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.