Vermont Soft Judge

Remember the Vermont Judge that sentenced a child molester to 60 days? I looked the story up again and there is some variances to what should be done. The title link goes to an article about calls for Cashman's resignation. Here's some of Cashman's justifications.

Cashman has been unswayed: "I am aware that the intensity of some public criticism may shorten my judicial career," he wrote in a memorandum this week. "To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong."

The Corrections Department had concluded that Hulett was unlikely to commit another such offense, and Vermont does not provide sex-offender treatment to such inmates until they reach the end of their jail time.

"The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," the judge wrote. He also noted that Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old and did not understand why others were so upset by his actions.

Now that is some interesting logic. Why only the concern for the criminal? Isn't justice supposed to be for all people? What justice for the victim? What about justice, and thus protection of the public.

Cashman views the analysis that stated that Hulett would not likely re-offend. But the statement of his mental limitations, and the four year period that the original crime occurred over should make one wonder how safe it will be to have this person free again. With no liability, the judges decision will not affect the judge if Hulett re-offends, but it certainly will affect someone, and drastically.

This article goes into how it's unfair to label Cashman as soft since in previous years he has been viewed as to harsh. But they seem to miss that by being too soft they are putting children's safety at risk. Again there seems to be a lot of worrying about the criminal and none for the victim or possible future victims.

Then there is the comments by Senator Vincent Illuzzi on minimum sentencing related to topic:

Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, R-Essex/Orleans, said he understands the call for such minimum sentences, but he does not think they are practical.

"It's well-intended," said Illuzzi, who is also the Essex County prosecutor. But "in the real world it just doesn't pan out the way you would like."

That is because stiff minimum sentences remove the incentive for plea bargains, he said. "Every case will go to trial."

That would mean a huge burden on the courts, investigators and ultimately the prison system, Illuzzi said.

Sorry, I completely disagree. For some crimes a minimum sentence is more than justified. Rape, child molestation, and murder are all examples of cases where, if the offender is found guilty, they should see at least the minimum sentence for the mere protection of the public and the victim.

And is a burden on the courts or prisons an argument? Can one really argue that enforcing justice for all of the citizens and protection of those citizens shouldn't put burdens on courts or prisons? What the hell are they there for? If there is a burden, then the state should react to provide more resources, no just let more dangerous criminals walk.

A sentence like the one by Cashman gives an offender the best incentive to quickly enter and successfully complete a treatment program, because they remain under the authority of the parole system even if they are released, Illuzzi said.

There is more interesting thought. So being on parole, but free to walk among the children doesn't provide a risk? Should a criminal's freedom or treatment be given more weight than the risk of destroying another life?

I'm not saying that this judge should be removed just because he has made this sentence extremely short. He should be removed because he has clearly and unequivocally stated that he doesn't believe in punishment and only in treatment. He has totally dropped any logic with respect to protecting the public.

You don't like that the criminal can't get treatment in jail, then change the law. Don't free a hazard to re-offend.