James_xeno Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 60 Days for Four Years of Raping six year old Vermont Child By Hilary White BURLINGTON, January 5, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to a Vermont judge, serious crime should not be subject to punishment. “The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul.” So said Judge Edward Cashman who then gave a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl repeatedly for four years starting when the girl – the child of a friend - was six and ending when she was ten. Mark Hulett, 34, pleaded guilty in District Court in Burlington to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one charge of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, all felonies. The law allowed for him to face up to life in prison on the charges, but the judge decided that he should be let go after 60 days, since the state Corrections Department would not offer Hulett sex-offender counseling until after his release. Only if Hulett fails to obtain counseling or otherwise follow instructions once he is freed will he face the full sentence. The state prosecutors, along with the girl’s family were seeking the maximum sentence of 8 to 20 years in a federal prison. “Punishment is a valid purpose,” Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued. “This is not only about Mr. Hulett. To sentence him to any less demeans the level of trauma he has caused. To sentence him to any less will send a disturbing message of tolerance to the community.” “The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does. The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider,” Andreson added. After ruling that the self-confessed child rapist should be back in the community, Cashman told the family, “This is not a situation where I'm doing this for the family” “My heart goes out to this family, and I would hate to be in the situation this family is. But there's other families out there, and there's other people who could be victimized, and I'm trying to take the long view,” he said. Cashman added that a lengthy prison term “will accomplish nothing but to harden this fellow.” The girl’s mother, however, thought that keeping her child’s rapist off the streets would accomplish something. “Mark should be taken off the street so it is not possible for her to cross his path. She will see Mark enough in her mind,” she said. Contacts: Vermont Governor Jim Douglas 109 State Street, Pavilion Montpelier, VT 05609-0101 Phone: 802 828-3333 (toll-free in VT only: 800 649-6825) Fax: 802 828-3339 Online communications form at http://www.vermont.gov/governor/contact.html Vermont Judicial Conduct Board http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/Committes/boards/jcb.htm Chairman Christopher Davis 802-864-0217 Wow... just.. fucking..... wow! Edit: Oh and before anybody goes and posts something like what I'm about to post. I just thought that I should get my view on that line of thinking, out of the way now. *quoted from another board* Knowing more about the situation is necessary. It sounds like it was a family type of thing and although it doesn't list the offense as incest, it just sounds like it. It also doesn't sound like any of the sexual contact was forced or coerced. The woman says she let the man into her home and my assumption is they were living together as a family. I know of many situations where a young girl has voluntarily given herself to someone in her family and continued a liason for many years without discovery. I also know of similar situations where ther activities between child and adult were discovered and it blew the family apart. I am an advocate of informed consent and believe even younger persons are able to make the decision to engage in consentual sexual activites before they reach the recognized age of consent. Actually, there are many people who have not reached the age of consent in their locale and are engaging in consentual sexual activities. Why, if one of the partners is above the age of consent and the other not old enough to give their LEGAL consent then why crucify the adult? The guy was a family friend not a family member. It's after reading posts like that, (^) that even I have to agree that Stalin might have had the "right idea" about dealing with the scholarly and "progressively" elite... Link to comment
No Sad Endings Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 MY BRAIN HURTS. WHAT THE FUCK. Link to comment
Dramatic Conclusion Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Why, if one of the partners is above the age of consent and the other not old enough to give their LEGAL consent then why crucify the adult? Link to comment
Gundampilotspaz Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think the fact that I wasn't too shocked at this news shows how far society has gone down hill. The "OneLonelyGuy" quotes have a few valid points. But not in the case of a six year old child. The guy should hang, or be sent to an island somewhere to be kept from the rest of society with the rest of the rapists and murderers. Link to comment
Siendra Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I'm watching for the Four Horse Men. Link to comment
Mithrandir Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 It's after reading posts like that, (^) that even I have to agree that Stalin might have had the "right idea" about dealing with the scholarly and "progressively" elite... He makes a bad decision and you blame it on education and progressivism? Nice way to push the ultra-conservative agenda there, pal. (I do, however, appreciate that you're not pretending not to be totalitarian, as do many others who share your views) Link to comment
Cleese Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Now now, before you go and jump on Bill O'Reilly's boycott vermont bandwagon, read the facts: What the court transcript actually shows is an extremely vigilant judge, deeply concerned about the victim and about potential future victims. Cashman actually said that in the Hulett case, "Punishment is not enough." He fashioned a sentence designed to protect potential future victims. And anyone who grasps the entire three-count sentence, not just the 60-day minimum on count one, knows that's exactly what Cashman did. The reality is, the judge gave Hulett what adds up to a life sentence. If he doesn't complete treatment, or if he ever violates any of his extremely stringent conditions of release, he's back in prison forever. That's very unusual for a first-time offender. Cashman obviously did not buy the low-risk rating assigned Hulett by the Douglas administration. Link taken from and op-ed piece, but the facts are from the actual court transcript, which, if you feel like digging for, are posted on the Burlington Free Press site. A judge whose more about rehabilitation, real evil. Link to comment
darkon Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I figured there was more to the story than we were being given. When is that not the case? Especially with anything reported by biased news sources, of which just about all Americans fall under the spell of. Link to comment
Venom112 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 To be fair, the judge is correct in that prison would do nothing but harden the guy and make him worse. Then again, I'll concede that those who go into treatment very rarely change. The guy was a family friend not a family member. Nevertheless, this OneLonelyGuy fellow proves an excellent point. It's after reading posts like that, (^) that even I have to agree that Stalin might have had the "right idea" about dealing with the scholarly and "progressively" elite... You mean those wacky value-challenging people, to create thought? Like that cursed Socrates!? *shakes fist* Some people are just sick. Some people need to be taken back to their childhoods and raped for 4 years by somebody who you trust, somebody who -should- be protecting you and preventing such things from happening. Yes, because an eye for an eye is always the best course of action. Then again this brings up an interesting concept of the consideration of "innocence" and cultural views of sexual relations. Link to comment
Cleese Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 To be fair, the judge is correct in that prison would do nothing but harden the guy and make him worse. Then again, I'll concede that those who go into treatment very rarely change. At least the judge set pretty severe guidelines that this man MUST follow otherwise its life in prison. So in a way, he is being sentenced for life instead of to life. Link to comment
Ceraziefish Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 *Shrug.* What it seems to me that this judge is doing is giving this man a chance to turn his life around (remember, he's a first time offender) and if he fucks anything up he'll go to jail forever. Perhaps not the approach I would choose, but, then, I'm not a judge. It really isn't that bizarre. On a tangent, I know a sex offender. He's not really a bad guy. But, he's marked for the rest of his life and there's nothing he can do about it. He has to live in housing for sex offenders and will probably never be able to go to college or hold a good job. For the rest of his life. No matter what he does. Being a sex offender really sucks, no matter how little jail time you see. Link to comment
Dramatic Conclusion Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Hmmm... people who murder should be given another change. After all, it was their first offense, and they learned from it, right? Rather than put them in prison, let's toss them back into the streets as good taxpayers. Screw that. Rape is rape. Send his ass to jail. Link to comment
Venom112 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Hmmm... people who murder should be given another change. After all, it was their first offense, and they learned from it, right? Rather than put them in prison, let's toss them back into the streets as good taxpayers. Screw that. Rape is rape. Send his ass to jail. He is remember? 60 days. Link to comment
James_xeno Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Nevertheless, this OneLonelyGuy fellow proves an excellent point. You mean those wacky value-challenging people, to create thought? Like that cursed Socrates!? *shakes fist* Yes, because an eye for an eye is always the best course of action. Then again this brings up an interesting concept of the consideration of "innocence" and cultural views of sexual relations. It's after reading posts like that, (^) that even I really have to agree that Stalin might have had the "right idea" about dealing with the scholarly and "progressively" elite... SHE WAS FUCKING SIX -6- YEARS OLD! What point did he make that was so "excellent," please DO tell?! Link to comment
Siendra Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 To be fair, the judge is correct in that prison would do nothing but harden the guy and make him worse. Or he could feel an odd need to change after his first bouot of ass pounding while being called "Susie." Mind you, I'm in favour of using child rapists and serial murderers for painful and dangerous medical research. Link to comment
amy Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 He makes a bad decision and you blame it on education and progressivism? Nice way to push the ultra-conservative agenda there, pal. omg i need a political hug T__T whenever I read anything my mom says it's poisoning my mind with liberal brainwashing. Anyway this is pretty sick, I think he should have more time, and be moved across the country. Link to comment
Cleese Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 funny thing is, if the judge could have, he would have given him even less time and got him right into rehabilitation right away; but there was a minimal time neccessary and the smallest amount of time was 60 days. If you look at this judges history this guy is really hard on criminals, he still got a pretty hard punishment, just an alternative to the rotting in a cell option. Link to comment
Dramatic Conclusion Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 He is remember? 60 days. I mean long term, obviously. Or throw him on danger island, like I think should be done with all rapists and criminals. Link to comment
margot Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Rehabilitation is better overall, as long as there are strict conditions. And there are! Hurrah. Link to comment
Siendra Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I mean long term, obviously. Or throw him on danger island, like I think should be done with all rapists and criminals. Don't. That''s a waste. Honestly, murderers and rapists would be better utilized for medical research. Link to comment
James_xeno Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Rehabilitation is better overall, as long as there are strict conditions. And there are! Hurrah. You mean so they get to rape another child before they get the time they should have got in the first place under the law?! Nay... The best way to deal with scum like that. Link to comment
margot Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 You mean so they get to rape another child before they get the time they should have got in the first place under the law?! Nay... The best way to deal with scum like that. Or maybe they should have an attempt to repent and become productive members of society instead of rotting away or being murdered, especially because of chemical castration which can prevent it from happening again. Link to comment
Venom112 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 SHE WAS FUCKING SIX -6- YEARS OLD! What point did he make that was so "excellent," please DO tell?! I would, but it is pretty much self-explanatory. It's like me saying, "My, this orange is rather spherical," and you would reply, "What exactly makes you think it is spherical!?" Or he could feel an odd need to change after his first bouot of ass pounding while being called "Susie." ...Which would harden the fellow and make him worse. Mind you, I'm in favour of using child rapists and serial murderers for painful and dangerous medical research. Yeah, that Nuremberg Code, awful funny eh? On a side note, I figure Dr. Mengele was a hero of yours? Or throw him on danger island, like I think should be done with all rapists and criminals. all criminals eh? Some sodomy laws still exist, thus violators of it would indeed be criminals, therefore Aelice = anti-homosexual? It's alright if you are, I'm just getting the deductions out there. And then naturally you'd have to go to this Danger Island if you've ever violated copyright laws. Then you've got very minor crimes, which vary from place to place and are almost never used for prosecution anymore, but nonetheless they do remain on the books, so it would be unfair to exclude them from the list. "The best way to deal with scum like that." That's idiotic. What are you going to do? Throw the bullet at them? You obviously need some device to propel the object at high speeds. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now