Cashman and Co. friends of criminals

[CARLHAYDEN]

Vermont Judge Edward Cashman doesn't think that rape of a child is a serious offense.

When the defendant admitted to repeatedly sexually molesting a subteen child for several years, judge Cashman decided to impose a sentence less than that imposed for many misdeameanors!

Under pressure, he imposed a slightly greater sentence, but one still quite lenient.

Judge Cashman and cohorts argue that the offender shouldn't be held responsible for his offense, since offenses are the fault of 'society.'

So, should real child molesters, like the SOB in this case for treated leniently or held responsible for their acts with real substantial sentences?

[dazzleman]

Typical liberal judge.

[A18]

Typical liberal judge.

Uh, no. I hate liberal judges as much as anyone, but this piece of trash is not 'typical.'

[opebo]

Judge Cashman and cohorts argue that the offender shouldn't be held responsible for his offense, since offenses are the fault of 'society.'

It is the fault of society, for a variety of reasons, but most particularly that they made sex with young persons illegal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leniently.  In fact the State should butt out.

Btw, some little boy has been watching his O'REilly hasn't he Carlheydan! 

[DanielX]

I think the child molestor should be given a much harsher sentence... while the 90 days or whatever should go to the judge , who should also be disbarred and forbidden from ever serving as a judge, lawyer, or juror.

Incidentally, opebo, child molestors tend to have a tough time in prison (as they deserve)... it's telling that even criminals look down on them.

[minionofmidas]

Typically, Carl has left out the most important part ... this verdict was handed down because there was no therapy available in jail. Not that I agree with the ruling, but the worst offense lies firmly with the state of Vermont rather than judge Cashman. Eh, make that second worst. We know who the worst offender is here.
And, Opebo - if I heard correctly we're talking (just as Carl said) real child rape here, not what usually gets marketed as such in America.

[minionofmidas]

And a little more googling reveals...
the state of Vermont, while demanding an 8 year jail sentence, had classified this guy's risk of doing it again as low - which under existing idiotic VT law meant he couldn't get therapy in jail even if he wants it. The judge - who's quite the Conservative, by the way, previously in the news only for uncommonly harsh sentences - then sentenced him to serve "a minimum of 60 days" so that he could get into therapy as quickly as possible.
And apparently - I didn't quite get the details of this - the 60 day sentence is somehow provisional, the judge can still keep him in far longer. And the state of VT has now agreed to reevaluate the risk, so he probably will stay in longer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So this is more a problem of bad legislation than a bad judge?

[minionofmidas]

So this is more a problem of bad legislation than a bad judge?

This is a problem of a populist judge drawing attention to bad legislation in a way sure to raise attention.
And of course a problem of bad reporting.

[opebo]

Incidentally, opebo, child molestors tend to have a tough time in prison (as they deserve)... it's telling that even criminals look down on them.

Yes, they are intolerant thugs just like you Senator Danny.

And, Opebo - if I heard correctly we're talking (just as Carl said) real child rape here, not what usually gets marketed as such in America.

It is?  Of course none of the details are provided by the news media - particularly FOX which has been pushing this intolerant frenzy.  Presumablely the man diddled the girl with his pinky finger, and the religious zealots are calling it 'rape'.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So this is more a problem of bad legislation than a bad judge?

This is a problem of a populist judge drawing attention to bad legislation in a way sure to raise attention.
And of course a problem of bad reporting.

Lewis, once again you are very wrong.

First, the best 'treatment' for the offender would be severe corporal punishment for about four years (say a hundred lashes a day).

Second, if you check you will find out that the judge does NOT believe in punishment, merely in having the malefactor receive treatment from a shrink at the expense of the public.  The judge made it clear he does not want the rapist to suffer for his misdeeds!!!

Third, there is a lot of false labeling going on, and this is one where you have really, really gone far beyond the bend.  This judge is a nut case, and in no way whatsoever a 'conservative.'

[minionofmidas]

Incidentally, opebo, child molestors tend to have a tough time in prison (as they deserve)... it's telling that even criminals look down on them.

Yes, they are intolerant thugs just like you Senator Danny.

And, Opebo - if I heard correctly we're talking (just as Carl said) real child rape here, not what usually gets marketed as such in America.

It is?  Of course none of the details are provided by the news media - particularly FOX which has been pushing this intolerant frenzy.  Presumablely the man diddled the girl with his pinky finger, and the religious zealots are calling it 'rape'.

well yeah, but this started when the girl was 6.

[minionofmidas]

So this is more a problem of bad legislation than a bad judge?

This is a problem of a populist judge drawing attention to bad legislation in a way sure to raise attention.
And of course a problem of bad reporting.

Lewis, once again you are very wrong.

First, the best 'treatment' for the offender would be severe corporal punishment for about four years (say a hundred lashes a day).

Second, if you check you will find out that the judge does NOT believe in punishment, merely in having the malefactor receive treatment from a shrink at the expense of the public.  The judge made it clear he does not want the rapist to suffer for his misdeeds!!!

Third, there is a lot of false labeling going on, and this is one where you have really, really gone far beyond the bend.  This judge is a nut case, and in no way whatsoever a 'conservative.'

Check your facts. He said he doesn't believe anymore that incarceration alone can cure sex offenders, but then it's not as if he wasn't in agreement with 100% of experts over time. And yes, he is a conservative, check your facts on that.

Oh, but rereading I notice that "typically, Carl has left out" is not quite what I was trying to say. It sounds like "typically for Carl". That's not what I meant. I meant "typical for the right-wing media and especially the right wing internet media".

[minionofmidas]

Notice how misguided the Vermont policy of giving therapy only to high-risk, and thence usually repeat, offenders is, btw -
given the track record of therapy in this field, most of the high risk guys are pretty much beyond repair. Therapy for the low-risk guys would be a much wiser (much more security-enhancing) way to spend your money.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So this is more a problem of bad legislation than a bad judge?

This is a problem of a populist judge drawing attention to bad legislation in a way sure to raise attention.
And of course a problem of bad reporting.

Lewis, once again you are very wrong.

First, the best 'treatment' for the offender would be severe corporal punishment for about four years (say a hundred lashes a day).

Second, if you check you will find out that the judge does NOT believe in punishment, merely in having the malefactor receive treatment from a shrink at the expense of the public.  The judge made it clear he does not want the rapist to suffer for his misdeeds!!!

Third, there is a lot of false labeling going on, and this is one where you have really, really gone far beyond the bend.  This judge is a nut case, and in no way whatsoever a 'conservative.'

Check your facts. He said he doesn't believe anymore that incarceration alone can cure sex offenders, but then it's not as if he wasn't in agreement with 100% of experts over time. And yes, he is a conservative, check your facts on that.

Oh, but rereading I notice that "typically, Carl has left out" is not quite what I was trying to say. It sounds like "typically for Carl". That's not what I meant. I meant "typical for the right-wing media and especially the right wing internet media".

Lewis, you need to check out the facts.

First, there is NO credible 'therapy' for pedophiles!  Those who suggest to the contrary are simply making things up. 

Second, a pedophile who is incarcerated is INCAPACITATED from attacking children.

Third, while incarcerated, those who brutally rape small children tend to receive the kind of 'treatment' from other inmates that they merit.

Fourth, the loony judge completely misunderstands the criminal justice system.  Its purpose is NOT to 'cure' but rather to protect society from those who deprive others of their rights. This may involve incarceration for incapacitation (a major reason for the drop in major crime rates in the United States over the past twenty five years has been that criminals are kept in prison, rather than being released prematurely to again prey upon the public), permanent incapatiation for some murderers (capital punishment).  In addition, simple punishment may both achieve untilitarian results (both general and specific detterance) as well 'just deserts.'

Fifth, I repeat the loony judge does NOT want pedophiles, he wants the state to fund absurd treatmentsa for the slimebags.  The judge does NOT believe in individual responsiblity.  The judge does NOT believe in following the law. The judge is NOT a 'conservative,' but rather a manical leftist.

[minionofmidas]

First, there is NO credible 'therapy' for pedophiles!  Those who suggest to the contrary are simply making things up. 

It depends how you define "credible", but there is definitely some truth to that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but lifetime imprisonment was never an option in this case, so I don't see how that's relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is so sick a comment that I won't tell you what I really think.

[MasterJedi]

Lewis, I think you need a change of philosophy on all this. As in huge minimum jail terms for these people with no possibility of them getting out during that time and having some type of therapy while in there if they even have a chance to get out in the first place.

[minionofmidas]

Fourth, the loony judge completely misunderstands the criminal justice system.  Its purpose is NOT to 'cure' but rather to protect society from those who deprive others of their rights.

Actually, it has been both of these ever since prison was invented as a punishment in 17th century Holland. Of course, that is because (unless you want to permanently "incapacitate" everybody), altering the inmate's behavior is the only way to "protect society" anyways, so it's really the same thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know as well as I do that deterence ís a figment of the imagination. This is because people do not expect to get caught.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Unusual punishments" has always been a province of conservatives, actually.

[minionofmidas]

Lewis, I think you need a change of philosophy on all this. As in huge minimum jail terms for these people with no possibility of them getting out during that time and having some type of therapy while in there if they even have a chance to get out in the first place.

That is exactly the point this judge was trying to make - "no point of keeping this guy behind bars for a number of years without some type of therapy".

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fourth, the loony judge completely misunderstands the criminal justice system.  Its purpose is NOT to 'cure' but rather to protect society from those who deprive others of their rights.

Actually, it has been both of these ever since prison was invented as a punishment in 17th century Holland. Of course, that is because (unless you want to permanently "incapacitate" everybody), altering the inmate's behavior is the only way to "protect society" anyways, so it's really the same thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know as well as I do that deterence ís a figment of the imagination. This is because people do not expect to get caught.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Unusual punishments" has always been a province of conservatives, actually.

Lewis, you really don't even begin to understand this issue.

First, I repeat there is NO credible 'therapy' that indicates it can 'cure' pedophiles in even a simple majority of the cases where it has been tried!

Second, the purpose of the criminal justice system is not to 'cure' people but rather to place those who violate the rights of others in a position where they are unable to (for at least duration of time) unable to repeat their offense (I'm talking about malum in se felonies).

Third, lock up the SOB in this case for a few years and old age will reduce his ability to repeat his predation.

Fourth, when and if he is ever released, the public (particularly) children must be protected from him.

Fifth, the malefactor in this case is the vilest sort of criminal, and deserves what he is likely to get from fellow inmates.

Sixth, if the SOB gets killed, then he will not prey on any more children and will have been 'cured' in the only proven effective method. 

Seventh, deterrance has proven to work (that you don't understand this fact illustrates your gross ignorance of the subject and that you believe in fairy tales).

Eighth, I suggest that the malefactor be beaten severly every day for four years as a 'treatment' method to change his behavior.

[MasterJedi]

Lewis, I think you need a change of philosophy on all this. As in huge minimum jail terms for these people with no possibility of them getting out during that time and having some type of therapy while in there if they even have a chance to get out in the first place.

That is exactly the point this judge was trying to make - "no point of keeping this guy behind bars for a number of years without some type of therapy".

No that's not what I said. The huge mimimum jail term I want is at least 35 years, probably more for most situations. I really don't care about the therapy, they should only get it if they have a hope of being alive when they get done with their sentence.

[opebo]

Seventh, deterrance has proven to work (that you don't understand this fact illustrates your gross ignorance of the subject and that you believe in fairy tales).

Actually the only thing that 'deterrence' - harsh penalties - do in these sorts of cases is make it necessary or advisable for the elder (culpable) sex partner to kill the younger one, in hopes of avoiding detection or identification.

[minionofmidas]

Lewis, I think you need a change of philosophy on all this. As in huge minimum jail terms for these people with no possibility of them getting out during that time and having some type of therapy while in there if they even have a chance to get out in the first place.

That is exactly the point this judge was trying to make - "no point of keeping this guy behind bars for a number of years without some type of therapy".

No that's not what I said. The huge mimimum jail term I want is at least 35 years, probably more for most situations. I really don't care about the therapy, they should only get it if they have a hope of being alive when they get done with their sentence.

Yeah, but the state wasn't demanding 35 years ... and I'm not sure at all what this judge would have done if that option had been on the table.