Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeAdmitted rapist's lenient punishment intolerable
January 23, 2006 —
Vermont District Court judge Edward Cashman came under fire last week after sentencing Mark Hulett to only 60 days in jail for the admitted rape of a six-year-old girl. Cashman's reasoning for the short sentence was that Hulett could not receive sex offender treatment while in prison and that he was "...likely to engage in future crime unless he has proper and timely treatment." Cashman argued that just putting Hulett in jail would not create a solution.
However, Cashman's decision has left the state in disarray, leaving everyone from Bill O'Reilly to state representatives crying foul. Attorney General William Sorrell has already admitted the state is filing a motion for the judge to reconsider the sentence while others are calling for Cashman's job.
Simply put, the sentence is intolerable. While there seems to be no agreeable minimum for such a heinous act most everyone would agree that 60 days is far from it. And while Cashman may have had pure intentions when delivering the sentence he too surely must recognize such an illogical decision. After all, this is the same man who, a decade ago, jailed a couple for 41 days for failing to cooperate with prosecutors who were after their son for a suspected rape. Sentencing a man who admitted raping a little girl to only 19 additional days is beyond reason.
However, people such as O'Reilly who are insinuating that the entire state of Vermont backs child predators are out of line. This particular situation is one incident involving one judge and one sentence. To believe that such a sentence is indicative of the state's overall view is unfair and ludicrous. Attacking the state would be putting far too much effort in the wrong place.
With that said, there is no doubt that the sentence needs to be changed. People have been jailed much longer for less severe crimes than Hulett's. It is in this case that the old cliche must hold true and his subsequent punishment, indeed, fit his crime.
People need to take a step back, though, and realize that the focus should not be on Cashman but rather setting the situation right. There have been far too many people saying Cashman should lose his job rather than change his sentence. That, it seems, is putting the focus on the wrong thing.
Ultimately, Cashman's fate is irrelevant to this case. Chances are, he will resign from or lose his position as a result of his controversial sentence and whether that is fair is, again, beside the point. Cashman has been known in the past as a tough judge and it goes without saying that he would never again issue such a lenient sentence. At last though, the only thing that truly matters now is that the man who took away a little girl's innocence is punished severely. And yet, even that does not seem enough because no matter the length of the sentence, justice will never prevail in the eyes of that little girl or her family.