Judge sentences man to 60 days for sexual assault on young girl. This started when the girl was 6 and ended when she was 10.
According to judge Cashman, incarceration without rehabilitation will do nothing but harden the criminal.
Is there some Vermont law that weights rehab above incarceration/punishment?
I don’t see the logic of turning a child molester loose after receiving a 2 month “time-out” in the hopes that he will seek counseling. Makes me wonder what’ya have to do in Vermont to get a 3 month sentence?
So is the judge out to lunch or is this the wave of the future? I think he’s out to lunch.
So do I, even though I don’t think punishment is useful for these types of crime either. IMHO, the goal should be either reform or restraint; punishment doesn’t do much good if he comes out and does it again.
He can’t do it again if he stays in prison forever.
He is not turned loose “in hopes that he will seek counseling”. He is released form jail and required to seek counseling; if he fails to do so, he will be placed in jail again.
I’d say no.
Trying to predict “the wave of the future” based on one case tends to lead to incorrect conclusions. As for the judge, I see nothing wrong with his verdict. There’s no proof that long prison sentences reduce crime.
Also, one should remember that “sexual assault” is a broad category, and is not synonymous with child molesting.
Those are best solved by other methods, I think. Drugs should be legalized ( which would put the criminals involved out of business ). Shoplifting is relatively minor, and as a ( usually ) profit driven crime, is best solved financially - fine them enough that it doesn’t profit them. Drunk drivers should be kept from driving, reformed if possible - and if neither works, only then throw them in prison forever.
That’s sort of the Judges point. He thinks that the man’s problems will be best solved by counseling. I suppose putting him in jail would also solve the problem, but it becomes rather expensive to keep everyone in jail for life.
Of course the best plan would be for the State to provide counseling in jail. Rather suprising that VT wouldn’t provide it for all sex offenders.
Would it cost more money for him to recieve counselling in jail than it will for him to recieve outside? Or is it that this judgement means he’s required to seek and fund counselling on his own? Correct me if i’m wrong, but (while it sounds more just to me) telling a criminal that he has to pay for his rehab. isn’t the best inducement for him to get it.
You could say that about any crime. If we just provided counseling nobody would commit them in the first place. In fact, we could start in kindergarten and spend the next 12 years teaching kids right from wrong.
But this case goes beyond the concept of right and wrong. It involves sexuality. If someone has sexual urges that don’t meet with society’s approval how much counseling does it take to change that urge?
I suspect the idea is that the prison system only has a certain number of treatment slots and they ration them based on a risk assessment. Why the judge decided that it was more important to get treatment on the outside now, rather than being incarcerated and getting the treatment later is another issue. I think it was at least partially to make a point. Valid point, but the wrong way to make it, in my opinion
The inducement for him to get treatment is
It’s apparently not a straight 60 day sentence. It’s 60 days to life, which seems to have a few different technical possibilities in Vermont, but all require some level of supervision after release and all have incarceration as a penalty for violation.
This is just incomprehensible to me. I read the article and it just does make any sense. How does 4 years of abuse = 60 days and mandatory counseling?
The Judge has failed society and the Prison system that won’t provide “in prison counseling” is pathetic.
I always hate to promote low ideas but with this sentence I actually hope the other “Harden” prisoners are told what Mark Hulett did.
I might be only urban myth, but maybe they will take care of his punishment as the system has failed to.
Please forgive my barbarity, but this is truly horrible sentencing.
Yep. I still think the judge is a weenie. He is obviously far more worried about the 34 year old sex offender/child molester than the 10 year old who has been molested for 4 years. I find the priority in this case scary.
That is what the judge is concerned about. It’s unlikely the assailent would get a life sentence for sexual assult, so at some point he’s going to be out on the streets again. The question is wheather or not he is more likely to repeat offend and put more folks at risk if he is put in prison for 15 years or if he is released to obtain counseling after a short period. I imagine that after 15 years the guys life is going to basically be ruined, and he will be a fairly mean SOB upon release. With a slap on the wrist prison sentence, state supervision and counseling, the judge (and the State corrections office, according to the article) apparently belives he is unlike to repeat offend.
Of course reasonable people can disagree wheather the judges reasoning is correct or not, but I think it’s unfair to say:
The judges concern are for the 10 year old, and for possible future victims.
Read Sam’s article. It appears counseling of this type is quite effective in preventing repeat offenders.
It’s not like they’re pulling the claim out of their butts. You may find it highly implausible that the man can be reformed, but two experts in criminal justice (the judge and VT state corrections), people who actually have spent the time studying the statistics for recdivism amonst various classes of sex offenders, think otherwise.
