Whoa. Allah's linkblog actually launches. No more free lunch for Ace...

The Anchoress has a little more info that makes Cashman seem not so culpable.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day:

"To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong."

True, a judge shouldn't (and indeed typically cannot) change his decisions simply because those decisions were unpopular. Of course, widespread objection usually leads a man to reflect on the wisdom of his decisions...

One thing struck me as very odd, though:

He also noted that Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old and did not understand why others were so upset by his actions.

This seems to imply that Hulett could not understand why his actions were wrong. That can't be right, because if Judge Cashman decided Hulett couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong, Hulett was not guilty by reason of legal insanity. Any punishment would arguably be cruel and unusual in light of the Eighth Amendment. Instead, Hulett should have been acquitted and confined to a mental institution, probably for life.

Instead, Hulett should have been acquitted and confined to a mental institution, probably for life.

Not a bad idea, really.

Unlike many conservatives, I don't care much about punishment. (That's between the criminal and God, if there is a God.) I believe that the main purpose of the criminal justice system should be to prevent repeat offenses. Confining child molesters to a mental institution for life would be a humane way to protect our kids. I'd support that.

So, Huett can't understand why people are upset with his actions but he can understand that if he violates any of the conditions of his release, people will be upset with him.

Cashman is giving Huett one last chance to assault children. Quite sporting of him.

Cashman thinks paedophilia can be cured through therapy.

Does this mean other sexual orientations can also be "cured" through therapy?

I absolutely agree that pedophilia can be cured with treatment. Mine involves a '65 GTO, jumper cables, and a tub of water.

Shit, I forgot the nail-studded Lousville Slugger autographed by Greg Luzinski.

The Anchoress has a little more info that makes Cashman seem not so culpable.

And her readers have some excellent comments in rebuttal.

Theorizing that this is the correct sentencing and thus should be the standard, would that help increase or decrease the frequency of pediophile actions? I imagine if the only consequence would be 60 days in jail and probation, those that now hesitate to begin or repeat actions would no longer feel restrained.

This amounts to one free pass. next victim loses.

Impalement reduces repeat offenses.

Craig: GTO's are expensive and hard to come by.

Rope is cheap.

PLease read the Anchoress's post noted by "Posted by geoff at January 13, 2006 02:21 PM ' - among other things, the Judge's `sixty day` sentence actually Increases the length of the sentence from a few years to life.

among other things, the Judge's `sixty day` sentence actually Increases the length of the sentence from a few years to life.

Mmmm. Judging from the article that the Anchoress cited, this is a tendentious and misleading claim. I urge you to examine the article yourselves, but it seemed to indicate that "[w]hat Cashman's sentence actually did was ensure that Hulett will never again be able to live in the community unless he participates in sex-offender treatment."

Now, if we parse that sentence, we see that it creates a conditional: if "Hulett participates in sex offender treatment" = false, then "Hulett will never again be able to live in the community." The converse, of course, is an implication that Hulett will be able to live in the community so long as he participates in treatment. A converse of a proposition is not necessarily true according to the laws of logic, of course, but it's hardly a ridiculous inference from the article.

How do we square the reports that Judge Cashman sentenced Hulett to 60 days of imprisonment with Mr. Anderson's claim that Hulett's sentence actually covered several years? Again, operating by inference from the cited article, it appears that Judge Cashman gave Hulett a multi-year suspended sentence. This sentence does not have to be served -- subject to certain restrictions, Hulett can walk out of prison, down to the corner store, hold a job, and generally live a free life. A suspended sentence is effectively a threat: if the convict violates any of the technical restrictions of probation (such as living in an apartment complex that also houses children, for example), some or all of that suspended sentence may be converted to an active sentence -- that is, Hulett would have to go to the Big House.

Why do I call Mr. Anderson's claim tendentious and misleading? Because it ignores the basis of the objections to Hulett's sentence. People are outraged for two reasons. First, they believe that child rapists are inherently deserving of punishment, including the deprivation of liberty, e.g., incarceration. While Hulett's suspended sentence does entail significant deprivation of liberty, it is hardly reasonable to suggest that probation entails an equal deprivation as imprisonment. Indeed, much of the reason that probation exists is precisely because it is a lesser punishment than incarceration. Mr. Anderson's failure to recognize that -- or intentional obfuscation of the distinction -- is a fatal flaw.

More significantly, however, is the incapacitating nature of incarceration. Hulett is not legally permitted even to approach children now, much less rape them. Presumably, the state of Vermont will make some effort to enforce this prohibition. However, as we have already seen, Hulett has little regard for the prohibitions of law as such; otherwise, he would not have raped the child in the first place. Nor can we be sure that the state of Vermont will be perfectly successful in enforcing the prohibition -- after all, it was tragically unsuccessful in protecting the original victim.

Thus, probation might still afford Hulett the physical possibility of attacking another child. This possibility, although hopefully remote, is nontrivial and a legitimate cause for concern. Short of a jailbreak, however, it would be effectively impossible for Hulett to molest another child if he were incarcerated. While this is not necessarily the only or the dispositive consideration in crafting Hulett's sentence, it is obviously relevant.

Mr. Anderson, however, does not appear to see this. Whether this is a failure of his eyes or his intellect, I cannot judge.

> Craig: GTO's are expensive and hard to come by.

But like rope, they're reusable -- plus the sheer novelty of the GTO's presence might add deterrent value. All the criminals would come to respect "Old Sparkplug."

Its time to give this liberal judge his walking papers its time to hand him his pink slip its time to retire this fool

Ya, no kidding, spurwing, that judge is a fool.
Hey, spurwing, do you ever read your email?

quick and effective treatment, huh? How does three feet of rope and a six foot drop sound?

Child molesters should be shot. Unless they as Muslim, in which case they can be called "Mohammed."

Why oh why can't we kill these bastards? What is so "civilized" about aleeting these creeps roam the earth?

The judge is not displaying judicial temprament and should be removed.
In Texas he would be run out of office in the next primary, much less election.
At the local level Judges should not be protected from folly for life.

Well,just over the border from Vt.is hoosick falls,Ny.Where my rights as a American where stomped.My childs health and welfare violated and she was (RAPED).I filed charges with the Judicial Conduct Board in Albany,Ny.After 2 1/2 yrs investigation the Judge lester goodermote resigns.He does so after they tell him I want to sue the 450 lb pig hiding under a black robe.Now all my charges are founded.My daughter and I where violated for bj's and sex.Now we have what they call judicial immunity,inwhich they are above the law.Where is the justice?The Ex judge for life now sells the perp's home whom assaulted my 13 yr old daughter.Then slanders me in an assault case,calling me the biggest piece of shit that ever walked the streets of hoosick falls and he's stalking her.Well where is the justice?Now this maggot just fraudulantly won a seat in the legislature.Where is the justice?Only when I plant this cellulite pig.I now belong to jail4judges.org.So then we all will be countable for our actions.Not just the peons!

I just finished a long entry on my blog about it:

http://www.recoveryvehicle.us/blog/2006/01/sixty_days.html

I don't know if Judge Cashman is right or wrong with his sentence. Reading several articles about it I don't see anything to suggest that the judge is saying that sexual abuse of a child is acceptable or that perpetrators don't deserve to be punished. He is talking about the corrosive effect of harboring anger. He is attempting to focus on doing something to help the survivor. He is also shinning a light on the dearth of options that exist for dealing with such perpetrators and the ineffectiveness of them.

This is not what we tend to like to hear. Consequently everyone is angry. It reminds me of the situation when I began to deal with my memories of my abuse. No one wanted me to remember. No one liked what I had to say and there was a lot of anger.

Let's say that there was a national resolution that anyone convicted of a child sex crime would be executed immediately. Huge penalty. It doesn't seem like huge penalties are very effective as deterrents, however, so I don't think we can assume the incidence of abuse will change. I suspect that the number reported would plummet because the penalty was so huge.

Let's say instead that anyone convicted would be sentenced to 60 days in jail, court mandated treatment and perpetual monitoring for the rest of their life. Again, I don't think the incidence of abuse is going to change but I think the number of reported cases would climb because REPORTING it become easier to do.

Now, if we set aside our desire to slake OUR feelings of anger and rage, what's likely to result in more survivors being able to move into getting help dealing with what happened to them? I think it's the case that the easier it is to be reported. Making it easier to report is going to make it easier for people to break the silence. And the sooner more people are going to get into therapy or other help. And the sooner that happens the fewer of them grow up to express that anger and confusion as a continuation of the cycle of violence and abuse.

Clearly perps and predators need to be identified and monitored. They can not go back to being just another citizen, in my opinion. Judge Cashman may or may not be right in this particular case but he is right about the damage of harboring anger and bitterness as well as the fact that we have no good system for dealing with abuse perps.

You know what would probably be the most effective approach to dealing with pedophiles and sexual abuse perps? If the state sentenced the perp as Judge Cashman did, they become registered sex offenders, and the difference between what the perp would have cost as an incarcerated prisoner is contributed to a fund for survivors. That would be about $20-30k a year for say ten years going into such a fund (it costs $40-50k a year to house a prisoner). Part of the perp's wages could be garnished to apply to that. The result would turn into one of the best funded programs around with resources to help survivors and increase awareness. It may not satisfy the immediate, visceral lust for vengeance but I can tell you from personal experience that vengeance doesn't aid healing from the wounds of abuse.

CALL TO ACTION!!
Online petition to remove Mr. Cashman from the bench:

http://new.petitiononline.com/gocash/petition-sign.html

Please read and sign if you agree. Please pass this URL along to other responsible citizens.

Regards,
Chris

I have been reading a bit more on this case and I hope that my comments help to further illuminate. I am deeply upset about this matter and I continue to demand that Judge Cashman be removed from the bench for issuing a sentence that might encourage the further willful destruction of our children’s lives.

Liberals and Conservatives alike deplore Cashman's recent sentence and the underlying litigious environment that allowed such a sentence.

I hope that the attention of this case will deeply stir Vermont legislative powers to join together to correct their flawed legal system, which has proved completely ineffective in this matter.

Mandatory sentencing for crimes as heinous as this, have proven to reduce crime. However, it is unclear to me if this is because many crimes go unreported under these circumstances. I have heard compelling argument that suggests juries are less likely to convict when the defendant is faced with a mandatory sentence. If this is true, then mandatory sentencing could potentially put victims in an extremely vulnerable position and ironically, may not be in the victim’s interest. When acquitted, rapists don’t get any jail time or probation and they are not registered as sex offenders.

I don’t know that I agree or disagree that sex offenders can be treated effectively with rehabilitation. The relatively high levels of recidivism suggest to me, that they cannot. However, it should deeply concern all of us that until a recent development in the Hulett case, rehabilitation concurrent with sentencing was not an option.

Cashman’s decision was based heavily on his belief that prompt rehabilitation was necessary. Being that other judges and even lawmakers may believe similarly, does it not make sense to have a legal system that offers rehabilitation concurrent with a reasonable amount of time behind bars?

Last Friday Cashman was given the opportunity to re-evaluate the terms of his sentence based on an unconventional option of rehabilitation concurrent with the sentence. We’ll see what he does.

The really despicable aspect of this case, is that the sentence is held up by a plea-bargain. This means that even if Cashman were to through the book at Hulett after re-evaluation, Hulett could then withdraw his guilty plea!!!

I think Cashman should look past the plea-bargain in this case and redeem himself by sentencing Hulett to jail for life. The national attention that this case has received should be more than enough to convict Hulett now! If not, Cashman’s removal from the bench will rightfully help to balance this outrageous travesty of justice!