Originally Posted By Dabob2 <People are mad about this, and yes, there is a woman in Vermont who can have that judge removed TODAY if she had the guts or the will to do what any sane government would do.> Who is that? What is the mechanism? And you do know that this judge was appointed by a Republican, right? And that he's being defended by Republicans, such as... "Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, a Republican who is also a prosecutor, said the criticism that Cashman is a lenient judge and should be thrown out of office is "contrary to his judicial philosophy and career." "Over the years, if there's been criticism of Judge Cashman, it has been he has been overly harsh on offenders when it comes to sentences and conditions of probation," Illuzzi said. In Cashman's most-publicized case before this one, he threw Arthur and Geneva Yandow in jail after they refused to help prosecutors make a case against their son, a suspect in a rape. The parents said it would violate their Roman Catholic beliefs; Cashman, himself a Catholic, argued otherwise."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The sentencing happened on January 4th, a Wednesday. On Tuesday, Jan 10, S.0283 was introduced to the Vermont Senate to establish mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offenders involving children. The House version of the bill, H.0651 was introduced on Tuesday, January 16. You can read the House version of the bill at <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2006/bills/intro/H-651.htm" target="_blank">http://www.leg.state.vt.us/doc s/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2006/bills/intro/H-651.htm</a> . It calls for 25 years to life for all offenders who commit a sex crime involving a child. But O'Reilly isn't telling you that, is he? He didn't tell you that the Vermont Senate was on this before he broadcast the story, did he? These bills will pass, and the GOP governor of the state will sign them into law.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <These bills will pass, and the GOP governor of the state will sign them into law.> And it's even possible that the corrections dept. will agree to treatment behind bars, and the judge in question will increase the sentence in this particular case. And we can all have Ben & Jerry's as a peace offering.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Why not tune in tonight, see what is going on, THEN make your crazy comments. At least that way you can see for your self what is going on and not just parrot left wing smear sites.<< I can read the O'Reilly article that trailsend (I think) posted in a couple of minutes and get the gist of what he's saying - and I can see in that article that he's misrepresenting what is going on. >>But in the world of the liberal, like in Vermont... you give a CHILD RAPIST 2 frigging MONTHS and people STILL argue the point?<< Who's arguing the point? The governor said it's wrong. The press is saying it's wrong. The man on the street is saying it's wrong. And the legislature is working on a law to mandate minimum sentences.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<But O'Reilly isn't telling you that, is he? He didn't tell you that the Vermont Senate was on this before he broadcast the story, did he? >> Once again, you don't watch the factor but like Dabob, try and comment on the story. The minimum sentencing law is being pushed by O'Reilly himself, it's known as Jessicas law. He talks about it all the time and Vermont is one of those states that is holding out. Kinda like Oregon. Also, I don't care what this judge calls himself politically. He is a moron who is acting like a typical liberal in Vermont who cares more about the CRIMINAL than the child who was raped by this guy AND his buddy for years on end. Way to go libs. When you guys get any power this is what happens.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Who's arguing the point? The governor said it's wrong. The press is saying it's wrong. The man on the street is saying it's wrong. And the legislature is working on a law to mandate minimum sentences. >> Yet the judge still has a job and not one protest in Vermont to remove this creep has happened. Throw in the fact that all the papers in Vermont except one are AGAINST O'Reilly, and you have liberalism in action, all at the expense of our children. And NO, Saddam is not coming back to power no matter how much you lie about Bush.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The minimum sentencing law is being pushed by O'Reilly himself, it's known as Jessicas law.<< The Senate bill was introduced the day before O'Reilly talked about it on his show.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>And NO, Saddam is not coming back to power no matter how much you lie about Bush. << LOL!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I don't care if the judge is a Democrat or Republican, he should be removed.
Originally Posted By bboisvert I think Beau needs a vacation. I'd say go to Disneyland, but there's bound to be some liberals wandering around looking for something to destroy.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 << <tongue in cheek, NOT AN ACTUAL "FACTOR" POLL QUESTION!> Q: If your daughter was raped and the offender got a light sentence, you would... A: Kill the judge B: Blame the liberals C: Boycott the state D: Invade Vermont </tongue in cheek> >> Sorry but I don't think this is a subject to even joke about. Not many things offend me, but this does.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Here's what the Bennington Banner had to say: "The Burlington judge was deemed to be soft on child molesters and turned into a symbol of everything liberal and fuzzy-headed by opportunistic politicians and TV commentators alike. Only things aren't that simple. Cashman, who up until now has enjoyed a reputation for being tough on criminals, meted out the 60-day sentence because he believed Mark Hulett, 34, posed a greater long-term risk to the public if he was warehoused for several years without treatment, rather than released after a short stint and entered into therapy. Cashman, who up until now has enjoyed a reputation for being tough on criminals, meted out the 60-day sentence because he believed Mark Hulett, 34, posed a greater long-term risk to the public if he was warehoused for several years without treatment, rather than released after a short stint and entered into therapy. Cashman explained that his hands were tied by the state Department of Corrections, which up until Wednesday had refused to provide Hulett with sex offender treatment while he was incarcerated. The judge and state corrections officials had differed in their assessment of the risk Hulett presented. Beyond that, Cashman's critics argued that the judge had ignored the need to punish Hulett for his crimes. We are not unsympathetic to that argument. The sexual assault of a child is a profoundly vicious and damaging act. The victims typically live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. Thus there must be grave consequences for those responsible for their pain and suffering. Yet Cashman is not insensitive to that point, as some of his outraged critics contend. Although all but 60 days was suspended, Cashman fashioned a sentence that consigned Hulett to a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life in prison. Thus Hulett could be put away for decades if he violates the conditions of his probation." Jan 12, 2006
Originally Posted By bboisvert Sorry you were offended. Not my intention. I have two young daughters myself. I'm as appalled by this sentencing as anyone. I was only trying to illustrate the one-sided manner in which O'Reilly frequently frames his arguments. My apologies if this offended you. b
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And the Brattleboro newspaper said: "The controversy involving Vermont District Court Justice Edward Cashman illustrates perfectly the willingness of conservatives to politicize criminal justice and their equal willingness to jump to conclusions without weighing the facts. Earlier this month, Cashman sentenced Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston, to a 60-day prison sentence for sexual abuse of a young child over a four-year period starting when the girl was 6. The reaction to the sentence by conservatives in Vermont and around the nation was swift and, unfortunately, wrong. Republican lawmakers in Montpelier, sensing a political opportunity, were quick to attack Cashman, a Republican appointee with 25 years on the bench, as being soft on crime. Gov. James Douglas called on him to resign. The national conservative media, without knowing any of the facts of the case, presented Cashman as, in the words of conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly last week, "the worst judge in the U.S.A." Advertisement The Statehouse has been flooded with e-mails from all over the country decrying what many perceived as an example of a liberal jurist running amok. But once one gets past the demagoguery and the political pandering and look at the facts, one quickly sees that Cashman was hardly being a liberal softy by issuing a sentence that, on the surface, appears lenient but definitely is not. Under the state Department of Corrections rules, Hulett was classified as low-risk and ineligible for sex-offender treatment. The only way he would qualify for treatment was if Hulett received the lesser sentence of 60 days. That 60-day sentence came with lots of conditions. Hulett got up to 10 years on the first count, three years to life on the second count and two to five years on the third count. While all three of those sentences were suspended, Hulett got what amounts to a lifetime sentence of probation. If he refuses treatment, he'll go to prison for a very long time. If he violates any of the terms of his probation -- no alcohol or drug use, no association with any children anywhere and no viewing or possession of pornography, among other conditions -- he goes to prison. As Rep. Michael Kainen, R-Hartford, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, described the sentence on Friday, "What Cashman did was essentially civil commit this guy." What Cashman really gave Hulett was two choices, rehabilitate himself or spend the rest of his life in prison." <a href="http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0" target="_blank">http://www.reformer.com/Storie s/0</a>,1413,102~8854~3206000,00.html
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Things look a little different if you look at more than just one source...
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Under the state Department of Corrections rules, Hulett was classified as low-risk and ineligible for sex-offender treatment. The only way he would qualify for treatment was if Hulett received the lesser sentence of 60 days.>> Now this guy raped this little girl over a four year period and he's considered low risk? I'd hate to see what a high risk offender would be. <<That 60-day sentence came with lots of conditions. Hulett got up to 10 years on the first count, three years to life on the second count and two to five years on the third count. While all three of those sentences were suspended, Hulett got what amounts to a lifetime sentence of probation. If he refuses treatment, he'll go to prison for a very long time. If he violates any of the terms of his probation -- no alcohol or drug use, no association with any children anywhere and no viewing or possession of pornography, among other conditions -- he goes to prison.>> He should have never been out in the first place. Bottom line, this judge *bleeped* up.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<I think Beau needs a vacation. I'd say go to Disneyland, but there's bound to be some liberals wandering around looking for something to destroy.>> Plus wouldnt he hood be a violation of their dress code?
Originally Posted By bboisvert RE 52 & 54... Sounds like Game, Set, Match. Someone please repost tomorrow and let us know if "the Factor" mentions any of that on tonight's show. I won't be watching. I'll be spending time with my daughters.
