Accord Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Judge Sentences Serial Rapist to Mere 60 Days Jail Time By Jim Kouri, CPP MichNews.com Jan 10, 2006   A Vermont judge sentenced a man who repeatedly raped a 6-year old girl for four years to a jail term of 60 days, shocking the entire city of Burlington. Mark Hulett, who admitted to repeatedly sexually 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, according to the Burlington Free Press. He sexually assaulted the girl for years, beginning when she was only 6 until she was 10, according to the prosecutor. The prosecution wanted at least an eight year sentence, and says he could have received life in prison. However, Corrections Department officials said they were unable to provide psychiatric or psychological treatment to Hulett in jail. Judge Edward Cashman then decided to set the jail term at a minimum of 60 days. Judge Cashman defended his ruling by saying that without treatment, a long jail term would only harden Hulett and make him more dangerous when he is released. He seemed to feel that decision would keep society safer from this offender's sexual deviancy in the long run. "This judge has got to go. It's appalling that he's so concerned over the treatment of a sexual predator who sexually assaulted a little girl over and over and over again," says former New York City Police Department sex crimes detective Sid Francis, who now runs a private detective agency. "The people of Vermont have got to dump this judge. He's dangerous," added the decorated cop. Numerous studies on rehabilitation of sexual predators -- especially child predators -- strongly suggested that sex offenders very rarely get rehabilitated. In a previous case, Judge Cashman threw out a drunk driving charge on an alleged technicality, prompting the prosecutors to request such cases not go before Judge Cashman. Cashman claims punishment doesn't work. But critics say he's supposed to apply the law, not base decisions on his personal views. ---------------- Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11201.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureGM Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Um, wow. If it were me, I would have a higher court overrule him, and let some other judge resentence him. Then, get the judge who have the original ruling to resign his post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarlinAddict Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Let the judge be his cell mate for the 60 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Guapo Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I'd shoot his a** if i were the parent..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldeagle037 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 cut off his ba__s so he could never use them again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSand Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 The point here is that jails are for rehabilitation, not punishment (or at least not entirely). The idea is that a criminal, after serving his/her sentence, is rehabilitated and can safely be released. If the judge feels that the individuals mental problems would only make him a more dangerous person upon release (8, 10 years down the road) then I don't see the problem in his ruling, granted the individual should be monitored (maybe house arrest?). Â What use is keeping someone in jail 10 years if you feel they will go out and commit the crime again? People need to stop seeing jail strictly as punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Marlin Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 The point here is that jails are for rehabilitation, not punishment (or at least not entirely). The idea is that a criminal, after serving his/her sentence, is rehabilitated and can safely be released. If the judge feels that the individuals mental problems would only make him a more dangerous person upon release (8, 10 years down the road) then I don't see the problem in his ruling, granted the individual should be monitored (maybe house arrest?).  What use is keeping someone in jail 10 years if you feel they will go out and commit the crime again? People need to stop seeing jail strictly as punishment. Because they are, for that period of their life not a danger to the public as a whole. The public would like rehabilitation, but if that isn't going to happen, knowing they are in prison where they cannot do any further harm for a set period is better than them being free to continue to offend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtpeddler Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Do you have some kind of Judiciary background to say that. It seems far out, maybe I,m missing something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhxPhin Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 definitely ... he obviously is likely to commit the crime during the next "x" amount of years  will he be rehabilitated on the way out? - maybe not, but will he be abusing little kids over that span? - definitely not who knows, the longer in jail, the more possibility that his child raping antics piss off some lifer who decides to just kill him - which would be the best case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malman Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 definitely ... he obviously is likely to commit the crime during the next "x" amount of years  will he be rehabilitated on the way out? - maybe not, but will he be abusing little kids over that span? - definitely not who knows, the longer in jail, the more possibility that his child raping antics piss off some lifer who decides to just kill him - which would be the best case  If this bastard does walk and does eventually commit a similar crime, is there any precedent for suing the judge and holding him liable for failing to incarcerate and thus putting the public in danger? :mischief2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtpeddler Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 No precedence, can't sue the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying_Mollusk Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Can you imagine the floodwaters suing a judge for that would open up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.