| Do you agree that the Bennington Banner's letter to Bill O'Reilly is disgusting, etc? |
| Yes; it's HORRIFYING how a newspaper could do such a thing! |
|
50% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| A little |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| No |
|
33% |
[ 2 ] |
| No; I agree with it, and maybe even agree with Judge Cashman |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:09 am Vermont, Cashman, O'Reilly, little girl: Hulett Rape |
|
I briefly commented about this in the "Another sad story" topic, but here's the story.
In Vermont a few weeks ago, Judge Edward Cashman senticed Mark Hulett to jail for sixty days. And for what, you asked? For raping a little girl for four years starting when she was six. Maddening. 60 days for raping a little girl for four years.
The reason he gave was because he wouldn't "receive punishment" while in jail, as is the Vermont statute, if he gave him longer time and that would, therefore, "not solve the problem." So, he believes that the punishment need not fit the crime in such instances as this.
Then, the other day the judge reluctantly increased the sentence to 3 to 10 years, after the state announced that the man could receive treatment during his tenure in prison. However, Vermont insiders say that once he goes before the parole board after three years, he's going to get out.
So, judge sentences child rapist to sixty days in prison and changes sentence to three years, under pressure from people like Bill O'Reilly, with the state saying that Hullet could get treatment in prison.
So, anyways. As I said, Bill O'Reilly has been the chief crusader on this. He has done everything to expose Cashman and has been following this story intently since the beginning--honestly and intently. He really was INCREDIBLY distressed, as I am, by that ruling, and as I am, continues to be distressed over this sentence change. NO OTHER major media outlet spoke on this situation, which is hard to believe. Wouldn't you think that the liberal media would care about the human rights violation that this little girl received? Apparently not.
As a matter of fact, O'Reilly was attacked by the Vermont PBS station, the NY Times, and several other media outlets, among them the following one. The only Vermont newspaper that actually spoke out against the judge was the Burlington newspaper, which is horrifying.
So anyways, as my point is, for being hard-nosed on this issue, and going after a recent pro-Cashman column in the Bennington Banner newspaper there, O'Reilly received a vicious letter from the paper. Here it is. Isn't this disgusting? It's all for him defending this little child, who's going to have to live with this for the rest of her life, and lost her innocense at AGE SIX.
| Quote: | Jan-27-2006
Statement from the Bennington Banner
The Factor just received this statement from Noah Hoffenberg, the editorial page editor of the Bennington (VT) Banner:
The right-wing blowhard Bill O'Reilly has called us again for the second time in so many weeks, asking the Banner to be on one of his shows.
He wants us on the Factster show to talk about our editorial from Friday, which clearly states how Judge Edward Cashman's decision to incarcerate a sex offender for a mere 60 days was nothing more than a springboard for the far right to rant about the liberal crazies in Vermont.
O'Reilly and his ilk are constantly claiming that its the rights of the little girl in the sex assault case that are the issue, and that the rights of the perpetrator are of no consequence.
The rights of the little girl are of the utmost consequence, but cutting the sex organs off of the sex offender won't help her. Neither will boycotting Vermont, as O'Reilly has suggested.
Speaking of helping the little girl, what, we wonder, is O'Reilly doing on that front. If he were more like his counterparts in the phony baloney realm of TV, he would get off his keister and use some of his millions to help the girl and her family out. Maybe offer to pay for her college tuition and a lifetime of psychotherapy. Will we be seeing that? Doubt it. O'Reilly's concern for that little girl will fade with next week's programming and will eventually disappear, just like him and his 15 minutes of fame.
So you want us on the radio for a so-called debate? Well, O'Reilly Factster, we've seen your show, and we're not playing. You're a seasoned veteran at talking loudly and saying little. We'd hate to rough-up our vocal chords trying to get a word in edge-wise with a windbag such as yourself.
Your recent "chat" with Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, a fine law enforcement officer, went exceedingly bad, because everything to you is a black and white matter, an opportunity to try to show how the rest of the world is wrong while you are right.
The bottom line, from us to you, is this: We as a society can treat sexual predation like a symptom of a disease, and mitigate it with jail, voluntary castration, or what have you. This does nothing to alleviate the social problem. Or, we can see sexual predation as the disease itself, and make every attempt, as Judge Cashman did, to get to the source of the illness, thereby preventing the devastation of sexual assault in the future.
This problem is much bigger than even your ego, Factster, and will be around a lot longer than you, whose name will fade into the white noise of TV programming history. Us, though? We'll be here for a while, another 150 years at least. Our being, just like Cashman's decision, is designed for the long haul. You? Factster, you're just a blip that someone ignores while channel surfing late at night.
And by the way, in case you didn't notice, Cashman got what he wanted: Jailtime for the sicko and treatment in prison. What did you accomplish, besides an incremental hike in ratings?
Source |
Even if you don't like Bill O'Reilly, you have to admit that this is incredibly disturbing, horrifying, and wrong. Attacked for defending a little girl...What is this world coming to?
Last edited by Republican_Man on Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:28 am; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:17 am |
|
Yeah, it was on the news. Many are worried about the judges life, actually.
(Aaron, didn't we try to sell Vermont to Canada?)
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:18 am |
|
The issue of the sex offender only receiving sixty days is sick, however, it apparently isn't the judge that's at fault in this case (according to what was posted), but instead it's Vermont's legal system that is. Either way, it's wrong.
I wouldn't exactly call that a "brutal attack." Do we have transcripts of the two times O'Reilly commented about the paper?
((Hmmm, apparently we failed. Try again?))
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:25 am |
|
I don't have the transcripts, but I did watch them. He went after the paper for not taking a tougher stance.
And yes, there legal system adopts a related philosophy, but that little of a time is not part of it. This is an example of a judge going so far out there, not giving this little girl any justice...
And yeah, it was a brutal attack. I mean, read the piece. It's just...wow.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:34 am |
|
Perhaps they feel that they were attacked when he "went after" them? Maybe what he said was just as strongly worded as their rebuttal? I haven't read his comments, though, so I suppose I can't judge. Either way, I couldn't care less. He's on TV, if he doesn't expect criticism, then he shouldn't be there in the first place. People will always be attacked for their opinions, no matter how correct they are. Especially if you're commenting on them with millions viewing.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:46 am |
|
Doesn't make this anywhere right  And trust me. This wasn't ANYTHING like that. All he was doing, and all I meant by "went after," was exposing those media outlets that were sympathetic to the judge.
Here's one of the examples where he commented on them, in his Talking Points Memo from January 13th, as found on FoxNews.com:
| Quote: | | Now most Americans understand that sentence and the attitude behind it is insane, but not the print media in Vermont. Oh, no. Associated Press reporter Christopher Graff actually wrote a flattering piece this week on Cashman. The Bennington Banner said people like me who criticize Cashman are "opportunistic." |
Trust me. I've been watching him almost every night, particularly on these things. He did not attack the paper so much as expose them for their support and lack of criticism--in any form--of the man--the absence of them supporting justice for the child and protection for others.
I mean, the prosecution asked for 8 to 20 years, and then the judge makes it 60 days, and then 3 years...
He called them, and I forget where/when it was, on to come on to his program and explain themselves, giving them the chance to speak, for saying something about him. They declined to appear.
Those are the two instances to which they are referring, and in neither one--and I recall this--did he use any kind of rhetoric even remotely like this letter...
Oh, and by the way. They lied there. O'Reilly NEVER called for a boycott of Vermont. All he did was ask a poll question about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html has interviews that you may watch to see his coverage, as well as his Talking Points memos.
Here he has done nothing worth criticizing in the slightest. There are things where criticism of Mr. O'Reilly is fine and acceptable, but this just isn't one of them.
But that letter there was harsh. Harsh, uncalled for, and disgusting. So disgusting how a man who was doing nothing more than defending a child can be attacked in such a way...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:52 am |
|
Well, I don't see how the judge can be entirely blamed. We can live in a society filled with criminals, and have prisons that do nothing for them, such as Vermont. Or, we can have a society where criminals are treated for their issues. It seems as if Vermont needs an overhaul of their system.
Why is O'Reilly even interested in the paper, anyway? All they're doing is stating an opinion, just like he is. If he wants to do something, call up the judge or somebody who is part of the Vermont court system...
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:04 am |
|
He's been fighting, and is pretty much the man responsible for making the story public and getting this sentence hightened. Really, he is.
He's specifically stated in the past why he goes after papers for such things. It's because they are hurting the kids by supporting such easy sentences,
As a matter of fact, Cashman knows about O'Reilly, for sure. And O'Reilly's been attacked by numerous media outlets simply for defending the child.
I think you should simply read his memos and watch footage and stuff to get a total idea, because right now, working on Speech and Debate congress preparation stuff for tomorrow, I'm not really able to articulate O'Reilly's reasons for exposing these newspapers right now, but you can probably find many of this stuff at the link I gave you.
And you DON'T see how the judge can be entirely blaimed? So the system needs repair. Okay. But it's not doing the child--or any other children--any good if a child rapist is out in a speedy amount of time.
Oh, and btw. He's had on the attorney general, several state senators and representatives, and other "influential" people in the government, so he's called up people who are involved in higher levels of government
Oh, and btw. He was the man who exposed the fact that Judge Cashman's brother in law is the most key behind-the-scenes political player in the Vermont government right now, so it's no wonder some of the outrage is contained there. I forget exactly what his position is, but he's very influential.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:11 am |
|
His brother-in-law? How moving. I suppose maybe we should all be anti-Bush because of the whole Clinton scandal thing. After all they are... brace yourself...... cousins! Who cares? Really.
Well, what's really the point of throwing somebody in jail if there isn't any attempt to help them? Without it they would just get out and commit the same crime again, no matter if they're there for 60 days or 20 years. Would be stupid to blame one person for an entire state's flaw. Although, it would be much easier, 
I support O'Reilly for bringing this to light to the general public, but it's just a newspaper. Why not go after the people who are to blame? What a novel idea.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:14 am |
|
I am not really pleased with the ruling, but I am also not pleased with how O'Reilly is approaching this. Suggesting a boycott of Vermont? I am sorry, buy I am not going to boycott my fellow countrymen and hurt them just because I don't like what one of the courts in their state says. Also, I am always annoyed how he manages to turn issues like this into him being attacked by someone else, and then that becoming the really story. So just in general, I am not very happy with anything here.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:15 am |
|
He did But the newspapers are to blaim in certain respects as well They could have really helped out the situation, but instead backed the judge
Would you not agree, however, that even though he would not, under the original proposal, receive rehabilitation, he needed to get a much longer sentence than 60 days? I mean, really. You can't just say, "Oh, the system doesn't allow for rehabilitation" and so determine that it's okay for such a lenient punishment to occur.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:16 am |
|
| Puck wrote: | | I am not really pleased with the ruling, but I am also not pleased with how O'Reilly is approaching this. Suggesting a boycott of Vermont? I am sorry, buy I am not going to boycott my fellow countrymen and hurt them just because I don't like what one of the courts in their state says. Also, I am always annoyed how he manages to turn issues like this into him being attacked by someone else, and then that becoming the really story. So just in general, I am not very happy with anything here. |
Uh-huh. Kevin, listen. I SAID in one of my posts that the paper LIED about him calling for a boycott of Vermont, didn't you read it? He did NOT call for a boycott of Vermont! All he did was have a poll question about whether or not people would boycott Vermont if this decision wasn't reversed!
Oh, and btw. He NEVER made the issues of him being attacked the real story! NEVER.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:19 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | He did But the newspapers are to blaim in certain respects as well They could have really helped out the situation, but instead backed the judge
Would you not agree, however, that even though he would not, under the original proposal, receive rehabilitation, he needed to get a much longer sentence than 60 days? I mean, really. You can't just say, "Oh, the system doesn't allow for rehabilitation" and so determine that it's okay for such a lenient punishment to occur. |
I think I said in my first post, that it was wrong.
I wouldn't say that a local newspaper really has all that much bearing on this situation, but whatever floats your boat.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:20 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | I am not really pleased with the ruling, but I am also not pleased with how O'Reilly is approaching this. Suggesting a boycott of Vermont? I am sorry, buy I am not going to boycott my fellow countrymen and hurt them just because I don't like what one of the courts in their state says. Also, I am always annoyed how he manages to turn issues like this into him being attacked by someone else, and then that becoming the really story. So just in general, I am not very happy with anything here. |
Uh-huh. Kevin, listen. I SAID in one of my posts that the paper LIED about him calling for a boycott of Vermont, didn't you read it? He did NOT call for a boycott of Vermont! All he did was have a poll question about whether or not people would boycott Vermont if this decision wasn't reversed!
Oh, and btw. He NEVER made the issues of him being attacked the real story! NEVER. |
Well clearly he is since it is the new "flash" on his website. To me, that is clearly him publicizing himself being attacked and making it the center of attention for his viewers. Also, the paper said that he 'suggested' a boycott with Vermont, which I technically agree with just because I know him, and read the poll on his website.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:02 am |
|
When i first saw this i was thinking brutal physical attack. I may disagree with O'Reilly on most things, however the last few shows I've watched i agreed with him on some things. This being one of them
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:46 am |
|
Sick ! Outrage indeed! OMG! This world is not going to get any better. 
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:56 pm |
|
You know the original reason for him getting 60 days was because he could not recieve treatment until he was out of jail, right? The guy needs treatment.
When did prison stop being rehabilitation and start becoming punishment?
What saddens me more, is that O'reilly claims he is The victim. If he can't stand the backlash of what he started then he should have never oppened his mouth to begin with, but I know that's so hard for him to do.
If he really wanted to help this girl, he'd reach into his bank account and give her the money to get as far away from the guy as possible and get phsychiatric help. Until then, Yes, he is an opportunist who is using the suffereing of others to push his own aganeda, damn to whatever the facts state.
| Quote: | Crucifying Cashman
(published 01.11.06)
It's the hot Vermont story of the day, and Monday night it went national on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."
Teasing viewers at the top of the program, Bill O'Reilly flashed a picture of veteran Vermont District Court Judge Edward Cashman. The bombastic right-wing cheerleader told viewers, "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA. He gave a child rapist 60 days in prison. We'll confront him!"
Appearing live on "The O'Reilly Factor" via satellite was freshman Republican State Senator Wendy Wilton of Rutland.
"The reaction from Vermonters is outrage," said Wilton. "People are just horrified about this. People think that Judge Cashman has basically flipped his lid."
Asked by O'Reilly if "impeachment" was deserved, the longtime choir girl at Rutland's Immaculate Heart of Mary Church replied, "This guy has to go!"
Indeed, press reports about last Wednesday's sentencing of Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston, has sent shock waves through the community. A Fox News crew interviewing passersby on the Church Street Marketplace Monday had no trouble getting public reaction.
"I'm not gonna want to walk down this street with my child," said one unidentified expectant mother, "knowing that a rapist is out. I mean, I don't want that around my kid."
Nothing like a sex crime, especially one involving a child, to get such a visceral, emotional reaction across the board. Were it constitutional, a popular vote supporting castration or boiling in oil would pass easily this week. In fact, hanging Judge Cashman appears to be on almost everyone's to-do list.
But the problem with public executions fueled by the mob is that too often the wrong person gets executed. That's because the facts are not allowed to get in the way, and that's exactly what's happened here.
"I understand the public's concern," said Hulett's attorney Mark Kaplan. The veteran lawyer and former president of Burlington's board of alderman way back when told "Inside Track" he was "not surprised by the reaction. It's really not an informed reaction. In part, that's the fault of the press."
Ouch!
"I just don't think that the media has accurately portrayed what Judge Cashman did in the sentencing and what his concerns were," said Kaplan. "They sort of cherrypicked a few of his quotes and took them out of context."
Now take a deep breath, folks, because Kaplan's got it right. In fact, none of the Republican lawmakers who joined Sen. Wilton's Statehouse press conference Friday appeared to know anything about the facts in the case or Cashman's record, despite his 25 years as a Vermont black robe.
For example, the GOP legislative critics had no idea that Cashman is, like them, also a Republican! He was appointed to the bench by Republican Gov. Richard Snelling. Prior to that, "Cash" was a law-and-order prosecutor in Grande Isle County, an assistant attorney general and a Public Service Board commissioner.
Fox News may be portraying Judge Cashman as some kind of super-liberal "Vermont tree-hugger," but the fact is, he's got a well-earned reputation for tough sentencing. Just last month the Vermont Supreme Court overturned a life sentence he gave to a convicted murderer.
What 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. To get him into treatment, Cashman had no choice, under corrections department rules, but to give him 60 days to serve on the low end. Since the department has classified him as low-risk, Hulett is only eligible for counseling on the outside.
In fact, what Wendy Wilton and the bloodthirsty mob don't realize is that almost all Vermont criminals get out of jail at some point. And unless Sen. Wilton and her supporters pass legislation appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars for new Vermont prisons, offenders will continue to be released.
In his order upholding Hulett's sentence, Cashman laid out in detail the actual facts in the case and the only options before him -- items overlooked so far in press accounts.
In cases such as Hulett's, wrote Cashman, the court is presented with a "sentencing dilemma." It's a choice "between two less-than-ideal options. One option enhances the long-term risk to public safety, due to the future release of a hardened, untreated sex offender. This person would endanger our children and grandchildren. In order to avoid that risk, the other option would be to impose a low-minimum on a lengthy incarcerate sentence."
The fact is, Cashman sentenced Hulett to up to 10 years on the first count, three years to life on the second count and two to five years on the third count. He will be on probation and under state supervision until the day he dies! If he screws up or refuses treatment, he'll be behind bars for a long, long time. Hulett's release conditions prohibit him from any alcohol or drug use, or even living in an apartment complex that has children. He cannot have friends who have kids, go to a bar or possess or view pornography, among other restrictions. One violation would put him back in the slammer.
Calling this "a 60-day sentence for raping a child," as O'Reilly and Wilton have done, is a gross distortion of what happened.
In his Tuesday decision upholding his sentence, Cashman also addressed the public furor he's ignited, mostly due to the passion of folks who don't want to know all the facts in the case. When asked how many convicted sex offenders were already living in communities across Vermont, Sen. Wilton replied "about 1100."
But according to Sheri Englert, coordinator of Vermont's sex-offender registry, there are at present 2352 registered sex offenders in the state. Oopsie!
Wilton and her supporters want a 25-year minimum prison sentence for sex offenders like Hulett. If adopted, such a law would drain the state's financial resources by requiring new prison construction for hundreds of new long-term inmates. The court system would need more prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys to represent defendants who could no longer plea bargain. Every case would go to trial. This week, state's attorneys across Vermont are quite concerned, since resources are already strapped.
The calls for Cashman's crucifixion will continue, fueled by Fox News and others who refuse to let the facts get in the way. So be it.
Judge Cashman has actually displayed the type of courage that has long been his trademark. He's always been willing to take the heat for doing what he thinks is right to protect the public. The message he's sending is that the corrections department, currently run by a Douglas appointee (a former Burlington banker with no experience in the field), needs to get its act together when it comes to providing treatment for sex offenders, because at some point in time, all of them will end up back in the community.
As Cashman noted, state law requires the department to "render treatment to offenders with the goal of achieving their successful return and participation as citizens of the state." All the judge did was follow the law.
As former Vermont Chief Justice Jeff Amestoy -- also a former Republican attorney general -- once wrote, "There must be judicial accountability. But it must begin with an accountability to conscience. Judicial independence is a value easy to honor in the abstract, but more difficult to applaud when one disagrees with a decision. But, of course, it is then that it most needs to be sustained."
Amen.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/columns/inside-track-politics/200610/crucifyingcashman.html |
As for your poll RM, I agree with the letter and I most definetly agree with Cashman.
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:17 pm |
|
You know what's scary/sad? It's how you actually believe that 60 days for a child rapist is okay, simply because he didn't receive treatment. Really...
Ever think about the GIRL? Why is it that the CHILD'S human rights can be VIOLATED and yet she not be defended the way she should be? I mean, being raped consistently for 4 years, starting when she was SIX! How could you--I just don't get it...Why do the rights of the rapist trump those of the little gir?
And if Cashman was a Republican, he sure as heck isn't now, and if he is, he should switch parties. He sickens me to no end...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:42 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | You know what's scary/sad? It's how you actually believe that 60 days for a child rapist is okay, simply because he didn't receive treatment. Really...
Ever think about the GIRL? Why is it that the CHILD'S human rights can be VIOLATED and yet she not be defended the way she should be? I mean, being raped consistently for 4 years, starting when she was SIX! How could you--I just don't get it...Why do the rights of the rapist trump those of the little gir?
And if Cashman was a Republican, he sure as heck isn't now, and if he is, he should switch parties. He sickens me to no end... |
so you're perfectly fine with sending an untreated pedophile back out into the world as long as he's served his jail time. Right, great idea.
You apparently didn't read half of that article I posted or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Here's a condensed version:
| Quote: | In his order upholding Hulett's sentence, Cashman laid out in detail the actual facts in the case and the only options before him -- items overlooked so far in press accounts.
In cases such as Hulett's, wrote Cashman, the court is presented with a "sentencing dilemma." It's a choice "between two less-than-ideal options. One option enhances the long-term risk to public safety, due to the future release of a hardened, untreated sex offender. This person would endanger our children and grandchildren. In order to avoid that risk, the other option would be to impose a low-minimum on a lengthy incarcerate sentence."
The fact is, Cashman sentenced Hulett to up to 10 years on the first count, three years to life on the second count and two to five years on the third count. He will be on probation and under state supervision until the day he dies! If he screws up or refuses treatment, he'll be behind bars for a long, long time. Hulett's release conditions prohibit him from any alcohol or drug use, or even living in an apartment complex that has children. He cannot have friends who have kids, go to a bar or possess or view pornography, among other restrictions. One violation would put him back in the slammer. |
Parts have been bolded as main points you probably didn't catch the first time around.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:18 am |
|
The article is either wrong or lying. The fact is that he DID get 60 days in jail. Otherwise, the following would not have occured:
1. The sentence would not have been adjusted
2. Numerous state senators (such as Wendy Wilton of Burlington, Vermont) and state and radio talk show hosts that O'Reilly had on TV would have corrected him.
3. The Vermont Attorney General, William Sorrell, would have corrected him as well, when he was on the program.
4. Hulett's attorney would have corrected O'Reilly when he was on the program.
5. The girl's parents would have corrected O'Reilly when they were on the program.
6. Child advocate Wendy Murphy and
I bolded all the nouns in those sentences in case you probably didn't catch it.
So, interesting little conflict there...
And I do think that the prisoners should get treatment while in prison, which is why I'm happy that Vermont allowed that, which lead to the partial victory of a slightly increased sentence. However, sending him to jail for 60 days so that he may obtain treatment is FAR from appropriate!
What happened to the rights of the little girl? Why aren't we thinking about her--what happened to her, and what her life will be like for the future?
Whatever happened to the punishment fits the crime? Whatever happened to justice?
And why not put him in jail for the 8 to 20 years, as asked, and when he's RELEASED put him into therapy, unless the law changes over the years. That way he gets the punishment he DESERVES yet would receive the proper treatment afterwards.
Personally, I think that he should have gotten a minimum of 25 years in prison, period, to as much as life without parole. But of course, there is no Jessica's law in Vermont, nor is there a minimum penalty for this kind of behavior. That is why a Jessica's Law bill has been introduced in the state in recent days.
And I do think that during his prison term it would be justifiable to give him rehabilitation; however, the recidivism rate for these types of criminals--even those determined to be "low risk"--is quite high, stats show. I'd rather not take the chance of letting him harm another innocent child yet again. Do you want to take that chance?
Sure, he should have gotten rehabilitation for the suggested amount of time, but really. Sixty days in prison--SIXTY DAYS! That's it!
Now it's more than likely that he's going to get out in three years...That's just sickening. NO child rapist should be out for at least 25 years. Jessica's Law needs to be passed in the state of Vermont.
So, Link, I ask you this question: What DO you think should be the punishment for people who commit such horrific crimes upon INNCOENT CHILDREN?
[b]Point of clarification, actually.[/i] Yes, it was 60 days, but it was 60 days to 10 years, with restrictions afterwards. O'Reilly reported accurately, and this was actually in a segment with an interview with state Representative Michael Kainen. However, what WOULD happen is he was going to get out in 60 days, once getting to the proper status--oh, O'Reilly worded it quite well.
Visit http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html and view the video "Vermont Judge Update."
So, my point still stands, and is accurate.
Oh, and btw. To clear something up. Here are the judges reasons for the original sentence, as are ON VIDEO:
| Quote: | | JUDGE EDWARD CASHMAN, VERMONT: Somehow or another believing that punishment will solve this problem, and to encourage in victims of crime retribution as the only response. One, we're not following legislative directives. Two, we're wasting state money. And three, we're not solving problems. |
He did NOT cite any current statutes/precedents, and according to state senator Wendy Wilton:
| Quote: | | Actually, the Constitution of Vermont actually demands that judges take into account harm to the victim when they hand down a sentence. And really, you know, the sentence in this case should reflect restitution to society. And there is no reason why he didn't get a significant jail time. |
Wasn't done. So, in essence, he violated the Constitution of the state. Huh...Constitution states that judges need to take into account the victim, Cashman didn't...hmm...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:40 am |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | The guy needs treatment. |
No, he needs to spend the rest of his life in a small concrete box.
You make it sound like this guy had no choice, like he was forced to rape this small girl. Fact is, he chose to do it, and he doesn't deserve to see the light of day again.
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:38 am |
|
Lightning Boy you are correct,accept that all pedophiles should all recieve the leathal injection rather than jail time!There is no treatment to 'Rehabilitate' a pedophile!They could spend their entire life behind bars and come out as an old man,and still re-offend!Why waste tax payers money keeping scum like them alive in a prison for any length of time!
They know what they are doing is wrong,they have a choice on whether to do it or not!The same as a normal hetro-sexual person knows that manipulating or getting a person 'drunk' to have sex with them is wrong.
The overwhelming 'urge' to rape a child is not something that they cant mentally control.
A man who rapes a woman recieves 20years in jail,but a man who rapes a 6yr old child 3yrs???
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:07 am |
|
| magenta wrote: | | There is no treatment to 'Rehabilitate' a pedophile! |
And you would know this how?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:29 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | magenta wrote: | | There is no treatment to 'Rehabilitate' a pedophile! |
And you would know this how? |
The recidivism rate for these types of criminals is quite high, that's why. And it's quite obvious that he might very much do it again, either way, because of the fact that he raped an innocent little girl for four years, starting when she was six!
Judging from that, plus the fact that the recidivism rate is quite high, I don't think he can be rehabilitated, nor do I think that we should take that chance.
That's why I think criminals like this should get life in prison, nothing shorter.
And you're right, LB. That's why I wonder what's on the priority list of Link or Cashman--justice for the little girl or rehabilitation for the rapist.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:34 pm |
|
I would have to disagree. Based off your opinion we should simply not even attempt to rehabilitate people like this? No, that's wrong. I do agree that a longer sentence is in order, and I do not believe on simply letting him walk free. However, we should try to rehabilitate these people in prison. Yes, some people will not ever get over this, but you cannot say that for everyone. Just like many alcoholics fall back onto their bad habits, many of these predators may. However, we shouldn't give up on all of them-because some people change.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
