Vermont Judgement a Travesty ?

[Rico Suavay]

I am not sure if any of you have been following the trial about a man in Vermont that repeatedly raped an under-aged girl for years, and received a 60 DAY sentence for his horrific acts.

Care to speak out ?

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605

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.




http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vermont+judge&btnG=Google+Search

[vervilledeb1]

I am not sure if any of you have been following the trial about a man in Vermont that repeatedly raped an under-aged girl for years, and received a 60 DAY sentence for his horrific acts.

Care to speak out ?

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605

.




http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vermont+judge&btnG=Google+Search


After reading this and having to put more thought into it I'm not sure the problem is with the Judge but with the Dept. Of Corrections. My question being: Why can't these people get treatment while in prision? Because of the sentence? If a person does this to one child what are the chances of it happening again to another by the same person? Food for thought.

[Rico Suavay]

I guess what I am trying to find out is other peoples view on such a travesty.

Whether the Judge or the DOC is at fault, the incedent no matter how you look at it is appalling.


The DOC has reversed its decisions and agreed to trreat this man immediately HOPING the Judge would reconsider his sentence and trust the Judge would act appropriately.

I for one hopes this Judge does the right thing.

[vervilledeb1]

I guess what I am trying to find out is other peoples view on such a travesty.

Whether the Judge or the DOC is at fault, the incedent no matter how you look at it is appalling.


The DOC has reversed its decisions and agreed to trreat this man immediately HOPING the Judge would reconsider his sentence and trust the Judge would act appropriately.

I for one hopes this Judge does the right thing.

Yes, this is VERY appalling and I don't feel a 60 day sentence is right. But, I do think getting treatment right away IS called for. In my own belief I think the prision time should be much longer.

[Rico Suavay]

Yes, this is VERY appalling and I don't feel a 60 day sentence is right. But, I do think getting treatment right away IS called for. In my own belief I think the prision time should be much longer.


Treatment is also a debatable issue, it seems this man has a mental capacity of a 12 year old. He really does not understand WHY everyone is upset with him.

He seems to be on the borderline of needing to be confined to a mental intitution rather then a corrections facitlity. If you look at the trial on a whole, this man needs help. Help he will not recieve from a prison or sex offender counseling, he needs to be institutionalized and get the treatment he needs for being at his present 12 year old mentality.

[vervilledeb1]

More info found: http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/19/house_committee_told_demanding_judges_resignation_ inappropriate/Thanks for bringing this up Rico. I would like to study the case more it has my attention now.

Debby

[Rico Suavay]

Your welcome Deb

I started getting into this because of the O'Reilly Factor, started to do my own digging and found out a few things that need attention in that state.

I feel for everyone involved with this. If what I read is true, on one hand I agree with the Judge in Prison is not the place for this guy, but he never suggested an alternative.

My alternative would be to a mental institution. This guy isnt working on all 8 cylinders and Prison is not going to help him one bit. I do not think sexual preditor therapy isnt going to help him either.

What you have is a grown man with the intelligence of a 12 year old, that raped a little girl over 4 years. A CRIME HAS BEEN COMITTED any way you look at it.

BUT, you have to look at each case on its own merits. Prison is not the answer with this guy. Giving him 60 days then let him out for treatment is absured! He needs to be OFF THE STREETS. He doesnt have the mental capacity to even know he has done wrong.

This just all makes me sick with all the bureaucratic bull**** that goes on.

[MilkDudz]

Bill O'Reilly has been making a huge deal out of this, and without knowing anything about the case, I'm willing to bet that the situation is as follows:

The judge is boxed in by a problem clause in the law, and can't legally do more than he is doing. It's up to the state to make a better law. This particular creep will, unfortunately, slip through the cracks. But hopefully the law will be tightened up as a result, and the next creep will not be so lucky.

O'Reilly is a drama queen and will get as much attention as he can from any situation that will provide him the opportunity. I sincerely doubt any judge would give a 60-day sentence to an egregious offender if he had a choice in the matter. He just knows that any other decision would be reversed.

If I'm wrong (which is entirely possible, since I don't know the specifics), I apologize. But I have seen how O'Reilly operates, and this is a typical O'Reilly scenario.

[Rico Suavay]

I see the profanity filter is working spot on ! :jumpers:

[Rico Suavay]

Hi Milk,

Yes O'Reilly bloviates from time to time, and yes he hasnt told the whole story until tonight.

When you read up on the entire case, what he says is true on the subject. The Judge had options because of the lack of laws in Vermont, but he did not exercise those options wisely.

That is what the big bru ha ha is all about

[Franklin]

Hi All,

Rico wrote:[...he hasnt told the whole story until tonight.[/QUOTE]

What did he add to the story tonight? He has not told the whole story. He did mention once or twice that Cashman said that the reason he gave over 60 days was so that the offender can get treatment sooner. But most of the time he dwells only on the 60-day sentence.

Whether one agrees with Cashman's decision or not, it is pertinent to consider before declaring him the worst judge in the country. Also what I don't think I ever heard O'Reilly say is that the sentence is contingent upon Hulett participating in the treatment - if not, he gets life. So, yes, I do think it's largely O'Reilly's usual whip people into an emotional frenzy routine.

That said, I do think 60-days is absurd. But it does warrant proper debate, not knee-jerk reaction. The Justice System is not doing a very good job at protecting the citizens. It certainly can stand some improvement. For it to improve, we have to consider alternatives, not dismiss them out of hand and persecute the people who offer them.

Cashman is not exactly Al Franken. He has been a life-long conservative, practicing Catholic. He is a Vietnam War veteran. He's probably wrong in this case, but still we need open minds, not manipulation by O'Reilly.

The reason the prison was not going to allow immediate treatment is because they didn't consider Hulett high-risk. That's absurd. Sexuall offenders are probably the most recidivist perps around. Also, if he's not high-risk, that removes the protection of Society criterion for imprisonment. It still leaves the punishment factor, which Cashman doesn't feel is very effective, and he may well be right about that.

Then there's the notion that the victim cannot heal unless the perpetrator is punished. I think maybe 6-year olds are wiser than the rest of us on this score. I could imagine the girl being relieved that the perp is being treated and that the actions are not condoned by Society. Some victims have been known to petition the government to not execute the killer of their loved ones. However, if she does require that he be punished, then he should be, and we should probably err in favor of that assumption

We'll see if Cashman is sincere in how he responds to the offer of immediate treatment in prison.

Anyway, I think Cashman is almost certainly wrong, but it remains to be seen if he's really the monster that O'Reilly claims him to be. O'Reilly seems to think that outrage makes him a good person. Courage, humility and wisdom would make him a much better person.

[Rico Suavay]

Great post Franklin!

I agree with many points you have made, and hope this situation can come to a good resolution for all involved.

[XMarc'sTheSpot!]

Hi All,

Rico wrote:[...he hasnt told the whole story until tonight.

What did he add to the story tonight? He has not told the whole story. He did mention once or twice that Cashman said that the reason he gave over 60 days was so that the offender can get treatment sooner. But most of the time he dwells only on the 60-day sentence.

Whether one agrees with Cashman's decision or not, it is pertinent to consider before declaring him the worst judge in the country. Also what I don't think I ever heard O'Reilly say is that the sentence is contingent upon Hulett participating in the treatment - if not, he gets life. So, yes, I do think it's largely O'Reilly's usual whip people into an emotional frenzy routine.

That said, I do think 60-days is absurd. But it does warrant proper debate, not knee-jerk reaction. The Justice System is not doing a very good job at protecting the citizens. It certainly can stand some improvement. For it to improve, we have to consider alternatives, not dismiss them out of hand and persecute the people who offer them.

Cashman is not exactly Al Franken. He has been a life-long conservative, practicing Catholic. He is a Vietnam War veteran. He's probably wrong in this case, but still we need open minds, not manipulation by O'Reilly.

The reason the prison was not going to allow immediate treatment is because they didn't consider Hulett high-risk. That's absurd. Sexuall offenders are probably the most recidivist perps around. Also, if he's not high-risk, that removes the protection of Society criterion for imprisonment. It still leaves the punishment factor, which Cashman doesn't feel is very effective, and he may well be right about that.

Then there's the notion that the victim cannot heal unless the perpetrator is punished. I think maybe 6-year olds are wiser than the rest of us on this score. I could imagine the girl being relieved that the perp is being treated and that the actions are not condoned by Society. Some victims have been known to petition the government to not execute the killer of their loved ones. However, if she does require that he be punished, then he should be, and we should probably err in favor of that assumption

We'll see if Cashman is sincere in how he responds to the offer of immediate treatment in prison.

Anyway, I think Cashman is almost certainly wrong, but it remains to be seen if he's really the monster that O'Reilly claims him to be. O'Reilly seems to think that outrage makes him a good person. Courage, humility and wisdom would make him a much better person.[/QUOTE]

The judge, unlike O'Reilly, must make his decision on the facts of the case and take into consideration factors such as the defendant's mental abilities.

His original decision, as highlighted in the linked article on page hone, PLAINLY STATES:

"Cashman's original version called for 60 days immediately and the various conditions attached to it could result in life in prison."

So, the ability to extend the sentence to life, was/is already there.

O'Reilly is a hysterical :dork: , IMO! Right up there with Nancy Graceless. They are not in a position requiring "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." The base their outrageous fallderall on "ratings, the whole ratings, and nothing but the ratings." (Again, MOO!!!)

[Rico Suavay]

Thank you to whoever removed the post above.

I saw it last night and thought I would sleep on it BEFORE I answered it.

I took the removed post as derogatory and was going to reply this morning.

I am glad we do not have to further that.


As more things come up in this case:

The State Rep from Vermont was on Factor last night and said the Judge was just using the DOC and other things in weighing out his sentence.

He wanted to clear up that the DOC ensured the Court that they would indeed provide therapy for this man while in prison, not when he is released.

Like I said earlier in this thread, it is up to Cashman to do the right thing and now impose a sentence that is within the guidlines of this type of henious crime.

It has now come to the attention of the Court that another friend of this man has also been raping this little girl. I hope more charges are to follow.

What this sentence did is set a precident in Vermont that it ok to rape cause you are only going to do minimal time.

Judge Cashman also said that his religious beliefs weighed heavily on his decision. Right there is the only reason I need to have him removed.

[Rico Suavay]

Thank you to whoever removed the post above.

I saw it last night and thought I would sleep on it BEFORE I answered it.

I took the removed post as derogatory and was going to reply this morning.

I am glad we do not have to further that.


My bad! I see the post is in another forum :dork:


I will post there !

[Rico Suavay]

Cashman Changes sentence today ! :woohoo:


3 to 10 Years

Now all they need to do now is inact Jessicas Law !

[Franklin]

Hi Rico,

I'm glad he changed the sentence. Still probably should have been more.

It appears he made his point by getting the DOC to change its policy. However, I'm not happy with how he did it. This is one case where I would agree with the Big O (not Roy Orbison) that he is acting as an activist judge. I don't think judges should be attempting to change policy via their sentencing, even though I think the new policy is better. He certainly has/had a right to petition those responsible for setting the policy, but not though extortion.

I'm leaning against Jessica's Law - not because I don't think that child molestors/rapists deserve a long sentence - but because it's a case of the legislature doing the judge's job. Just as Cashman took it upon himself to do the legislature's job.

They're called "judges" because they are expected to use their descretion. Otherwise we could have a computer pass out sentences. It would be an easy program to write. Certainly some of them don't do a good job of it. At which point O'Reilly jumps on the opportunity to try to shift the balance of power to the legislative and executive branches. As if they never make a mistake.

The lawmakers don't have the insight that a judge (potentially) has. Each case is different. Cookie-cutter justice does not do this nation justice. The three branhes of government were set up for good reasons. I don't want to see that well-thought out process corroded.

[Rico Suavay]

Hi Rico,

I'm glad he changed the sentence. Still probably should have been more.

I am glad he reconsidered also, and yes it should have been stiffer.



It appears he made his point by getting the DOC to change its policy. However, I'm not happy with how he did it. This is one case where I would agree with the Big O (not Roy Orbison) that he is acting as an activist judge. I don't think judges should be attempting to change policy via their sentencing, even though I think the new policy is better. He certainly has/had a right to petition those responsible for setting the policy, but not though extortion.


Yes he did, and I am glad he did, but as you said, I do not agree with his actions of how he did it. I like Roy Orbison! :) Judges should not be able to change policy. There is another branch already that does that. I also disagree of how he held this sentence over their heads in order to make a change. Its not right. We have peoples civil rights involved here!


I'm leaning against Jessica's Law - not because I don't think that child molestors/rapists deserve a long sentence - but because it's a case of the legislature doing the judge's job. Just as Cashman took it upon himself to do the legislature's job.


Vermont needs changes.




They're called "judges" because they are expected to use their descretion. Otherwise we could have a computer pass out sentences. It would be an easy program to write. Certainly some of them don't do a good job of it. At which point O'Reilly jumps on the opportunity to try to shift the balance of power to the legislative and executive branches. As if they never make a mistake.

O'Reilly jumps on any opportunity :woohoo:

Kidding aside, I think there needs to be a greater balance, and yes they make mistakes every day



The lawmakers don't have the insight that a judge (potentially) has. Each case is different. Cookie-cutter justice does not do this nation justice. The three branhes of government were set up for good reasons. I don't want to see that well-thought out process corroded.

I do not want to see it corroded either. I have always stood by the premise that each case should be based on its own merit. No 2 cases are exactly alike, and we vote the people in that we think will carry out their judicial responsibilty. I feel he has been on too long and has become calus.