Forum index / General Chat / Judge hands down 60 day sentence

Judge hands down 60 day sentence

16 posts · page 1 of 1

post #1
29 January 2006, 03:34 UTC#1


QUOTE


WND LAW OF THE LAND
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."


wtf Image file not present in the recovered backup
post #2
29 January 2006, 03:38 UTC#2
Fucking hell that's terrible, judge goes vigalante and little girl who got raped gets fuck all justice, what a cunt!
post #3
29 January 2006, 03:45 UTC#3
uhh thats gotta be bullshit. I wonder if dgodlewski can confirm any of this?

As for rehabilitation....our legal system gave up on rehabilitating criminals decades ago, its only punishment now. Tat judge is whack.
post #4
29 January 2006, 08:56 UTC#4
Its good to know that my people are getting less time in jail :cool:
post #5
29 January 2006, 09:38 UTC#5
Thats fucking crazy. That girl lives with it for the rest of her life, he gets 60 days and treatment. Image file not present in the recovered backup
post #6
29 January 2006, 10:00 UTC#6
That is fucking disgusting.
post #7
29 January 2006, 10:36 UTC#7
I cant confirm the validity of this exact particular case, but I have seen others where a judge gives a very lenient sentence for a rather serious crime. In the United States, the judge has the ultimate say in what the punishment will be once the person has been found guilty by a jury. Being a judge is a very political position, so just as we have extreme liberals and extreme conservatives in congress, we have extremely liberal and extremely conservative judges and each side of the spectrum may make extremely different rulings on the same case. Do I agree with this particular ruling... fuck no! But at the same time, thats what’s good about our legal system in my eyes, that most trials can be decided on a case by case basis without stringent zero tolerance punishments and allows for discretion to use what will work best for that person.
post #8
29 January 2006, 10:59 UTC#8
QUOTE(dgodlewski @ Jan 29 2006, 10:36 AM) [snapback]273421[/snapback]

Do I agree with this particular ruling... fuck no! But at the same time, thats what’s good about our legal system in my eyes, that most trials can be decided on a case by case basis without stringent zero tolerance punishments and allows for discretion to use what will work best for that person.


I can agree with that. That's why I am so strongly against mandatory minimums. Every case is different. Let the punishment fit the crime. Unfortunately that wasnt the case here...but none the less...

http://www.famm.org/index2.htm - Make a donation!
post #9
29 January 2006, 11:18 UTC#9
LOL @ FAMM
post #10
29 January 2006, 11:47 UTC#10
Is there something wrong with him?
post #11
29 January 2006, 12:43 UTC#11
Cases like these do wonders for peoples trust in the justice system.
post #12
29 January 2006, 12:53 UTC#12
I have the urge to rape now. I'm not going to lie. Image file not present in the recovered backup
post #13
29 January 2006, 15:03 UTC#13
QUOTE(The Milkman @ Jan 29 2006, 12:53 PM) [snapback]273474[/snapback]

I have the urge to rape now. I'm not going to lie. Image file not present in the recovered backup

Ha... Image file not present in the recovered backup

That's fucked up, she deserves justice for what that prick done to her, but some judge decides she can't have it...that's not right.
post #14
29 January 2006, 15:15 UTC#14
I was only joking :sad:

I will stick to suprise sex, its more lawful...
post #15
29 January 2006, 17:58 UTC#15
also tom, seeing as u were the last person to kiss sam, it would be more merciful to not touch anyone Image file not present in the recovered backup
post #16
29 January 2006, 18:13 UTC#16
Thats it. My cum, in you, tomorrow.