2 MONTH sentence for child rapist

[48Highlander]

Looks like Canada isn't the only place with soft judges....

Rapist's Prison Sentence Triggers Outrage

Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I discovered it accomplishes nothing of value;it doesn't make anything better;it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger,"Cashman explained to the people in the court.

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

"I don't like it," the victim's mother,in tears, told Channel 3. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house," she added.

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

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

Oh great, he gets 60 days of food and lodgings on the taxpayers dime and then he can resume trolling. The only possible saving grace is pedophiles arn't well received in the prison system.

 

[Infanteer]

What a putz that judge is.  This is a good argument for minimum sentencing guidelines:

"Despite the fact that I don't believe in punishment, the government, representing the people who elected it, have saw fit to ensure that you must spend 10 years in jail.  Sorry man - I really didn't want to feed the anger and create expectation, but my hands are tied...."

 

[Dog]

Remember how I was against the death penalty before christmas?

I'm not saying I'm changing my mind, but jeez.... things like that really do push me in that direction.

 

[Sig_Des]

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

And I no longer believe in the Justice System...or at least, this particular judge.

I hate when things like this happen, it's enough to make you want to puke.

 

[dutchie]

GP, let's hope he goes to GP. Let the sociopaths there 'rehabilitate' this piece of trash.

I agree with Dog, I am against the death penalty, but man, I wish someone would just shoot HIM in the face.


(Edited by Moderator to remove profanity.)

 

[48Highlander]

I agree with Dog, I am against the death penalty, but man, I wish someone would just shoot HIM in the face.

The rapist...or the judge?  :-\


(Edited by Moderator to remove profanity from quoted text.)

 

[dutchie]

The rapist...or the judge?  :-\

The rapist. Fire the judge and make him work as a pro-bono lawyer for rape victims. Maybe then he'll see what kind of damage systematic sexual abuse does to kids and society as a whole.

That little girl is gonna have a really tough time her whole life, if she is like most victims of systematic/repeated rape.

 

[Jungle]

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.

Yeah... he should look in our system and see that over 30% of our inmates are in for the 10th time or more. He may not believe in punishment, but I don't believe in rehabilitation, as it doesn't work here.
I hope this judge feels like shit when the asshole rapes another kid.

 

[NL_engineer]

An easy solution for him would only cost $15.35, but it is not allowed yo be done.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

GP, let's hope he goes to GP. Let the sociopaths there 'rehabilitate' this piece of trash.

I agree with Dog, I am against the death penalty, but man, I wish someone would just shoot HIM in the face.

So without access to the transcripts of the trial or the remotest clue of what actually went on, you are not only angered enough to break forum guidelines with profanity, but also support the idea of 1st degree murder. 

I'm not in support of soft judges, light sentences, or child rape, however, the judge clearly stated that he felt rehabilitation was preferable to punishment.  The problem from a dispassionate point of view is with the judge's logic.  It's a fair position for petty crime.  Assume he was a shoplifter.  It's possible the judge had reason to believe that the guilty party was not likely to reoffend, and so, being rehabilitated, why clog the prison system.

However, being a sexual offence, I think that whether or not rehabilitation is likely or even completed, a punishment component needs to be meted out.  I'm not sure I could articulate why.  Of course, none of you have shown that ability, either.

So instead of mob mentality death threats that are a waste of bandwidth, perhaps we might engage in a more fruitful discussion, such as why sexual offences merit punishment, or what exactly the merits of punishment are, as that seems to be the main point to posting the article in the first place.



(Edited by Moderator to remove profanity from quoted text.)

 

[dutchie]

So without access to the transcripts of the trial or the remotest clue of what actually went on, you are not only angered enough to break forum guidelines with profanity, but also support the idea of 1st degree murder. 

Profanity? Ok, you got me. First degree murder? Well, seeing as those that habitually rape tend to lack control of their urges, I suspect that self-defence might come into play once his 2 months is up. So, no, I didn't advocate murder, I predict re-offence and advocate the defence of the victim with deadly force.

I'm not sure I could articulate why.  Of course, none of you have shown that ability, either.

Actually I did:

...Fire the judge and make him work as a pro-bono lawyer for rape victims. Maybe then he'll see what kind of damage systematic sexual abuse does to kids and society as a whole.

That little girl is gonna have a really tough time her whole life, if she is like most victims of systematic/repeated rape.

...perhaps we might engage in a more fruitful discussion, such as why sexual offences merit punishment, or what exactly the merits of punishment are, as that seems to be the main point to posting the article in the first place.

Did that too, sort of, as did Jungle:

Maybe then he'll see what kind of damage systematic sexual abuse does to kids and society as a whole.

That little girl is gonna have a really tough time her whole life, if she is like most victims of systematic/repeated rape.

Yeah... he should look in our system and see that over 30% of our inmates are in for the 10th time or more. He may not believe in punishment, but I don't believe in rehabilitation, as it doesn't work here.
I hope this judge feels like crap when the ******* rapes another kid.

Next time, please read before you pick fly shyte out of pepper.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Profanity? Ok, you got me. First degree murder? Well, seeing as those that habitually rape tend to lack control of their urges, I suspect that self-defence might come into play once his 2 months is up. So, no, I didn't advocate murder, I predict re-offence and advocate the defence of the victim with deadly force.

Actually I did:


Did that too, sort of, as did Jungle:

Next time, please read before you pick fly shyte out of pepper.

I don't see where the benefits of punishment are articulated, just the reasons for meting it out.  If you are concerned solely about reoffending, how is an 8 year prison sentence adequate, unless there is rehabilitation?  If we are convinced rehabiliation is a fallacy, then why only 8 years?  Or 20?  What's the point?  Infanteer talks about "minimum sentences", but what good are they if rehabilitation doesn't exist, as Jungle asserts?  You'd have to lock them up for life, or at least until they were old and too infirm to be a threat.

I think anyone with half a brain cell will agree that rape is a serious crime.  For some reason people seem to think child rape is somehow worse than if an adult is raped.  I disagree.

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer talks about "minimum sentences", but what good are they if rehabilitation doesn't exist, as Jungle asserts?

...because it meets the requirements of lex talionis - rape doesn't warrant death, but it is a pretty grievous crime against both the individual and the community.  A minimum sentence ensures that the harsh nature of the crime is maintained in the sentencing and is not open to interpretation by some yuppie judge.

For some reason people seem to think child rape is somehow worse than if an adult is raped.  I disagree.

There is a difference between a guy who rapes a women and a guy who specifically targets a child over a long period of time.  Most rapists act out on violent, ingrained tendencies in the human psyche.  They rape because, quite simply, they want sex.  It is tied to violence and its relationship with reproductive strategies a rooted in the lower brain.  Rape/murders and people targetting children are abnormal; it represents a deeper perversion (since killing and children don't really factor into human reproduction) and thus a different type of crime.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The judge no longer believes in punishment.  This statement should be written not in a judgement, but in a letter of resignation submitted to his superiors.  If a man in his position no longer feels he has the capacity to discharge his duty to the people, then his sole duty is to step down.  Judges do not decide law, judges interpret and enforce the laws of the nation state that they serve, as set forth by the lawful government of that land, and guided by the precedents of the judges who have previously done so.  If you are a judge in a nation that believes that crimes require punishment, then that will form a part of any sentencing decisions that you will make.  Rehabilitation is important for the criminal, and for society, but so is punishment.  Recidivism rates for child molesters and rapists make rehabillitation a low odds bet for society.  Imprisonment keeps offenders from the potential to re offend for the duration of their sentence, acts as a deterrent to them to offend against (for some), and shows the victims, and their families that society does not tolerate the raping of little girls.  To tell a little girl that she will have to spend longer in court talking about being raped, and longer in her home actually being raped, than the rapist will spend in prison, is tantamount to telling her that society is OK with her being raped.  If the judge can no longer consider the needs of society, or the victims, then he should take his advocacy for the criminals off the bench, and into the criminal defence practice.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The judge no longer believes in punishment.  This statement should be written not in a judgement, but in a letter of resignation submitted to his superiors.  If a man in his position no longer feels he has the capacity to discharge his duty to the people, then his sole duty is to step down.  Judges do not decide law, judges interpret and enforce the laws of the nation state that they serve, as set forth by the lawful government of that land, and guided by the precedents of the judges who have previously done so.  If you are a judge in a nation that believes that crimes require punishment, then that will form a part of any sentencing decisions that you will make.  Rehabilitation is important for the criminal, and for society, but so is punishment.  Recidivism rates for child molesters and rapists make rehabillitation a low odds bet for society.  Imprisonment keeps offenders from the potential to re offend for the duration of their sentence, acts as a deterrent to them to offend against (for some), and shows the victims, and their families that society does not tolerate the raping of little girls.  To tell a little girl that she will have to spend longer in court talking about being raped, and longer in her home actually being raped, than the rapist will spend in prison, is tantamount to telling her that society is OK with her being raped.  If the judge can no longer consider the needs of society, or the victims, then he should take his advocacy for the criminals off the bench, and into the criminal defence practice.

Judges in the US are elected in many places I think, so it is up to his constituents to decide whether or not he has failed them.  I don't know if judges are appointed in his specific area or not, perhaps someone can confirm?

If the people of the community are "ok" with his decisions and his change of heart, then there isn't much to be done. Hopefully they take a better read of the situation than just an article on the internet.

 

[silverbach]

Hmm...2 months for rape on a child...hmm...that sounds reasonable !

 

[Gouki]

what

 

[dutchie]

Judges in the US are elected in many places I think, so it is up to his constituents to decide whether or not he has failed them.

The main point brought forward here (except by you of course) is that the judge failed society (not just the good people of Vermont) by handing out a minimal sentence to an offender for such a heinous crime. I don't need to be a resident to know that plain fact.

If the people of the community are "ok" with his decisions and his change of heart, then there isn't much to be done. Hopefully they take a better read of the situation than just an article on the internet.

But does that mean we can't have and express an opinion? Plus, by that reasoning, it's ok that women accused of adultery are stoned to death in some countries - afterall, the people of the community thinks that's just honkey-dorey.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The main point brought forward here (except by you of course) is that the judge failed society (not just the good people of Vermont) by handing out a minimal sentence to an offender for such a heinous crime. I don't need to be a resident to know that plain fact.
But does that mean we can't have and express an opinion? Plus, by that reasoning, it's ok that women accused of adultery are stoned to death in some countries - afterall, the people of the community thinks that's just honkey-dorey.

It's an interesting point; I suspect the matter isn't as black and white as we would like, no?  So who should be responsible for setting these standards for farflung communities?  If there is a problem with communities in the US electing their own judges, then it needs to be addressed.

However, you're mixing apples and oranges.  Stonings seem more common in non-democratic countries, unless you'd care to name some democracies that allow "barbaric" punishments.  I guess we could look at the US if you want to go over the death penalty debate again. I don't, as I don't characterize it that way.

As for the judge in question, I'm reasonably sure his next re-election campaign will be suitably interesting. 

Can judges be impeached/removed?  There must be a mechanism for that also.  May be a case for it in this ruling, but I'm not an expert on American law.  Perhaps some of the lawyers here could point out if this is actionable (ie the judge could be removed).