Our pledge to you -- readers, advertisers, and subscribers -- is to provide socially responsible news and opinion on a human scale.
So it's socially responsible to cover for a judge that sentenced a child rapist to only sixty days?
I found the FR quotes mentioned to be very entertaining.
Fear the FREEP!
bump for this thread.. one of those quotes might be mine :p
So what was inaccurate about the initial sentencing of the scumbag in question by Judge Cashman? Did Cashman not say that he "did not believe in punishment", did he not refute the concept of retribution for such heinous crimes as was committed by the defendant? Was it not an accurate portrayal of Cashman, as a liberal-bleeding-heart more concerned with the sex pervert getting treatment, and less concerned about the impact upon the victim?
Sounds like either the MSM got it wrong from the beginning by reporting inaccurately, or they are defending the actions of the judge based on what was reported. Either way, the MSM is irresponsible.
The report was incorrect in two major respects: the sentence the judge imposed and the statements he made about punishment. The defendant pled guilty to three crimes pursuant to an agreement that gave him the chance to withdraw his plea if he was sentenced to more than 90 days to serve. The crimes were two counts of aggravated sexual assault (based on admissions that the defendant had, over the course of four years starting when the child victim was 6 years old, licked the child’s vagina on multiple occasions and placed his penis in the child’s mouth at least once) and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct (based on an admission that the child had stroked his penis “quite a few times”). Judge Cashman imposed an incarcerative sentence of 60 days to 10 years to serve for the first count, a consecutive probationary sentence of 5 years to life on the second count and a consecutive probationary 2- to 5-year sentence on the third count. Thus the statement that the judge “sentenced him to just 60 days in prison” was incorrect.
Ah, so he got 60 days in prison and probation. Big whoop of a difference.
As far as the judge’s position on “punishment,” the Joyce account was likewise wrong. What Judge Cashman actually said was “I keep telling prosecutors, and they won’t hear me, that punishment is not enough.”
Yeah, judge, but the punishement YOU handed down was nowhere near enough.
The judge said that he had “started out as a just deserts sentencer,” but he had “discovered it [retribution] accomplishes nothing of value … doesn’t make anything better, . . . and costs us a lot of money.”
Yeah, but it keeps a perv off the streets.
He now realized a sentence must “solve a problem” so that “people are better off after the sentencing than they were before.”
Unless, of course, they just rape another child after they are done. But what's a few ruined lives as long as a noble social experiment can go forward?
VT's print media are totally out of touch with reality.
A smearing of a judge? Lord have mercy.
Will Hunter? You forgot his first initial "G" JimRob.
Legislation and irresponsibility from the bench SUCKS!!!
OMG! I did quoted!
This made my day!
Bottom line is that the guy got 60 days in jail and probation for raping a little girl for years.
Is the Vermont Independence whining because nobody would listen to the judges defenders?
It's sad a journalist doesn't understand the need to back up his article's premise with any evidence. That's some good ol' fashioned lefty reporting there.
I read the article a couple times. Was the creep sentenced to sixty days or not? If so, then how can they claim that everybody has an erroneous interpretation of what happened?
Does anybody know what the statutory sentence in Vermont would be for the guy? What the hell are they talking about "judicial independence" for?
Judicial independence to ignore the statutes set by the duly elected legislature of the People of Vermont?
The spin is almost as bad as the crime and the sentence.
The article raises only one question in my mind: Did the prosecutor agree to a deal whereby the defendant would not be incarcerated for more than 90 days? If so, the prosecutor is also deserving of criticism.
Don't Fear The Freeper!
The guy is still free after 60 days. So what if he has to seek a monthly appointment with a psychiatrist. He is still free to abuse again. If anything is misleading is this papers attempt to paper over the fact that the judge is letting a child molester go free with merely 60 days of jail.