Girl provoked pedophile - judge

[LuzyC 0]

I didn't see her sign in, sorry.

Edited June 30, 2007 by LuzyC

[GaryC 7]

So I ask again, how does a child rapist get a 60 day sentence and it stands? The system seems to be broken. We need some oversight other than the hit or miss way things are done now. It's either that or mandatory minimums.

[sparkofcreation 0]

So I ask again, how does a child rapist get a 60 day sentence and it stands? The system seems to be broken. We need some oversight other than the hit or miss way things are done now. It's either that or mandatory minimums.

Well, this was in the UK, so I don't know what their system is. But also, we don't know whether this sentence stood or not. We just know it was imposed. It could well have been overturned on appeal.

May I ask what on earth you're basing your statements on? In the US "mandatory minimums" exist in law for some crimes but have been ruled unconstitutional if there can't be exceptions made to them. (Yes, I know there's a contradiction there.) The most common exception being for a mule who transports a certain amount of drugs carrying a minimum of 10 years, but then turns and helps the DEA investigate the organization as a whole. If that person is a first-time offender (and many are) and the minimum were absolute, they'd say "f--- that, if I'm going to get the 10 years anyway, why would I put my life and my family in danger to help you?" and the DEA would be SOL. So in order for the DEA to be able to go after the leaders of the organization instead of the people way down the chain who have no real power and are easily reduced, you can get a sentence below the minimum if you help the DEA.

[Dan J 277]

So I ask again, how does a child rapist get a 60 day sentence and it stands? The system seems to be broken. We need some oversight other than the hit or miss way things are done now. It's either that or mandatory minimums.

Because punishment does not to fix mental illness.

[GaryC 7]

So I ask again, how does a child rapist get a 60 day sentence and it stands? The system seems to be broken. We need some oversight other than the hit or miss way things are done now. It's either that or mandatory minimums.

Because punishment does not to fix mental illness.

I don't want to fix them, I want them out of society so they can't hurt any more children. We can try to fix them while they serve a very long time in jail. It's thinking like yours that puts our children in danger. No thanks.

[GaryC 7]

So I ask again, how does a child rapist get a 60 day sentence and it stands? The system seems to be broken. We need some oversight other than the hit or miss way things are done now. It's either that or mandatory minimums.

Well, this was in the UK, so I don't know what their system is. But also, we don't know whether this sentence stood or not. We just know it was imposed. It could well have been overturned on appeal.

May I ask what on earth you're basing your statements on? In the US "mandatory minimums" exist in law for some crimes but have been ruled unconstitutional if there can't be exceptions made to them. (Yes, I know there's a contradiction there.) The most common exception being for a mule who transports a certain amount of drugs carrying a minimum of 10 years, but then turns and helps the DEA investigate the organization as a whole. If that person is a first-time offender (and many are) and the minimum were absolute, they'd say "f--- that, if I'm going to get the 10 years anyway, why would I put my life and my family in danger to help you?" and the DEA would be SOL. So in order for the DEA to be able to go after the leaders of the organization instead of the people way down the chain who have no real power and are easily reduced, you can get a sentence below the minimum if you help the DEA.

I will post it again. This is a case in Vermont. Tell me if the oversight worked here.

Judge gives child-rapist

60-day sentence

No longer believes in punishment: 'Anger doesn't solve anything'

Posted: January 6, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.

Judge Edward Cashman disagreed with prosecutors who thought Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston, Vt., deserved eight to 20 years in prison, reported WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vt.

Cashman said he's more concerned now about rehabilitation.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," Cashman told a packed Burlington courtroom made up mostly of people related to the victim.

Prior to the decision, Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued punishment "is a valid purpose."

"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does," she said, according to the Burlington TV station. "The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider."

Cashman said he wants to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment.

Under Department of Corrections classification, however, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense, which means he doesn't qualify for in-prison treatment.

Cashman, therefore, issued a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete sex-offender treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.

The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes "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, WCAX reported.

Members of the victim's family were outraged.

"I don't like it," the victim's mother told the TV station, in tears. "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."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48219

[Dan J 277]

So I ask again, how does a child rapist get a 60 day sentence and it stands? The system seems to be broken. We need some oversight other than the hit or miss way things are done now. It's either that or mandatory minimums.

Because punishment does not to fix mental illness.

I don't want to fix them, I want them out of society so they can't hurt any more children. We can try to fix them while they serve a very long time in jail. It's thinking like yours that puts our children in danger. No thanks.

They will gladly do that for you in China. But here, people have rights. Even if their genetics or upbringing make them a deviant in society. Here, once a sex offender is identified, they have big brother watching them and get no privacy.

[Caladan 19]

Gary, you have to have more of an argument than 'I disagree with treatment instead of jail time' to get you to 'the judges need oversight.'

The problem, if you read the article, is that the judge can't order the guy to prison and have the guy get treatment. It's either prison, and no treatment, or a lighter sentence, and treatment, that if not completed makes the guy spend the rest of his life in prison. And that's because the Department of Corrections says you can't be in prison and get treatment unless you're considered a risk to re-offend. The guy is considered low-risk by the DoC.

And, of course, if the prosecutor wants to appeal the case, he can. I suppose we can fault the article for not knowing whether the prosecutor would in the future.

Now, you might think that treatment is useless. But that really doesn't have anything to do with evil relativistic judges being soft on crime. It seems the bigger problem is that the DoC thinks the guy's low risk. So the option available to the judge is limited. And when you tell them "This guy's unlikely to re-offend, your options are either to send him to prison, or to give him a commuted life sentence conditional on completing treatment", given that treatment as an option has been decided by the legislature.... the judge is probably taking the DoC's word for it and deciding to treat the guy rather than have him released from prison in a few years with no treatment.

Because chances are, if he's thought to be low-risk, he'll be paroled and back in society without having had any treatment.

[GaryC 7]

I don't want to fix them, I want them out of society so they can't hurt any more children. We can try to fix them while they serve a very long time in jail. It's thinking like yours that puts our children in danger. No thanks.

They will gladly do that for you in China. But here, people have rights. Even if their genetics or upbringing make them a deviant in society. Here, once a sex offender is identified, they have big brother watching them and get no privacy.

Who's rights are we worried about here? The child that was scarred for life or the pervert that raped her for years? I find your compassion for this guy amazing. He is a boil on our society and needs to be lanced. The judge that gave him 60 days should be disbarred and made to serve time in jail also. What he did is beyond any reason. When our childrens lives are at stake I don't give a damn about the rapists rights or whether he gets treatment. He should just get his azz streached in prison for the rest of his life.

Gary, you have to have more of an argument than 'I disagree with treatment instead of jail time' to get you to 'the judges need oversight.'

The problem, if you read the article, is that the judge can't order the guy to prison and have the guy get treatment. It's either prison, and no treatment, or a lighter sentence, and treatment, that if not completed makes the guy spend the rest of his life in prison. And that's because the Department of Corrections says you can't be in prison and get treatment unless you're considered a risk to re-offend. The guy is considered low-risk by the DoC.

And, of course, if the prosecutor wants to appeal the case, he can. I suppose we can fault the article for not knowing whether the prosecutor would in the future.

Now, you might think that treatment is useless. But that really doesn't have anything to do with evil relativistic judges being soft on crime. It seems the bigger problem is that the DoC thinks the guy's low risk. So the option available to the judge is limited. And when you tell them "This guy's unlikely to re-offend, your options are either to send him to prison, or to give him a commuted life sentence conditional on completing treatment", given that treatment as an option has been decided by the legislature.... the judge is probably taking the DoC's word for it and deciding to treat the guy rather than have him released from prison in a few years with no treatment.

Because chances are, if he's thought to be low-risk, he'll be paroled and back in society without having had any treatment.

Not if we had mandatory minimums he wouldn't get out. As it stands now he would. The law needs changing.The same people that think this guy is "low risk" and not likely to re-offend are the same nit-wits that appointed or approved this judge in the first place. I am in favor of protecting the children. Aren't you?

Edited June 30, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Dan J 277]

Who's rights are we worried about here? The child that was scarred for life or the pervert that raped her for years? I find your compassion for this guy amazing. He is a boil on our society and needs to be lanced. The judge that gave him 60 days should be disbarred and made to serve time in jail also. What he did is beyond any reason. When our childrens lives are at stake I don't give a damn about the rapists rights or whether he gets treatment. He should just get his azz streached in prison for the rest of his life.

So we show you the error in your argument, and you turn this into a personal attack about having compassion for the accused and not protecting children.

Sorry man, a fair justice system is not a one sided justice system, even when a child is the victim. You can still protect children without ignoring the human rights of others.

In lieu of better laws, the judge made the right decision in this case. He respected the right of the accused of being able to live a life after this incident, but made it conditional upon completing treatment. It could be aruged that he should have been given more jail time, but the way the laws were written he would have gotten out after 8 years, and with no treatment, likely to recommit again. So who are you interested in protecting? Obviously not human rights as your willing to put them aside in this case. And without treatment, its hard to say children either.

[GaryC 7]

Who's rights are we worried about here? The child that was scarred for life or the pervert that raped her for years? I find your compassion for this guy amazing. He is a boil on our society and needs to be lanced. The judge that gave him 60 days should be disbarred and made to serve time in jail also. What he did is beyond any reason. When our childrens lives are at stake I don't give a damn about the rapists rights or whether he gets treatment. He should just get his azz streached in prison for the rest of his life.

So we show you the error in your argument, and you turn this into a personal attack about having compassion for the accused and not protecting children.

Sorry man, a fair justice system is not a one sided justice system, even when a child is the victim. You can still protect children without ignoring the human rights of others.

In lieu of better laws, the judge made the right decision in this case. He respected the right of the accused of being able to live a life after this incident, but made it conditional upon completing treatment. It could be aruged that he should have been given more jail time, but the way the laws were written he would have gotten out after 8 years, and with no treatment, likely to recommit again. So who are you interested in protecting? Obviously not human rights as your willing to put them aside in this case. And without treatment, its hard to say children either.

Sorry man, you haven't shown me any error in my judgment. In fact you have shown a total lack of knowledge of what child abuse is and it's effects. Have you ever met someone that had been abused like this? My step daughter from my first marriage was raped by her father over a 3 year period. A loony judge went for treatment for his drinking instead of sending him to jail. 6 years later he got remarried and was caught raping his 2 year old son!!! People like this don't change. Because of this monster my step-daughter is messed up for life. She ended up with severe mental problems, became a drug addict and in the end lost her 3 children. He didn't ruin one life, he ruined an entire family.Your compassion for the rapist really touches me.

[Heracles 417]

So I ask again, how does a child rapist get a 60 day sentence and it stands? The system seems to be broken. We need some oversight other than the hit or miss way things are done now. It's either that or mandatory minimums.

Because punishment does not to fix mental illness.

Mental illness. Yes in some cases but not all. Punishment is a simple tool used to send a message that xyz is not tolerated in this society. As well as to keep certain prisoners locked up. The ones that will commit the crime again.

If anything it is time we bring back the chain gangs and have the prisoners give back to society rather than their time alone.

[Dan J 277]

Who's rights are we worried about here? The child that was scarred for life or the pervert that raped her for years? I find your compassion for this guy amazing. He is a boil on our society and needs to be lanced. The judge that gave him 60 days should be disbarred and made to serve time in jail also. What he did is beyond any reason. When our childrens lives are at stake I don't give a damn about the rapists rights or whether he gets treatment. He should just get his azz streached in prison for the rest of his life.

So we show you the error in your argument, and you turn this into a personal attack about having compassion for the accused and not protecting children.

Sorry man, a fair justice system is not a one sided justice system, even when a child is the victim. You can still protect children without ignoring the human rights of others.

In lieu of better laws, the judge made the right decision in this case. He respected the right of the accused of being able to live a life after this incident, but made it conditional upon completing treatment. It could be aruged that he should have been given more jail time, but the way the laws were written he would have gotten out after 8 years, and with no treatment, likely to recommit again. So who are you interested in protecting? Obviously not human rights as your willing to put them aside in this case. And without treatment, its hard to say children either.

Sorry man, you haven't shown me any error in my judgment. In fact you have shown a total lack of knowledge of what child abuse is and it's effects. Have you ever met someone that had been abused like this? My step daughter from my first marriage was raped by her father over a 3 year period. A loony judge went for treatment for his drinking instead of sending him to jail. 6 years later he got remarried and was caught raping his 2 year old son!!! People like this don't change. Because of this monster my step-daughter is messed up for life. She ended up with severe mental problems, became a drug addict and in the end lost her 3 children. He didn't ruin one life, he ruined an entire family.Your compassion for the rapist really touches me.

No compassion. I don't want our justice system to run only on emotion. Satisfying only the victim at cost the accused. That is not justice, thats vengeance. The justice system provides justice not vengeance. It exists to give a fair judgment and sometimes that fair judgment will conflict with what you want. But I would rather have that system, than a system that gives zero rights to the accused, wrongly or not.

At least now I know your bias on this issue and why you will likely never be able to look at this issue from a balanced perspective.

[GaryC 7]

No compassion. I don't want our justice system to run only on emotion. Satisfying only the victim at cost the accused. That is not justice, thats vengeance. The justice system provides justice not vengeance. It exists to give a fair judgment and sometimes that fair judgment will conflict with what you want. But I would rather have that system, than a system that gives zero rights to the accused, wrongly or not.

At least now I know your bias on this issue and why you will likely never be able to look at this issue from a balanced perspective.

So you think 6 months and treatment is appropriate? Punishment and vengeance are not the same thing. In your rush to show your "progressivness" your forgetting that punishment and segregation from society is appropriate for people like this. I hope you never have to deal with the aftermath of someone you love being raped. It's especially worse when it's a child. I think you would have a different outlook if God forbid you were ever faced with it.

[GaryC 7]

And another thing, if this guys "treatment" is unsuccesful then you are dooming yet another child to being raped by him. You really want that on your hands? The repeat offencess of people like this are very high. I would rather protect the inocent than worry about the monsters rights. IMO he gives up his rights when he rapes a baby.