I don't BELIEVE this @#$% judge!!!


PDA






Preacherman
January 6, 2006, 12:39 AM
Can you believe this stuff??? I'm left almost speechless... except for profanities that would violate the High Road standard. I'm so angry I could spit!!!

From Channel 3 News, Burlington, VT (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605):

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.

If you enjoyed reading about "I don't BELIEVE this @#$% judge!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DontBurnMyFlag
January 6, 2006, 12:46 AM
Argh that stuff makes me so mad. :fire: :cuss: :banghead:

Rape is the most under-punished crime in America. Just the other day I was watching a police show and a drug dealer with 500 dollars worth of crack-cocaine got 15 years in jail!!! I agree, he deserves time and whatnot, but 15 years of his life and tying up the legal system when rapists get 60 days!!?!?!

We need the boondock saints.

HighVelocity
January 6, 2006, 12:48 AM
Wow, that is just, undeniably wrong. :fire:

LSCurrier
January 6, 2006, 12:49 AM
Why do judges get away with the things they do? :fire:

This judge should be fired, impeached, or whatever it takes to get ride of him!!

If that was my little girl I cannot even tell you the things that would be going thru my mind!!!!!!

Luke

Strings
January 6, 2006, 12:49 AM
I just... wow... I have NO clue what to say...

My first (emotional) response is "GET A ROPE!!!". Problem there being, I'm not sure if it should be used on the perp or the judge... :banghead: :cuss:


I'm not sure I'd be able to control myself if I was in that courtroom...

ghost squire
January 6, 2006, 12:53 AM
This is an interesting one. On the one hand the American justice system was founded for reform. On the other hand it has become a punishment/reform system.

I had no idea judges could just make up their own minds about things this important.

sm
January 6, 2006, 12:55 AM
Perhaps Lee and Phil Carson really do need to get busy on a book.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2130546&postcount=19

The Effect of Spewing Lead Onto Recidivism

re•cid•i•vism (r-sd-vzm)
n.

1. A tendency to lapse into a previous pattern of behavior, especially a pattern of criminal habits.

longeyes
January 6, 2006, 01:10 AM
No, he still believes in punishment, only now he's punishing those who want justice done.

Perversion rules.

gunner03
January 6, 2006, 01:26 AM
He should serve the other 7 years and 10 months!!!!!!

odysseus
January 6, 2006, 01:32 AM
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.

Disgusting. The punishment does not fit the crime. The judge is advocating his politics from the bench at the cost of pain to the victim and her family. I am absolutely angry about this. Bad karma.... bad, bad karma. :cuss:

mrtgbnkr
January 6, 2006, 01:33 AM
My first (emotional) response is "GET A ROPE!!!". Problem there being, I'm not sure if it should be used on the perp or the judge... :banghead: :cuss:

Easy solution....Get TWO ropes! Or use both ends of the one you've got (counter-balance system?)

Standing Wolf
January 6, 2006, 01:33 AM
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.

I'd say that individual needs to be disarmed.

Snagglepuss
January 6, 2006, 01:37 AM
That little girl is someones daughter. I wonder what he would have done if it was his daughter. What an ***hole:cuss: :barf: :cuss:

Atticus
January 6, 2006, 01:38 AM
If that was my daughter, I know where he would be going in sixty days.

SilentStalker
January 6, 2006, 01:39 AM
I agree that this is ridiculously wrong. However, something else that also really bothers me is that the people that run this news agency cannot perform simple math. If the problem started when the girl was seven and it says clearly that is lasted until she was ten then how in the hell do they figure that this lasted 4 years when they state plain as day that the dude did his business for four years? Anyways sorry had to vent about the ignorance there. As far as the judges sentence, I think the judge needs to be stuck into a prison with a bunch of gay men running rampant in which case the bigger bubba takes advantage of him for 4-5 years, then we shall see how he feels about this scenario. If he still feels like his sentence was fair after that then we should just shoot him point blank as his gene pool does not need to be allowed to reproduce due to ignorance.

Crosshair
January 6, 2006, 02:00 AM
Wait, can't you shoot someone who is commiting rape? Just have a few people tail him. I don't think he is going to sleep well for awhile once he gets out.

Darkside852003
January 6, 2006, 02:05 AM
Shoot, Shovel, Shut Up.

SomeKid
January 6, 2006, 02:09 AM
This is a good thing.

The Father (if he is a Father) will still have all this fresh in his memory, being as 60 days is such a short span.

BG gets out, BG checks out.

Go to the judges house, off him. Claim insanity. Or, if you do not wish to shoot the judge, you can just make sure your murder trial goes to said judge, and get him to give you a rehabilitation sentence. After all, you never want to shoot anyone again, you are rehabilitated, no sentence needed.

Drewtam
January 6, 2006, 02:13 AM
However, something else that also really bothers me is that the people that run this news agency cannot perform simple math. If the problem started when the girl was seven and it says clearly that is lasted until she was ten then how in the hell do they figure that this lasted 4 years when they state plain as day that the dude did his business for four years?

At age 7,8,9,10 = four years;

On topic: This judge seems to have swallowed the lie that its about retribution and righting the wrong; the issue is about justice. People have some mixed up ideas about justice.

The Kidd
January 6, 2006, 02:15 AM
Mrtgbnkr has it right. Use both ends of the same rope. Restore our system of 'checks and balances'.

coylh
January 6, 2006, 02:24 AM
I'm amazed the judge has that much discretion.

To the question he begs though, what is the purpose of jail? Isolation? Vengeance? Reform? Deterrence? Does jail accomplish its purpose?

Kim
January 6, 2006, 02:28 AM
This guy may not make it out of jail alive. This judge needs to be impeached,voted out of office or the mafia needs to take care of him. He needs to go be a citizen of some European Nation. This makes me ILL.

Lupinus
January 6, 2006, 02:32 AM
If that was my little girl or little sister or whatever? That judge better damn well put him away for more then sixty days. That man is goign to want to be someplace I can't get to him after doing that. Punishment doesn't work my hairy italian rear end, worked fine for thousands of years. Judges liek this should be thrown in jail.

lamazza
January 6, 2006, 03:31 AM
The judge needs to do a little homework before doing something that assinine.
Most psychiatrists will tell you that there IS NO cure or rehabilitation for sexual crimes or tendencies.

Mad Chemist
January 6, 2006, 03:42 AM
My first (emotional) response is "GET A ROPE!!!". Problem there being, I'm not sure if it should be used on the perp or the judge... :banghead: :cuss:

Both.:fire:

Rem700SD
January 6, 2006, 04:03 AM
I will agree with said judge on one point. The prison system does little to reform anyone. BUT 60 DAYS MY @$$!!!!!!:cuss: This guy needs five years minimum for a first rape conviction, with an extra 5 for every year of hell he put her through, up to a maximum of 20 years. As much as anyone likes longer sentences, if you can't get right in 20 years, it won't happen.

Edit; If 20 doesn't cut it, hang'em, don't waste my tax money on a life sentence

Sindawe
January 6, 2006, 05:06 AM
Should the evidence prove damning beyond a doubt, such as a DNA match...

Hanging's too good for 'em
Burning's too good for 'em
They should be torn into itty bitty pieces and buried ALIVE!

Same for the Viola x wittrockiana (http://www.gardenguides.com/flowers/annuals/pansy.htm) in the black dress. :fire:

4570Rick
January 6, 2006, 05:18 AM
I'm sorry people but this rat bastid needs to go away for ever. Not 60 days, not five years, not 8 to 20, for freeking ever. Grown men and women who use children as objects of sex should NEVER walk free again. :cuss:

poe_9999
January 6, 2006, 05:22 AM
"must complete sex treatment". What a joke...

poe_9999
January 6, 2006, 05:39 AM
This judge’s stupid actions are probably going to result in stricter sentencing guidelines with high mandatory minimums.

I wonder what type of sentences he hands out for armed robbery and murder.

Strings
January 6, 2006, 05:44 AM
and the REALLY sad thing is, they'll be giving the perp some form of protection from the citizenry when he gets out. And after serving his two months in a facility catering to sexual predators, he'll have a better idea how to avoid getting caught...

McCall911
January 6, 2006, 07:12 AM
I read something else into this slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor "sentence" for a serious felony. It sounds like corruption to me.

mr.trooper
January 6, 2006, 07:16 AM
He is right about one thing: housing and feeding inmates IS expensive.

Bullets are cheap though...

Cosmoline
January 6, 2006, 07:20 AM
Not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Heck, in the old days judges would give minimal time to rapists on the theory that "boys will be boys." It's one of the main reasons mandatory sentences were established. This judge clearly has no business on the bench anymore.

Ryder
January 6, 2006, 07:22 AM
I think you guys are missing one of the responsible parties here. Where was the mother for four years? You know the one that is so outraged all of a sudden. Having raised three kids I can't entertain the thought that she didn't know what was going on in her own home with her own child. :scrutiny:

Rope is cheap! :D

cuchulainn
January 6, 2006, 07:44 AM
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 silver lining is that this moron can be a poster-boy for how wrongheaded such ideas are.

Besides, what about locking the guy up simply to get him out of society -- that's the point of prison.

Krenn
January 6, 2006, 07:52 AM
federal law has minimum guidelines, and a judge violating them would presumably by impeached/mandated to retire....

was this a state court?

El Tejon
January 6, 2006, 08:10 AM
Krenn, yes.

I can believe it. Given the right judge and circumstances, it can happen.

Many state DOC facilities do not provide treatment for offenders despite their proclamations to the contrary. I could foresee a defendant, perhaps one with mental development issues (i.e. retarded), who may not survive a long prison stint without steady, supervised counseling/therapy.

That said, for multiple incidents, I would anticipate a much longer sentence, however do not know all the details and I know the media leaves a lot out and reports many things incorrectly.

Janitor
January 6, 2006, 08:41 AM
"Punishment is a valid purpose," Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued to Judge Edward Cashman.
+1 to the Deputy Prosecutor, with one exception. Eight years is not nearly enough punishment for what he did. How about eight years for each year of hell he put that little girl through?

Sorry. Prudence and paranoia prevent me from talking about what I'd consider truely appropriate at this point. let's just say that I think the judge should be taught a lot more about rehabilitation and punishment - a pracitcal demonstration would be in order.

If the problem started when the girl was seven and it says clearly that is lasted until she was ten then how in the hell do they figure that this lasted 4 years when they state plain as day that the dude did his business for four years?
Hmmm ... 7-8-9-10 ... I get four years - what are you trying to say?
-

50caliber123
January 6, 2006, 08:51 AM
It's extremely light sentences like this that lead to people taking the law in their own hands. That said, I'm not for vigilante justice, but were it my child, I would have a difficult time with this. If anyone has ever seen the movie, "A Time To Kill", you'll know where I'm going with this.

Geno
January 6, 2006, 08:52 AM
Need I say more? Seems this judge is as out-of-touch as our other Dim-wit-ocrats and Re-puke-likans.

Neuter would be a good starting point, with a very dull chisel. Now people better understand why I say that if this happened to MY little girl--there would not be a trial.

Doc2005

DogWithGun
January 6, 2006, 08:54 AM
Despicable....Unbelievable.... What a cruel joke on the family to give this guy a 60 day sentance.
However, that being said. I would highly caution against threatening the life of a sitting judge even off handed in a forum like this. Things like that will cause you far more trouble than the enterainment value it creates here.
As for justice. Have faith in God and know that nobody gets away with anything in the end unless they sincerely repent of their sins. God's justice is fair, final and terrible. He believes in punishment.

erik the bold
January 6, 2006, 09:04 AM
Flood the court with complaints: :fire: :cuss: :fire:

Chittenden District Court
32 Cherry Street, Suite 300
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 651-1950

AND:

The Judicial Conduct Board is responsible for reviewing and investigating all complaints of misconduct or disability by Vermont judicial officers. Contact:

Christopher L. Davis, Esq.
275 College Street
P.O. Box 721
Burlington, VT 05402

I say this judge either committed misconduct or is functionally disabled. In any case, he needs to go......

Link to "how to file a complaint" is HERE (http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/Committes/boards/jcbcomplaint.htm)

Janitor
January 6, 2006, 09:20 AM
Does a complaint from out of state carry any weight at all with state court? I realize that they are political, but will they actually care what I would have to say from up here in the great midwest?

or is functionally disabled.
IMO - closest to the mark.

In any case, he needs to go......
... someplace. Yes. Anyplace but back into the courtroom to show yet another American family that the guy who hurt them so badly is far more important than they are.
-

erik the bold
January 6, 2006, 09:34 AM
Does a complaint from out of state carry any weight at all with state court?
-

I would suspect that would depend on how big of a mail mountain they have to deal with........

<100 = ho hum....
101-500 = some interest
501-1000 = got their attention
>50,000 = somethin' will happen

gt3944
January 6, 2006, 09:40 AM
A hand of applause for our legal system, lets hear it come .....freaking jerks:fire: Pleople get stiffer sentences for traffic tickets, come on what is this judge thinking....:cuss:

1911 guy
January 6, 2006, 09:45 AM
This moron in a long black dress needs to get taken behind the woodshed by the lady with the blindfold and scales. What he meted out was a political stunt, not justice. In the case of a grown man raping a child, justice involves a burial after a violent death. I won't come right out andf say I'd condone vigilanteism, but it'd be hard to say anything against it if something comes of this in sixty days.

Kaylee
January 6, 2006, 09:54 AM
I agree with McCall... for that crazy a sentence, I'm thinkin' the judge is on the take from somebody ... or otherwise knows the family of the perp.

The Drew
January 6, 2006, 09:55 AM
I just... wow... I have NO clue what to say...

My first (emotional) response is "GET A ROPE!!!". Problem there being, I'm not sure if it should be used on the perp or the judge... :banghead: :cuss:


I'm not sure I'd be able to control myself if I was in that courtroom...

I think the proper way to handle this with a rope is put the rapist at one end and the judge at the other and a pulley in between... Then drop the trap doors....

odysseus
January 6, 2006, 09:59 AM
I agree with McCall... for that crazy a sentence, I'm thinkin' the judge is on the take from somebody ... or otherwise knows the family of the perp.

Well he certainly opened himself to a high degree of scrutiny now. I am sure people are all into looking into his background and any connections he may have with this piece of turd offender.

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 10:02 AM
Flood the court with complaints: :fire: :cuss: :fire:

Chittenden District Court
32 Cherry Street, Suite 300
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 651-1950

AND:

The Judicial Conduct Board is responsible for reviewing and investigating all complaints of misconduct or disability by Vermont judicial officers. Contact:

Christopher L. Davis, Esq.
275 College Street
P.O. Box 721
Burlington, VT 05402

I say this judge either committed misconduct or is functionally disabled. In any case, he needs to go......

Thank you for posting address of Court; I hope everyone writes a letter of disgust about this joke of a judge calling for his disbarment and departure... such a poor excuse for humanity needs a quick letter of termination from his employ... I cannot imagine how the family of the victim feels... This judge is not only functionally diabled but a genuine threat to the community. Write to the Court demanding this piece of filth be immediately fired from the bench.

wmenorr67
January 6, 2006, 10:05 AM
Here in Oklahoma a guy just got the maximum of a year in jail and $500 fine for burning trash during the burn ban. And this guy gets 60 days for rape of a child. Surprised he didn't get time served with the way the judge spouted off on his political tangent.:fire: :cuss: :banghead: :barf:

Capital Punishment
January 6, 2006, 10:08 AM
That is just utterly discusting.

Fastlane
January 6, 2006, 11:07 AM
I agree with Drew and if they want to pull my sorry a$$ into court for threatening a judge then so be it. I am old and I hurt in places that I didn't have 10 years ago. :) I might decide not to go with them.

erik the bold
January 6, 2006, 11:33 AM
Vermont Rules of Judicial Conduct

RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) engage in a "serious crime," defined as illegal conduct involving any felony
or involving any lesser crime a necessary element of which involves interference with the
administration of justice, false swearing, intentional misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery,
extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to
commit a "serious crime";
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or
official;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of
applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) discriminate against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, place of birth or age, or against a qualified
handicapped individual, in hiring, promoting or otherwise determining the conditions of
employment of that individual; or
(h) engage in any other conduct which adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness
to practice law.


I think there's enough here to give this guy "Das Boot" :fire:


The Vermont constitution contains two explicit
standards by which judges can be removed from office. Chapter II, § 58
provides: “Every officer of State, whether judicial or executive, shall be liable
to be impeached by the House of Representatives, either when in office or
after resignation or removal for mal-administration.”
The other standard for removing a judge from office specifies the length
of judicial tenure. Chapter II, § 36 states: “The justices of the Supreme Court
and the judges of all subordinate courts shall hold office during good behavior
for the terms for which they are appointed.”75 The phrase “hold office”
implies that if a judge behaved “badly”, removal from office would be
appropriate.

another okie
January 6, 2006, 11:56 AM
Abuses of judicial discretion like this are why they had sentencing guidelines in the federal courts, though the Supreme Court has decided these are not really binding any more.

I hope everyone remembers this abuse of discretion the next time we rant about zero tolerance or sentencing guidelines that take away administrative or judicial discretion. Now you know why such rules and laws limiting judicial discreition exist.

Now for all the screamers out there, I'm not saying zero tolerance is either good or bad and I think this sentence is stupid and wrong. I'm just asking you to understand why we wind up with practices such as zero tolerance - it's because judges or school administrators abuse their discretion.

So recognize there's no perfect solution to this. If we let people in powerful positions use their judgment, sometimes they will make bad judgments. If we don't let them use their judgment, the punishments will often seem arbitrary and not suited to the particular situation.

chaim
January 6, 2006, 11:57 AM
For those who think some kind of corruption must be involved, I don't think so. I spent some time (only 8 months) in VT, and I think this guy is a true believer. As great as the state is, I don't think you'll find a bigger collection of "granolas" who never outgrew the 1960s anywhere else (maybe San Fran).

Anyone in the know who can answer this? I know that prosecutors cannot appeal a decision due to double jeapardy. However, can they appeal the verdict? I hope so.

I also think it may be time for the VT authorities to look into impeachment proceedings.

SJG26
January 6, 2006, 12:02 PM
...and I'm willing to wager at least one, perhaps two entries in the obituaries 61+ days after he is sentenced.............................

matis
January 6, 2006, 12:12 PM
Hey, why all the excitement?

This is an enlightened judge with an up-to-date mindset.



We all know that the bible is mythology. This judge is doing his best to apply modern, rational thinking to his difficult job.


I mean -- what do you want? A return to barbaric Mosaic law or something?



matis

dolanp
January 6, 2006, 01:44 PM
We all know that the bible is mythology. This judge is doing his best to apply modern, rational thinking to his difficult job.



The irony of your statement is that the Bible is what preaches this kind of forgiveness.

foghornl
January 6, 2006, 01:52 PM
The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.


I believe in rehabilitaion through re-incarnation.

Not anywhere near "The High Road", but I suspect that if this had been one of our family members in the place of that small child, said perp would not see sunrise #61.

danurve
January 6, 2006, 02:00 PM
Well another fine example of Western Civilization in the crapper. And another liberal judge waisting time trying to rehabilitate trash. Liberalism is the art of counseling while western culture disolves itself.

Combat-wombat
January 6, 2006, 02:17 PM
"Justice", as used today, is just a euphemism for "vengance". The objective of the court system is not to severely punish people for crimes on the idea that "they deserve it". I'm not necessarily saying that the sentencing in this particular instance is appropriate- it could definitely be argued that this guy poses a danger to society when released. I completely agree that he's a terrible person for the crimes he committed. Victims' families "getting justice", though, is an idea that's outdated and just plain wrong. Revenge is a completely irrational, illogical emotion that doesn't belong in a government system that's supposedly fair and balanced. Judges need to look at appropriate sentencing that provides a logical, unbiased solution- not retribution and punishment.

matis
January 6, 2006, 02:25 PM
The irony of your statement is that the Bible is what preaches this kind of forgiveness.


And the irony o f YOUR statement is that you don't know your bible.



I specified MOSAIC law, now the new testament.



matis

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 02:31 PM
I specified MOSAIC law, now the new testament.

Actually you said this matis=>

We all know that the bible is mythology..

And it most certainly is not.

...be that as it may, however, the Judge in Burlington did not apply the law as writen for punishment of the rapist, but instead varied from the law. That is why judge needs to be removed or impeached from the bench... Laws cannot be interpreted by Judges merely applied. That is the problem.

Gordon Fink
January 6, 2006, 02:34 PM
What a cruel joke on the family to give this guy a 60 day sentance.

Given the length of time that the abuse continued, I suspect the perpetrator is either a member of the victim’s family or someone very close to it.

Are judges in Vermont elected? If so, I imagine this one is serving his last term.

~G. Fink

matis
January 6, 2006, 02:43 PM
I believe in rehabilitaion through re-incarnation.

Not anywhere near "The High Road", but...


Foghornl, WHY is justice not on The High Road?


There is no high road without it.




In the Jewish Publication Society English version of the Old Testament, I notice that after every sentence in Deuteronomy prescribing death for a capital offence, there is a comma.

Following the comma it says, "..so that Israel shall remain pure."


There is no civilized society without justice.


And even if you COULD rehabilitate, say, a murderer, where is justice for his victim and family?


Instead we have OUR enlightened version of "justice".

We dispense (relatively) short sentences to murderers and rapists.

Then we are dismayed to see some of them repeat their offenses.




Are not the purveyors of such "justice" themselves culpable for the new victims they have created?



Combat-Wombat, we are not any more enlightened than were the Jews of ancient Israel. Some of us are simply deluded that we can improve on Torah.


Life is real and some crimes do irreparable harm.

Letting the criminals off lightly creates the kind of chaotic society we now live in.


"Making nice" doesn't work. It simply reveals the arrogance of those who think they know better -- even how to reverse gravity.



It say in Talmud, "If you are kind to the cruel you will end by being cruel to the kind.



matis

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 02:46 PM
And the irony o f YOUR statement is that you don't know your bible.



I specified MOSAIC law, now the new testament.



matis

The New Testament does not in any way support this crap. It recognizes that one's transgressions against God can be remedied, but the consequences of one's actions are still for the person to bear.

matis
January 6, 2006, 02:47 PM
Actually you said this matis=>

"We all know that he bible is mythology."

And it most certainly is not.

...be that as it may, however, the Judge in Burlington did not apply the law as writen for punishment of the rapist, but instead varied from the law. That is why judge needs to be removed or impeached from the bench... Laws cannot be interpreted by Judges merely applied. That is the problem.


Camp David, you forgot my last sentence which referred to "Mosaic Law".


I do agree with the rest of your post.



matis

Carl N. Brown
January 6, 2006, 02:50 PM
how .... do they figure that this lasted 4 years

The girl was raped when she was 7, 8, 9, and 10 years old.
That could easily be FOUR full years.

This judge will be on The O'Reilly Factor. Any bets?

Carl N. Brown
January 6, 2006, 02:51 PM
That child will be suffering a life sentence, and the perp gets 60 days?

matis
January 6, 2006, 03:06 PM
The New Testament does not in any way support this crap. It recognizes that one's transgressions against God can be remedied, but the consequences of one's actions are still for the person to bear.



Buzz_knox, if you choose to call the Old Testament, "crap", then as you wrote above, you will have to bear the consequences of YOUR action.



I am not interested in an argument over Judaism vs Christianity and that is not why I posted.



We live in what remains of a Judeo-Christian society.



All I'm saying is that a society that thinks it has evolved to the point where it is immune to reality is doomed to collapse.


If you are a believer, then this society has cast aside the laws of G-d.


If you are not, then you think that rules for living that took us thousands of years to work out -- that we are now so enlightened that these no longer apply.

Either way, I call that arrogance and a fatal stupidity.


And I would say that this judge, after all his years on the bench, learned only to substitute HIS idea of justice in place of the foundational values of our civilization.

In my book (pun intended) that makes him both arrogant and stupid.



matis

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 03:07 PM
The crap at issue is the judge's actions. The only thing in your response I took issue with was the false statement that the New Testament in any way supported this judge's actions.

matis
January 6, 2006, 03:15 PM
The crap at issue is the judge's actions.

In that case I misunderstood you and I apologize.




The only thing in your response I took issue with was the false statement that the New Testament in any way supported this judge's actions.


Then I misread that part also. However, If you reread my post you'll see that I never mentioned the New Testament.



I think we each misunderstood the other and you are not my target.


Peace,



matis

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 03:18 PM
Then I owe an apology as well. I apparently misinterpreted

I specified MOSAIC law, now the new testament. as an attempt to contrast the law of the Old Testament, with the principles of grace established in the New Testament. I thought the "now" was a typo and it was supposed to be "not."

I think we're on the same page in the final analysis

matis
January 6, 2006, 03:28 PM
Then I owe an apology as well. I apparently misinterpreted

as an attempt to contrast the law of the Old Testament, with the principles of grace established in the New Testament. I thought the "now" was a typo and it was supposed to be "not."

I think we're on the same page in the final analysis



With trepidation, buzz_knox, I must say that you were correct: it was a typo.

I thought I was being challenged for citing Mosaic law, and that was my (pugnacious) response.


We ARE on the same page and I must learn not to go off quite so half-cocked (to keep this gun-related :D)


matis

Lindenberger
January 6, 2006, 03:29 PM
If I may rush in where angels fear to tread, it seems to me that a lot of us are confusing the supposed needs and dictates of the State with the needs and dictates of God (as related by men who've had at least some experience with God and whose writings reflect that experience). Any government--generally--is always hostile to the governed. Our government is permeated with hostility toward "Judeo-Christianity." We can't reasonably expect government to act in accordance with the 10 Commandments or with the Sermon on the Mount.

Lindenberger
January 6, 2006, 03:33 PM
I used to live in the USA; now I find myself in the Twilight Zone.

Can't be. I've looked for you all through my lady-friend's house and haven't seen you.

matis
January 6, 2006, 03:43 PM
Can't be. I've looked for you all through my lady-friend's house and haven't seen you.

Have you tried under her bed? Or in the cage?


:D




matis

odysseus
January 6, 2006, 03:45 PM
The religious conversation here is major thread drift. This is a secular question of judicial powers in law and abuse (I think) of it by a judge. I would keep it there.

SilentStalker
January 6, 2006, 03:47 PM
At age 7,8,9,10 = four years;

On topic: This judge seems to have swallowed the lie that its about retribution and righting the wrong; the issue is about justice. People have some mixed up ideas about justice.

Hahaha! Yes, I thought about that after I posted this LOL. I felt pretty stupid about it to but you know I was thinking about it the conventional way where 7-8=one year, 8-9=one year, and then 9-10=one year, instead of each number representing a year in itself. Anyways yeah I feel stupid, but it happens. We all have our off days.

Calumus
January 6, 2006, 03:49 PM
2 things, 1st I don't have a problem with this sentence on 1 condition. This piece of crap is put in the general population, and everyone is told why he's there. That 60 days could be a lifetime. 2nd, does anyone else see the possibility of a sudden surge in tourism, and a mass emmigration of pedophiles to VT? They see this joke, and think to themselves "hey, what the hell? If I get caught I'll only do 60 days" This judge's name could go down in history as the person who did the most to promote Vt's tourism industry. Forget skiing, there are other activities that you can only get away with in Vt.
Shawn

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 03:53 PM
This is an aberration, and isn't likely to be repeated. Tennessee had a similar case (judge allowed a child rapist to go home during the week so as to be with his boys, ignoring the fact that the rapist showed a videotape of the assault to the boys) but hasn't become a haven for pedophiles looking for an easy ride.

engineer151515
January 6, 2006, 03:56 PM
Consider this hypothetical scenario.


Perp gets released after 60 days for treatment.

Devastated family member takes revenge.


Devastated family member makes sure he/she gets the same judge who believes in no punishment.


Devastated family member gets 60 days and psychological counseling.



Just a thought.

matis
January 6, 2006, 03:58 PM
The religious conversation here is major thread drift. This is a secular question of judicial powers in law and abuse (I think) of it by a judge. I would keep it there.


No thread drift, Odysseus.


We are decrying the spectacle of a judge who thinks he's a social worker, and a stupid one at that.


The law codifies the society's values and these originate in the bible. We can argue forever whether the bible is good, bad, mythological or true. But no honest person would argue about the origins of our society's values.


Is justice a secular value only? I have come to doubt that there can be justice without a religious base.


And I am NOT arguing whether or not G-d exists. Only that our values are Judea-Christian in origin -- embedded in religion.

And that I am less than impressed with the "scientific" improvements made by the "experts" we have come to rely on.


matis

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 03:59 PM
Consider this hypothetical scenario.


Perp gets released after 60 days for treatment.

Devastated family member takes revenge.


Devastated family member makes sure he/she gets the same judge who believes in no punishment.


Devastated family member gets 60 days and psychological counseling.



Just a thought.

The problem is you're forgetting that people with the judge's problem (i.e. the liberal "I'm fixing the true problem not the symptom") tend to be very angry when you get in the way. Said family member would receive a harsh sentence to prove that "vengeance didn't work."

duckslayer
January 6, 2006, 04:00 PM
I honestly can't imagine what I would do if that had been my daughter, and the scum was given 60 days.

V4Vendetta
January 6, 2006, 04:01 PM
This sickens me to the very core of my being.:barf:

carlrodd
January 6, 2006, 04:05 PM
The problem is you're forgetting that people with the judge's problem (i.e. the liberal "I'm fixing the true problem not the symptom") tend to be very angry when you get in the way. Said family member would receive a harsh sentence to prove that "vengeance didn't work."


or better yet, let the devastated family member empty the rapist's head with a handgun, and the sentence would be even harsher. i'm sure in this judge's mind, emotionally understandable violence with a firearm is a far more heinous crime than having sex with a child.

dolanp
January 6, 2006, 04:07 PM
And the irony o f YOUR statement is that you don't know your bible.



I specified MOSAIC law, now the new testament.



matis

Ah ok just wanted to make sure we're talking about the eye for an eye god and not the turn the other cheek god. Got it. ;)

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 04:12 PM
And I am NOT arguing whether or not G-d exists. Only that our values are Judea-Christian in origin -- embedded in religion.

Should you wish to debate that last point matis, start a new thread and I'll join... our values in this nation were, in fact, derived from our Judeo-Christian belief, as American history makes plain. But this discussion has nothing at all to do with this crazy Vermont Judge....

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 04:14 PM
Should you wish to debate that last point matis, start a new thread and I'll join... our values in this nation were, in fact, derived from our Judeo-Christian belief, as American history makes plain. But this discussion has nothing at all to do with this crazy Vermont Judge....

Well, what about if he's possessed? Maybe by a demon specializing in turning one into an ignorant posterior or rectal opening?

SSN Vet
January 6, 2006, 04:18 PM
As I read the Good Book...

the entire purpose of human government is to punish evil doers and to reward those who do good.

add protect the week to that list (my addition).

So how much longer will the good old USA continue to be a legitimate human government if this kind of #$%## keeps up.

Our founding fathers new this was possible....hence the second ammendment.

I personally believe that the right to revolt is the intended purpose of the second ammendment.

Have you ever wondered why Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis where not prosecuted for treason after the civil war??

I believe it is because the feds new they might not win the case...and the entire premise for using arms to preserve the union would be called into question.

And that from a D#@$ YANKEE (with daughters eligible to join the DAR & the DUVCW on multiple lines of ancestry.)

Maybe the South should rise again?

cookekdjr
January 6, 2006, 04:22 PM
Was this guy the Judge?

Edward J Cashman
Essex Junction, VT
(802) 872-0615

Phyphor
January 6, 2006, 04:23 PM
I just... wow... I have NO clue what to say...

My first (emotional) response is "GET A ROPE!!!". Problem there being, I'm not sure if it should be used on the perp or the judge... :banghead: :cuss:


I'm not sure I'd be able to control myself if I was in that courtroom...

Well, the rope's got two ends.....

:fire: :cuss:

Art Eatman
January 6, 2006, 04:23 PM
A bit more consideration of THR rules and a bit more thought before posting, please. And, really, name-calling at perps and less-than-wise judges isn't all that beneficial.

:), Art

DontBurnMyFlag
January 6, 2006, 04:25 PM
You have corporate crooks who are sent up the river doing 20+ years. You have college kids who downloaded movies and music and get a 500,000 dollar fine and jail time. You have people who burn trash, litter, smoke in restuarants and urinate in public getting thousands of dollars worth in fines and possibly a jail sentence. You have a revolving door justice system that continually cycles criminals back on the street. and you have a child rapist who gets 60 days in jail....

Something is very wrong.

God can forgive this man...The family, the little girl, and I cannot.

only1asterisk
January 6, 2006, 04:35 PM
Was this guy the Judge?

Edward J Cashman
Essex Junction, VT
(802) 872-0615
I'm thinking so. According to this http://www.leg.state.vt.us/DOCS/2002/JOURNAL/JA010329.HTM his term expires in April 2007.

David

cookekdjr
January 6, 2006, 04:35 PM
I don't care who forgives the perp.
Children need to be protected from men like him, but the Judge did everything but drop him off at a school yard with a bag of candy. Now, in 60 days he'll find another little girl and rape her, too.
The Judge totally abdicated his role to be fair and just. I don't give a rip what kind of issues he's having right now. He needs to step down immediately, and give the robe and gavel to someone who can do the job. There's plenty of room for people like this Judge at the defense table.
This sentence is so unfair, people will lose all respect for the law...which leeds to anarchy. And this loopy judge who's having some kind of personal crisis has unwittingly issued a call for a lynching.
What an idiot.
-David

cookekdjr
January 6, 2006, 04:41 PM
Here is the Judge's bio:


Edward J. Cashman of Essex, Chittenden County. Appointed District Judge byRichard Snelling in January of 1982. He has served as a trial judge in ten ofVermont’s fourteen counties over the years. He is a graduate of Boston College(1965) and the Washington College of Law (1968). He served with the U.S. Armyincluding a tour of duty in Vietnam (1969-1971). He married Gail Sylvester former-ly of Saint Albans in 1966. She worked as an emergency room nurse at Fanny AllenHospital for 25 years They have three children: Jeffrey, a pilot with VermontNational Guard, Michael, a law student and faculty member at the University ofSouth Carolina, and Brooke, a graduate student at The American University inWashington, D.C. Judge Cashman has served as an Assistant Attorney General forthe State of Vermont (1971-72); Chittenden County Clerk (1973-75), Commissionerof Public Service (1975-1978), Grand Isle County State’s Attorney (1978-1982). Hehas also held local government positions with the Village and Town of Essex asPlanning Commission member and Town Agent. He maintained a private practice oflaw for ten years. Judge Cashman taught courses at the University of Vermont andJohnson State College in Environmental Law and the Law of Zoning and Planning.He presently teaches a course at Johnson State College in Constitutional Law. Hehas taught at the National Judicial College on the topic of Restorative Justice andCommunity Based Court Systems. He has held positions with the Vermont DismasHouse Board of Directors, the Saint Lawrence Parish Council and the Knights ofColumbus. He is a past president of the Vermont Trial Judges Association and theChittenden County Bar Association. He is a member of the Franklin County,Chittenden County and Vermont Bar Associations. He serves on the Civil RulesAdvisory Committee. His mailing address is 29 Lamoille Street, Essex Junction05452. E-mail is Ejc29@aol.com or cashman@chitdis.crt.state.vt.us.

Master Blaster
January 6, 2006, 04:43 PM
There are three reasons why we sentance people to prison.

1. To protect individuals and society.

2. Rehabilitation.

3. Deterrence.

Since serious sex offenders, and especially pedophiles have something close to a 100% recidivism rate. 1 and 3 are the principal reasons for giving this turd a prison sentance.

The Judge has gone senile and needs to be removed from the bench immediately.

All I can say to the victims family Is if this were my daughter, I would go to Dicks and buy an inexpensive aluminium baseball bat, and when this scum bag was released, I would break every bone in his body, every one.
Shooting is too good for him.

McCall911
January 6, 2006, 04:52 PM
For those who think some kind of corruption must be involved, I don't think so. I spent some time (only 8 months) in VT, and I think this guy is a true believer. As great as the state is, I don't think you'll find a bigger collection of "granolas" who never outgrew the 1960s anywhere else (maybe San Fran).

You may be right, Chaim. And, yet again, it could be a combination of both liberalism and corruption. I can see where corruption could so easily be hidden behind a front of liberalism.

Anyway, we can agree that this judge needs to be impeached! I don't know Vermont law, but I would think that there is a minimum sentence for sex crimes and commonsense tells me that it should be more than 60 days!

carlrodd
January 6, 2006, 05:03 PM
And this loopy judge who's having some kind of personal crisis has unwittingly issued a call for a lynching.
What an idiot.
-David


interesting insight, in that a decision like this at the very least causes what may have been non-violent people to consider violence as an alternative, as they see that the government cannot or will not protect them. so the delusional judge who has seen enough violence, has laid groundwork for further violence. i know i feel like hitting someone now.

mbt2001
January 6, 2006, 05:18 PM
This article is PROOF that the system is failing. Look around. There are drug dealers on street corners... Assualts go un-investigated. But if WE took the law in our own hands, we are criminals.

The system is broken. I can only think of a few ways to fix it... :banghead:

cookekdjr
January 6, 2006, 05:26 PM
Tried to e-mail to Cashman, but it did not go through.
Here's the text:

Dear Judge Cashman,

I read with dismay the sentence you handed down in Mr. Hulett's case. I was
particularly disturbed by your comments that you "no longer believe that
punishment works".
Your Honor, punishment isn't just for the offender. Its for society- to
protect them, and its for victims, to tell them they are valuable and mean
something.
Your sentence in this case did everything but drop Mr. Hulett off at the
nearest school yard with a bag of candy. What kind of message does it send a little girl when Mr. Hulett gets less time for raping her than a kid who's
grounded by his parents for staying out all night? What kind of message are
you sending society?
Respectfully, I do not think this case is about the defendant, his crime, or
the victim. Its about you. Judges meet out punsihment. Its their job. If you
no longer belieave in your job, its time for you to step down. Otherwise,
you're just showing up to collect a paycheck, instead of carrying out duties
and values you swore you would uphold.
There are plenty of people who think like you, Your Honor. They are called
defense attroneys. They would welcome you with open arms, although I'm sure they'd prefer you be where you are now. And if that's the case, ask
yourself: Why is that? Do I believe in my job? do I believe that people
should ever be held accountable? And if so, why not a child rapist?
Children are defenseless. They have no way to stop people like Mark Hulett.
That's what you are for. That is your job. And when you don't do it, it
builds disrespect for the law and its institutions. What you did in this
case encourages vigilanteism, and a distrust of our basic institutions. Do
you really want to continue to undermine the system? Do you want to
encourage people to seek revenge on their own instead of seek justice in the
courts?
Mark Hulett got less than 30 days (maybe a week?) for every time he raped
that girl.
What do you think your sentence says about you, Your Honor?
Sincerely,

David Cooke

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 05:34 PM
Tried to e-mail to Cashman, but it did not go through.
Here's the text:

David:

GOOD LETTER

If you don't get your letter through, you can send it instead to the state's largest newspaper, THE BURLINGTON FREE PRESS, to their on-line Letters To The Editor feature at:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/letters.shtml

I am sure if they get enough of them they'll publish and that will be a bigger slap at this lunatic judge than actual e-mail, which the judge will probably ignore... I urge everyone to visit this site and send a note about this crazy judge!!!

The Burlington Free Press also accepts letters sent via regular mail, if you prefer that route=> Burlington Free Press, Burlington, Vermont.

Strings
January 6, 2006, 05:48 PM
Just a couple points...

to whomever couldn't understand how the parents didn't know: you'ld be supprised at what can happen in an abuse case. In all cases, there's some form of manipulation used to keep the child quiet about what's going on (threats, making the child feel responsible for the crime, convincing the child that this is just a form of affection and harmless). Many parents, when they DO find out, can't stomach the idea that they didn't know, that they were "bad parents". It's all an incredibly convoluted minefield...

As for the perp being executed: that can quite often be VERY useful for the child's emotional recovery, as they now know beyond a doubt that their abuser can't hurt them anymore. unfortunately, in cases where the abuser is a member of the family, it can go the other way (feelings of "it's my fault uncle Dave is dead now")...

One thing that I feel should be pointed out: in our training, we were told to NEVER show any anger about what has happened to the child, as they could very easily see such a display as "their fault".

cookekdjr
January 6, 2006, 05:53 PM
David:

GOOD LETTER

If you don't get your letter through, you can send it instead to the state's largest newspaper, THE BURLINGTON FREE PRESS, to their on-line Letters To The Editor feature at:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/letters.shtml


Thanks,
letter is on its way.
Now, back to drafting indictments against child pornographers and dirty cops!
-David

longeyes
January 6, 2006, 06:02 PM
The judiciary lives in never-never land. When we organize and begin removing them from office they'll start getting the message that we don't want them confusing their personal feelings with the law.

Jack Straw from Wichita
January 6, 2006, 06:50 PM
I'd say that individual needs to be disarmed.

What was that line from Sin City? When the detective caught the child molestor?

"I removed his weapons - both of them."

:evil:

-Jack

Waitone
January 6, 2006, 07:13 PM
A few observations in no particular order

--A society demonstrates what it values by what it punishes
--We will be able to determine what Vermont values by how it deals with the good judge.
--Justice and law are not one and the same.
--The law is our best and most frequent path to justice but under no circumstances should the two be equated.
--Sometimes justice is best delivered via a Big Mac
--The demand for revenge is tempered by the imposition of justice. Failing adequate administration of justice we can expect alternative sentences to be imposed.

THR posters are outraged, as well they should be. I however, am not surprised.

Shalako
January 6, 2006, 08:03 PM
Revenge is a completely irrational, illogical emotion that doesn't belong in a government system that's supposedly fair and balanced. Judges need to look at appropriate sentencing that provides a logical, unbiased solution- not retribution and punishment.

I don't believe justice is revenge. Justice is balancing fouls against society. The foul must be balanced with the correct punishment. In this case, society desrves to be totally rid of someone who knowingly and willfully commits a repeated heinous crime against one of our most vulnerable and valuable assets, a young child.

Justice. Pure and simple.

Turkey Creek
January 6, 2006, 08:28 PM
I've said it a million times so I might as well start on the second million- the law is whatever some loon in a black robe says it is- forget the semantics and phylosophical discussions re the Bible- it boils down to what is right and what is wrong- except in the minds of a select few of elite enlightened, which painfully, includes this completely out of touch individual masquarading as a judge ( how's that for appeasing the moderators?) this is so obviously wrong as to be well beyond comprehension by the rest of us dolts- some day someone sitting on the bench will repeat this travesty, but will cross paths with a family member of the victim who just will not care about the consequences and said bench squatter will come a cropper big time- I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet

Lindenberger
January 6, 2006, 08:38 PM
The religious conversation here is major thread drift. This is a secular question of judicial powers in law and abuse (I think) of it by a judge. I would keep it there.

It may be a major thread drift to you; others among us apparently disagree with your analysis.

Jack Straw from Wichita
January 6, 2006, 09:09 PM
In the same vein as the original post:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/06/state/n083855S58.DTL

"A 67-year-old man convicted on 66 charges involving the sexual assault of a child was released from jail and placed on probation, authorities said."

In this case, the law itself is to blame, not a reluctant judge. Still a rotten situation, though.

-Jack

cookekdjr
January 6, 2006, 09:53 PM
This article is PROOF that the system is failing. Look around. There are drug dealers on street corners... Assualts go un-investigated. But if WE took the law in our own hands, we are criminals.

The system is broken. I can only think of a few ways to fix it... :banghead:

Respectfully, the system did not fail. The judge did.
The system depends upon people to do their duty. He did not do his.
End of story.
-David

odysseus
January 6, 2006, 09:55 PM
It may be a major thread drift to you; others among us apparently disagree with your analysis.

Well jeez thanks for keeping me updated on that Lindenberger. On that same note of stating the obvious, the sun will be rising again this morning.:scrutiny:

Look - I may also agree with some of the religous concepts mentioned, but look to Art's post about following the rules. I personally also think this is less my opinion and more the art of critical thinking when we look to this case. I see less a reason to raise the flag to all about Christian Biblical reasoning for the concept of justice in this, than as a gross negligence of a misguided and irresponsible judge abusing his bench power.

PCGS65
January 7, 2006, 04:45 AM
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.
Is this some kind of a sick perverted joke!!!:fire: :cuss: :banghead:

matis
January 7, 2006, 05:05 AM
Ah ok just wanted to make sure we're talking about the eye for an eye god and not the turn the other cheek god. Got it. ;)


Again, without wishing to get into religious argument, both of your characterizations here mean little without the interpretaton and commentary that has become part of the religion.


Turning the other cheek is not the complete teaching of Christianity. Or there would be no Christian members of this gun forum.


As for an eye for an eye, this too is interpreted and means that retribution (something given or demanded in payment, especially in religion) must be exacted. This is translated into money damages. The perpetrator must pay for the damage he inflicted. Without consequences how can you expect people to keep the laws? Most of us are not saints, are we?


If you look at a page of Pentateuch (first five books of Moses = Old Testament), even an English translation, you will see a small rectangle of print in a box in the center. That is verse, a passge from Torah. All the rest of the page surrounding this central box, more than half, is devoted to commentary on the passage. The commentary comes from various writers, some going back over 1000 years. They explicate the text in the greatest of detail. They discuss the meaning of the words, the letters, why, say, plural rather than signular was used, and so on. Since Judaism is thousands of years old, the Torah and its commentary comprise a body of knowledge profound in its philosophy and sublime in its wisdom.


One doesn't have to believe in G-d to acknowledge this. One needs only to be objective and fair-minded.



And in Deuteronomy are to be founds words to the effect that a judge must neither be lenient toward the rich out of respect, nor toward the poor out of pity.

Has human nature changed in any way so as to invalidate that?

That, to my mind, is justice. And that is what we have fallen a long way from, to our detriment.


I don't think this is thread drift, I think this is part of the thread subject -- how has that judge gone astray. Again, not trying to start a religious argument.





matis

No_Brakes23
January 7, 2006, 05:22 AM
I find it surprising that the judge has a daughter. Apparently sometime in the last 30 years he forgot what it felt like to be father. Perhaps he never knew.

As for rehabilitation, I can think of some very effecient and simple methods of "rehabilitating" the rapist.

As for the religious angle, I see the thread drift, and I almost got caught up in it. I think the usually strict moderation here at THR is good, but I guess I will just have to accept that the double standard with regard to Judeo-Christian religion is just a byproduct of our culture.

Ryder
January 7, 2006, 05:25 AM
Is this some kind of a sick perverted joke

It very well could be.

Consider that definitions have changed because of political correctness and realize the fact that not one single detail of this guy's actions are known by anybody except those directly involved. For all we know he may have been convicted for toweling her off after a swim in the backyard swimming pool.

You can't even take baby pictures of your own baby naked in the tub these days without being convicted of child porn. A couple of grandparents found that out a while back when the film developers turned them in to the police.

PCGS65
January 7, 2006, 07:57 AM
Originally by Rider, You can't even take baby pictures of your own baby naked in the tub these days without being convicted of child porn. A couple of grandparents found that out a while back when the film developers turned them in to the police.
Rider I remember that now that you mention it. I had a cute picture of my son when he was <1 that I threw in the garbage because I think you could see his hind end. What a shame that the police state is here already.
Here in Illinois I see people are getting two DUI's at the same time. One for driving under the influence and one for driving with a BAC over .08!!
I wonder when they will issue two tickets for speeding? One for speeding "X" mph over the limit and one for disobeying the speed limit!! :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

GigaBuist
January 7, 2006, 10:29 AM
If a crying female child laying beneath you doesn't clue you into the fact that what you're doing is WRONG then I have no idea how you'd be rehabilitated. This judge must be a super genius of some kind.

What man, or woman, here wouldn't stop what they were doing if it made a little girl cry and reconsider their actions? I can't think of a stronger deterrent than a young girl with tears in her eyes.

The judge needs to step down; he's lost touch with reality.

Waitone
January 7, 2006, 10:38 AM
One of the talking head shows said the judge was making a statement trying to compel to legislature to do what he wanted done.

If true the man is an animal in that he sacrificed justice for a child to achieve his own ends. His job is to do the judge thingy, not legislate. In any case he is not fit for the bench.

mbs357
January 7, 2006, 12:29 PM
I wonder...
How much time would a person get for shooting his privates off?
A few years, no doubt.

denfoote
January 7, 2006, 01:27 PM
Me thinks it's time for either the Vermont legislature to impeach and remove this clown or for the voters to give him the boot...whichever!!

dillonuser
January 7, 2006, 08:22 PM
Anyone interested as enraged as I, might want to go to the following
Burlington Free Press Web site.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060107/NEWS01/601070307/1009&theme=

Apparently we are not the only ones ticked.....

Lindenberger
January 8, 2006, 02:54 AM
. . . . I personally also think this is less my opinion and more the art of critical thinking when we look to this case. I see less a reason to raise the flag to all about Christian Biblical reasoning for the concept of justice in this, than as a gross negligence of a misguided and irresponsible judge abusing his bench power.

I agree. Thinking critically (an esoteric art in today's society), I am compelled to concede that we are essentially saying the same thing--since you put it that way.:rolleyes: But--continuing our critical line of thought--wouldn't you feel dumb if the sun didn't rise? Or--more specifically--if your sun didn't rise? I personally would hate to have to justify all that presumptuousness to God, if I said the sun were going to rise, and my sun didn't rise. I mean, thinking critically, of course.

Lindenberger
January 8, 2006, 03:11 AM
Again, without wishing to get into religious argument, both of your characterizations here mean little without the interpretaton and commentary that has become part of the religion.


Turning the other cheek is not the complete teaching of Christianity. Or there would be no Christian members of this gun forum.


As for an eye for an eye, this too is interpreted and means that retribution (something given or demanded in payment, especially in religion) must be exacted. This is translated into money damages. The perpetrator must pay for the damage he inflicted. Without consequences how can you expect people to keep the laws? Most of us are not saints, are we?


If you look at a page of Pentateuch (first five books of Moses = Old Testament), even an English translation, you will see a small rectangle of print in a box in the center. That is verse, a passge from Torah. All the rest of the page surrounding this central box, more than half, is devoted to commentary on the passage. The commentary comes from various writers, some going back over 1000 years. They explicate the text in the greatest of detail. They discuss the meaning of the words, the letters, why, say, plural rather than signular was used, and so on. Since Judaism is thousands of years old, the Torah and its commentary comprise a body of knowledge profound in its philosophy and sublime in its wisdom.


One doesn't have to believe in G-d to acknowledge this. One needs only to be objective and fair-minded.



And in Deuteronomy are to be founds words to the effect that a judge must neither be lenient toward the rich out of respect, nor toward the poor out of pity.

Has human nature changed in any way so as to invalidate that?

That, to my mind, is justice. And that is what we have fallen a long way from, to our detriment.


I don't think this is thread drift, I think this is part of the thread subject -- how has that judge gone astray. Again, not trying to start a religious argument.





matis

I'm glad that you did all that work and spared me, Baruch ha'shem. In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, amen.

Hal
January 8, 2006, 07:03 AM
And now - the rest of the story:

Burlington, Vermont -- January 6, 2006

A judge's ruling for a sex offender not only raises concerns about sentencing limits, but about Vermont's sex offender therapy program.

At issue is a prison policy that delays therapy for some sex offenders until they are back on the streets.

Under law, the primary mission of Vermont's prison system is to rehabilitate criminals to rejoin society.

The programs include corrective-therapy for sex offenders.

Problem is, some sex offenders must first be released to get into the program.

"I'm not surprised that the community is upset about this. Sex offenses are very serious," said Georgia Cumming, Executive Director of Vermont's Sex Offender Treatment Program.

Cumming says she understands why the public was upset when child-rapist Mark Hulett received a 60-day sentence for repeatedly raping a little girl.

Judge Edward Cashman has come under fire for the sentence. The judge says getting Hulett out of prison quickly is the only way to get Hulett into sex offender treatment program quickly because Hulett is classified as a low-risk offender, so he ineligible for in-prison treatment.

"All of the literature I've read said if you're interested in changing behavior, you don't have to do it inside. If anything, you have a better chance of success with an outside program," said Cashman when he handed out the 60-day sentence to Hulett on Wednesday.

Vermont's sex offender program has three categories of sex offender starting with level A -- like Hulett. He is considered to be low-risk and treatment starts only after he gets out of prison. Level B are medium to high risk offenders. They begin treatment inside prison. Level C are considered very high risk to re-offend and they begin treatment only near the end of their sentence, if at all.

Cumming says many factors are taken into consideration to determine the classifications.

"We look at does a person have a prior sexual offense? Does the offender have a prior non-sexual record? Has that offender offended against a stranger. So, the relationship of the offender to the victim tells you something about the type of risk they pose," Cumming explained.

As for Hulett, despite the severity of his crime, because he molested a neighbor's child, he qualifies as low-risk under the rating system.

"Well, offenders who have offended against a family member or another relative or neighbor who has not committed a prior offense typically score low on these risk assessment instruments, particularly if they have not, do not have any prior criminal history," Cumming added.

Governor Douglas asked his staff to reexamine sex offender classification policies. In the meantime, the Chittenden County prosecutor and Vermont's Attorney General say they may ask Judge Cashman to reconsider the sentence of Mark Hulett, and the possibility of appealing the sentence to the Supreme Court.

- http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4330770

Waitone
January 8, 2006, 07:42 AM
All nice and legal with all the right words and phrases and concepts.

All except for one tiny little factoid. There is no justice for the molested child.

Absolutely classic example of how the law and justice are not one and the same.

This episode is just one more piece of evidence that says our system of law is substituting process for justice. We will never have perfect justice this side of eternity, but we can do a damn sight better. :scrutiny:

1911 guy
January 8, 2006, 10:34 AM
I know, political philosophy from a shirt is kinda screwy, but reading this made me think of one I read. "When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty."

WillBrayJr
January 8, 2006, 10:54 AM
I get a total of 68 days in jail plus 2 years of probation for a non-violent misdemeanor and a child molester only gets 60 days for raping a child. As I have said before, I love this country because it's my home. I'm ashamed on how $#@%ed up the justice system is.

shaldag
January 8, 2006, 11:02 AM
I am not sure what recourse the people of this judge's community have for removing him from the bench. Is he appoint4ed for life? Elected? If the latter, the folks who are concerned about this ought to make sure it doesn't happen again by removing him from the bench.

But I think that there is a better way to do this:
When the rapist gets out, palster posters with his pic and the statemant: "This man is a child-molester and rapist!" With his name and address on them, all over the town. Make sure he is not accepted anywhere.

Similar action could be done for the judge. Place postera with his pic, name, and job description saying: "This man freed a child molester and rapist after (howevermany) days in prison. The rapist could be living next door to YOU!"

Make sure that the judge cannot show his face in public. Let us see how long he and his family tolerate this behavior. I guess it used to be called "shunning" in the good old days.

Mongo the Mutterer
January 8, 2006, 12:20 PM
Vermont's sex offender program has three categories of sex offender starting with level A -- like Hulett. He is considered to be low-risk and treatment starts only after he gets out of prison. Level B are medium to high risk offenders. They begin treatment inside prison. Level C are considered very high risk to re-offend and they begin treatment only near the end of their sentence, if at all.A couple of points:
He molested a seven year old for multiple years and he is a "LEVEL A"? What libtard came up with these levels?

Recidivism of molesters is considered a real problem from all reports I have read (if I am wrong, correct me). Why then is Vermont EVEN CONCERNED with treatment? Punish them for their crimes, up to and including execution IMHO.

thumper723
January 8, 2006, 12:39 PM
I have a female family member that was repeately raped by a family aquaintiance from the age of 8-12. She is 31 now, and has a ton of issues/hangups becasue of what that bastard did. Wakes up screaming 2-3 nights a week. This is after 10+ years of counseling. Will not trust ANYONE and is emotionally basically still a hurt 10 year old anytime any stress gets put on her.

She has been in and out of mental institutions a couple times (week or so stays) as a result.

The only acceptable punishment for a child rapist, ESPECIALLY SERIAL ONES is DEATH:cuss:


/rant

1911 guy
January 8, 2006, 12:52 PM
In my opinion, It's a thought out opinion that you happen to be emotional about. Mine is the same, with the exception that a rapist should not be given the opportunity to become a serial rapist. My wife was raped by her then brother in law several years before we started dating. He skipped to Canada (born there) and hasn't been seen since. Her sister got a divorce through some legal wrangling without him present. Hell, I'd have been willing to save her the lawyer bills and make her a widow.

thumper723
January 8, 2006, 01:37 PM
My take on "serial" was multiple times before they are caught. Once caught and convicted, they get LIFE or DEATH. NO PAROLE, NO REPRIVE, NO RELEASE, unless new evidence surfaces proving their innocence, and is retried and exonerated with the new evidence.

These pansy judges make me :barf:

progunner1957
January 8, 2006, 03:24 PM
The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

So there you go: This so-called judge is doing his job based on his personal opinions, not based on what he is lawfully duty bound to do. There are scentencing requirements for felony crimes and he is ignoring them - and breaking the law in the process.

This "judge" should be removed from the bench and disbarred at the bare minimum.

As far as rehabilitation, surgically removing the rapist's "weapon of choice" sounds to me like the only viable form of rehabilitation. A few years of being gang raped in the shower by his fellow inmates would also be a good choice for rehabilitation - a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.

Why yes, I am mean spirited - thanks for noticing!!:D :D

WillBrayJr
January 8, 2006, 03:48 PM
I recently watched a program I believe on A&E about sex offenders. The program talked about two forms of casteration<(spelling). One was chemical where the offender had to get a shot every week, the other was physical where the offender assuming is male has his balls removed.

NukemJim
January 8, 2006, 04:19 PM
The program talked about two forms of casteration<(spelling). One was chemical where the offender had to get a shot every week, the other was physical where the offender assuming is male has his balls removed.

From my understanding neither of the methods listed above has been proven to be effective. Removing all male "anatomy" is also not effective from my understanding. There are prosthetic devices available and ordinary objects from the house can be used (and have been ) by someone who is "post surgery" or who is "not fully functional".

My personal opinion is child abuse should lead to either death/permanent life imprisonment after conviction. As always I could be wrong but several decade of imaging and caring for abused children leaves me with my mind made up.

NukemJim

migoi
January 8, 2006, 04:29 PM
is that rape and molestation are not about sex but about violence and power.

Recycling those that rape or molest would seem to be the most sane course of action. Pass them on to their next cycle of reincarnation. Allow them to have a life do-over.

migoi

p35
January 8, 2006, 11:54 PM
Every day, as I work in the criminal justice system (I'm a criminal defense lawyer) I'm reminded of the gap between the world as it ought to be and the world as it really is. You're all totally right to be outraged at this defendant's behavior. Problem is, what do we do next? "Rehabilitation through reincarnation"? Good slogan, and might be possible in an ideal world. In the real world, more people die of old age on Death Row than get executed. Not gonna happen.

Sure, punishment is a legitimate goal. A bigger goal, IMHO, is to get the offender turned around (if at all possible) so he doesn't do it again when he gets out (at least in my state, the ones who can't get turned around get sent to the "special commitment center"- a prison pretending to be a mental hospital- for life). Yes, he deserves to suffer for this. Is that suffering going to protect the next potential victim when he gets out, as 95% or so of inmates do?

I don't know the details of how they do things in Vermont. Here, if someone is treatable (and that's not always possible) it's possible to get part of the sentence suspended on condition they pass sex offender treatment. Those who do pass are far less likely to reoffend than those who simply serve their time and get released. Blow it, and they serve the original sentence. That sounds like what the judge did in this case- either get your head straight or do the time. In reality, that's a pretty efficient way to deal with a case like this.

I'm trying to avoid the metaphysical aspects of this, but in my (minority) view the offender has already incurred the negative karma of harming another person. He can pay that price later. What I want, as a taxpayer and citizen, is to minimize the likelihood that this will happen again in the most efficient way possible. From that perspective, this judge's decision makes sense.

progunner1957
January 9, 2006, 02:48 AM
My personal opinion is child abuse should lead to either death/permanent life imprisonment after conviction.

+1... Preferrably death in a most uncomfortable manner; then a trip to:evil:

gunner03
January 9, 2006, 02:59 AM
Quote:
I recently watched a program I believe on A&E about sex offenders. The program talked about two forms of casteration<(spelling). One was chemical where the offender had to get a shot every week, the other was physical where the offender assuming is male has his balls removed. My mother used to talk about that?......Something about a couple of nails, a stump, and a kick in the chest!!!:D

pax
January 9, 2006, 09:26 PM
Moderator Note

All right folks, please drop the religious debate or take it over to APS (www.armedpolitesociety.com). It does not belong on THR.

thanks.

pax

ArmedBear
January 9, 2006, 09:51 PM
What I want, as a taxpayer and citizen, is to minimize the likelihood that this will happen again in the most efficient way possible. From that perspective, this judge's decision makes sense.

Actually, given the recidivism rate for this type of offense, locking him up for life is probably a more sensible decision, if you're looking at prevention.

Phaetos
January 9, 2006, 11:47 PM
We need the boondock saints.

Preferably a slightly, almost legal version :) Damn, now I gotta go watch that movie again.

IndianaDean
January 10, 2006, 12:02 AM
That judge needs to be removed.

Fenrik
January 10, 2006, 12:05 AM
anybody got an updated link to the original article? The one on the first page is dead.

glockamolee
January 10, 2006, 12:20 AM
Some things are better left "unsaid."

So I will ask a question instead.

What do General Patton and Princess Diana have in common???

If you guessed the correct answer, you will agree that some things need to be left unsaid.

Flyboy
January 10, 2006, 12:30 AM
Actually, given the recidivism rate for this type of offense, locking him up for life is probably a more sensible decision, if you're looking at prevention.
Funny you should mention that; the recidivism rate might not be as simple as we all thought (including myself):
http://reason.com/sullum/110802.shtml
Registration Required
Are sex offenders uniquely dangerous?
By Jacob Sullum
8 Nov 2002

If a convicted child molester moved into the house across the street, I'd want to know. But I'd also want to know if my new neighbor had been convicted of homicide, assault, robbery, burglary, larceny, or fraud.

Which suggests one of the problems with sex offender registration laws, the focus of two cases the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday. These laws—requiring sex offenders who have served their sentences to report their whereabouts to the government, which passes the information on to the public—are both too narrow and too broad.

They are too narrow because they do not cover a wide range of potentially dangerous characters whom citizens might want to avoid. They are too broad because the sex offender label sweeps together serial predators with individuals who pose little or no threat to the public. For example, Alaska's law, one of the two the Supreme Court will consider, applies to people convicted of possessing child pornography.

The main rationale for singling out sex offenders is the assumption that they are especially likely to commit new crimes. Sex offenders "will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time," a California legislator warned in 1996.

The Bush administration—which filed a brief in defense of Connecticut's registration law, the other statute the Supreme Court will consider—is a bit more cautious. "When they reenter society at large," says Solicitor General Theodore Olson, "convicted sex offenders have a much higher recidivism rate for their offense of conviction than any other type of violent felon."

The brief cites data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which show that rapists are more likely to be rearrested for rape than other offenders are. But that does not mean they are more likely to be rearrested.

Among prisoners released in 1994, 46 percent of rapists were arrested again for any offense within three years, compared to 62 percent of violent felons generally. Recidivism rates for nonviolent criminals were even higher: 79 percent for car thieves, 74 percent for burglars.

Even if we focus on repeats of the same offense, rapists do not stand out. Less than 3 percent of them were arrested for a new rape in the three years covered by the study. By comparison, 13 percent of robbers, 22 percent of (nonsexual) assaulters, and 23 percent of burglars were arrested again for crimes similar to the ones for which they had served time.

Studies that cover longer periods and include other kinds of sex offenders find higher recidivism rates, but still nothing like those claimed by politicians. The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives cites three large studies, covering tens of thousands of sex offenders, that reported rearrest rates for sex offenses ranging from 13 percent to 19 percent.

It seems that the vast majority of people forced to register as sex offenders are actually former sex offenders who will not repeat their crimes. Indeed, Connecticut's online Sex Offender Registry proclaimed that "the Department of Public Safety has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in this registry is currently dangerous."

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, that was precisely the problem. The court ruled that Connecticut's registration law violates the Due Process Clause because it does not give offenders an opportunity to challenge the presumption that they are public menaces.

In the Alaska case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit did not address the due process issue because it concluded that the statute was an ex post facto law, unconstitutionally imposing punishment on offenders who committed their crimes before it was passed. As evidence of the law's punitive effect, the court cited, among other things, onerous requirements similar to those of probation: Many offenders have to register in person with police four times a year for the rest of their lives.

The court also noted that "by posting the appellants' names, addresses, and employer addresses on the Internet, the Act subjects them to community obloquy and scorn that damage them personally and professionally," making it difficult for them to find work and lead normal lives. One need not have sympathy for sex offenders to wonder whether this is a sensible way to encourage their rehabilitation.

© Copyright 2002 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Steel
January 10, 2006, 07:10 PM
Vengeance cannot be held back. That dude better watch his back!

tellner
January 10, 2006, 10:10 PM
A couple of points:
He molested a seven year old for multiple years and he is a "LEVEL A"? What libtard came up with these levels?

Recidivism of molesters is considered a real problem from all reports I have read (if I am wrong, correct me). Why then is Vermont EVEN CONCERNED with treatment? Punish them for their crimes, up to and including execution IMHO.

Let's be fair here. The liberals and feminists took this stuff seriously long before the conservatives did. They were the ones who dragged it out of the closet of "it's a family matter" and made it a priority for law enforcement and the legal system. Same with rape, domestic violence and a number of other things that we now believe are very bad. It was the conservatives in Congress in 1980 who, for instance, put forward the Family Protection Act which forbade state and federal legislatures from passing any law that "interferes with a man's G-d-given right to discipline his family". Fortunately liberals and other conservatives made that one die in committee.

gunner03
January 11, 2006, 12:42 PM
Let's be fair here. The liberals and feminists took this stuff seriously long before the conservatives did. They were the ones who dragged it out of the closet of "it's a family matter" and made it a priority for law enforcement and the legal system. Same with rape, domestic violence and a number of other things that we now believe are very bad. [COLOR="Red"][COLOR="Red"]It was the conservatives in Congress in 1980 who, for instance, put forward the Family Protection Act which forbade state and federal legislatures from passing any law that "interferes with a man's G-d-given right to discipline his family". Fortunately liberals and other conservatives made that one die in committee.
The rape of a child has nothing to do with discipline.If we do not discipline kids when they do wrong how will they ever learn?This is why so many kids are acting like morons now,they have no sence of consequence! Anyway this has vere little to do with the subject, just a peeve of mine. Sorry for getting off track.

tellner
January 11, 2006, 01:06 PM
The rape of a child has nothing to do with discipline.If we do not discipline kids when they do wrong how will they ever learn?This is why so many kids are acting like morons now,they have no sence of consequence! Anyway this has vere little to do with the subject, just a peeve of mine. Sorry for getting off track.

If it had been something along the lines of "parental rights to discipline" you'd have a point. You slid right on by the real point. Wife and child are in the same category here and would have no legal protection against abuse by the man. That old and, thank G-d, dying attitude allowed any sort of abuse as the man's natural due. If a man beat his wife it was a family matter. If he claimed it was for discipline he could do anything to his children. And the authority came straight from the Almighty. Divine right of kings and so on.

That, sad to say, is a "conservative" and "traditional values" sort of law. It was feminists and liberals who changed our national perspective on this, which was what I was getting at.

This is drifting off topic here, so I won't post any more on the subject.

erik the bold
January 26, 2006, 05:08 PM
Hot off the presses from FoxNews:

BURLINGTON, Vt. — A controversial ruling for a sex offender in Vermont was changed Thursday from 60 days to 3 to 10 years after a judge received pressure to extend the punishment.

When Judge Edward Cashman sentenced Mark Hulett, 34, to 60 days in prison for sexually abusing a child, he said he wanted to make sure the man got treatment that would be available while he was behind bars.

Ever since, he's been vilified by television commentators, bloggers and even the governor who say he was too light on the crime.

On Thursday, the case was back in court, and state prosecutors persuaded Cashman to reconsider the sentence. Prosecutor Robert Simpson argued in court papers that a 60-day jail term wasn't nearly enough.

"This court's sentence must consider and include punishment for the defendant's action in repeatedly sexually assaulting this child," Simpson said.

Hulett had pleaded guilty to charges that he had sexual contact with a girl during a four-year period beginning when she was 6.

At his first sentencing, Cashman said the best way to ensure public safety was to get Hulett out of prison so he could receive sex offender treatment. Because the Corrections Department concluded that Hulett wasn't likely to reoffend, he wouldn't be eligible to receive sex-offender treatment until he reached the end of his jail term.

After Cashman announced the sentence, Gov. James Douglas called for the judge to resign and several lawmakers suggested he be impeached. On FOX News, Bill O'Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA."

Mark Kaplan, Hulett's lawyer, argued that the sentence, which included a long period of probation and parole, is in line with other sentences given out by Vermont courts. Cashman needs to ignore the public outcry, he said.

"The sentence in this case may not be popular, but the court cannot be swayed by the media or the mob," he wrote in court papers.

Simpson said he didn't know if Cashman plans to rule from the bench or wait and file a written decision at a later date. In a Jan. 12 memorandum, Cashman appeared unswayed, writing: "To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong."

Last week, he indicated the public outcry has been difficult.

"It is difficult to endure, in silence, the type of criticism leveled to date," he wrote in another memo.

tellner
January 26, 2006, 05:41 PM
What can you say except "Good"?

Waitone
January 26, 2006, 05:55 PM
Lemme see here. Rapes a girl for 4 years and is guaranteed to spend 3 years in jail. Yea, looks fair to me. :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "I don't BELIEVE this @#$% judge!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!