|
|
January 5, 2006A judge Spielberg could loveIn his “prayer for peace” Steven Spielberg’s film Munich reportedly draws a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and Israel’s response…and he cautions that “fighting back” doesn’t work - it only leads to more violence. I gotta think he’d love this judge.
Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven. But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works. “The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn’t solve anything. It just corrodes your soul,” said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced. The judge is quite wrong. HATE corrodes the soul. Anger, when it is righteous anger, is a force for justice and reform and even redemption. So, punishment doesn’t work, therefore, this man who repeatedly victimized this child should serve 60 days jailtime. What’s the sense of “fighting back” when it just won’t make a difference? Like I said, Spielbergian. It is, sadly, true that 60 days or 60 years will not make much difference to this rapist’s proclivities. The recidivisim rate for child molesters is very high - rehabilitation is extraordinarily iffy. This man is trapped in his perversion, and that is a terrible thing. But this child is also now trapped in his perversion, and that is tragic. I know whereof I speak. I can tell you that what this man did will have repurcussions in this child’s life for its totality, even if she manages to deal with her anger, even if she manages to learn to trust again, to believe everything wrong in the world is not her fault, and that she is a good person, or a smart person, she will never ever be completely whole again. The events of her young life and its stolen innocence will shape everything, her self-image, her body-image, her relationships, her sex-life, her self-esteem, her grades, her ability to learn and to succeed in her career - all of it. When judges impose such absurdly light sentences in the face of heinous crime, particularly when they then advise the family not to be angry, they are almost setting the stage for something awful to happen, for a parent - feeling unserved by the justice system - deciding to take matters into his or her own hand. This is a very harmful move by this judge. But Judge Cashman explained that he is more concerned that Hulett receive sex offender treatment as rehabilitation. But under Department of Corrections classification, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense so he does not qualify for in-prison treatment.So the judge sentenced him to just 60 days in prison and then Hulett must complete sex treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence. Judge Cashman also also revealed that he once handed down stiff sentences when he first got on the bench 25 years ago, but he no longer believes in punishment. “I discovered it accomplishes nothing of value;it doesn’t make anything better;it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger,”Cashman explained to the people in the court. So, let’s let this guy walk the streets again and try the rehab that may work for a little while, or not at all! Gee, that doesn’t create any expectations, now, does it? The judge feels jailtime accomplishes nothing of value? So what? This girl’s life has been stolen. This man, therefore, no longer needs to walk free in America and have the opportunity to steal another, and another, and another child’s life. Putting him in jail accomplishes something of value: it tells this little girl that he’s not going to harm her again. And it precludes anyone else’s little girl from having to endure this hell. But I guess the judge, having become so enlightened as to have conquered his own impulse to anger, does not understand what he has done. UPDATE: More information about the judges sentencing, which clarifies things a bit, here. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/01/05/a-judge-spielberg-could-love/trackback/ 15 Responses to “A judge Spielberg could love” |
January 5th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Someone once told me that experiences such as those you describe were like darkness. No matter how much sunlight there may have been during the day, there is always a darkness before you go to sleep.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I am wondering what the sentence would be if the victim had been his own daughter. . .
As a psychotherapist in private practice, I can tell you right now that “treatment” for sex offenders does NOT work for about 99% of that population. What does work is sentencing them to jail for life, so that they can no longer harm others.
Actually, I can think of a bit more barbaric solution to this problem, but I’d lose my license if I’d let it be known that I supported that particular option.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
There is another aspect beyond just what punishment ‘accomplishes’ which is the basic principle of justice.
.
This man harmed someone greatly. Justice demands that he be punished for such a thing and a society that refuses to do so inevitably will lack the structure that allows civilization to exist.
.
Rehabilitation, and/or prevention of future crimes may be nice side effects of a punishment, but they are not the purpose of punishment which, probably more than anything else, is how our society shows what is acceptable and unaceptable behavior. This judge has said, in effect, that raping a little girl is about as bad as littering in the eyes of our society.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Obscene.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Consider Valerie’s comments:
“‘treatment’ for sex offenders does NOT work for about 99% of that population. What does work is sentencing them to jail for life, so that they can no longer harm others.”
`
And Dave Justus’ comment:
“Punishment…is how our society shows what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.”
`
And the ethical principle of dipensing an appropriate level of punishment for the crime.
`
And the duty of society to protect the innocent.
`
The sentences the legal system is currently handing out seem wildly inappropriate to the situation. Its as if this is a loophole area which our Western justice system is not prepared to handle.
`
An argument can be made for 7 or 8 year sentences - if accompanied by voluntary castration(since I have no professional designation to protect); OR life sentences - if the castration option is denied.
`
Of course, there could be situations - such as drunken incapacity - which do not warrant such severe sentences. The entire question of justice plus societal protection of innocents is a difficult ethical conundrum.
`
The question, when deciding appropriate punishment, of just how much damage was done, is difficult to decide to a moral certainty, much less a legal one. It seems different damage will be done to each victim, depending on the extent of the supportive or nonsupportive environment surrounding the victim and her or his recovery.
`
This is a difficult area. But its an area our nation needs to address more effectively and morally than we are currently addressing it. I don’t doubt Valerie’s 99% recidivism assertion.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
If there is to be a movement for reform and improvement in this area of our legal system, it must be generated and led by mental health professionals. Of course, lawyers and ethicists need to contribute also. But this is an area in which mental health professionals would be critical. No one else is qualified to assess the situation as well as they.
`
This idea seems so simple and obvious, I wonder why such a movement is not already gaining traction? Or, is there is an obvious flaw in my reasoning - of which I am, as yet, unaware?
January 5th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
This is a classic case of a judge that should be removed from the bench.
And of a sick and evil individual that should be removed from society for an enormously long time - whether or not you are angry about it. It accomplishes at minimum one thing of huge value - it keeps this animal from doing this again to any other child. The value of that? Priceless.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
That is a horrible story.
In conceding that he considers therapy a complete necessity, the judge is conceding that the man is dangerous to other potential victims. The sentence he handed out will not protect those potential victims. This sentence elevates the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim and the rights of potential victims. The one sure fact in this is that if the offender were in prison for 8 years, he would not be re-offending for that time period.
And what does it say to the victim about her lack of worth in society’s eyes? To me this seems like a second and even more damaging violation of personal integrity.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Thankfully in in this country in the 21st century we’re ignorant - for the most part, on a macro scale - about how such hyper-lenient non-punishment affects the likelihood that others will commit similar crimes. In some parts of the world (and at certain moments even here) we do know… and it is horrific.
Look at Rwanda for instance. Or Bosnia. Or New Orleans. Or the LA riots. Or back in the ’70s during a police strike in Montreal for just 24 hours. Crime skyrocketed. Child rape may be an extreme example of a crime not as likely to increase as much as say, burglary in such circumstances… but don’t doubt for a minute that on the margin, such sentences have an effect on how others choose to behave. Congo is probably the most recent closely analogous example.
Jail may or may not solve anything for the particular person who committed the crime. But in the effective absence of any meaningful cost for one’s crimes, chaos inevitably ensues due to crimes committed by other people who see the ‘equation’ (risk/benefit) and act accordingly. I.e., “rational” (for people inclined to such things) even as it is utterly immoral and depraved.
I’m very upset by this. It does not seem entirely accidental that this took place in Vermont - hippie socialist paradise. If this judge is burned out so badly that he can’t carry out his sworn function, why doesn’t he just retire?
January 5th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
The judge should be removed from the bench and sent on his way. Moreover, all his decisions should be reviewed, and adjustments made. There is precedent when a judge oversteps his bounds and starts handing out, say, 180-year sentences.
The first I saw this line of thinking was in the Kevin Spacey movie “K-Pax”. The point they tried to make is that everyone knows right from wrong so there is no sense in punishing anyone. I know–stupid. But that’s what we are facing.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:02 am
[...] On this evening’s Factor with Bill O’Reilly, he featured a segment highlighting this story. The Anchoress weighs in. [...]
January 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
If you think this is a travesty of justice, I can assure you this judge is ‘ahead of his time’. The American Psychiatic Assoc’n is debating whether to remove pedophilia from its list of mental disorders. Apparently, there is debate that if a child can be forced to go to church, why not to have sex? It can be beneficial to a child to be used sexually by an adult, by some perverted line of reasoning of APA members.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200306%5CCUL20030611c.html
This will effectively decriminalize pedophilia completely.
I believe that the APA (like the other APA, the American Psychological Assoc’n) is showing itself to be an organization made up of people who are in desperate need of lobotomies to keep the rest of us safe from their stupid, far reaching opinions.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:28 am
This judge must be a closet pedophiliac.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:24 am
I’m very upset by this. It does not seem entirely accidental that this took place in Vermont - hippie socialist paradise.
Comment by KMaru
-
That’s ridiculous. No one from Vermont that I know of praised the judges decision. In fact here is an editorial from Vermont’s largest newspaper condemning it
-
“Asexual deviant who repeatedly abused a child over a four-year period got a slap on the wrist in a Vermont courtroom this week and will be free to walk the streets in as few as 60 days. That is an appalling and unacceptable outcome.”
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060106/OPINION/601060322/1006&theme=
January 7th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
[...] - A JUDGE Spielberg could love … (theanchoressonline) [...]