After facing a massive public outcry, including your outrage and Gov. Douglas’ call for him to resign, Judge Cashman of Vermont has changed his obscene 60 days sentence for a child rapist to 3-10 years.
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.
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 sentence was changed only because of public outcry. Cashman has exposed himself for what he is and should at least be removed from criminal court. You also know how I feel about child “molestation,” which is really an inadequate euphemism–it’s child rape and should be a capital offense. So while 3-10 years is better than 60 days that is also not enough.
And lastly, a great big Hooyah! to all of you. Because of your outrage this child rapist will at least be off the streets. You are the only reason why this was changed. Never dismiss the impact of your individual action. Congratulations.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Still not enough.
Shining a bright light on a big rodent usually causes it to change its behavior.
I agree with your mention of capital offense. If we were to do away with child rapists we sure wouldn’t have to worry about where they were going to live when they get out of jail, freeing up all that money that is spent on Meghans Law enforcement.
This judge simply “doesn’t get it”. Even the second time around he was unable to come up with the courage to hand down a punishment that fits the crime. I cannot imagine what this little girl’s life is going to be like…..I hope someone is looking out for her, and making sure she gets the proper therapy. Everyone seems to be so concerned that “HE” gets help, but very little has been mentioned about what is being done for her – this saddens me deeply. I live in New Hampshire, and I cannot believe the “silence” coming from Vermont on this issue.
There is only one thing you can conclude about a person who doesn’t think child rape is a big deal.
Lostridley- thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking… especially after I got a look at him when he was speaking to the cameras outside of his house. He looks… well, I’m not sure. But I am sure about that creepy vibe emanating from my tv.
I agree that it still isn’t enough. Criminals need to fear our judicial system, and they don’t. That is sad.
First, yes, clearly this is not nearly enough, but still a huge improvement. Second, the fact that the trial judge reconsidered his own sentence may well invite an appellate court to extend it yet further, despite the high hurdle of the “abuse of discretion standard.” And third, no, just moving Cashman to civil court only is insufficient: he really should be off the bench, as his first sentence was unforgivable. I think this probably takes the wind out of the sails of people pushing for impeachment (or the Governor’s call for his resignation), but I also think that it’s still highly likely the legislature will refuse to grant him another term when his current six-year term expires in 2007, if he has the inconceivable audacity to actually give notice of his intent to stay in office. That, unlike impeachment, only takes a simple legislative majority.
Ref: “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.”
I’d like to know what kind of “treatment” he wanted to make sure would be available to this rapist. Surely, as a judge, Cashman must know that the professionals who treat pedophiles believe there is no such thing as a cure. They talk in terms of “recidivism” (convicted criminals who reoffend), and point out that — because these abusers continue to be attracted to children — the most to be hoped for from treatment is to delay or prevent them from acting on their attraction impulses. (What treatment did Cashman have in mind: aversion therapy?) In light of this, I don’t understand how the judge could be so concerned about the convict receiving treatment and so callous about the child’s right to justice.
GD
In answer to your question about, “In light of this, I don’t understand how the judge could be so concerned about the convict receiving treatment and so callous about the child’s right to justice.”
Judge Cashman is a proponent of “Restorative Justice” which places the perpetrator on even ground with the victim, have sentencing circles within which everyone holds hands, and punishment is seen as iatrogenic, that is, the treatment (punishment) is seen as the CAUSE of the problem and is ultimately damaging to all concerned. Therefore, Cashman’s monomaniacal focus upon treatment, not punishment/justice for and protection of the victim. Insane.
You must log in to post a comment.