ways, given the paltry sentence prosecution asked for--the judge was acting responsibly by making the decision that would result in the the sex offender getting some treatment. Handing out an eight year sentence knowing that the perpetrator will eventually be back out on the streets with no treatment sounds like delaying a problem and does not really protect the community long-term.

[vtbub]

Vermont is looking into a civil commitment proram too. Basically confinement for these types of crimes after their sentence is up.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

As was pointed out, The judge is saying the sentence was the only way he could get the guy into counseling, rather than just lock him up. According to him, state law doesn't allow judges to require mental treatment for inmates, and the state Corrections Dept said it wouldn't treat him anyway. If the guy doesn't adhere to the deal, he gets sent to prison for life.


I'm not saying the judge was right or wrong, but the judge apparently has more of a rationale than he doesn't feel like punishing criminals anymore.

[GrantDawg]

I think it is sad that this guy repeatedly raped a 7 year old and the DA was only asking for 8 years. Rape should equal at least Life.

[GrantDawg]

As was pointed out, The judge is saying the sentence was the only way he could get the guy into counseling, rather than just lock him up. According to him, state law doesn't allow judges to require mental treatment for inmates, and the state Corrections Dept said it wouldn't treat him anyway. If the guy doesn't adhere to the deal, he gets sent to prison for life.


I'm not saying the judge was right or wrong, but the judge apparently has more of a rationale than he doesn't feel like punishing criminals anymore.

But rehabiliation for sex crimes is a joke. I have dealt with someone regularly who is currently in a rehab for this, and these programs for the most part are just money pits. They don't work (as evidenced by the fact a good percentage of those in his class are back in prison).

[ISiddiqui]

I think it is sad that this guy repeatedly raped a 7 year old and the DA was only asking for 8 years. Rape should equal at least Life.
Not to open a can of worms, but is rape worse than battering a person bloody (assuming both doesn't happen in the same violent act)? Now, with a 7 year old, you can argue that it probably is, but with an adult, I'm not sure. And for that battering you won't get life in prison (unless the battered person dies, of course).

[GrantDawg]

Not to open a can of worms, but is rape worse than battering a person bloody (assuming both doesn't happen in the same violent act)? Now, with a 7 year old, you can argue that it probably is, but with an adult, I'm not sure. And for that battering you won't get life in prison (unless the battered person dies, of course).
Yes, rape is worse than battery, and rape of an adult generally has a much longer sentence than battery.

[Kodos]

Rape and battery are not even close in terms of impact on the victim.

[GrantDawg]

As a matter of fact, make it personal. Which would be worse to happen to you? Beaten up bad, or raped in the cornhole? I'll take the beating, please.

[st.cronin]

What if it was Matt Leinhart?

[Maple Leafs]

Back in high school law, I learned that sentences are meant to have four effects, in no particular order:

- Deterrence -- make it so that people who might consider doing a bad thing change their mind
- Rehabilitation -- give the bad person a chance to turn into a good person
- Prevention -- a bad person can't do bad things to society if they're locked up (or dead)
- Punishment -- make something bad happen to the bad person

If people forget about one or more of these four points, they tend to get skewed ideas about what a reasonable punishment is.

[Greyroofoo]

I'd say just shoot the guy in the head and be done with it.

[Draft Dodger]

Back in high school law, I learned that sentences are meant to have four effects, in no particular order:

- Deterrence -- make it so that people who might consider doing a bad thing change their mind
- Rehabilitation -- give the bad person a chance to turn into a good person
- Prevention -- a bad person can't do bad things to society if they're locked up (or dead)
- Punishment -- make something bad happen to the bad person

If people forget about one or more of these four points, they tend to get skewed ideas about what a reasonable punishment is.

I've been meaning to start a thread on a local case that has had me thinking about this. Basics of the story - this summer, a dad and his 6 year old were both riding 4-wheelers. It was night and the kid's ATV had no working lights. The dad was following behind to help illuminate the path for his son, the son ended up traveling towards a busy highway. the father could not stop him, and the kid was struck by a car and killed.

Now, this is a horrible thing on so many levels. There's so many things that the father was negligent that I won't take the time to write them all down. But, from what I understand, this is a very caring father who made some horrible mistakes in judgement. Yesterday, the DA finally announced that they would not only be pressing charges (can't remember the exact charge - I belive criminal negligence, but don't quote me) but would be asking for a longer sentence than is normally given.

Personally, my thought is that this guy has suffered enough. His stupidity has taken his child from him. Is jail time necessary?

thoughts?

[ISiddiqui]

I've been meaning to start a thread on a local case that has had me thinking about this. Basics of the story - this summer, a dad and his 6 year old were both riding 4-wheelers. It was night and the kid's ATV had no working lights. The dad was following behind to help illuminate the path for his son, the son ended up traveling towards a busy highway. the father could not stop him, and the kid was struck by a car and killed.

Now, this is a horrible thing on so many levels. There's so many things that the father was negligent that I won't take the time to write them all down. But, from what I understand, this is a very caring father who made some horrible mistakes in judgement. Yesterday, the DA finally announced that they would not only be pressing charges (can't remember the exact charge - I belive criminal negligence, but don't quote me) but would be asking for a longer sentence than is normally given.

Personally, my thought is that this guy has suffered enough. His stupidity has taken his child from him. Is jail time necessary?

thoughts?Yes, I think it's absolutely necessary. Maybe not as a result of deterrance (he was a moron, that kind of thing doesn't happen often), but his negligence led to the death of a person. I believe in retributive punishment because I believe it is repayment to society for your actions (you have violated a rule of society and thus have to repay the society for that transgression).

[Tekneek]

My opinion is that anytime a crime has a direct victim, who has been deprived of their life, liberty, or property, there should always be a punishment. Any "rehabilitation" time can be tacked onto the end of that punishment, not instead of the punishment. We don't currently allow a harsh enough punishment for someone that commits this sort of crime against a child.

Besides, no matter what sort of 'rehabilitation' you can give this guy, what kind of a job is he going to get? Who wants to hire a man who rapes children? I cannot forgive crimes against children.

EDIT...

I found this just now...

The state Corrections Department is planning a complete review of sex-offender Mark Hulett's case, including whether he should remain ineligible for counseling while in prison and whether the department can hold him longer than his controversial 60-day minimum sentence, Commissioner Rob Hofmann said Thursday.

[Northwood_DK]

A quick goggle shows that it’s not the first time Judge Edward Cashman have come up with some stupid rulings.

[ISiddiqui]

As a matter of fact, make it personal. Which would be worse to happen to you? Beaten up bad, or raped in the cornhole? I'll take the beating, please.
You know, if I had to chose, I'd rather get raped than have a few bones broken. After all, a bad beating can make you into a cripple, if the right areas are targetted.

[GrantDawg]

You know, if I had to chose, I'd rather get raped than have a few bones broken. After all, a bad beating can make you into a cripple, if the right areas are targetted.

You then are the exception.

[rkmsuf]

You know, if I had to chose, I'd rather get raped than have a few bones broken. After all, a bad beating can make you into a cripple, if the right areas are targetted.

So can profuse cornhole invasion.

[Ben E Lou]

You know, if I had to chose, I'd rather get raped than have a few bones broken. After all, a bad beating can make you into a cripple, if the right areas are targetted.Then pass the cane, wheelchair, crutches, and/or walker, I say. Can you say HIV+?