The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil,
but because of those who look on and do nothing.

~~~ Albert Einstein



Thursday, January 26, 2006

Cashman Changes Sentence!!!!

Judge Edward Cashman has just increased Mark Hulett's sentence from the outrageous 60 days he first gave him to now be prison time of three to 10 years.

At the original sentencing, Cashman said the best way to ensure public safety was to get Hulett out of prison so he could receive sex offender treatment. Because the Corrections Department concluded that Hulett wasn't likely to reoffend, he wouldn't be eligible to receive sex-offender treatment until he reached the end of his jail term.

After Cashman announced the initial sentence, Gov. James Douglas called for the judge to resign and several lawmakers suggested he be impeached.

Douglas said Thursday he considered the new sentence to be too lenient.

"It's 18 times 60 days, so it's certainly an improvement," said the governor. "Personally I think it's inadequate for a crime of that magnitude, but it is certainly better than the first decision."

In his order Thursday, the judge remained firm in his original belief that sentences must be concerned with more than just punishment.

"The court agrees a punitive response punishment is a valuable and necessary component of society's response to criminal conduct," he said. "It is a tool that the court has routinely used for the past 24 years on the trial bench. As stated during the sentencing hearing, however, punishment is not enough of a response in some cases.

"This is one of those cases," he said.

Attorney General William Sorrell had also hoped for longer than three years, but he praised the judge for making the change. "I would have rather seen it be a longer sentence as a message to other would-be offenders, but I think Judge Cashman is big enough to change course," he said. SRC

Although I believe as Sorrell does that the sentence should still be longer than it is, I can happily say that 3 to 10 is more acceptable, yet still not adequate.

A recent poll done across America regarding the first sentence of 60 days shows overwhelmingly that people where not willing to be satsified with such a slap on the wrist.
The Zogby International Poll shows 92-percent of American voters oppose the
sentence.
The survey also found that 85-percent favor long mandatory jail sentences for sex offenders. SRC.

Categories: , ,

~ MissLisa said...

Yes, it is still too lenient! But at least Cashman finally changed the sentence. What a shame that it took such an uproar for him to finally do it. I still think he should resign, he's obviously not a competent judge.

Home Sweet Home said...

Well it only took nationwide pressure, pressure from the Vermont Governor, a threat of impeachment, and a change in Vermont Corrections policy to get Cashman to finally change his sentence. Even then, he doesn't want to be too hard on the guy.

And for the parents! Usually, I am against blaming the parents in these situations. But this one! Why were they not charged. First the girl does tell. She has been threatened by one, and groomed by the other- but she did tell. But that isn't enough for the parents. Because children's services didn't do anything, they didn't either. They didn't even do anything about the sleeping arrangements, allowing him to continue staying overnight in the home, even after knowing the allegations and seeing him coming out of the girl's room after being told not to go in there- and after being told by CPS to make other arrangements. And they still let him stay!
He must have been providing something for them. Maybe he was helping supply the necessities for the parties. So they recipicated by making the daughter available to him?
Did they think that the girl made it up? A parents first duty is to their child. Friend or no friend, he should not have been sleeping with the child in the first place. And after hearing the allegations, he shouldn't have been visiting the home, let alone sleeping there!
It is hard for me to understand, how a parent can know or even suspect their child is being abused, and not take steps to protect their child!

thpunishrr said...

I just wrote a post on this too. I can't believe that three years is ever just punishment for a child molester. The judge's changing in sentencing is better than nothing. But Cashman is still not fit to be a judge. This is a slap in all our faces. And what kind of message does this send to rapists in Vermont.

Great site by the way. I just joined the blogroll and am new too blogging, but I want to make a difference. You are doing a wonderful job. Thank You and all the best.
~Mark

The Conservative UAW Guy said...

Better news, but I would have been happier with, oh, say, 30 years...

chris said...

I've tried to read all infos available on this subject and while I agree 60 days hasn't have any meaning, I have tried to understand judge Cashman motivations and something else also caught my attention:

"...since the offender is unlikely to reoffend, no treatment can be provided while in prison..."

I agree the offender has to be punished, but we also need to protect children in the future, upon the offender's release.

If nothing is done to treat them while incarcerated, it means nothing has changed at the end of their terms and that they will be likely to offend again.

An adult having sex with a kid is responsible for his deeds.

We, as a society whose only answer is to lock the offender away, with no medical follow-up are equally responsible.

If someone gets locked up for ten years on a sex offense and commits the same act after being released will probably have learned how not to go back in the joint by eliminating any witness, no matter what his/her age is.

Prison, yes...but with treatment.