[VeniVidiVici]

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.

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?

[JCEccles]

Exactly. The writer boiled up ten thousand words in a outrageous attempt to prove that the judge actually sent the pedophile to prison for five years to life.

Typical leftist revisionist history and agitprop. The writer is trying to put all of the judge's critics in the wrong. The judge and the criminal are the true victims in this liberal fantasy.

The judge sent the pedophile to jail for 60 days for the serial sexual abuse of a child occurring over the span of several years. The judge also expressed quite clearly that he no longer believed that punishment for such crimes served any useful purpose.

First and foremost the judge wants to reform pedophiles, not imprison them. Pedophiles CANNOT be reformed. Their predatory habits can only be controlled to a greater or lesser extent.

The blogosphere, led by Free Republic, did a good job expressing the outrage of the larger community at this attempt to transform "justice for perverts" into "perverted justice."

[RockinRight]

His sentence should involve having done to him what he did to that little girl...by a guy as well endowed as John Holmes and as tough as Mike Tyson...three times as often and for three times as long as he did it to her.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"Bottom line is that the guy got 60 days in jail and probation for raping a little girl for years."

Exactly, provided he followed treatment and probation guidelines 60 days is the time he would do and the rest of the sentence would apply if he did not, which was explained on O'Reilly and elsewhere at the time.

There are no revelations in this piece. They are making the bogus excuse that the 60 day sentence was not an outrage in itself. They are well aware that the determination of how well the probationer is doing is up the Judge and probation officers and that process in no way protects the public as well as incarceration of the offender. On the streets he could reoffend and get away with it. In prison there are no children available to molest.

The piece goes on to criticize the posters and bloggers who express their outrage over Judge Cashman. If an observer is not outraged by this decision they are the ones who are wrong. Apparently, Will Hunter is among them.