1 Topic by krishna (edited by krishna 2006-01-21 12:59:44)

  • Registered: 2006-01-20

Topic: Wow, just... wow.

Now, I'm really not sure how I feel about this one, the guy is either the worlds most enlighened judge, or the least.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S= … p;nav=4QcT
Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005

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.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven.

Now at first glance you could be forgiven for saying "He's right, It's just hard to accept."...

...at second glance you have to consider the effect that the sentence is going to have on the family members.

I'm glad I'm not paid to sit in judgement of others, hell I have hard enough time remembering to not judge those around me on a daily basis, for free.
(I'll succeed one-day)

K.

  • Risen
  • Risen
  • The Anti-Ism
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2005-09-30

Re: Wow, just... wow.

Screw that.  If we could go to jail for years and lose every possession just for something simple like having a few Marijuana plants, this REPEAT RAPIST sure as HELL deserves a stiffer sentence than that.

This is the new justice?  Grow a plant and go away for years, but rape all you want and you just get 60 days and attend some meetings.

Yeah.  Justice.

This is no time for the righteous
Only the wicked survive
Bake up a batch of the Yellow Cake
Bake up a batch of the lies
- - - - -[ Yellow Cake - Ministry - Rio Grande Blood (2006)
  • From: Atlanta
  • Registered: 2005-04-22

Re: Wow, just... wow.

Of course they don't want us to smoke marijuana. It doesnt kill. Its less intoxicating than alcohol, and I for one believe it was placed here for our use. Of course its harmful to the government if we use it.

  • From: LA
  • Registered: 2005-09-18

Re: Wow, just... wow.

Mavis wrote:

Krishna

The Judge is correct - prison doesn't always work. Research tells us that a proportion reoffend when released from prison. BUT until someone comes up with an alternate way of dealing with offenders jail is the only option. The general public needs to be protected. I have worked in prisons and child molesters are kept seperate for their own protection. Not even crims accept those who mistreat children. Stats in your country about rehabilitiation success would also negate the judges desicion. If I had to choose between this and prison, it would be prison.

You have a register of sexual offenders in the USA but offenders can always change their name or move.

There is a big poster in my workplace that says there is never ever just one victim of an offender. Krishna - we don't judge these people - when we advocate jail we are just protecting our kids, our future. I have seen first hand the effect on the victim and although research says most get on with their lives does that mean we have to dismiss those who simply can't cope? If you get the stats for prisoners you will find most - female AND MALE have been abused in some form as children. I would suggest child molestation is the hidden crime of the century perhaps of all time. Fix this crime and you may be able to empty jails, mental homes, cut down the dreaded depression tabs, - I could go on - but we get the message.

Good topic

Mavis

Mavis,

I would like to see you trying to explain your point to the parents of the child.  If you must let him go then castrate the MF!

Regards

  • Registered: 2005-02-08

Re: Wow, just... wow.

I think the judge is correct in saying that punishment alone doesn't work, and he is correct in believing that our penal system does not include a viable rehabilitation function, but perhaps this judge would think differently if it was his own daughter who was abused in this way.

Maybe a good compromise would be for the judge to serve a life sentence along with this guy if he should ever rape again.

Thoughts?

6 Reply by GibbleTronic (edited by GibbleTronic 2006-02-01 23:24:00)

  • Registered: 2005-02-08

Re: Wow, just... wow.

The most difficult thing in the world may be to judge the life of another. Without knowing the whole story of how someone comes to be what they are, and how society must come to terms with the simple fact that everything doesn't always go as planned. Judges sit in the position of authority and judgement, and this is no light task.

The cynical part of me immeaditely considered a notion that the defendant's uncle cut a lot of large checks during the last campaign season.

However, I can also see where the judge is coming from. The escalating cost and incidence of incarceration is clear evidence of failing state institutions, but he really shouldn't expect the victim's family to understand this point of view while confronted with the reality of the girl's suffering, and their inpotence in the face of the law.

I was reading this article just before I posted the last time, and it may have inspired some of what I was thinking:

http://aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml

I see the judge as actually rising to the post-conventional level in his decision, but the law is not suited for that level of understanding at this time, with any reasonable consistency. His decision is not only incomprehensible to anyone functioning at a lower stage, but it is also dangerously infuriating and provocative on a societal level. Then again, perhaps this is the sort of jolt that is needed, since for good or ill, changes will surely occur now.

I've always admired how inspired individuals can step outside the law and challenge it from a position of righteousness and win, but IMO such change must have some qualifiers in order to be valid. I think that if a judge believes that a person can be redeemed/reformed, and is willing to risk more than having a reputation of being a defense attorney's wet dream, then he or she must be willing to be personally affronted if things go wrong.

True Authority contrasted by Real Responsibility. This may be a way to change the law.

Now that I've outlined my position a bit more, Thoughts?

7 Reply by Mavis

  • Mavis
  • Guest

Re: Wow, just... wow.

No one is buying into this thread because it is traditionally a touchy subject. I have statistics that say one in 4 girls and one in 6 boys have been molested as children. Add to this, emotional and physical abuse and you have a lot of disturbed kids. I’m a teacher of teens in OZ and I have to by OZ law report anyone who tells me anything about abuse. I could tell you heaps that I have heard and have had a hard job turning off from.

Add to this personal experience of dealing with a whole group of people whom I could write a book about. What stuns me most of all is their reluctance to deal with it all. That’s because I can’t put myself in their place. I now know the psychological inferences of the problem but have to sit back and let it happen. Did they all decide to incarnate into a group to play this drama out?? Is there some karma involved here?

I have personally dealt with the person responsible for the dramas and he has a bad past. I will acknowledge this BUT does he have the right to inflict his past onto others? Is this Karma for whom? Have they all decided to play the drama together? Where do I and my two sons fit into it? I am learning skills to deal with it. Did I decide to do this in this life? I am passing my experience onto others to help them. This I have accepted BUT where does the judge who deals with the perpetrator fit into the drama?  If the victims have decide to play out the drama to experience or deal with Karma – if you were the judge how would you deal with this?? This is the tricky issue with karma – the debt is never paid as there is always someone doing or done to!!

In the group of people I’m dealing with they have had one suicide, a number of alcoholics and dysfunctional families because of the family problem. The question is: how did the perpetrator expect to be dealt with – maybe they would not be surprised to be castrated or spend time in prison. The perp in this case in languishing in an OZ prison and so the detectives tell me – has consumption because he is in an area where it is cold. The victims in this case are not dealing with the situation.   They are not learning forgiveness; they cannot deal with the people like me who are on the peripheral of the drama or even the ones involved in the drama.  So my question is: if you were the judge – how would you – assuming you were on a higher level of ability judge this situation where all parties are here to “do”  karma?

Do I believe the perp can be redeemed?  If the perp is here to “do”  karma then the answer must be no. What if the perp is here to learn to redeem themselves? Where does this put the judge in this situation? Of course the judge can only judge on surface issues. This is what the public expects and the general public would not go beneath the surface.

I have a lot more thoughts on this issue but would like to hear the thoughts of other people.

  • From: LA
  • Registered: 2005-09-18

Re: Wow, just... wow.

Mavis wrote:

Why

Read my post carefully - I don't advocate letting anyone go!

I did read your post and understand your point.  My second statement was very general and I should have expanded it further to explain my position.  I wrote my post in a hurry so I will explain in more detail below.

Mavis wrote:

Do I believe the perp can be redeemed?  If the perp is here to “do”  karma then the answer must be no. What if the perp is here to learn to redeem themselves? Where does this put the judge in this situation? Of course the judge can only judge on surface issues. This is what the public expects and the general public would not go beneath the surface.

I have a lot more thoughts on this issue but would like to hear the thoughts of other people.

This issue is a little touchy for me since a member of my immediate family was molested some years ago.  There was a time in my life on which I could have killed this individual given the opportunity.  I do not feel that way any longer but do not feel sorry for him either.  I do understand that he is sick and more than likely needs treatment.  I also understand that you cannot release these individuals and rely on them to take their medication if any diagnosed.  Many of these scavengers become repeat offenders once they are release back to society.  In our wisdom to be fair to these people we forget to be fair to the defenseless kids that become prey to these hyenas.  I have no problem with these people been hospitalized and treated for whatever condition causes them to be pedophiles.  But if this is the route we are going to follow we must make sure that they do not return to our society until completely cured.  But how do you know this is the case?  If we don't, then they must remain confined to that institution for the rest of their lives.  If the pervert is here to redeem himself/herself then he/she will understand the punishment and will try to get in touch with their spiritual side and grow.   That I can deal with!

Now, perhaps the pervert can be given a choice to return to society under one severe condition.  Castration.  That could be part of the process of redemption and humiliation necessary to understand and clear the bad karma.  Furthermore, if we all believe what we discuss in here in terms of reincarnation and karma there is a possibility that the victim (the child in this case) was a pervert in his/hers previous life and the experience of being molested is part of the redemption process for that soul.  It is hard to look at the situation in such an unbiased "matter of fact" approach but it is a possibility.

It has been 10 years since the incident involving a member of my family and I can honestly say I do not want this person dead or brutalized.  Yet, I want him to be locked up somewhere away from children.  Somewhere where he/she can look deep into his/hers soul and deal with the severe pain and scars he/she have inflicted unto another human being.  Both parties (as well as the immediate family) on this painful situation will have to deal with it and grow.   I know we have……………..

I hope this clears up my vague remark early on in this thread.

  • Registered: 2005-10-28

Re: Wow, just... wow.

Let's all stop beating Basil's car by Dawkins

'Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'.

Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.

Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?

Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.'

ON the bank at the end
Of what was there before us...
Veiled in the mist of naïve speculation
We are busy here preparing
Rafts to carry us across
Before the light goes out leaving us
In the eternal night of could-have-been
N. Bostrum