What exactly is the nature of the "treatment" which the judge dictates for after the 60 days? I understand that he gets life imprisonment if he does not cooperate fully at that time, but what does cooperating fully entail?
Regardless of how he feels, he obviously isn't mentally retarded, and he did the crime. Remorse is nice, but I doubt it makes that little girl feel any better about what he did to her.
Lock him away, give him the treatment that he needs so when/if he gets out he can be a member of society, but he still needs to be punished.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cashman, though, told the crowded courtroom that punishment was not his priority in sentencing Hulett, but rather finding treatment for the man to prevent future abuse.
Life in prison won't prevent future abuse? Well, ok, it might not prevent HIS future abuse...
quote:Cashman disagreed, saying retribution "accomplishes nothing of value."
"We feed on anger," the judge said. "That's not my job. I've got to do something that solves problems. The one message I want to get through is, anger doesn't solve anything."
A very large part of me screams that this man deserves to be locked up and gang-raped by his fellow criminals for the rest of his natural life, but I can't fault the judge's attitude that solving problems is his primary concern, and that anger solves nothing. But the more I think about it (especially thinking about that poor, poor girl and her family), the more I think that life in prison solves the problem quite neatly and there's no chance of a relapse when he's behind bars, even if he does represent a "low risk" for repeated offense.
Does the rapist have a family? I wonder what they have to say.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lock him away, give him the treatment that he needs so when/if he gets out he can be a member of society, but he still needs to be punished.
I think that appears to be one of the troublesome factors: he can't get "treatment" (whatever that means) while imprisoned.
If the "treatment" is in a locked-down, forensic psych facility (similar to the one in Alton, Illinois), it is pretty equivalent to prison time. (I worked there for a few months, and I remember it vividly.)
I can't help but think there is more to this story than we've seen here so far. I agree that on the surface, the sentencing seems insane. However, I've gotten used to later becoming aware of my own ignorance in such cases.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for clarity: this man was a friend of the family (if I understand correctly) who started raping the child when she was 6 years of age. I can't fathom how that would equate to "low risk" of recurrent behavior, unless they mean "low risk while imprisoned," as there are few 6-year-old girls in prisons these days. Maybe that is why the system refuses treatment during incarceration. (?)
But what sort of "treatment" is this? I am unaware of any treatment for sexual molestation of young children by adults which has a remotely successful track record.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't understand the "he can't get treatment while in prison, so let's not send him to prison" thing. What is this mysterious treatment that he can't get while in jail?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was my impression, too. I could make sense of tranferring to a locked-down forensic psych facility for (what at least might be) effective treatment, but not for (what is known to be) ineffective treatment. The latter would just be a fancy sidestep.
[I mean, the distinction really does matter. I'm not convinced that both are tenable options in this case, though.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and I don't understand why they think he is a not a high risk repeat offender. Is it because there are no other accusations against him besides this one?
One of the articles seemed to imply that the judge's behavior was off in other ways, besides the sentance.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry to say this, but I still feel that child molesters should be treated as if a rabid dog was seen roaming around a playground.
Bang. There is just too much chance of endangering the life and psyche of one or more children each time a molester ever sets foot outside of a prison.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm always shocked at how light the sentances are in most cases.
I served on a jury for a case of a man accused of possessing and distributing images of child abuse: aka kiddie porn. In that case they had to go through each of the trials and punishments handed down for each set of children abused, as part of the legal requirement to prove that they are actual children (a whole 'nother subject about the supreme court and kiddie porn).
But the sentances handed down in those cases, which were terrible, ranged between 4-10 yrs. Which seemed really light to me, especially since some were older cases and involved kidnapping and all involved distributing images! Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cashman disagreed, saying retribution "accomplishes nothing of value." "We feed on anger," the judge said. "That's not my job. I've got to do something that solves problems. The one message I want to get through is, anger doesn't solve anything."
I agree that there's likely more to this story, but for the life of me, I can't fathom what "more" could exist that would make me think 60 days is adequate. It's sentences like this that make me understand the desire for legislatures enacting minimum sentences - something I tend to oppose.
I hope there's a good-behavior for life requirement attached to the post-treatment release.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly. 60 days? That's less than boot camp.
Right. And if it's followed up by 5 years at a locked-down, forensic psych center, it may well be an appropriate analogy in more ways than you can imagine.
I, a student worker, was physically assaulted twice in three months at an externship at Alton. It was a marvelous learning experience, but boy, was I ever glad to lock the doors behind me.
-------------------------
Edited to add: Just to be clear, I was okay afterwards, except for a few bruises. We carried alert-buttons on our keychains, and the noise would summon guards quickly. The facility itself was as safe and humane as it could be made to be; however, some dangers just came with the territory. But for those patients with serious legal histories, it was no walk in the park. By its nature, it was a scary place.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not totally on the same topic, but something I saw today that kinda floored me was the way our county handled a recent case where a woman was killed and her mother critically injured. The woman who caused the death and injury was driving her Ford Explorer and for no known reason lost control, speeding across four lanes of traffic, down into a median, through a cable barrier and into oncoming traffic travelling 70 miles per hour (the speedlimit at the time). Her car landed on top of the vehicle the dead woman and her mother were in, causing instant death.
The consequences? A $538 fine.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there's no known reason, then there's no proof of intent or other mental states. Very few crimes with prison sentences don't require some mental state element in order to convict.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no intent to harm when out drinking and driving, yet the consequences for that are pretty darned hefty if you kill someone.
She's sealed her medical records and won't share them with investigators. Currently the legal battle is to get the courts to turn them over to see if they hold a clue to why she lost control.
I wouldn't want to be the dead girl's family in this case.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's no intent to harm when out drinking and driving, yet the consequences for that are pretty darned hefty if you kill someone.
The intent doesn't have to be to harm, and other mental states (such as recklessness) can be the basis for criminal conviction.
For example, if she has fainting episodes and has been warned not to drive by a doctor, she could be found to be reckless and be convicted of something.
Whether they can get the medical records will depend on the rules of evidence in that state.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's no intent to harm when out drinking and driving, yet the consequences for that are pretty darned hefty if you kill someone.
There is definitely some reckless endangerment going on there, though. Willingly doing something that you know is likely to kill someone, even if you don't specifically intend to kill someone, still strikes me as criminal intent. (Though I'm far from being any kind of lawyer.)
Hard to say whether or not such a description would apply to the woman in question.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the woman in the second case, I have to say, there is such a thing as a genuine accident that really isn't someone's fault.
About the rapist, though, that's ridiculous. Unless the fabled 'treatment' is castration with a rusty chainsaw; I can see where that is a bit difficult to supply in a prison clinic.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:About the rapist, though, that's ridiculous. Unless the fabled 'treatment' is castration with a rusty chainsaw; I can see where that is a bit difficult to supply in a prison clinic.
Are you kidding? I'm betting rusty chainsaws are standard issue.
Along with rusty spoons, dull knives, etc....
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My tendency would be to start at a life sentence and work my way down from there if truly unique circumstances existed.
quote:And more importantly the judge announced that after 25 years on the bench, he no longer believes in punishment.
Sounds to me this judge should be impeached, since he admits he no longer intends to carry out an important part of his official duties.
The newspaper mentioned he couldn't be impeached just for a sentencing decision, but his declaration that he doesn't "believe in punishment" coupled with concrete evidence of how this belief will affect sentencing might be enough.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose the fact that he's going to be on probation for the rest of his life adds something to this. Personally, I think they should have saved some time and thrown him in the slammer. We had a similar issue here in Idaho a few years back, though not quite as severe. A student here was going around peeping on girls in the area and exposing himself to them. There were occasion where he had aparently walked into some girls' apartments wearing nothing but a bag on his head. He got caught, arrested, and sentenced to nothing but never being able to enter the state of Idaho again. He was arrested for child molestation in Utah (he was working in a hospital of all places) less than 6 months later and sent to prison for that crime, causing the families of those victims to go ape-snot at the Idaho judiciary. If this guy ends up repeating his offense, not only should he be sent to prison for life, but the judge should lose his job (And I'm thinking fined or handed over for a nice chunky lawsuit).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was raping this girl for three years and he gets 2 months because he says he's sorry and wants to get treatment?
He should have been sorry and wanted to get treatment three years ago! I don't really care about his re-entering society, and I don't care that he's on parole so he'll be more harshly judged if he ever does something like this again, because it will be too damn late if he does something like this again.
Maybe punishment wasn't Cashman's priority, but if JUSTICE were to be done, the rapist should have to spend the rest of his life working to pay for the girl's counselling and education. He's certainly done enough damage.
posted
So wait….. have I finally found it? The holy grail of subjects? Something we all agree upon? Wow…. very interesting.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm sure there's some angle of the story that we might disagree on. But yeah, we all agree that the punishment or whatever the heck it is is not adequate, I would think.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: So wait….. have I finally found it? The holy grail of subjects?
Something we all agree upon?
You got that right!
If the Judge doesn't believe in punishment then he should get another job. Who is going to pay for the child's treatment? Grrr!
Reminds me of a Judge here in Florida who threw a bunch of people in traffic court into jail because they were late. They'd been sent to the wrong Courtroom.
If he cannot be impeached, that Judge should be sued in civil court for the damages. Hopefully this will be an issue in his reelection.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This judge is correct that it is not his place to take revenge upon convicted criminals. Whether victims will feel better if such revenge is enacted makes no difference. Convicted criminals remain citizens and human beings, and thus have a right not to be treated with needless cruelty.
Instead the judge's job is to assign an appropriate punishment to ensure the law is followed, with a reasonable degree of confidence, taking into consideration the severity of the crime, the risk it poses to the well-being of others, and the degree to which the punishment would harm the well-being of the criminal. The goal should be the minimum punishment possible that will achieve that desired result. If the evidence suggests that 60 days in prison plus treatment will bring this man back into accordance with the law, then such a punishment is perfectly fine. I can't say what about this case makes the judge think that is the case, but I also don't see any reason for us to presume it is not the case.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than the fact that research shows that recidivism in child molesters is unbelievably high, and so it defies logic that 60 days plus counseling will do the trick--but wait, I was talking about reality. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think 6,000 days plus counseling will do the trick any better. The amount of prison time seems almost irrelevant. The counseling either will help him or it won't. Adding more prison time won't make the treatment any more effective.
The government has a responsibility to give its convicted citizens the benefit of the doubt, and assume they do have some chance to reform, even when research says it is very unlikely. It can't simply assume they will always act criminally, any more that it can simply assume people are guilty without proving it. Eventually it should release him, after some attempt to reform him - given this, and given that he already seems to want reform, it makes some sense to limit his jail time in favor of more counseling time. More jail time would harm him more and be more costly to the government, with little to no benefit in reforming him.
posted
I agree with Sopwith on this one. But then I think any and all child molesters should be shot. Just my view on it.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dignity and the worth of the victim of a violent crime demands more than rehabilitation of the victimizer. Attempting to rehabilitate this man isn't going to ease the suffering of his victim. It isn't even necessarily going to guarantee that he won't offend again. And that isn't just improper; it's an insult to the victim.
If he had attempted to seek treatment and rehabilitation before a pattern of three years of abuse had emerged, I might be willing to believe he was capable or deserving of rehabilitation. A man who rapes a child for three years doesn't deserve that kind of consideration at the cost of his victim's worth and dignity.
There are people serving more time in jail whose crimes victimized no one but themselves.
quote:More jail time would harm him more and be more costly to the government, with little to no benefit in reforming him.
It may not benefit him, but it would certainly benefit his victim and any other potential victims out there - in that they would not be victimized by him during that time. Counseling would only be valuable if done in a setting where he could not simultaneously get out and hurt the victim again. The government's responsibility is not only to reform the criminal, it's also to protect the victim and other citizens from the criminal's recurring behavior.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Other than the fact that research shows that recidivism in child molesters is unbelievably high
I don't know what 'unbelievably high' constitutes, but research is not so straightforward on the matter. For instance, as this link says:
quote: The prediction of future violence is difficult, complex, and controversial, and psychologists and psychiatrists do not have a good track record in making accurate predictions.
so we should take all statistics with a grain of salt. We should also note that it is an emotional issue with victim's rights advocates and prisoner's rights advocates tring to influence public opinion.
As the link further notes, recidivism varies, depending on the offender and type of treatment offered, however,if we speak about averages, there are studies out there that show that the rate is not 'unbelievably high', just as there are plenty that do. See my point above about it being an emotional topic. For instance
* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. * The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers. * Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide. * Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders. * Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
quote: Most sex offenders are not reconvicted for sex offences. Kaul (1993), for example, cites a 1960s follow-up of over 2900 Danish sex offenders (Christiansen, 1965) in which just 10% were convicted of another sex offence over a period of 12 to 24 years, although time at risk does not appear to have been considered in this study. A more recent UK report found that only 7% of a randomly selected sample of over 900 sex offenders (men with either current or past convictions for sex offences) released from prison in 1987 were reconvicted of a sex offence over the next four years (Marshall, 1994). Similarly, a meta-analysis involving 61 studies that included nearly 29 000 sex offenders followed up on average for four to five years found that sexual recidivism was 13% for child molesters and 19% for rapists, and reoffences of non-sexual violence 10% and 22% respectively (Hanson & Bussiere, 1995).
[and...]
Even when one looks at studies of apparently higher risk offenders, reoffence rates remain relatively low.
So, there is evidence out there that your statement is false. There is a lot more evidence out there, if truth be told, probably for both sides.
My reason for addressing your statement is that there is evidence that you and others who are making such broad statements are not right, and I hope that rather than implying, if not outright saying, that [all] research shows one thing, we acknowledge that it does not at all show one thing.
I would also like to comment on CT's statement that "I am unaware of any treatment for sexual molestation of young children by adults which has a remotely successful track record."
Now,I do not know what constitutes a 'young child' and an 'adult', but ignoring that, there is evidenc that castration works
quote: Proponents of castration argue that it is justified and appropriate, that by controlling sex offenders' irresistable urges to rape or molest again, castration allows them to be released without endangering the public. Of more than 700 Danish sex offenders castrated following multiple convictions, relapse rates dropped from between 17% and 50% to just 2%. A Norwegian study showed the same for selected male and female sex offenders (the women had their ovaries removed). In smaller studies in Scandinavia and Italy, chemical castration was equally effective in some groups of volunteer prisoners, with the most dramatic reductions among pedophiles.
These studies suggest the common argument-that rape is all about power, not sex, and therefore castration won't work-is wrong. A German study found that up to half of castrated men still could have erections and sex, but their desire was weakened or even extinguished. Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist and expert on treating sex offenders, Fred Berlin, points out that castration works "mainly in those who are sexually aroused by their crime...sadists and pedophiles."
quote: The literature review conducted by the authors of the accompanying article appears to establish firmly that lowering testosterone by means of surgical castration is generally associated with a marked decline in sexually motivated behavior, including that of a criminal nature.
...
The authors’ literature review correctly notes that many of the early studies involving surgical castration have suffered from several methodological shortcomings. Nevertheless, all the studies reviewed by them have reported impressively low rates of subsequent criminal sexual recidivism. Those studies have included individuals with a history of rape, as well as individuals with a history of pedophilic misconduct. The most recently reported study, a 1991 investigation by Hansen,2 included a group of sexually violent offenders, arguably similar to at least some of those now categorized as sexually violent predators. Those offenders had committed a variety of serious crimes involving severe bodily injury, rape, attempted murder, and murder. Not one of those castrated sex offenders (n = 21) had recidivated over several years, although two had done so more than 15 years later, but only after having been administered testosterone-replacement therapy. Thirty-six percent of men in the comparison control group, who had not been castrated, did recidivate.
I won't continue, but there is a lot of scientific evidence that castration can and does work.
edit: Note that I am not saying that all evidence points one way, but that there is evidence out there that it does work.
I would also like to recommend Stephen Pinker's book |The Blank Slate as to why 'biological' solutions can and do work for social problems.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if Judge Cashman, who claims to not believe in punishment, would punish some guy (say the father of the raped child for instance) if the father just up and killed Mark Hulett?
And while we are quoting scripture, try this one on for size:
“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”(Luke 17:2)
Yes, I agree that Jesus is really big on the forgiveness routine. And while I personally cannot think of a worse perversion than the hurting of a child, I’ll just let everyone else judge for themselves whether or not Jesus takes a really dim view of those who hurt children. But for me it is not a question of how many months or years the sentence should be nor a question of how much probation or what kind of therapy, because I personally cannot think of any possible justification for letting a child molester live. (Well I can think of one justification but I won’t get into that.) For me it is only a question of protecting children.
I worry that we are getting increasingly to the point where we are not only not letting people defend themselves and their families but we are also increasingly getting stuck with a judiciary that will not protect us or our families either. I think that a society that is unwilling or unable to protect their children (and women) is on the skids.
Thanks for nothing, Cashman, You chowder head.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
my feelings on the death penalty are conflicted, but once my mom said something akin to: sometimes execution isn't just mercy on the victim and society; sometimes it's mercy on the convicted so they don't have to live with the terrible thing they have done, and the risk of repeating such a damaging and soul corroding act.
i had never thought about it that way, and in cases such as this, i can't help but agree.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcare: I'm always shocked at how light the sentances are in most cases.
I served on a jury for a case of a man accused of possessing and distributing images of child abuse: aka kiddie porn. In that case they had to go through each of the trials and punishments handed down for each set of children abused, as part of the legal requirement to prove that they are actual children (a whole 'nother subject about the supreme court and kiddie porn).
But the sentances handed down in those cases, which were terrible, ranged between 4-10 yrs. Which seemed really light to me, especially since some were older cases and involved kidnapping and all involved distributing images!
At the risk of being labeled something I'm not...
I have to disagree with you. I am absolutely in favor of harsher penalties for child molesters. Lifetime imprisonment should be the best they can hope for.
But, I believe in personal freedoms. I do not think it should be illegal to possess footage of a vicious, cold-blooded murder. Similarly, I do not think it should be illegal to possess footage of any other heinous illegal act. Therefore, do not think it should be illegal to possess footage of child molestation, however reprehensible the act.
In my opinion, no one should go to jail simply for owning a photograph, no matter what that photograph may show. It is a matter of principle, and I take principles very seriously.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if JUSTICE were to be done, the rapist should have to spend the rest of his life working to pay for the girl's counselling and education
I don't think justice can ever be done in this case. The just thing would be that the child was never hurt. But that can't be undone. While I like the idea of the rapist having to pay for her counseling, I wonder how the girl and her family would feel about it. I imagine that if it was me or mine, I wouldn't want the rapist involved in our lives in any way.
I love the judge's reasoning, but I also doubt the effectiveness of this unstated treatment. If he was talking about castration and counseling, I would think this a fair judgment. But since it didn't say anything about castration, I doubt this is the case.
posted
Have been doing more reading. There is a very thorough, comprehensive review article from JAMA in 2002, entitled simply Pedophilia. It is supposed to be a free article, but the link in the PubMed citation didn't work for me.
Let me know if you are interested and have trouble accessing the article. I will happily email it as an attachment.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pardon me for disagreeing with pretty much everyone who's posted, but I don't see how there's anything inherently just about harming someone who's done something wrong. OK, so the guy has done something very bad. I'd definitely say he's a bad person. But it seems to me that the right thing to do is what brings more good into the world, and I don't see how it helps anyone just to punish someone.
I don't see the world as containing some scales of justice that dictate harm must be balanced out by equal harm. I just see a bunch of people who can either be hurt or helped by my actions. And my duty as a moral person is to help as many people as I can while hurting as few as I can.
NOTE that the above ignores the usefulness of deterrence and of imprisonment as a means of isolating dangerous people. These are both worthwhile goals. All I'm saying is that there is no value in revenge.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think 6,000 days plus counseling will do the trick any better.
Here's what it will do better: It will provide an additional 5940 days in which this man will not rape a child.
-o-
Okay Storm. I was speaking off the cuff. You and I have debated this point before, and I think we've each seen what the other has to back up the point. I will grant that the issue (of recidivism) is more complex than I made it out to be.
I'm not going to go through the effort of distinguishing between people arrested for the crime again, and those who don't get caught or who don't get arrested. I believe that the fraction of child molesters who get arrested is small, because it's so easy to get away with, but clearly this is difficult if not impossible to study. But I've been down this road with you before, and I don't have the energy to do the research again. Suffice it to say that you have some good sources on your side, and that I had some good sources on mine when we last debated this, about three years ago (viz a viz castration). I've done enough research on pedophilia in my life; I don't have the energy right now to do more.
I'm going to focus on a different side of the criminal justice equation. We have a system that can't decide if it's about rehabilitation, punishment, justice, deterrence, or protecting potential victims. When it leans too far in one direction, people point out the obvious flaws of each. We don't have anything even approaching a successful rehabilitation method. Punishment hardens criminals. (Alternatively, punishment is vengeance, and it shouldn't be the business of the government to assign vengeance.) Justice for a victim of a heinous crime is impossible. As a deterrence, our system is ineffective.
Horrible decisions such as this one are born in that muddle.
But the muddle exists for a reason: it exists precisely because we don't know how to be effective at any one of those five tasks. The way things stand right now, I believe punishment in sentencing is necessary. I think it's necessary because treatment programs, and rehabilitation in general, have such a poor track record. Based on that, then, this judge has likely failed on all five facets of his job. He has shown poor judgment, and needs to be removed from his job.
-o-
I have to focus on semi-abstracts, because when I focus on the specifics in this case, when I think about the victim and her family and how this guy is basically getting off with nothing, I am appalled beyond words.
This is what the word "travesty" was invented for.
-o-
Justice may be impossible, but if I am the victim of a crime, I want to know that the person who did it, if caught, will be punished. I need that to be able to have any sort of faith in the system.
This judge has broken the contract that keeps us from taking these matters into our own hand. Nothing more can legally be done to this guy now.
Frankly, I hope some people take matters into their own hands.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
The holy grail of subjects? ![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
