Don't Punish Vermont for the
Poor Judgment of a Man on a Bench
By James H. Hyde
Editor
 |
| Photo: Mark Hyde Copyright © 2006 All Rights Reserved. | Truly, to any rational person, the ruling was unthinkable, a sentence so inexcusably inadequate for the magnitude of the crime as to defy any court or psychological precedent.
Its author, Edward Cashman's concept of punishment for a convicted child rapist, a mere 60-day confinement--three months short of Martha Stewart's term--was an atrocity unmatched in Vermont's judicial history.
The victim, a young girl, will serve a life sentence, imprisoned not by bars of steel, but rather by bars of emotional trauma so strong they can't be broken, nor doorways to freedom opened. Gone is her innocence, her child-like trust, wonder and awe.
She shall live the entirety of her life with tormenting dreams, an understandable paranoia, and quite possibly be unable to bear children.
Cashman claims, to the astonishment of the nation, that, "punishment
doesn't work." He defends his decision by explaining that since the convict,
Mark Hulett, was ineligible for immediate treatment in prison, he needed to
be freed quickly to begin treatment.
Fortunately, the state has changed its rules specifically for this case. The prison system will allow this convicted pedophile to get treatment while incarcerated for an appropriate period of time. So Cashman has placed him behind bars for three years, but that’s still inadequate.
On its face, the ruling is anathema to the trust we confer on our judges to sentence appropriately. It's not a judge's place to decide whether or not punishment works, but rather he or she is tasked with meting out punishment suitable for the crime. If repeatedly raping a mere child is worthy of 60 days, then, by the rules of comparative thinking, murder should garner no more than a year.
This is yet the latest case of activist judges turning their backs on their sworn duties to uphold the law. We all are endangered and diminished by such precepts. For this ruling, Mr. Cashman must step down or be removed from the bench with all due haste.
The reaction, of course, has been swift and pointed. Vermont has become a state under siege, a pariah to a legitimately enraged nation.
But to those who have so committed themselves, we must ask with the utmost respect that you consider your decision carefully.
Was it Vermont B&B owners who handed down the ruling? Hotel owners? Spa and Resort operators? Restaurateurs? Museums? Ski Area owners? Cheese makers? Wood crafters? Nay, it was one woefully misguided judge.
Those of you stung to fury, enough so to make your feelings tangibly known, are correct. Truly this is malfeasance of the worst sort, but is it right to punish the many incredibly hard-working innkeepers, hotel owners, ski resort owners and restaurateurs, dairy farmers, wood carvers and chocolatiers for the gross misjudgment of someone one person on the bench? To do so is to deny oneself the extraordinary wonder that is Vermont.
Any of us in New England who might say that Vermont does not need you would to be mortally naive. Tourism and the myriad fine products manufactured or prepared here are what make Vermont special, but to punish the state for the actions of a pedophile apologist seem draconian to me.
All we ask is that you reconsider. Let not a lapse in judgment keep you away. Don't punish a state for the bad ruling of one activist old man.
Make your protests known, but please don't carry out your promise to avoid that is Vermont. It is a good state and we want to share it with you. Don't deny yourself the opportunity to partake of all it offers.
Jim Hyde, an author, award-winning writer and syndicated columnist, is editor and co-owner with his wife, Terry, of a top-ranked New England Website, NewEnglandTimes.Com, which covers travel, tourism, real estate and lifestyles.
|
