60 Days in the Slammer for Raping a 4 Year Old Girl?

Story here.

Don't have all the details yet, but this is creating quite a stir, and everyone's favorite friend Bill O'Reilly just did a segment about it.

O'Reilly

Actually.. it was repeated sexual assaults on the same girl over the course of 4 years, starting when the girl was 6.

Which makes the resulting light sentence just that much more disgusting.

If you actually read the whole article, there's more to the story than what the headlines would lead you to believe.

The Corrections Department had concluded that Hulett was unlikely to commit another such offense, and Vermont does not provide sex-offender treatment to such inmates until they reach the end of their jail time.
Cashman said he would have imposed more jail time "” a three-year minimum "” if the state promised treatment while Hulett was jailed.

"The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," the judge wrote. He also noted that Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old and did not understand why others were so upset by his actions.

On Wednesday, the Correction Department reversed course and said it would allow Hulett to be treated immediately, in hopes Cashman would impose a longer sentence. Prosecutors planned to file a request Friday asking the judge to do so. Apart from the memorandum, Cashman has refused to comment on the furor, citing judicial ethics.
In sentencing Hulett to 60 days, Cashman warned the defendant would get life behind bars if he failed to undergo treatment or comply with other conditions, including a prohibition against alcohol or living in an apartment complex that allows children.

As much as we all love outrage when it comes to child abuse (who can't get behind outrage against that?) the judge has a good point and it would appear that the molester is mentally retarded. Throwing someone like that in jail for a long time would feel good, but it doesn't sound like it would be the best solution to prevent him from doing it again the moment he was released.

You only say that because you're a soft on crime liberal... and probably wet your bed.

Paleo, did you ever wonder why Certis has that "CEO" tag?

Robear wrote:

Paleo, did you ever wonder why Certis has that "CEO" tag?

Because mentally retarded child molesters have too much money invested in GWJ and vote actively at shareholder meetings?

Edit: On a side note, kudos to Certis for actually reading the article, and picking out the fun parts for us.

Certis wrote:

If you actually read the whole article, there's more to the story than what the headlines would lead you to believe.

This is true, which is why I stated that all the details of this subject may not be in yet in my post. The hidden details of this case made it worth posting about. As far as the rapist being mentally retarded...I'm not sure you can classify someone with a "12 to 14 year old mentality" as mentally retarded. Maybe a bit behind but a 14 year old surely knows that raping a 4 year old child is abhorrent. I don't know what is planned for this guy after his 60 day sentance is up, but I sure hope that we aren't hearing about another child falling victim to him in a year or two.

Nomad wrote:

I sure hope that we aren't hearing about another child falling victim to him in a year or two.

Ditto. It's a lot easier to make jokes about it with the guy in custody right now. It would be a lot less funny the day he's released or the day, God forbid, he's brought back in on new charges.

Oh, well if the judge has a good reason for it I guess that makes everything ok. Nothing to see here. The system works!

Nomad wrote:
Certis wrote:

If you actually read the whole article, there's more to the story than what the headlines would lead you to believe.

This is true, which is why I stated that all the details of this subject may not be in yet in my post. The hidden details of this case made it worth posting about. As far as the rapist being mentally retarded...I'm not sure you can classify someone with a "12 to 14 year old mentality" as mentally retarded. Maybe a bit behind but a 14 year old surely knows that raping a 4 year old child is abhorrent. I don't know what is planned for this guy after his 60 day sentance is up, but I sure hope that we aren't hearing about another child falling victim to him in a year or two.

I have to agree; I hope there are even more salient details than what we've found so far to enlighten us on this case, because I think we'd all agree that a 12-14 year-old boy who committed these acts would deserve severe psychological counseling, and/or heavy punishment.

The thought of this is just making me sick though... ugh.

Nomad wrote:

As far as the rapist being mentally retarded...I'm not sure you can classify someone with a "12 to 14 year old mentality" as mentally retarded.

Well you're considered mentally retarded at IQ 70, right? And your age is a major factor in calculating your IQ, such that as you age your IQ usually will not change over time. I believe the equation goes something like this:

IQ = (Mental Age / Real Age)*100

So say this 34 year old is thinking at a 14 year old's level his IQ is about 41. Severely retarded.

Danjo, the original quote from the article was "Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old". This does not say he had the intellect of a 14 year old, but the emotional maturity of one. It also says he was borderline intelligence and I doubt that an IQ of 41 is considered borderline. Sorry if I was not clear.

Bottom line, even a 14 year old knows not to rape a 4 year old girl.

Bottom line, even a 14 year old knows not to rape a 4 year old girl.

As a general statement I completely agree, as it pertains to this case I have no idea. We don't have all the information, reading this judge's history he seems to be pretty hard-line, he must have a good reason for putting up with all this uproar.

Certis wrote:
Bottom line, even a 14 year old knows not to rape a 4 year old girl.

As a general statement I completely agree, as it pertains to this case I have no idea. We don't have all the information, reading this judge's history he seems to be pretty hard-line, he must have a good reason for putting up with all this uproar.

I tend to agree. We don't have all the facts, so it's best to keep outrage in check.

Nomad wrote:

Bottom line, even a 14 year old knows not to rape a 4 year old girl.

"Having the mental maturity of a " isn't really the same thing as actually being that age. They aren't simply teenagers trapped in adult's bodies.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:
Certis wrote:
Bottom line, even a 14 year old knows not to rape a 4 year old girl.

As a general statement I completely agree, as it pertains to this case I have no idea. We don't have all the information, reading this judge's history he seems to be pretty hard-line, he must have a good reason for putting up with all this uproar.

I tend to agree. We don't have all the facts, so it's best to keep outrage in check.

Wait, wait. Are you guys suggesting that the world is somehow more complex than the mass media would lead us to believe? I'm not too comfortable with that notion.

Wait, wait. Are you guys suggesting that the world is somehow more complex than the mass media would lead us to believe? I'm not too comfortable with that notion.

Megadittos!

Every day I read the news, and I weep a little. Then I make the mistake of reading the Yahoo forums over a particularly contentious article and I just start bawling.

Here's an update:

ABC News

A judge who was widely vilified for giving a child molester a 60-day jail term imposed a new sentence Thursday, increasing the man's prison time to three to 10 years.

Judge Edward Cashman said he felt he could now impose the longer sentence because the state had agreed to provide treatment to the man while he is behind bars. The state had initially said such treatment would not come until after the man served his time.

Sounds good to me.

Works for me. If the guy fails therapy, well, he's still doing time.

Wait Wait.. You mean the previous knee-jerk outrage over such a light sentence, regardless of the judge's discretion, might have actually been justified? Say it isn't so.

I am all for judges using discretion to implement a creative punishment if he thinks it will prevent further offenses. However, I raise an eyebrow when a judge's primary focus shifts to rehabilitating the convicted rather than protecting the public. That's a risky decision he was making for all of us.

Should we open a discussion on whether faith in our justice system's ability to successfully rehabilitate sex offenders is justified? That seems to be the basis for the judge's reasoning.

Should we open a discussion on whether faith in our justice system's ability to successfully rehabilitate sex offenders is justified? That seems to be the basis for the judge's reasoning.

That would certainly be an interesting thread.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Should we open a discussion on whether faith in our justice system's ability to successfully rehabilitate sex offenders is justified? That seems to be the basis for the judge's reasoning.

That would certainly be an interesting thread.

Well...I'm willing to give rehabilitation a shot. However, if the offender rapes again, then I think the appropriate punishment is to take the offender to a wooden shed. Nail his penis to a table. Give him a rusty knife. Set the cabin on fire.

But then, I have very strong feelings about it, and I've been known to harbor some vigilante thoughts.

duckideva wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:
Should we open a discussion on whether faith in our justice system's ability to successfully rehabilitate sex offenders is justified? That seems to be the basis for the judge's reasoning.

That would certainly be an interesting thread.

Well...I'm willing to give rehabilitation a shot. However, if the offender rapes again, then I think the appropriate punishment is to take the offender to a wooden shed. Nail his penis to a table. Give him a rusty knife. Set the cabin on fire.

But then, I have very strong feelings about it, and I've been known to harbor some vigilante thoughts.

Sounds like Jonathan "The Impaler" Sharkey is your man:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181501,00.html

Paleocon wrote:

Sounds like Jonathan "The Impaler" Sharkey is your man:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181501,00.html

Nope, I never trust a man who wears a bat embroidered cape and shiny trousers. I mean, I hate to be a fashion snob, but one has to draw the pentagram somewhere.

duckideva wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Sounds like Jonathan "The Impaler" Sharkey is your man:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181501,00.html

Nope, I never trust a man who wears a bat embroidered cape and shiny trousers. I mean, I hate to be a fashion snob, but one has to draw the pentagram somewhere.

A girl has to have her standards.