After reading this article I was so livid I had to calm down a couple hours before posting this.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4325804&nav=4QcS



Also the Judge said he no longer believes in punishment!!

His reasoning for a 60 day sentence was to put the man in rehab as soon as possible.

Rehab for child rapists???


Questions for debate.

1. Should there be a way for the community to impeach or remove a judge like this from the bench.

2. Do you agree with the decision for the child rapist to be given 60 days in jail then be put in rehab?

3. Do you believe rehab is the right course of action for child rapists?

I heard this on The Abrams Report on MSNBC, and I was stunned.

1. Should there be a way for the community to impeach or remove a judge like this from the bench.

Well, he is an ellected official, so in the general sense, yes. The problem is though we can't hold impeachment trials because of rulings we disagree with.

2. Do you agree with the decision for the child rapist to be given 60 days in jail then be put in rehab?

No. The psych evaluators determined that he was at a low-risk from committing similar acts in the future, which sounds completely insane since he's guilty of committing these acts over a four year period. Because he was deemed as low-risk, they could not give him special protection in jail, which is I think half of the rationale behind this decision. The fact of the matter is what he did, on face value, should deserve more than sixty days in jail. He tormented this girl for at least four years, and has done immeasurable damage to her that will last her for life.

3. Do you believe rehab is the right course of action for child rapists?

Sure, as long as they're in jail during the treatment. I imagine they don't return your license for a DUI while youre going through court mandated treatment, why is this the case here?

Sure, if he isn't following the law. If its lawfull for him to give out this sentece, I can see no reason to impeach or remove him, unfortunate as that may be. Here in Denmark the accused and the state attorney both have the possibility to appeal a sentence, no matter the verdict, from muncipal court to national court. The national court sentence can then again be appealed to the supreme court, but only regarding sentencing. That guards against decisions like this.


Well, if rehab is as secure as prison and he is confined to rehab for as many years as a proper prison sentence would have been, then fine. I don't believe in rehab for crimes like this, but I don't consider being confined to a psych ward a more lenient sentence, than being put in prison. I know here in Denmark, that I would prefer being in prison over being comitted, but of course we have very "nice" prisons compared to the United States (too nice if you ask me).


No, its not an addiction they can be simply cured from - its crime, and should be punished accordingly - and harshly at that. I may be a liberal, and I think some criminals deserve a second chance, but child rapists, rapists, pedophiles and murderers are not among them. Lock them up and throw away the key.

Our "corrections" system leaves a lot to be desired. Regardless. How depressing that we are better served by filling up cells with crack pimps instead of child rapists.

Should there be a way for the community to impeach or remove a judge like this from the bench.
Not likely. Have we ever removed a judge for the sentence he delivered?

1. Do you agree with the decision for the child rapist to be given 60 days in jail then be put in rehab?

2. Do you believe rehab is the right course of action for child rapists?

1. If it keeps molesters away from society longer. Meaning, if they're sentence to rehab after serving their jail sentence I won't complain.

2. I think it depends. There may be a small chance of rehabilitation for molesters who were the victims of molestation themselves. I'm not as optimistic about a chemical imbalance or psychosis. Did anyone watch the Dateline special on child sexual predators? Dangers Children Face Online. With the help of Perverted Justice men from all walks of life (enlisted military, a rabbi, OBGYN doctor, school teacher, etc.) showed up to a house rented by Dateline for what they believed was going to be a sexual encounter with a minor boy or girl. As if being caught once wasn’t bad enough, one of the guys showed up elsewhere.

QUOTE

1. Should there be a way for the community to impeach or remove a judge like this from the bench.

If he is “elected” the option to recall should be there. Obviously he has issues. I have two friends who are clinical psychologists. I have discussed issues like this with them and they both tell me that sexual predators cannot be “cured”. This man is IMO a dangerous sexual predator and should be kept off the street. 60 days is ludicrous and so is “rehab”.

QUOTE

2. Do you agree with the decision for the child rapist to be given 60 days in jail then be put in rehab?

No. But lets face it, as a country, we put more dangerous people back on the street every day then just about any other industrial country. From gun crime to sexual crimes in far too many cases we just pour the bad guys back onto the street – and innocent people pay the price.

QUOTE

3. Do you believe rehab is the right course of action for child rapists?

NO. 20 years to life in prison sounds better to me.

1. Should there be a way for the community to impeach or remove a judge like this from the bench.

A judge should not be removed for an unpopular verdict or sentence. However, the man's judicial philosophy is certainly relevant:



The fact that a judge does not believe in punishment is astounding. I wonder what he believes his job is, then. Perhaps he wants to hand out lollypops to murderers, since punishing them would "corrode his soul".

The man should be removed for having a judicial view which is so far out of the mainstream of jurisprudence that it is laughable.

As far as his desire to rehab this creep, I find it funny because the rapist is unlikely to find victims while in jail. Also, most doctors agree that pedophiles cannot be cured, they can only be treated. This is because pedophilia is rooted in sexual desire for children. Just as homosexuals cannot be "cured", neither can pedophiles.

2. Do you agree with the decision for the child rapist to be given 60 days in jail then be put in rehab?

We must recall that this was not a one time incident. This recurred over a period of four years. 60 days for the destruction of a child's life is ridiculous.

3. Do you believe rehab is the right course of action for child rapists?

No. Castration is more like it.

Amlord

I agree and will go one step further. If this man really believes “punishment doesn’t work” how about his duty to safeguard the public by removing dangerous, violent predators from our midst?

If this crime merits 60 days how about numerous other crimes. Should we just pour this type of person back onto the street and tell the rest of us to be armed and ready?? Makes no sense. This man is shirking his duty to the people who elected him.

2. Do you agree with the decision for the child rapist to be given 60 days in jail then be put in rehab?

It is my opinion that sex Offenders never can truly be rehabilitated. In fact there is a man, his name escapes me, that I have seen on a number of shows who is a sex offender...raped little boys. he contends that most offenders never can get away from the desire to re-offend and the only way to live back in society NOT as an offender is to work hard EVERY day to stay away from Children...don't go places where they are...don't visit sites that show them. However...I just think that is not good enough...chances are WAY too high for a relapse and i don't want my kid to be the one that he/she relapses with/
Therefore, I believe that locking a sex offender away for as long as possible is the greatest good for society...since rehab, from the mouth of an offender himself, does not work.

Most "reformed" child rapists agree.

I attended a seminar last year regarding this type of crime. It contained interviews with convicted child rapists that confirm that the "itch" is still there and that they still "think about it".

The only places that I know of where there are no children is prison and Antarctica. Since it would be cruel to send people to Antarctica, we should send them to prison.

Ah! That old chestnut! Fun as it sounds, it doesn't work. After puberty, testosterone, while mostly comgin from the testicles, is also produced by the adrenal glands and other parts of the endocrine system, so it's fairly unlikely that the sexual appetites of an adult male castrato would be materilly very different, particularly in terms of potency.

It would still, therefore, be dangerous to relase such a person into the community without some other form of supervision (or, dare I say, rehabilitation). What's more, not only would they likely still have their prexisting animus for children (or women, in the case of adult rapists), and would still be entirely capable of abuse and/or rape, but they now have an additional (and rather more understandable) grudge against the whole of society, and might be even more dangerous.

So the castrated offender still needs to be separated from potential victims in some way (e.g. imprisonment) if the object is to remove the risk of reoffending.

And, if they are going to have to be in prison anyway, there's no earthly point in the castration itself except vindictiveness - it would surely qualify as cruel & unusual punishment. It's why all advanced nations stopped doing it in the 18th century or earlier.



1. Should there be a way for the community to impeach or remove a judge like this from the bench?

From the article:


So it doesn't look like there IS a way. Perhaps there SHOULD be a way, but it needs to remain fairly inaccessible, or the risk would be that judges would end up sentencing with less of a mind for the case and the crime before them, and more of a mind for what the papers will say the next day. The reason we have a formalised justice system in the first place is to prevent mob rule, so we should throw out the baby with the bath water.

2. Do you agree with the decision for the child rapist to be given 60 days in jail then be put in rehab?

Not really, no, but it does depend on the specifics of the case. In this case, certainly not, but in some bordeline cases where a 19 year old sleeps with a mature looking 14 year old while genuinely believing they are of age (whichever way the genders pan out), it might be an appropriate sentence. But generally I disapprove of mandatory minimum sentences anyway.

3. Do you believe rehab is the right course of action for child rapists?

Yes, as well as imprisonment, often for life. They shoud get their rehabilitation treatment while in prison as part of their sentence.

Paedolphilia and rape are not addictions, but they are (I believe) learned or malformed behaviours and not just a manifestation of adult sexual preferences of which society happens to disapprove.

I get an uncomfortable feeling when I hear things like this, because there's an unspoken implication that homosexuality is being mentally bracketed in the same "deviant" category, even though society approves of that enough to have removed most of the legal restrictions on practising it.

I don't think that paedophilia is somehow on the same spectrum of hetero- through bi- to homo- sexuality at all. It is materially different, and I don't think it's helpful to discussion of "what to do about paedophiles" to start talking about homosexuality as if they have anything to do with one another.

And (proving that I'm perhaps not quite as enlightened as I might have imagined by feeling the need to mention this), for the record, I am straight.

Julian,

why do you assert that pedophilia is not an addiction? I disagree...I think it most def. is a form of addiction and, for that reason, it is so hard to every "reform."

Call me crazy, but I don't see anything in the Judge's statements that say "I don't believe in punishment." He says quite clearly that retribution and revenge are useless, and he is largely right, but there is nothing in there about punishment. Is he out of line with mainstream jurisprudence? Maybe. But when you consider the overwhelming evidence that mandatory minimum sentences don't work, that jail is the largest factor in recidivism, and that restorative justice is effective at reducing crime rates (especially in young offenders), then he might not be wrong; in general.

In this case in particular, we are throwing around an awful lot of assumptions. Child abuse is not necessarily a symptom of pedophilia, so we should be careful throwing that word around. Pedophilia is a clinical term, and the last time I checked nobody in this thread is a clinical psychologist. I'm not disagreeing with anything that has been said necessarily regarding the particulars of this case, but I'm not going to condemn a decision based on the second-hand observations of a beat journalist regarding a complicated psychological issue.

1) If there are not lawful means, we could always stage a "creative" accident [I won't tell if you won't tell, on the pinky-finger swear].

2) As concerns the sentence, I found this online [ http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4330770&nav=4QcS ]:

""Well, offenders who have offended against a family member or another relative or neighbor who has not committed a prior offense typically score low on these risk assessment instruments, particularly if they have not, do not have any prior criminal history," Cumming added."

So, in addition to staging a creative accident to remove Judge Stooge from the bench, we'll have to also do something in regards to those who are responsible for these inane guidelines. All I will otherwise say in that regard is that MOST child molestations/rapes are committed by a family member or neighbor. And as the cited item further reports, it is precisely because of the low-risk assessment and the existing practice respecting the same, that low risk does not get treatment until release from incarceration. So, as the judge himself admitted, the short sentence had nothing to do with whatever other factors or items were relevant to sentencing, but merely and entirely to the desire to get this poor soul some treatment. Now, to be fair, the sentence is actually 60 days to 10 years. The reason why all we hearing about is the 60 days is all concerned are under no illusions [well, maybe some illusions], and the reality is the vast majority of inmates in Vermont are released after serving the minimum term.

And to bring one's [my] faith/religion into this, sorry, Judge, but, be angry but do not sin [seems that the "good" Judge was absent or asleep for that part of Sunday school]. Well, that, and it shall be life for life, eye for eye, rape for rape...[we have some military personnel expert in use of the glow-stick, so call it killing those proverbial two birds with one stone, and if we must show mercy to some and not be angrily sinful, those with the glow-sticks and the naked pyramid are far more deserving than this cretin, but I won't be holding my breath when it comes to assessed low risk and likilihood of repeat offense when it comes to their sentencing].

3) How about incarceration AND rehab? And the rehab is what we owe to ourselves and not to this miscreant [at least in the strictly legal sense], and the "good" Judge should know better, i.e., he should know that there is no constitutional imperative to provide such rehab and so the failure of the state to accomplish what he thinks best does not relieve him of his responsiblity of keeping his oath of office.

All that I can otherwise say is simply what Willy Brandt said upon the escape of terrorist Inge Viett [Baader-Meinhof] and some of her friends from jail....to wit...words fail me...

Well, I could say more, but then I'd be opening that can of worms relating to the slippery slope argument that, as someone alluded to, since this preference is like some other preferences, we can't blame him and so cannot punish him or otherwise discriminate against him...so welcome to our brave new world....

Ultimate Joe:

Re the need for a clinical psychologist, from Justice Mosk's concurring and dissenting opinion in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California:

"In Burnick, at pages 325-326, we observed: "In the light of recent studies it is no longer heresy to question the reliability of psychiatric predictions. Psychiatrists themselves would be the first to admit that however desirable an infallible crystal ball might be, it is not among the tools of their profession. It must be conceded that psychiatrists still experience considerable difficulty in confidently and accurately diagnosing mental illness. Yet those difficulties are multiplied manyfold when psychiatrists venture from diagnosis to prognosis and undertake to predict the consequences of such illness: '" A diagnosis of mental illness tells us nothing about whether the person so diagnosed is or is not dangerous. Some mental patients are dangerous, some are not. Perhaps the psychiatrist is an expert at deciding whether a person is mentally ill, but is he an expert at predicting which of the persons so diagnosed are dangerous? Sane people, too, are dangerous, and it may legitimately be inquired whether there is anything in the education, training or experience of psychiatrists which renders them particularly adept at predicting dangerous behavior. Predictions of dangerous behavior, no matter who makes them, are incredibly inaccurate, and there is a growing consensus that psychiatrists are not uniquely qualified to predict dangerous behavior and are, in fact, less accurate in their predictions than other professionals."' (Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court (1972) ... 407 U.S. 355, 364-365, fn. 2 [32 L.Ed.2d 791, 796-797, 92 S.Ct. 2091] (Douglas, J., dissenting from dismissal of certiorari).)" (Fns. omitted.) (See also authorities cited at p. 327 & fn. 18 of 14 Cal.3d.)"

I would otherwise simply ask that you read:

http://www.ctvip.org/surgeongeneral.html

And note:

"The thresholds of mental illness or disorder have, indeed been set by convention…"

Another way of putting that is that a group of people got together over shrimp cocktails and some martinis and decided to call it....and then they listed what they consider the "diagnostic criteria." Call it circular reasoning at its best.

And staying with convention:

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

"Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
(cautionary statement)

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

Limited to Incest

Specify type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type"

Now, the obvious question? Is this man a pedophile? The only question that need be answered is that part about fantasy or urge [he's admitted the conduct part, and we know their ages]. If you've some better explanation as to mental state that explains the conduct in question, then be my proverbial guest. Failing that, we don't need to hear from the purported "professionals." And for the part that truly separates the men from the boys, that's the heart of the matter here....prepubescent. And we think it "abnormal" and/or "disordered" for the adult male to have sexual fantasies and urges concerning, pertaining, and relating to the prepubescent female. And that's why we put you in jail if you do such, and that's why the "professionals" got together over a lunch featuring shrimp cocktails and martinis and decided to call it something that could be included in their DSM.

And, lastly, while Mr. Cruise may have went a tad bit over the top, he's still in the ballpark. Please see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...9&dopt=Abstract

And here is the whole problem with treating pedophilia as a mental disease and/or illness [ http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/wh...s_dsm_iv_tr.htm ]:

"Several of the Paraphilias (exhibitionism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and voyeurism) can now be diagnosed if they are acted upon, even though they may not cause the person whose behavior is in question distress or impaired functioning as a result."

And the reason for that concern is that the DSM at one time [and still may] report that:

"The Paraphilias are characterized by recurrent, intense, sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The Paraphilias include Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Frotteurism, Pedophilia, Sexual Masochism, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism, Voyeurism, and Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified."

Yeah, one normally goes to the shrink because one perceives that one's life is being adversely affected by some mental process, i.e., one is aware that one is experiencing mental distress and/or impaired functioning. Is that true with respect to pedophilia? It appears that our friend was getting along fine [no evidence of impaired functioning] and was otherwise exhibiting no remorse [so no distress]. On that basis there is zero need for any therapy whatsoever. The need only and solely arises because of our MORAL judgment that pedophilia is wrong and we believe that "therapy" can help all concerned. Of course, maybe the rather high rate of recidivism means that we are mistaken, at least as concerns that second part.

Sorry, one more. Back to our little friend and fellow child of God. How old was she? Well, from the DSM: "Individuals with Pedophilia generally report an attraction to children of a particular age range. Some individuals prefer males, others females, and some are aroused by both males and females. Those attracted to females usually prefer 8- to 10-year-olds..."

Need I say....case closed?

If the Rehab last for a very, very long time and the persons access the Children is denied during that period: Yes. But if it for a short period, then the Rehab should include castration.

See above.

The problem with Jail is that it does not ‘solve’ the problem, just puts it on the shelf for a later date.

But to stir the Pot: Why not do what the Romans and Greeks did, and just legalize it? Not that I’m condoning that type of activity, but both those cultures lasted for a lot longer than we did and didn’t seem to have any adverse negative effects from it.



As for Crime and Punishment in general: The above scenario is as bad as the President who is being given a pass for illegally wire tapping Americans without a Warrant. As for the Judge, he reminds me of the Electorate that reelected the same President that invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.

Personally I think this Judge is the lesser of two evils in the above scenario. If we want to claim to follow the Law, then let’s follow it in ALL Circumstances and not Cherry Pick our Outrage. The last time I checked; Torture, commonly referred to as Abuse by its supporters, was a Crime under the 1996 War Crimes Act.

Crime and punishment thread, neat.

Well, if someone is worried if a person will or will not repeat an offense, we can only currently guess at that, barring keeping that particular person locked away forever, where that amount of damage can only be local to that situation, or we can basically give that person a lobotomy, in which case he or she probably will be doing the assisted living Dracula bit. That I think are the only true ways in which to protect from a possible repeat of any crime, be it car thief, murder to raping children.

While I may not agree with the situation that birthed this thread it is indeed interesting. Is punishment to really remedy the situation, or is it some form of a quick fix, or is it just retribution. I always like in situations where we argue that severe criminal punishment deters crime, and why Texas with its death row always has a new inmate to "punish". Maybe it one thousand years and x amount of thousands of people put to death in Texas people may question that philosophy.

Forensic science works better then psychology currently in regards to legal matters, but I guess the question on psychology is how useful is it in regards to obtaining if a person will commit as act such as this again. My personal opinion on psychology is it has a way to go. People at large really do not concern themselves with wanting to know truly about nature and nurture as it would boil down to personal toothpaste product selection and individual metabolism. Mostly this is relegated to certain people that for the most part only really get philosophical with it, which is at best a temporary and flawed creature to begin with.

To me the bright burning star of a fact in all of this is humanity really does not know enough o remedy such a situation, and at best just reacts instinctively as it would to extinction in some form of self protection.

I mostly think its an outrage not only because of the type of crime, but simply because something like this is exotic in occurrence. The real question is with such a reduced sentence in route to the next stage I guess in the persons incarceration will it be enough to satisfy those that were harmed by this person, being its the basic means of revenge anymore in our civil society. Well, that would be relative to the individuals I guess, and there opinion would merit the best evidence for how to perceive this case maybe, withholding overall any sense of a large social justice system.

You know what disturbs me in all this... What about the girl who was raped over these 3 years?

She will never have a normal life.. EVER. Her life has been practically ruined and now this man will be out and free in 60 days. Only to attend 'rehab', which has already been addressed in this thread, does not work for pedophiles.

We seem so concerned with criminals rights. I say, what about the children who are victims to rape?

It is really a vicious cycle Sleeper. The fact is that most pedophiles were victims of abuse themselves. There is a total lack of funding and guidelines set in place for victims. Therefore, most victims receive little to no psychological care which causes them to often repeat the cycle when they are adults.

Should the money allotted to rehab for offenders instead be offered for the rehabilitation of the victims? Should it be mandatory that victims attend a rehabilitation program?

I posted some statistics on abuse victims turning into abusers a short while ago - a couple of months before you started posting here. (Here is a link)

While my contention that prior abuse is the biggest single identifiable factor in personal history among child abusers (other than the very obvious fact that a majority are male), the studies I found indicate that something between 12 and 25% of abusers were themselves abused.

This is certainly significant, and it doesn't negate your point that rehab can and should be a valid tool in the judicial kit, but it does mean that you're wrong to suggest that a "most pedophiles were victims of abuse themselves" - this just isn't true. (And yes, I admit that I thought this was the case until I did the necessary digging.)

I just called my friends dad who is a Psychologist with a specialty in Sexual Deviance out of new orleans and he says those numbers are SUPER low. He says that a staggering number of pedophiles were victims of sexual abuse in one form or another. This includes being exposed to a parent partaking in sexual activities at a young age. I didn't mean that most pedophiles were necessarily raped as childred...there are many forms of abuse...both visual and physical.

Unfortunately, I am not educated in these type of issues so, at this point, I will call this an opinion.

Just an update:

Tomorrow(Friday) There is the possibility that this Judge can resentence the rapist.

Well it's been over 12 hours so I can't revise my post.

The Judge did not resentence the child rapist and is sticking to his decision for a 60 day jail term with treatment after.

Also it seems Bill O'Reilley has latched onto this issue, and I am thankful for that.
Many of you may not like him, but I think he will get something accomplished in regards to Judges like Cashman.

On the issue of being removed based on his decision and what he said. He can be removed based on the statement he made about not believing in punishment. Part of his job as a judge is to administer punishment and by not doing so he is failing to do his job.

I know I said this before, but it bears repeating... where did he say he was against punishment? I saw a statement that questioned retribution and vengeance in the justice system.

From the article in the first post(Emphasis mine)