Posted on 09/01/2006 7:54:03 AM PDT by 300magnum
MONTPELIER, Vt. - A judge who sparked outrage when he sentenced a repeat sex offender to two months in jail said Friday he will retire.
Vermont District Court Judge Edward Cashman didn't mention the case that had made him a target of heated criticism from lawmakers, editorial writers and national cable news commentators.
In January, he imposed the short sentence on Mark Hulett, 34, who had been convicted for repeated sexual assaults on a young girl.
Cashman said the short sentence was the best way to get Hulett the sex offender treatment he needed. But he drew fire from Gov. Jim Douglas and others who called him soft on child predators and demanded his resignation.
State corrections officials later changed their policy for treating sex offenders, allowing Hulett to get treatment while in prison and prompting Cashman to increase the sentence to a three-year minimum.
By retiring, Cashman can avoid the six-year legislative review Vermont judges are subject to. His term expires in April, and he told Chief Justice Paul Reiber in a letter that he will step down then.
"My family and I have discussed this issue for some time," Cashman wrote. "Now in my mid-sixties, I must face the reality that I am no longer a young man. The prospect of another six years of the intense effort and attention needed to properly perform this function may exact a cost my family and I are no longer willing to pay."
Cashman was appointed to the bench in 1982.
James Gallagher, president of the Vermont Bar Association, said it was unfortunate that Cashman had to endure the criticism that he did.
"He has always struck me as a thoughtful, deliberative, careful person who was trying to do the right thing," Gallagher said. "It's sad to see someone with 23 years of honorable experience in the judiciary be subjected to so much criticism for a good-faith effort in trying to find the ethical requirements."
He's no less human than the rest of us. We all make mistakes. Granted, his was huge. But he's in a more critical arena than most of us.
No. He didn't "make a mistake." He deliberately avoided giving a repeat child molestor the jail sentenced that he deserved. This was not just a "mistake." It proves that the judge is evil. The judge is just as evil as the child molestor.
I didn't and don't 'defend' anything. I merely point out that the likelihood of any judge completing a 23-year career in error-free mode is ludicrous.
That's certainly true. And I would add that the likelihood that this is the "only" judge like it is, likewise, ludicrous.
The point I'm making is that the margin for error for people who make their living judging others is very, very narrow.
For example, I knew someone who was sent to prison for two marijuana cigarettes, back in the late 60s, and served 2-3 years of a 10 year sentence. I don't think that was good judgment on the judges part.
The treatment he needs is a whuppin' followed by life behind bars.
Sex offenders are NEVER cured.
Good riddance to the perv-enabler.
I can forgive him for his mistake, but only if he admits that what he did was wrong, and does what is in his power to make amends.
He is retiring, but he still isn't admitting that what he did was wrong.
Even if we forgive people for their mistakes, we still have to look at people and ask are they really repentant? Do they really feel that what they did was wrong? Not simply because of what they did, but what they are likely to do in the future.
This Judge appears to have been pressured to retire, but unless he's going to publicly say that what he did was wrong, and say that other judges should do differently, I have to think that he is still part of the problem.
I did not get the sense that he was coerced to retire. When I read that he said he had to face that he was no longer a young man, I felt this could be construed to mean he has some recognition that the masses view his thought processes as no longer functional, that retirement is the solution.
Admitting he was wrong won't change the record.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
It's understandable if (for example) an engineer makes a subtle mistake in a calculation, designs a bridge with 4" thick cables when it really needed 6" thick cables, and as a result it eventually collapses.
This judge's action is equivalent to an engineer handing in plans that call for the bridge to be supported with a couple of pieces of wax twine wrapped around a piano wire.
I suspect he retired because his "big case" brought the harsh light of day
onto the "restorative justice" movement that is being pushed onto the
criminal justice system.
When the case was "hot", O'Reilly had a lawyer on that said this is a
"movement" that been adopted in (IIRC) Minnesota and VT. And that the
proponents are being funded by George Soros.
Here's some commentary that connects the dots on the topic:
http://sixthcolumn.blogspot.com/2006/01/judge-cashman-vermont-and-restorative.html
And I don't argue that point. I said it was huge. We all know it was huge. And you just helped me make the point that some of us work in areas where the margin for error is way more critical than it is for the rest of us.
The worst thing that can go wrong for me is to make a typo or transpose a number. Doesn't effect anyone when I make a mistake at my job. Some folks seem to lose that persepctive on this issue.
"back in the late 60s, and served 2-3 years of a 10 year sentence. I don't think that was good judgment on the judges part."
Inasmuch as that was the law on the books back then, to have let your friend off would be what you are criticizing the Vermont judge for doing. A little consistency would be nice.
Very thoughtful and helpful post, thank you. This is the symptom of something far more sinister, as you point out.
Surely you are not serious! 10 years when a murderer would get only 7 ??? That's ridiculous.
Anyway, the point you're not getting is that it was the judge's choice to sentence anywhere from 2-10 years. This same man sentenced first offense murderers to 7 years. That makes him a moose twit, in my book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.