| 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 |
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
 Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:10 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Hmmm, maybe. But do you announce everything that you haven't done wrong? Like "by the way, I had breakfast this morning." Or "Last night I slept." |
We're talking about 4 years here. It would have come out somehow, unless he was hiding it.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:14 pm |
|
Well, if you say so. But I suppose that that's just conjecture, you can't throw somebody in jail for that. If he was tested by professionals, then I'd figure that they'd know.
-------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
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:33 pm |
|
Link, we understand that he believes in treatment over justice/punishment--and doesn't believe in punishment as well. That reason is understood. But it's no excuse for such a low punishment for such a horrifying, heinous crime.
And you know what? Sure, this is a much better sentence than 60 days, but it's not enough. He needs to be in jail for a good deal longer. Remember:
Done over a period of four years.
Girl was 6 when it started, 10 when it ended.
Guy starts out with a 60 day sentence. Guy's sentence increases to a minimum of three years.
And just to comment on the fact that he has all these restrictions, that doesn't mean that he's not going to do it again! How can we take that chance! Just because he'd face major problems doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again! Why do we have to wait for another child to be brutalize and lose her innocense before this man gets the proper punishment!?
-------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
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:18 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Link, we understand that he believes in treatment over justice/punishment--and doesn't believe in punishment as well. That reason is understood. But it's no excuse for such a low punishment for such a horrifying, heinous crime.
And you know what? Sure, this is a much better sentence than 60 days, but it's not enough. He needs to be in jail for a good deal longer. Remember:
Done over a period of four years.
Girl was 6 when it started, 10 when it ended.
Guy starts out with a 60 day sentence. Guy's sentence increases to a minimum of three years.
|
Even with everything bolded your comments show you didn't even read the article....
Let's kill what points you try to make:
The original reason for 60 days was because He could not recieve treatment until his release. That was the State's position. He didn't do anything heinous enough to warrent treatment in jail, so the judge ordered the lowest sentence he could to ensure that he got the treatment he needed.
| Republican_Man wrote: |
And just to comment on the fact that he has all these restrictions, that doesn't mean that he's not going to do it again! How can we take that chance! Just because he'd face major problems doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again! Why do we have to wait for another child to be brutalize and lose her innocense before this man gets the proper punishment!? |
I refer you back to the first article I posted.
| Quote: |
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.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/columns/inside-track-politics/200610/crucifyingcashman.html |
He is under state supervision for the rest of his natural life. If he so even as looks at a child, that is enough to put him in jail until he dies.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:28 pm |
|
I read it all, and know about that. I know that he couldn't receive treatment, and so the judge decided not to give him a greater punishment. Then, the state said it was okay for him to receive treatment, and he increased the sentence.
And even though there are really good precautions, how can we ensure that he doesn't do it again? We can't.
And even with that, he deserves more time. I don't understand how you can't see that.
-------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
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:08 pm |
|
Ok, to those who have posted several times. You've made your point, thank you. Unless you have something new to say, move on.
-------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
|
|
|
|
|
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
