Bill O'reilly at it Again

I totally agree with you. this child will never ever ever forget what that disgusting man did to her and she will never ever ever forget how little he paid for his crimes. Judge Cashman shouldnt be a judge.

Both men should be put on a nice, general prison floor and left to the inmates.

I am aware of this case as well. I have no doubt that this Judge will pay with his job for this insane sentence. There are way too many judges that think the black robe makes them God, and above our laws. This Judge certainly is an example of this, when he arrogantly decreed that punishment no longer works, therefore he was not going to punish this criminal before him. If he wants to be a philosopher, thats his right. Just dont do it from the bench where it is potentially dangerous to the community at large. This judge is a disgrace and embarrassment to all the ethical and professional judges serving on the bench.

I hope he will pay for it with his job, but I'm not as certain that he will. Not unless people like Bill O'Reilly and other public figures continue to name names and the general public actually pay attention to the names that are named. Every election judges' positions are put to the vote. I don't recall many, if any, who were voted off the bench. Most people have no clue about these judges' records, and most either just vote Yes (keep them) on all, or No on all. And it isn't easy to find information - I haven't seen any in my little booklets that are not recommended to continue.

The judge gave the perp a 60-day sentence, and ordered him to complete sex-offender treatment, or face a possible life sentence. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48219
As much as I don't believe that sex offenders can be rehabilitated, the man didn't "just get 60 days".
The uproar over the judge's decision appears to be forcing a review of Vermont's sex offender classification system, which may have been the judge's intention. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a.../1009/NEWSWEEK

We all knwo what happens to rapist and child molestors in prison though so this sick man will pay. he will be beaten and raped by other inmates... to bad they arent going to put the judge in there with him...

Now this is interesting. Although some blogs are decrying the "liberal" judge's decision, right before Christmas the Vermont Supreme Court found that he was wrong to increase the statutory maximum sentence of a multiple murderer without submitting it to a jury: http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb...54/1004/NEWS03 His decision was in keeping with state, but not federal law.

Punishment is a valid reason for society to incarcerate. Every single criminal to some extent can be sent to some sort of rehab facility to try to correct what is wrong in the person that makes him commit a crime. Rape and molestation are Penal Code Violations meaning they are subject to sentences of incarceration. If the legislature wants to decriminalize that crime, then put it to a democratic vote. This Judge usurped the legislative Branch by unilaterally determining that punishment is not an effective consequence for committing rape. In this, he was absolutely wrong. This is a prime example of an activist judge going outside the scope of his authority. Now after 60 days this criminal gets to engage in psycho-babble with some therapist, for a condition (pedophilia)that most mental health experts agree is not curable, and after he has convinced his therapist he is cured, he will be let out to rape and molest other children. Why not let him serve 25 years, and then as a condition of parole, have to engage in therapy, which should include chemical castration. Then, and only then, should we consider unsupervised release into society. The rights of law abiding citizens to be free from the danger of predators outweighs the rights of a confessed rapist of children to get freebee treatment, and not have to pay for his crime.

He can believe anything he wants to. That's his right. But as a Judge, it is NOT his right to change the laws to suit his beliefs. That would be the same as Judge sentencing a child molester to death because that's what he believes they should get as punishment. But you better believe that the ACLU would be ALL OVER that hypothetical judge saying he infringed on the molester's rights...

Is the question really how much leeway a judge has, or how practical Vermont's laws are? I really understand the complaints about "activist judges", but in this particular case I think the judge is showing his objections to the laws in place. I don't think 6 months is anywhere near enough for somebody who sexually abused a child. However, I don't think too much of the "mandatory sentences" prescribed by many states' legislatures. O.J. and Michael Jackson are free to abuse (or slaughter) as many women or children they care to. And somebody who has been caught with a few joints for the third time in California is going to be locked up till he/she dies?

Tricia I do understand where you are coming from, but I think there are better ways to express displeasure with mandatory sentencing than letting a child raping out walk the streets. I'm sure that judge sees plenty of crimes and criminals where they really aren't much if any of a threat to the public that he could have made the same statement with.

The victim gets a life sentence of pain and suffering. The criminal who did that to her should at least get the same. 60 days in jail? That's an outrage!!

You miss the point. A 60 day sentence is EXACTLY WHY we need mandatory sentences for convicted sexual predators. So wacky judges like this one cannot exercise discretion and let someone off with an amazingly and dangerously lenient sentence.

As non-US poster, your law system sometimes seems very harsh and twisted to me. However, 60 days, even with therapy, seems incredibly low.

BTW, in comparison: We had a highly publicised pedophile case here in Finland last in 2005: A man was convicted of I recall over 200 acts of child molestation in Thailand and Russia from the late 80's to present day. He got 11 years, of which he'll do half inside as a first time offender. This was considered to be really tough sentencing here. I'm usually all for rehabilitation but here I think he got away with too little time. OK, he did help the police, providing most of the evidence himself, I suppose in some way he wanted to be caught. Still, only 5,5 years inside.

Well, on the other hand, it's not like his life is going to be great after that, everybody knowing who he is. A man who raped and killed two little girls here in the 80's was reliesed from prison mental ward a few years back. He decided to return after a couple of months, because his neihgbours made his life a living Hell.

As usually, the truth probably lies between the extremes.

I disagree. There are some things that are right and wrong. If your country had a mandatory sentencing law, this monster (the one convicted of over 200 acts) that you are talking about would have been in a jail for a long long time. Mandatory sentencing takes away the discretion of a judge to decree a ridiculously short sentence for a heinous crime. Whether or not his life will be hell on the outside doesnt matter. That is just a consequence of his actions, and should have no bearing on a just sentence. Also, just think, that while people are reviling him outside of jail, and calling him names, he is free to rape, kill or molest again. He belonged in jail, for decades, if not life.

Did you read the links in my other posts? The sentence was sixty days plus completed sex-offender therapy or a possible life sentence, not a sixty day sentence. That's oversimplifying things. His classification, under Vermont law, didn't necessitate therapy, and that policy is being reviewed because of this particular sentence. In the other case, the same judge exceeded the mandatory sentence.

They aren't put into the general population.
They are generally housed in another facility altogether.

That would probably also happen if he'd been given a life sentence, unfortunately. I agree that pedophilia can't be cured, but our justice system, rightfully or wrongfully, is supposed to "rehabilitate". In this case, the publicity is probably going to lead to "lynch justice", and if the man survives the 60 days, he probably won't survive much longer than that while outside.

Here's another reason why I'm against mandatory sentences: A 37-year-old man here was just sentenced to "life", i.e., 15 years, for kidnapping, raping, and killing a 7-year-old girl in May. He had already served a life sentence (15 years) for murdering a senior citizen, and a shorter sentence for raping two teenagers. Because he was released from prison after serving his sentence for the rapes 5 years and 32 days before killing the little girl, he was only eligible for 15 years. If he'd killed her within 5 years of being released, he would have gotten a minimum of 25 years. That's insane, but a direct result of the mandatory sentences here.

Well, as an "expert" or at least from one with a Psych degree and specialized training in Sex offender treatment programs, your reply is somewhat simplistic.
There are substantial differences among sexual abusers of children in their personalities and psychopathologies. Although available interventions are symptomatically palliative rather than curative, many pedophiles can benefit from appropriate treatment. Primary prevention is generally thought to be the key in reducing the frequency of child sexual abuse.

Ie, There is more than one type of sex offender and within that umbrella, there are several different types of child sex offender. They all respond differently to treatment and have different recidivism rates.

That being said, understanding the extensive background of the case as I see it, I disagree with the judge's decision and think that while not decades, a longer sentence would have been appropriate.

I would like for him to receive INTENSIVE treatment DURING his sentence and continue that upon his release at the probation officer's discretion (this is where the treatment comes from in CANADA).

He will obviously also be monitored by an outside agency on his release (for those who didn't know that). This means repeated home checks, phone checks, etc.

Oh, and I would also mandate some restorative justice on the victim's part.
Ie,Along with paying for treatment for her entire life, whenever she wants it, he pays her a monthly stipend or foots her college bill or other.. (This obviously doesn't negate the pain and trauma but is necessary IMO)

Ive read the links. What if after his 60 days, he "completes" treatment in a year. He has been incarcerated for 60 days, been free, and attending treatment. He can repeat offend during his treatment, or immediately after it. If he is incarcerated during his treatment, lets say he "completes" it within a year. Then he is now free to rape and molest again. Can anyone guarantee that he won't? Are therapists capable of being fooled? Yes! This Judge said he did not believe in punsihment. His oath of office requires him to follow the laws of the jurisdiction, even if he disagrees with them. He didnt. He could have sentenced this person to a long time in jail, but he didnt. Thus he did not exceed any sentence that he could have rightly invoked in this matter. You can spin it any way that you want, but it doesnt change the fact that this Judge failed the people that elected him, in not protecting them from a seriously dangerous predator. Lastly, you can take someone who kills 5 people because he had a nihilistic personality, and was sociopathic, both DSM pschological diagnoses. Do we forgo punishment although with proper psych treatment you may cure this individual? Of course not. Punishment is a valid consequence by itself of criminal behavior. Protecting the public is a compelling interest that the Judges must enforce.

The judges of today...a lot of them...need to be replaced with those who CARE about the innocent in this country!

60 days...is the judge a sexual deviant himself I wonder.

For a minimum of four years!

Thats incredible.