Vermont has had more than it's share of the media spotlight over the lenient sentencing, 60 days in prison including hefty conditions upon release including sex offender treatment, of a sex offender's guilty plea to charges of repeatedly molesting a young girl (Where were the parents/guardians? It has since come to light that yet another man, an acquaintance of the perpetrator, had also repeatedly molested the same child!)
The 'culprit' here is not so much the judge, Cashman, as the Department of Corrections and the prosecutors. Under their long-standing criteria, the perpetrator was low risk for reoffending so they initially decided not to treat him when incarcerated, regardless of his sentence. Judge Cashman, motivated to do the right thing by assuring the perp got treatment on the outside upon release, unwittingly compounded that error by attempting to force the treatment outside of prison with the short sentence. You can see 'the system' at work here. I believe everyone was trying to do the 'right' thing, but failed to see the community's expectation for just punishment.
But here's another twist. It's worth the time to understand Cashman's thinking. In the final analysis, this was his best shot at sentencing in response to a plea agreement. Of course, he could have rejected that agreement. It seems the prosecution also misread the public's mood in bargaining this plea/sentence.
The 'culprit' here is not so much the judge, Cashman, as the Department of Corrections and the prosecutors. Under their long-standing criteria, the perpetrator was low risk for reoffending so they initially decided not to treat him when incarcerated, regardless of his sentence. Judge Cashman, motivated to do the right thing by assuring the perp got treatment on the outside upon release, unwittingly compounded that error by attempting to force the treatment outside of prison with the short sentence. You can see 'the system' at work here. I believe everyone was trying to do the 'right' thing, but failed to see the community's expectation for just punishment.
But here's another twist. It's worth the time to understand Cashman's thinking. In the final analysis, this was his best shot at sentencing in response to a plea agreement. Of course, he could have rejected that agreement. It seems the prosecution also misread the public's mood in bargaining this plea/sentence.
The public, though, always wants punishment fit to the crime. Rehabilitation is the desired goal only after the expected penalty is paid. Cashman's error was to sentence in a manner that did not satisfy the public's expectation of punishment, particularly for a sexual crime against a child, where there is little/no tolerance.
The national TV talking heads have sensationalized this mess for their own purposes. The real story they should be covering here is not the sentence but the tremendous success of the Vermont sexual offender treatment program and probe why the perp was denied this treatment (I suspect cost). The Department of Corrections has agreed to provide treatment if Judge Cashman imposes a much longer sentence.
I think Cashman and the DoC acting independently had no idea this situation would erupt as it has. Here is Cashman's statement. People should really pay attention to his explanation of why he did what he did. His comments here are terribly under reported. This has become a one sided story, unfortunately, inflamed by the media. Fox News and its talking heads are way off base in their coverage of this affair.
On Friday, 1/13 a motion was filed that suggests the sentence, void of appropriate punishment was illegal. Cashman has the chance to modify the sentence when he acts on the motion. I'll bet he does just that now that DoC conditionally has agreed to treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment