Rapist's Prison Sentence Triggers Outrage
There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Why Child Rapist Was Classified Least Likely To Re-offend
A judge's ruling for a sex offender not only raises concerns about sentencing limits, but about Vermont's sex offender therapy program.

At issue is a prison policy that delays therapy for some sex offenders until they are back on the streets.


I don't think that judge quite understands the severity of the situation. Maybe if he was raped repeatedly over a 4 year period... I've got to cut way back on reading/listening/watching the news. This kind of thing is bad for my blood pressure.

I think 'WTF?' sums this up quite well.

Not only am I astonished at the sentence given, I'm also astonished that the prosecution was only going for 8 years in the first place!

It should be life imprisonment or execution for these kind of crimes - repeated raping of a 7 year old - how serious does a crime have to be before proper punishments are used?

The judge says that long sentences used to "create a lot of anger" - well he's certainly creating a load now...

[ 01-08-2006, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Oh, I completely agree, we shouldn't waste money on such trivial things as justice for child rapists, what a stupid notion.

I did not need to read that. Now I am all frustrated and just before bedtime. Dang.

Thanks anyway. Sometimes I cannot believe the craziness of it all.

Oh, I completely agree, we shouldn't waste money on such trivial things as justice for child rapists, what a stupid notion. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed, In this case I'd settle for vengeance.

Oh, I completely agree, we shouldn't waste money on such trivial things as justice for child rapists, what a stupid notion. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed, In this case I'd settle for vengeance. </font>[/QUOTE]Then none of you are better than the criminal. The system exists for justice to prevail – in this case it’s failed. I was under the impression that first world countries were “civilized”. Crying out for vengeance is not.

*ROFL* yes, because I think that POS should receive a fate worse than death that makes me morally, mentally, and socially identical to a monster who raped a SEVEN YEAR OLD GIRL for FOUR YEARS, I love moral equivalency arguements, they fall completely flat when logic is applied.

Watch out world, I'm as dangerous to seven year old girls everywhere, and all because I think a rapist and pedophile should suffer for his crime.

[ 01-09-2006, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

<font color=skyblue>I am 100,000,000% in agreeance with what Morgeruat is saying.

There is no place on this earth for a man that brings so much pain to a little girl. She suffered a fate worse than death. She'll be in therapy her whole life. Her relationships with people in the future will be messed up. She may even become suicidal. And if she lives, she'll never forget what happened to her, nor even fully understand it until she reaches adulthood and can be persuaded by her therapist to revisit the memories, which will bring tears to her eyes every day she does so.

I wonder what is wrong with people who do not become enraged at such a disaster. What kind of people are they? Civilized is not the right term for them. I mean, all prosecuting attorneys decided on their jobs because they want to punish the lawbreakers, and they usually try for the heaviest penalty granted to them. Are they then uncivilized? Or does that make us uncivilized because we wish that we were able to stand before the courts and argue as a professional does for the heaviest punishment that the courts can throw onto an individual for his heinous crime? (I learned that world on Law&Order, SVU) [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Okay then...let's chop of his weewee and feed it to the dogs.

Well, it'd help rehabilitate him wouldn't it? He couldn't stick it if he didn't have it.

I have not ever heard of anyone having much success rehabilitating this kind of sex offender.

Oh, and here's The Rest of the Story:

[ 01-09-2006, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Oh, I completely agree, we shouldn't waste money on such trivial things as justice for child rapists, what a stupid notion. </font>[/QUOTE]If you were sure from the moment you arrest someone that they are a child rapist then essentially there would be no need for a trial, and the justice system would not be needed. The money isn't wasted on justice for child rapists, but on proving that the man/woman you caught is indeed the child rapist.

In this case I would have to agree that the ruling gives a ridiculously low sentence though.

I never said he shouldn't. I said that "justice should be served". If his punishment doesn't fit his crime, then it isn't justice now is it? What I said was that society shouldn't stoop to his level. There are more civilised ways to deal with scum like him without turning ourselves into savages.

I never said there was. I think he should be issued the death penalty and more.

Are you implying something? Or is this a generate statement at lawyers who defend such people? I find it difficult to tell.

Shotgun blast to the face, point blank range would be my sentance for the filth.

And I'd do it free of charge. Save the tax payers wasting a penny on the waste.

Granted, after about 20, you'd become a glibbering lunatic.

Nay Johnny, let's nail it to a stump with a 3inch roofing nail, light the stump on fire and give him a dull rusty knife. He can cut it off himself or burn, the choice is his.

This does bring up an interesting subject about rehabilitation. The most successful drug rehabs last 90 days or more and are inpatient programs. Even then you are only talking a 47% success rate. This judge is saying he wants this guy out soon so he can rehab in an outpatient program. To me this just seems backwards. Give him an appropriate sentance and rehab him in jail. We are not going to kill the guy so we need effective ways to punish and rehab so they can be safe productive members of society. What this judge did was way too exstreem and I am sure it will be appealed.

<font color = lightgreen>Let's recall the immortal words of what Marcellus Wallace had in mind for Zed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what needs to happen to people like this offender.

One lawyer in Dallas, interviewed after the trial of a person convicted of sexually assualting a child, stated that in 10 years of criminal law she never defended a case with a first-time sex offender. All of them were repeat offenders.
That is to say, the repeat offense rate of sex offenders is very, very high. This guy will offend again.</font>

I would like to hear that the judge had to look the girl in the eyes and tell her that the years of torture and abuse and her upcoming lifetime of counselling only warranted a sixty day prison term and an "outpatient" therapy.

It does amaze me that sex offenders say they will change like it is easy. Also people like this judge think it is easy or this was the only time. This was the only time he was caught how many offenders are there that only get caught every now and then then get off with a light sentance? Having compassion for someone who has done wrong does not mean forgoing punnishment, if the punnishment does not fit the crime it will not carry much of a learning factor with it, in fact it may work as a motivator because nothing really happened. It's like the anti drug commercials rock starts were doing in the 80s. The message was don't do drugs or you will have to do a commercial and that's it. Big deterrent there.

Oh, I completely agree, we shouldn't waste money on such trivial things as justice for child rapists, what a stupid notion. </font>[/QUOTE]If you were sure from the moment you arrest someone that they are a child rapist then essentially there would be no need for a trial, and the justice system would not be needed. The money isn't wasted on justice for child rapists, but on proving that the man/woman you caught is indeed the child rapist.
. </font>[/QUOTE]No, sorry, but I was under the impression that the judge was stating the money would be wasted if it went to incarceration, IE punishment.

Judge caves under pressure & ups sentence to at least three years

Judge Edward Cashman said he felt he could impose the longer sentence now because the state had agreed to provide treatment to the man while he is behind bars.

Or maybe this had something to do with it:

After Cashman announced the sentence, Gov. James Douglas called for the judge to resign and several lawmakers suggested he be impeached. On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA."

I wonder if Bubba was watching the news? Perhaps a taste of his own medicine will do something to persuade him of the error of his ways. Judging by the new sentence, Vermont still has a parole board, and a max of 10 years to work with. I'm not sure how it is in Vermont, but the parole board here had a tendency to deny parole at the first hearing for serious offences, and in my book, this is the most serious offence there is.

<font color=skyblue>I wonder if the judge has any children of his own...I also wonder if he sympathizes with the creep because he knows first-hand what its like to want an underage kid in his bed...

I was watching dateline the other night where they were showing their third exclusive broadcast of catching pedophiles. This time, they actually had the cops outside waiting on the freaks to come out of the sting-house, and they got taken down fast. One of the pedo-guys was an employee for the US Dept. of Homeland Security!

And by the way, the teacher that they had busted on episode one, he went back to work at the high school for six days before cops caught up with him! That is why I am glad that this new episode had the detectives and stuff right there at the moment to nab them immediately. They caught 50 men on this newest show.

One viewer wrote in and asked if no women were ever caught and the TV guy said that in three shows, not one woman was ever caught doing this internet hook-ups, and therefore women must not do this. What a foolish statement. Of course women can be pedophiles...its just that there is a smaller percentage, and they are not as stupid as to get caught so easily. Usually, they do not hook up with strangers, they are the teachers or other adults that get to know the kids more personally first.

Woah...did I go off on a tangent, or what?</font>

[ 02-05-2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

You go tangent guy. Valid points none the less.