Girl provoked pedophile - judge

[natty bumppo 297]

The judge was just using his discretion.

Oh wait ... I've heard this type of justice advocated somewhere else too

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Take a look Steven, this is why mandatory minimums need to be in place. Most judges are rational and fair. But you need minimums to combat the loony tune judges like this.

I could demonstrate court cases where mandatory sentences are unjust, Gary - this is nothing but anecdotal. This judge is a nut. We need the ability to appeal such a decision and for a judge to be reviewed with the possibility of being removed from the bench.

[natty bumppo 297]

Take a look Steven, this is why mandatory minimums need to be in place. Most judges are rational and fair. But you need minimums to combat the loony tune judges like this.

I could demonstrate court cases where mandatory sentences are unjust, Gary - this is nothing but anecdotal. This judge is a nut. We need the ability to appeal such a decision and for a judge to be reviewed with the possibility of being removed from the bench.

The judge was just using his discretion and that is okay regardless of the consequences to innocents ? Even if the appeal process takes years to correct?

[GaryC 7]

Take a look Steven, this is why mandatory minimums need to be in place. Most judges are rational and fair. But you need minimums to combat the loony tune judges like this.

I could demonstrate court cases where mandatory sentences are unjust, Gary - this is nothing but anecdotal. This judge is a nut. We need the ability to appeal such a decision and for a judge to be reviewed with the possibility of being removed from the bench.

Yeah he was a nut. Trouble is, relativism has creeped into our justice system. Here is one from Vermont.

Judge gives child-rapist

60-day sentence

No longer believes in punishment: 'Anger doesn't solve anything'

Posted: January 6, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.

Judge Edward Cashman disagreed with prosecutors who thought Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston, Vt., deserved eight to 20 years in prison, reported WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vt.

Cashman said he's more concerned now about rehabilitation.

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

Prior to the decision, Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued punishment "is a valid purpose."

"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does," she said, according to the Burlington TV station. "The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider."

Cashman said he wants to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment.

Under Department of Corrections classification, however, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense, which means he doesn't qualify for in-prison treatment.

Cashman, therefore, issued a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete sex-offender 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," Cashman explained to the people in the court, WCAX reported.

Members of the victim's family were outraged.

"I don't like it," the victim's mother told the TV station, in tears. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48219

There is black and white, right and wrong in this world. The more people believe like you the more common this sort of thing becomes. Actions have consequences. Or at least they used to.

[GaryC 7]

Or if you like, how about this?

Ain't relativism nice??

Buy your victim a nice bike, judge tells pedophile

Kiota's picture

Submitted by Kiota on Wed, 03/07/2007 - 10:26pm.

A paedophile who sexually abused a six-year-old girl has been set free by a judge who suggested he give his victim money to "buy a nice new bicycle".

Eric Cole, who had already served jail terms for sex attacks, admitted putting his hand down the girl's trousers as she stood in her garden.

Judge Julian Hall told him: "In criminal terms, what you did was quite mild", before giving the 71-year-old a suspended sentence.

Cole was already a convicted paedophile when he attacked the girl last July.

Despite this, Judge Hall, who hit the headlines last year when he shed tears after hearing a mother describe her anguish over her daughter's death, allowed Cole to walk from the court.

Angry relatives of the victim hurled abuse and threats at the defendant from the public gallery as the judge passed sentence at Oxford Crown Court.

Judge Hall imposed a nine-month suspended jail term on Cole as well as ordering him to attend a sexual offenders' programme. He also banned him from being alone with children under the age of 16, for five years.

Cole admitted one charge of sexual assault on a child under the age of 13 years. Handing down the sentence, the judge told Cole to pay his victim compensation of £250, adding: "If it buys her a nice new bicycle, that's the sort of thing that might cheer her up." --Daily Mail

http://www.progressiveu.org/002626-buy-you...tells-pedophile

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Take a look Steven, this is why mandatory minimums need to be in place. Most judges are rational and fair. But you need minimums to combat the loony tune judges like this.

I could demonstrate court cases where mandatory sentences are unjust, Gary - this is nothing but anecdotal. This judge is a nut. We need the ability to appeal such a decision and for a judge to be reviewed with the possibility of being removed from the bench.

The judge was just using his discretion and that is okay regardless of the consequences to innocents ? Even if the appeal process takes years to correct?

This would not take days (not years) to correct.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Take a look Steven, this is why mandatory minimums need to be in place. Most judges are rational and fair. But you need minimums to combat the loony tune judges like this.

I could demonstrate court cases where mandatory sentences are unjust, Gary - this is nothing but anecdotal. This judge is a nut. We need the ability to appeal such a decision and for a judge to be reviewed with the possibility of being removed from the bench.

Yeah he was a nut. Trouble is, relativism has creeped into our justice system. Here is one from Vermont.

My suggestion, Gary...stop relying so much on O'Reilly for opinions on legal matters...but that could be a topic in of itself.

My point earlier is that mandatory sentences also create instances when justice doesn't prevail, and our wisdom for a long time has been that it is "better to err on the side of those who are wicked than to err against the innocent." In the broad scope of justice, that holds true. You may find cases where the guilty have gotten away with murder, but that doesn't justify creating blanket punishment for all infractions. For example, there was recent satutory rape case where the boyfriend was 19 and his girlfriend was 17. I believe he's serving a 10 year sentence - that's completely wrong. It easy to O'Reilliasize issues like this with anecdotal situations rather than looking at it with a broader perspective.

The main problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that they take away the ability of judges to consider

the individual circumstances of each case when imposing sentence. These circumstances might include the

defendant's prior record, family history, education, employment status, record of service in the community, the

specific facts of the case, the actual injury caused to the victim, and the likelihood the defendant would offend

again. Another problem with mandatory minimums is that they skew our system of justice by shifting power

from judges to prosecutors.

Judges are chosen for their impartiality and given long terms to insulate them from politics and the public

passions of the moment. They have been given the responsibility to impose just sentences. Prosecutors, on the

other hand, are geared to seek conviction and punishment. Minimum mandatory sentences improperly give

prosecutors greater power in determining what penalty a defendant ultimately will receive since the prosecutor

decides whether or not to pursue a charge that carries a heavy mandatory sentence.

Mandatory minimum sentences also allow prosecutors to use the threat of a long prison term as a tool to coerce

guilty pleas. Going to trial is always a risk. Defendants looking at a stiff mandatory minimum sentence if

convicted often can be persuaded to plead guilty to a lesser offense - even when they are innocent.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:-FHDwF...cd=10&gl=us

[Caladan 19]

Christ. What a ###### up judge. I would still, on balance, rather have a system, though, where decisions like sentencing in some matters should be at the judge's discretion, subject to review by attorneys general and guidelines. This guy isn't a good argument for mandatory minimums because his abuse is already corrected by measures in place, like the AG's office.

Steven's example is good. Do you think the 19-year-old boyfriend deserves to go to jail for ten years, where he'll probably be abused and never stand a chance of holding a decent job? What about the teacher at the school who showed a roomful of kids porn images accidentally because the computer was taken over by a virus? Don't you want a judge to be able to say, technically, you're guilty, but the community knows it was an accident?

Even the pressure for plea bargains is bad. If you knew you were innocent, but that a mandatory minimum for the crime would put you away for 10 years, wouldn't you plea to a lesser charge? Hope that plea doesn't keep you from getting a job or immigrating.

I guess I figure we can all see that it's wrong when a zero tolerance policy at a school means someone gets suspended for hugging his girlfriend because the rule is 'no touching anyone ever' and the principal has no choice, or when a five-year-old kisses his classmate and is hit with sexual harassment. We say, 'what a stupid rule.' We think it's crazy having to deal with the draconic step-by-step rules of immigration where one tiny screw-up means you get denied. I see no reason the legal system should emulate immigration.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

So what if she looked 16? Rape is rape and 16 is still a child. These are grown men!!! OMG!!!! Unbelievable!

16 is the age of consent in the UK.... if she looked 16 and acted 16 then how do you tell?? ask for photo ID??? I am not saying what happened was right but I can see how it could happen.... and yes young girls in the UK are far more grown up in there attitude that 16 year olds here in the US...

Kez

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The judge needs to have a baseball bat driven up his behind. All the way!

Methinks a willow (cricket bat) would work better than a slugger, especially as this chopfrack judge would be more likely to understand it.

Amend also--shove a cricket ball all the way up using the bat, and leave both there!

[Nessa 23]

Unbelievable, that judge must be making some good $$$$

[sparkofcreation 0]

So what if she looked 16? Rape is rape and 16 is still a child. These are grown men!!! OMG!!!! Unbelievable!

16 is the age of consent in Britain. And many other places, for that matter.

I agree that rape is rape, of course. But I have to say I'm sick of seeing cases where a slightly older man (not as old as this case—I'm talking late teens, maybe 20-21 at the most) has sex with a girl who tells him she's older than she is (say, a 19-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old who claims to be, and looks, 16 or 17), looks older than she is, and then gets put in jail for five years and labeled a sex offender.

Edited June 29, 2007 by sparkofcreation

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Unbelievable, that judge must be making some good $$$$

Actually, LB sterling, but...

Girl's parents should sue this chopfrack for LB 1 billion, and ask for his decrowning.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Christ. What a ###### up judge. I would still, on balance, rather have a system, though, where decisions like sentencing in some matters should be at the judge's discretion, subject to review by attorneys general and guidelines.

Please tell me you misspoke. Your statement that the Attorney General should have the discretion to review sentences is like saying "If a plaintiff in a civil suit thinks they didn't get enough money, they should be allowed to review the judge's decision and take more if they think the decision was unfair." The Attorney General is the plaintiff in a criminal case.

Decisions are subject to review by appellate courts. Not the Attorney General.

As far as I know, in every state and the federal government, sentences are determined by guidelines and then the judge can, for good cause shown, impose less or more than the guidelines, subject to review by the next court up. [Although the Supreme Court has held that *some* reasons need to be proven to a jury, the judge can't just decide they happened and impose more because of them. The death penalty being the classic example, that always needs to be decided by a jury.]

[britty 1]

Lets remember this girl was raped - it is not even a consideration that she looked 10, 16, or 65. Rape is rape and this guy will pay in jail even for the four months he is there. Rapists are considered fair game in jail and he will be injured frequently. Lets not forget that the wardens in UK jails often turn a blind eye to the actions of other prisoners against scum inmates. We have heard this time and time again in the press. A lot of inmates have families and no one wants to have a rapist/paedo anywhere near them. Personally Im supporting forced castration for rapists - its got to be the way forward.