New sentence possible for '60-day child rapist'


Vermont reclassifies assailant, making him eligible for in-prison treatment
Posted: January 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




Responding to outrage against a judge who gave a child rapist only 60 days in prison, the state of Vermont issued an order to pave the way for a lengthy sentence.

As WorldNetDaily reported last week, Vermont District Court Judge Edward Cashman said he issued the light sentence to Mark Hulett, 34, because he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned now about rehabilitation. Prosecutors thought Hulett deserved eight to 20 years in prison.

Cashman explained he wanted to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment. Under Department of Corrections classification, however, Hulett was considered a low-risk for re-offense, which meant he didn't qualify for in-prison treatment. Cashman decided then to issue a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete the treatment when he got out or face a possible life sentence.

Yesterday, however, Human Services Secretary Michael Smith announced his order to reclassify Hulett, making him eligible for in-prison treatment.

"The classification system cannot be used as an excuse not to mete out punishment," Smith said. "As a state official and as a father I have got to look out for the well-being of Vermonters."

Prosecutors are expected to return to court Friday to ask Cashman for a new sentence.

Meanwhile, Vermont state House Republicans introduced a non-binding resolution yesterday asking Cashman to resign.

"We can't tell him what to do, but it would be a pretty powerful statement," Republican Rep. Kurt Wright told the Burlington Free Press.

The paper said Wright's resolution was one of several responses consider by legislators to the barrage of complaints from constituents and people across the country.

Gov. James Douglas has condemned the decision, saying it appalled him.

The state's House Judiciary Committee took testimony this week on Hulett's sentence and planned also to hear from Corrections Department officials. In addition, the panel is considering legislation to require tougher sentences, the Free Press said.

Discussion of impeachment proceedings, however, has died down, according to Republican state Sen. Wendy Wilton, who plans to introduce a bill based on "Jessica's law," a nationwide initiative for states that includes barring registered sex offenders from living near schools and parks and requiring them to wear satellite tracking devices.

The cornerstone of the measure, Wilton said, is a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence for aggravated sexual assault.

In an interview Monday on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Wilton was asked about the bill's chances for success.

"Now that this has happened, I think they're pretty darn good," she said, referring to the Cashman controversy. "I was a little concerned when I was here in November that we were going to face an uphill battle, but I think after this, people realize the need for it."

Fox host Bill O'Reilly is promoting an e-mail campaign to urge the governor and lawmakers to impeach Cashman. He stated last night the governor's office says it has received more correspondence on the 60-day sentence than any other issue in the history of Vermont.

Cashman said in a statement "the negative comments sting."

"I am aware that the intensity of some public criticism may shorten my judicial career," he said. "To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong.

"I owe it to the judiciary and to my own conscience to maintain a stand that I believe is the best possible option in a very difficult situation," he said.

Speaking at the sentencing last week to a packed Burlington courtroom made up mostly of people related to the victim, Cashman said: "The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul."

The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes "it accomplishes nothing of value."

"It doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court.

Not that I disagree in this instance at all, but what's the deal with "Prosecutors are expected to return to court Friday to ask Cashman for a new sentence."

Is it common for the .gov to get a "do over" because the mob turns against a legal decision?

Judge Cashman needs fired immediately!

Quoted: Not that I disagree in this instance at all, but what's the deal with "Prosecutors are expected to return to court Friday to ask Cashman for a new sentence." Is it common for the .gov to get a "do over" because the mob turns against a legal decision?

It is called an appeal.  Just as the defendant has a right to an appeal, so does the prosecution.  The problem in this one is that the justice system used no justice what so ever in laying down the sentence.

cut his dick off and give him one "hell" week in jail. if he makes it out alive he cant ever do it again.

There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? It seems that becuase he was labeled as "low-risk" that the judge refused to send him to jail. And now they are going to go back and ask this judge for a new sentance?? Good luck. PS- if i ever kill anyone i hope i get him as a judge!! It was all societies fault oh and George Bush! Send me to killer rehab.

Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls?

Are you f*cking INSANE????

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS "ASKING" FOR IT???

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL TO "GO ALONG" WITH SEX WITH A 40 YEAR OLD.

This guy was sentenced to 60 days because the judge is either crazier than a squirrel on crack or he has had so much libbie kool-aid that his brain is now dead.

In either case, there was no justice in a 60 day sentence for the REPEATED MOLESTATION OF A LITTLE GIRL.

I bet the judge secretly admires that POS rapist and wants him free on the streets so that he can live out some more sick fantasies through him.  If he can't dish out punishment, he's got no reason to be a judge.

Quoted: Not that I disagree in this instance at all, but what's the deal with "Prosecutors are expected to return to court Friday to ask Cashman for a new sentence." Is it common for the .gov to get a "do over" because the mob turns against a legal decision?

I'm not a lawyer or a prosecuter nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I believe that in the case of such a blatantly wrong sentence it is allowable to have a judgement overturned or vacated and a proper sentence handed out. As far as I know this usually happens during the 'appeal' process. But when you have a sentence that would likely be 'over'  before an appeal could even happen I think it's entirely possible to do this. I'm sure the prosecuters are not acting outside the 'rule' of law, unlike the so called 'judge' in my opinion...ymmv.....

Quoted: Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? Are you f*cking INSANE???? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS "ASKING" FOR IT??? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL TO "GO ALONG" WITH SEX WITH A 40 YEAR OLD. This guy was sentenced to 60 days because the judge is either crazier than a squirrel on crack or he has had so much libbie kool-aid that his brain is now dead. In either case, there was no justice in a 60 day sentence for the REPEATED MOLESTATION OF A LITTLE GIRL.

Hear!  Hear!  

Cashman said: "The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul." The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes "it accomplishes nothing of value." "It doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court.

This judge has lost track of what his job is.  It's not to make things right, to fix society.  I can see him being cynical after 25 years and he should just quit if it's causing him to negate justice or spin it so there's no "anger".  He seems to be feeling that if tough sentences did any good he wouldn't be seeing anyone in court anymore, a pretty utopian idea.  Crime rates go up and come down, like the weather and hemlines.  When you've lost touch with the "effect" of crimes like rape or molesting 7 year olds and want to be "touchy-feely" with the perps you should walk away from the job.  OTOH, he might be a closet pervert himself.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? Are you f*cking INSANE???? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS "ASKING" FOR IT??? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL TO "GO ALONG" WITH SEX WITH A 40 YEAR OLD. This guy was sentenced to 60 days because the judge is either crazier than a squirrel on crack or he has had so much libbie kool-aid that his brain is now dead. In either case, there was no justice in a 60 day sentence for the REPEATED MOLESTATION OF A LITTLE GIRL. Hear!  Hear!

Big plus 1 !!!

If you are not a regestered voter,

GET THAT WAY!!!

Quoted: Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? Are you f*cking INSANE???? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS "ASKING" FOR IT??? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL TO "GO ALONG" WITH SEX WITH A 40 YEAR OLD. This guy was sentenced to 60 days because the judge is either crazier than a squirrel on crack or he has had so much libbie kool-aid that his brain is now dead. In either case, there was no justice in a 60 day sentence for the REPEATED MOLESTATION OF A LITTLE GIRL.

You beat me to it John.  

She's 7.   7 years old.  We're not talking a 15 year-old that likes to dress up and hit the bars.  We're talking about a girl without any sign of womanhood who is still probably playing with an easy-bake oven.

THERE IS NO RATIONALIZATION OF A 40yr OLD MAN HAVING SEX WITH HER!!!!!

Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? It seems that becuase he was labeled as "low-risk" that the judge refused to send him to jail. And now they are going to go back and ask this judge for a new sentance?? Good luck. PS- if i ever kill anyone i hope i get him as a judge!! It was all societies fault oh and George Bush! Send me to killer rehab.

Thanks for illustrating why you should have been banned as the troll you are years ago.

WTF??????

Quoted: Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? It seems that becuase he was labeled as "low-risk" that the judge refused to send him to jail. And now they are going to go back and ask this judge for a new sentance?? Good luck. PS- if i ever kill anyone i hope i get him as a judge!! It was all societies fault oh and George Bush! Send me to killer rehab. Thanks for illustrating why you should have been banned as the troll you are years ago. WTF??????

There is no justification for repeatedly raping a 7 year old. He also molested a 14 year old, so that blows your pathetic "had no interest in other underage girls" excuse out of the water.

Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? It seems that becuase he was labeled as "low-risk" that the judge refused to send him to jail. And now they are going to go back and ask this judge for a new sentance?? Good luck. PS- if i ever kill anyone i hope i get him as a judge!! It was all societies fault oh and George Bush! Send me to killer rehab.

Bet you'd like this one back..

Maybe you were trying to identify with the judge in a sarcastic way.

Quoted: Quoted: There is something to this story that is not being told. MAybe it's in the disgusting details that are not for talking about?? Why was he labeled as a "low-risk" offender?? Is it cause the girl was going along with it and that he had no interest in other underage girls? It seems that becuase he was labeled as "low-risk" that the judge refused to send him to jail. And now they are going to go back and ask this judge for a new sentance?? Good luck. PS- if i ever kill anyone i hope i get him as a judge!! It was all societies fault oh and George Bush! Send me to killer rehab. Bet you'd like this one back.. Maybe you were trying to identify with the judge in a sarcastic way.

If t-sox was not seriously putting forth the idea that there was some justifiable reason for the judge to rule as he did, then I appologize to t-sox for misconstruing his statements.

If they were serious, however, then....well....I already said it.

Pedophile rehab =  

Has the rapist's defense attorney had anything to say about his client's 60-day spanking?

Another fine day for the US legal system.

Bet they don't have the stones to impeach the judge (lawyers take care of their own)

Quoted: Pedophile rehab =  www.ammoman.com/images/SS109GT-2.jpg

Incorrect.



If you are gonna do it, do it right!

Or maybe:

"The punishment should fit the crime" theory has been missing from many Courts for years!

www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/10/judge_cashman_defends_his_decision_to_impose_60_day_sentence/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

Judge Cashman defends his decision to impose 60 day sentence

By Wilson Ring, Associated Press Writer  |  January 10, 2006

BURLINGTON, Vt. --District Court Judge Edward Cashman is standing by the 60-day minimum sentence he imposed on a man convicted of having repeated sexual contact with a young girl.

The goal in handing down the sentence on Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston is the long-term protection of the public from a man Cashman considers to be a greater threat to re-offend if he does not receive immediate sex-offender treatment, the judge wrote.

Cashman said in court documents filed Tuesday that he would have required more jail time for Hulett if he could have received sex offender treatment in jail.

"Sentencing is not the end of a problem," he wrote. "It should be the start of a solution."

Hulett received a combined sentence of a 10-year minimum to a maximum of life in prison for his conviction on two charges of aggravated sexual assault and a lesser offense, with all but 60 days suspended.

"The court maximized the long-term public safety protection at the cost of what now appears as being 'soft' on child molesters," Cashman wrote. "At sentencing, the court viewed the defendant as a dangerous man, likely to engage in future crime unless he has proper and timely treatment."

The maximum sentence of life in prison "sought to ensure public safety should Mr. Hulett fail in or refuse treatment during the first 10-year term," Cashman wrote.

Cashman's decision has been condemned by Gov. James Douglas, who said he was appalled by it. Republican and Democratic lawmakers are calling for legislation with mandatory minimum sentences for sex crimes.

One state senator is urging his impeachment. "This guy has got to go," said state Sen. Wendy Wilton, R-Rutland. "People believe he has flipped his lid."

House Republicans on Tuesday introduced a resolution calling on Cashman to resign.

"Like all Vermonters, Republican legislators are astonished by Judge Cashman's lack of judgment in this case," said Assistant House GOP leader David Sunderland, R-Rutland. "Cashman's decision raises real questions about Vermont's judicial system, a system we already believed needed reforms to protect the public from extreme violent and sexual predators."

Cashman filed court papers Tuesday in which he reconsidered the sentence he imposed on Hulett last week. He did not change the sentence, but the document gave him the opportunity to more fully explain the original decision.

Cashman said he was aware of the criticism his decision had prompted. "The negative comments sting," he wrote.

"I am aware that the intensity of some public criticism may shorten my judicial career," Cashman said. "To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong.

"I owe it to the judiciary and to my own conscience to maintain a stand that I believe is the best possible option in a very difficult situation," he said.

Hulett pleaded guilty last summer to charges that he sexually assaulted the victim on at least three occasions over a four-year period. The assaults included oral-genital contact and genital touching, documents said.

Hulett was a friend of the victim's family and stayed in her home frequently. The victim's parents were aware that Hulett had an interest in the girl and that the two, on some occasions, slept in the same bed.

Police were alerted to the case after the victim told an older girl what had happened.

The Department of Correction's sex offender treatment team and Hulett's attorney argued his risk to re-offend was low and that he should be treated in the community.

But Cashman disagreed with those assessments. He wrote that Hulett had the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year old and Hulett didn't understand why others were so upset by his actions.

Experts found that Hulett was in a group of sex offenders who are harder to treat than others and that he would need a lifetime of supervision.

"The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," Cashman wrote. "Delay in treatment, especially if connected with lengthy imprisonment, creates additional risks by hardening the defendant into a pattern of thinking that further alienates him from the fundamental social values we are trying to promote."

But the sex offender treatment team told the court that Hulett would not be eligible for treatment during his minimum sentence.

"This creates the most difficult dilemma of the sentencing," Cashman wrote. "Any extensive minimum sentence prevents meaningful treatment. Delay of treatment within a closed facility increases the long-term risk the defendant presents to the community. Given these options the court chose to reduce the long-term risks and permit an opportunity for quick treatment."

Cashman said that during the sentencing hearing he was tempted by the calls for a long prison sentence.

"The issue to this court is not retribution as a sentencing tool, but rather its appropriateness to meet sentencing goals in specific cases," Cashman said. "I hope I have made clear that the amount of retribution sought in this case is self-defeating. Deterring future crimes of sexual abuse of children requires the court's very best efforts to use the available tools."


www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/11/judge_edward_cashman_is_best_known_for_his_pro_law_stands/

Judge Edward Cashman is best known for his pro-law stands

By Christopher Graff, Associated Press Writer  |  January 11, 2006

MONTPELIER, Vt. --Edward Cashman should be the darling of conservatives: The churchgoing Vietnam vet is a former prosecutor; his two sons have served in the military. As a judge he is best known for his hard-line stands: A decade ago he jailed for 41 days the parents of a prime suspect in a rape case because they refused to cooperate with prosecutors.

Conservatives, though, have turned Cashman into Public Enemy No. 1 for his sentence of a child molester, a sentence he said was designed to ensure the man got treatment but critics say is too soft.

The criticism multiplied by the thousands - whipped into a frenzy via Internet blogs - after Fox News' Bill O'Reilly told a national television audience Monday night, as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA."

Cashman, 62, big, burly, balding and bearded, is the epitome of the strait-laced military man who takes especially seriously his role as a judge. Soon after he was appointed to the bench in 1982 by Republican Gov. Richard Snelling, Cashman and his wife dropped out of their square dancing group because he feared it was unjudgelike.

"I can't do the same things everyone else does," he said in an interview several years ago, describing the life of a judge as monk-like.

Cashman grew up in New Jersey and met his wife Gail, a Vermonter whose father was a Supreme Court justice, while the two were at Boston College. They moved to Washington where Cashman attended law school. His wife moved back to Vermont when Cashman went to Vietnam in 1969; he joined her upon his discharge from the Army in 1971.

Cashman worked for the attorney general's office, the Chittenden County clerk, served on the state Public Service Board and worked in private practice before becoming state's attorney in Grand Isle County in 1978.

Cashman considers being a judge "a rare opportunity to serve the people of Vermont." "I have found in it the opportunity to perform the most important work of my life, outside of raising my family," he said in a letter to lawmakers when he was up for retention in 2001.

Cashman has been popular with legislators: He won a new six-year term in 2001 by a vote of 137-15.

On the bench he has been known for his tough sentencing - and for sometimes taking unorthodox stands.

Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, R-Essex-Orleans, who has served on the Joint Judicial Retention Committee, the Judicial Nominating Board and the Senate Judiciary Committee and is a county prosecutor, said Wednesday the criticism that Cashman is "a lenient judge and should be thrown out of office goes 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," said Illuzzi.

In Cashman's most celebrated case prior to this month's sentencing of Mark Hulett, he threw into jail Arthur and Geneva Yandow who refused to help prosecutors make a case against their son, a suspect in a rape where the victim was left outside, unconscious and half naked in frigid weather.

The parents said it would violate their Catholic beliefs; Cashman, himself a Catholic, argued otherwise.

"Neither the Catechism or Canon Law of the Catholic Church give Catholic(s) religious or moral authority to support the Yandows' religious rights claim to refuse to testify," Cashman said. "To the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that the teaching of the Catholic Church requires a much harder burden, namely, to give such testimony for the common good of society."

The Catholic Church plays a huge role in Cashman's life.

"He is a committed family man, he is a person who is committed to his family and his church. He is an outstanding father and a valued member of our community," said Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, who attends the same church as Cashman. "I am very disappointed and concerned about the decision, but he is a friend and I have respect for Judge Cashman as a person."

Cashman has volunteered for almost 20 years at Dismas House, a halfway house for prisoners. He said in an interview in 2000 with the Champlain Business Journal that it was very important for him to do.

"If you're going to put someone in jail, you ought to see them on their way out," he said.

In that same interview the judge talked about his love of his job.

"Every day is a gift," he said. "I keep thinking they're going to come back and say `Oh my God, it was Cushman not Cashman. Give us back the robe."

"sex-offender treatment"

Cashman....  Vermont,

We don't want them "fixed".  We want them gone, be it dead or locked up till they die.  I'm not interested in what might make him a better person someday, maybe.  I don't think getting a single shot in life at not sexually assaulting a child or violently raping a woman is to harsh.  

<Get medeival on his ass>

Hulett was a friend of the victim's family and stayed in her home frequently. The victim's parents were aware that Hulett had an interest in the girl and that the two, on some occasions, slept in the same bed.


The parents aren't on trial?

I'm with all of you about torturing that Bastage!!!

Quoted: New sentence possible for '60-day child rapist' snip Prosecutors thought Hulett deserved eight to 20 years in prison. snip "It doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court.

What a god-damned stupid mother fucker judge!  Accomplishes nothing?  If nothing else,  lengthy  prison sentence keeps him from harming children from 8 - 20 years.

We desperately need a new way of managing the
judicial system NATIONWIDE !

Not only is there something wrong with this judge,but
there's something wrong with a system that made
this guy a judge and keeps him there.

I have to face a yearly review where I work at.
If someone fails that review bad enough ,they're gone.

Why don't judges and police have to pass a yearly
review of some type ?
(If there is,it's obviously not harsh enough)
For those that say that's a bad idea,well then what ?
They can screw up and hurt the public like this
without risk of loosing they're job ?

I don't give 2 shits what anyone says,the only way to
rehabilitate this kind of  scum is to recycle him.
Turn him into worm food and maybe something worthwhile will grow in his
place.

Oh ,and the rapist too ,just make his demise slower.