This Just In
Judge gives child-rapist 60-day sentence
No longer believes in punishment: 'Anger doesn't solve anything'
It is hard to imagine a crime worse than the sexual abuse of a child, especially one that involving a little girl under 7 years of age that occurred over a four-year period, unless it is one that involves infants. Still I know there are more haneous crimes than this. So what is in the mind of this judge refusing to sentence the offender to the 8 20-year sentences he obviously deserved? Judge Edward Cashman disagreed with the prosecutors and instead said,
"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul,"
What sentence did Judge Cashman hand out?
Cashman said he wants to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment.
Cashman, therefore, issued a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete sex-treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.
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,"
Edward Cashman was elected as a district court judge in 2001 and will serve on the bench until 2007. He had no problem sentencing a murderer in December 05, but a child rapist? Nope. The sexual predator gets couselling.
The Provost case involved homicide. It was not immediately clear if the court's decision also affects rapists, kidnappers and other violent criminals who can be sentenced beyond the statutory guidelines.
"I think that might be stretching it a little too far," said Matthew Valerio, Vermont's defender general. "But there is definitely an argument that can be extended beyond homicide."
Murnane, however, said Vermont's homicide statutes are unique and predicted the court ruling would not extend beyond murder convictions.
Vermont in 1987 passed a law allowing judges to increase the maximum sentence for both first- and second-degree homicide if they find "aggravating factors" that justify harsher punishment.
The statute lists eight aggravating factors — including brutality and multiple victims — that can be used to increase a sentence.
Judge Edward Cashman sentenced Provost to life without parole, instead of the statutory maximum of life with a minimum term of 35 years, for each person he killed.
The ruling complied with state law, but violated a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said any penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and the citizen panel must conclude the aggravating factors are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Guess the repeated and prolonged rape of a child doesn't rise to the same level of contempt for this judge. I'm glad I don't live in Vermont.
As for the second story...
Sado-Masochism Might be ‘Sexual Orientation’ says BC Human Rights Tribunal
Aside from the obvious connection (that being sex/sexual deviation), the facts these two stories report on shout volumes about our world today.
We now live in a world where a District Court Judge refuses to sentence a child rapist and where others want to classify S&M as a "sexual orientation" to, in my opinion, legitamize the practice and make it illegal for anyone to discriminate against practioners.
VANCOUVER, January 5, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The BC Human Rights Tribunal is being asked to discover a new “sexual orientation.” The Vancouver Sun reported December 30, that a self-described “pagan” is accusing the Vancouver police of discrimination for refusing him a license to drive a limousine because of his involvement in the “bondage and discipline, domination and submission, sadism and masochism” (BDSM) underworld.
A Vancouver man, Peter Hayes, has accused the Vancouver police of illegal discrimination because of his involvement in BDSM. Hayes says that he lost a potential job as a limousine driver when police refused him a chauffeur's permit and has taken his case to the Human Rights Tribunal.
The Tribunal’s Lindsay M. Lyster wrote an 18 page preliminary decision saying that the complaint can go forward. She said that while she did not completely understand the “precise nature of Mr. Hayes' lifestyle, practices and preferences,” they ought to be investigated as to whether they fall under the definition of sexual orientation, and therefore of the protection of human rights legislation.
Lyster wrote that she did not understand the meaning “of the parties' use of the term BDSM or other related terms.” Despite this, she believed “that Mr. Hayes suffered an adverse impact as a result of the respondents' actions is, on the facts alleged, clear, as he was denied a chauffeur's permit and lost the opportunity to work.”
I hardly know what to say. How about keeping your private life private? How long will it be before we endure the same argument in favor of the pedafiles in the world? Wait... didn't NAMBLA try that already?