A Williston man who admitted repeatedly sexually assaulting a young girl for four years was sentenced Wednesday to spend 60 days in prison…
Mark Hulett, 34, pleaded guilty in August to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one charge of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, all felonies. He faced up to life in prison on the charges.
Hulett began sexually abusing the girl — a friend’s daughter — when she was 6, and the conduct continued until the girl turned 10 in April…
Prosecutors wanted Hulett incarcerated for at least eight years, and in impassioned pleas the girl’s family members asked for a stern sentence. 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.
Once again, the “needs” of a criminal take precedence over the rights of a victim.
Update: The judge continues to receive ongoing criticism from officials and citizens alike.
So if you abuse a sexually abuse a girl for 4 years, you get a 60 day sentence. Then you can abuse the girl for another 4 years so you get locked up for another 60 days.
Why don’t we let all the murderers, thieves, and criminals just spend 15 days a year in jail so they can kill, steal, and abuse all they want for a year?
Pathetic country. Don’t forget, if a thief tries to steal from you and he gets hurt on your property, he can sue you for damages and win…
I really have nothing to say – that’s disgusting. To think our concept of “justice” is 60 days of prison…
Can we get the name of the judge posted on this site? This judge is not upholding the law rather he/she is an activist for their distorted view of justice.
Who is more dangerous to our society?
This judge
or
Mark Hulett
Paul’s got it right. If this dude stole twenty bucks from the bank he’d be put away for 20 years. When you write and judge on a law you always want to take your own procliviies into account…. just in case! No judge would rob a bank, but they just might end up diddling a child.
“Once again, the “needs” of a criminal take precedence over the rights of a victim.”
Um…did I just go to Bill O Reilly’s site by accident?
I mean, yeah, this case is totally fucked up, and *that* guy needs…I don’t know what to do with a bastard like that, but I’m sure the constitution protects him from getting what he really deserves, but this idea that hard core criminals walk on a daily basis in this country, which has the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the word, is totally crazy, and as much of a popular non-story with right-wing talk radio blow-hards as The War on Christmas.
Our prisons are overflowing. Not with serial killers, and child rapists, but with dead beat dads, and pot smokers that will forever be in the penal system. In many states they lose the right to vote, and with drug convictions, any drug conviction, not just crack, or meth, but Valium, and marijuana as well, Federal financial aid for school is impossible. Forever. For as long as you live. Unemployed? back to jail. Want to get drunk? Back to jail. In many cases going back to jail means going back to being raped daily, since sodomy is the sentence that is never written down. Getting a sentence to be anally raped for 10 years because you sold bootleg VCDs is beyond sick. The American penal system isn’t about protecting the innocent, or rehabilitation, its about taking everyone that bumbles into it, and screwing them as hard as possible, for the rest of their lives while prison industrial complex rakes in billions. Its about vengeance, not for the victim, but an abstract vengeance for those that represent authority against those that don’t.
I know a guy that spent 6 months in jail for graffiti. *Graffiti*! Not to mention $1000 a month for two years after that for supervision fees (electronic tether) Now he can’t get a decent job because he’s branded felon for the rest of his life.
What’s crazy is that so many people think, “oh, those are criminals, not decent people like me”, when in fact statistics show that a significant percentage of Americans have a criminal past. We are a nation of criminals looking down on other criminals, with the only real difference being that the ones in prison got caught.
According to PBS.org, “In 2001, nearly 6.6 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year end. That number represents 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or one in every 32 adults”
That number doesn’t include those who have in the past been on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole….and that number isn’t going down.
“Don’t forget, if a thief tries to steal from you and he gets hurt on your property, he can sue you for damages and win”
I’ve heard this story paraphrased a hundred times. Now, I’m not saying its BS, but I would like to see one case where this actually happened because it sounds like crap. It has that…certain smell. Ode de poo poo, as it is sometimes called. Find me two or three cases…that would be just amazing. I’ll join the NRA if you find me 5 cases. 10 cases and I’m lynch a thief next chance I get. Scout’s honor. 20 cases, and I’ll move to Florida, the vigelante state, as soon as possible.
I don’t think any of the above posters have read the Judges reasons for the sentence. Sending more people to long terms in prison is not the answer. There become warehoused and almost invariably turn out harder then when they went in. The problem could be solved by sentencing every petty criminal to a life sentence. Of course we would then be saddled with supporting even more prisons then we do now.
***
… (the Judge) 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.”
Hulett spoke briefly at the end of the hearing, crying as he apologized for his actions.
“I want to get treatment. I need it,” he said before officers led him from the courtroom to begin his prison term.
***
Judge Edward Cashman’s sentence, which he handed down after a two-hour hearing in Vermont District Court in Burlington, could incarcerate Hulett for the rest of his life if he fails to obtain counseling or otherwise follow instructions once he is freed in 60 days.
***
The issue was the Corrections Department is not obliged to offer any treatment. In fact they refused to give any treatment to Hulett. The Judge is not empowered to order the Corrections Department to treat him.
Not even 1/24 of the time he spent abusing her.
Treatment. Ha. Society I tell you.
SOZ — my credentials for battling lousy bigoted courts are decades long. Still, my perceptions are broad enough to include contempt for judges who consider the problems of the perp over what’s been left to ruin the life of a victim.
I’ve worked with abused children — but, I live in a state that all too often does little about abusers. I have a thorough understanding of the several components of alcoholism — but, I live in a state notorious for turning loose DUI offenders time after time — until they finally kill a few innocent folks.
Rehab is legit. However — it NEVER takes priority over victims rights. It NEVER takes priority over public safety.
If the Corrections Dept. doesn’t do squat — then it’s that judge’s responsibility to join the political fight to change it. Telling the vic her mental and physical injuries are worth less than the “torment” of her attacker is as criminal as the abuse she suffered.
Bullet time, I thing
Awake here… the liberal that conservatives here love to hate.
I say take the guy out to the back of the building and use a firing squad right away. The crime is despicable, and we should have no pity for this scumbag.
And as far as the judge goes, he should be disbared and prevented from ever working with legal matters again.
As with the case of our prez-duh, when gross incompetence or even gross abuse of power take place, there should be a method by which the people, not the self-serving politicians, can take direct steps to remove the bums. For the prez-duh there is only impeachment (a purely political insider system led by part of the gang itself), but for judges, isn’t there a recall system?
…(the Judge) 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.”
That’s exactly your job you old fool. Your job is to hand down sentences that are fair and just. This would be one thing if his state allowed him to dictate a certain term of treatment, but it doesn’t. He’s relying on a convicted felon’s good faith that he will get treatment after his 60 days. That’s just mindbogglingly ridiculous.
“Mr. Bundy, do you promise you won’t rape and kill women any more?”\
“Oh yes sir. Scouts honor”
“Alright, you seem nice enough. I’ll have you out in two months.”
Shocked? Maybe you should spit out the Kool Aid and give us a little credit once in a while. I don’t know how anybody could approve of this sentence. If you think that we on the left would you’ve been fed a gross caricature of us and believed it.
Not that there aren’t some people on our side with the exact same problem, I’m just sayin’…
My mother-in-law has been having chest pains for the last couple of days. I spent a good part of Thursday with her in the hospital and my wife spent a good part of her Friday with her at the cardiologist. She is sick so we are getting her treatment.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Arial Sharon, is in the hospital as I write. He has undergone three operations for the complications of a stroke. They are giving him treatment because he is sick.
Before he died, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, William Renquist, underwent an operation and then therapy for thyroid cancer. He was sick and received treatment.
Last week there was a post on this site about the increase in the number of drugs being written for teens in this country. They were sick and receiving help.
Now here is a sick person that will be incarcerated because of his sickness. Society criminalized an illness. That is wrong. Then those charged with holding him during his penalty will not see to his treatment. That is wrong.
A civilized society does not make an illness a crime. A civilized society does not punish those that become ill. Illness is seldom voluntary. It is the illness that picks ITS victims. My ma-in-law, Sharon, Renquist, or any of the teens in last weeks story didn’t ask to become ill. Their illnesses chose them.
2000 years ago it was quite normal that anyone with a skin condition would be ostracized by society and called “leper”. They were forcibly sent to ghettos called “Leper Colonies”. They would live on the handouts of society and not allowed to leave. A very similar situation to modern day prisons. And once you were in, you never got out. Too many mentally ill people are locked up in jail without treatment for their illnesses as it is so much easier then having them in hospitals.
Yes I agree, the child was harmed. But to equate her damage to the sentence is wrong. That is not justice; that is retribution. That is an Eye for an Eye justice, something “modern” countries abandoned many years ago. (unless your name is Falwell or Robertson) This is the justice practiced by those wonderful places like Taliban Afghanistan or Iran.
As a society we have the ability to help the child. If we don’t help her, if we abandon her, then we are no different then those that allowed her to be molested in the first place. It is so easy to cry for this little girl and scream that the rapist is the devil incarnate. It is easy because then we, as a society, then do not need to do any more. We can just forget everything about this, get back on our moral high horse and decry the next event to come along. It doesn’t matter what sentence the rapist received, because it would not do a damn thing for the little girl. The sentence and treatment for the girl are two separate things.
I write this as the father of a six year old daughter. If this had been my daughter that was molested then I would want to kill the rapist. The things I would want to do to him are indescribable. Therefore it is only right that I don’t get to be the judge and jury. Justice means doing what is right, not what emotionally charged people would do.
Pat: Sorry, I wasn’t aware that your mother-in-law, Arial Sharon, and William Renquist had illnesses that caused them to be a danger to society and to rape little girls. Plus, those are physical ailments and diseases, not mental illnesses. Are you suggesting that locking somebody up because they are a danger of society and there is a signifigant chance they will rape little girls again is wrong? Who’s pretending to take moral high ground now?
You are clearly ignoring that the state CANNOT force treatment upon this man. Until that can be done, it is essential that he be locked up as long as possible. This man was able to use the back door to get the insanity defense and not even have to get treatment for his mental illness.
Also, if you want to get into specifics, the reason we say that serial rapists and pedophiles have a mental illness is because we find such things as a society to be bad. It is for moral concerns. To my knowledge, they haven’t found a genetic disorder that causes such things, nor a chemical imbalance. And as such, there is NO CURE for such “illnesses” as well. Everything we do is coded into our brain somehow. If you make the argument that rapists just have a mental illness causing them to commit crime, you MUST apply the same to EVERY other criminal action. Murder is reprehensible, so clearly something must be wrong with a murderer’s brain. Not toooo much of a stretch, but what about fraud, extortion, theft, perjury? Can those all be qualified as mental illnesses? What about getting a speeding ticket? By your logic, that’s exactly what they are.
Pat — my personal response and analysis of the range of mental illnesses probably agrees about 98%. I would add in some small percentage — at least with alcoholism — there can be a genetic component. Here comes the BUT —
I have to approach any conflict like this as an existential quotient, the missing component here being exclusively existential — the responsibility of an individual to decide is part of the process. In truth, it’s rare as hell for someone whose illness culminates in a crime like this to suddenly realize their behavior is outside the pale — after the fact. They either decide it’s OK and join the man-child society or they turn to the medical community for help — or they follow the lead common to our nation’s political life and rationalize away their problems.
But, THEY get to make that decision and thereafter are responsible for their decision.
Pat,
If anything has been proven about pedophilia, it is that those who have this “disease” cannot be cured, at least so far. I suspect rapists are in that same category. Until someone proves that people such as this person can be “fixed”, the safety of society needs to take precedence.
Now if he would like to atone for his actions by volunteering to be an experimental subject for life (or until they need to dissect his brain) in order to perhaps find a cure – I will accept that as an alternative sentence. That is if he really wants to help.
Some how I doubt he would volunteer.
you do something bad, you pay the price-bottom line. This guy raped a helpless girl for FOUR YEARS, i mean, four years! In all that time, do you think he felt any remorse ? then, after being caught, he ends up crying and says he needs help. Bullsh*t. He had a choice not to rape the girl, but he chose the opposite. Treat him if you must, but 60 days is a joke. treat him in the confines of a cage, so that if the treatment fails, he won’t be able to hurt somebody else. If it were up to me, I’d cut his balls off.
Sorry Pat, you have to weigh rehabilitating the criminal against the protection of society, and in this case the latter clearly wins out. Maybe he can be rehabilitated, but as others said, considering he made no such attempt for years leads me to doubt it. The possibility of him hurting someone else is significant, so in order to try to save him you would risk bringing harm to yet another innocent person who will have to deal with their own psychological burden of having been raped. Or perhaps multiple people.
I can understand your argument, I just don’t think it applies in this case. For example, I would support treatment instead of prison for non-violent drug offenses. It’s cheaper, our prisons are overcrowded, and they haven’t hurt anybody but themselves so it would work out better for everybody. However, once they hurt someone else my sympathy goes out the window and they should be in jail. Even though they may have the same “illness” they had before, if you want to call it that, they have become a danger to other people and the protection of society trumps their personal potential for rehabilitation. They should receive treatment, but not in lieu of jail time.
And as an aside, my shocked post above was in response to a message that looks like it was deleted. Someone said they were shocked that all the “liberal whiners” were so upset at this sentence. Just so you have some context. That post seems to come out of nowhere otherwise.
1)
So many people have confused what I wrote above. At no time have I suggested that what the abuser did was right or within any bounds of normal. What he did was wrong. Period. My point is that the refusal of the Department of Corrections to provide treatment is a justifiable reason for the Judge to impose the sentence he did.
2)
The fact that he is given a 60 day sentence is also wrong. Anyone that read the article, or even the quotes I posted above will know that he could spend the rest of his life incarcerated if he did not get the treatment he asked for.
“Judge Edward Cashman’s sentence, which he handed down after a two-hour hearing in Vermont District Court in Burlington, could incarcerate Hulett for the rest of his life if he fails to obtain counseling or otherwise follow instructions once he is freed in 60 days. “
What the article does not mention BUT must be a part of the sentence would be a period of probation. How long is, of course, is not mentioned but it could only be as a condition that would be attached to a probation order.
3)
It is not a question of his refusing treatment. It is because the Department of Corrections refused to give him treatment. Vermont law does not allow the Judge to order the Department of Corrections to provide it.
4)
The distinction between physical illness and mental illness can be found in the prejudice so many people have for the latter. It is this ignorance pervading American society that has left so many people criminalized and shut out of society. The refusal to accept that mental illness exists does not make it go away. As a society, we don’t want to acknowledge someone may be mentally ill. While people will often admit to a health condition such as heart disease, the stigma of having a mental illness is very seldom acknowledged.
Even though most common illnesses can have their abnormality described, it is only because we are constantly learning. Few people will suggest that there is no such thing as schizophrenia. Yet we can not explain why it happens. Or even why some people are much more susceptible to heart disease, various cancers, etc.
5)
My ma-in-law knew for years that her blood pressure was too high, she is over-weight, she didn’t exercise, and she is diabetic. Because she ignored all of that she became a drain on society with her health conditions. Renquist smoked for years and that very well could have precursored his cancer. While ill and undergoing treatment, he continued to sit on the Supreme Court making law that affected others lives. Sharon was up to 100 lbs over-weight and led a sedentary life style. His care hurts the Israeli economy needlessly (which the American government donates so generously to). Each of these people have hurt society in some way. None of these people will pay the full cost of their medical care.
The reason my mother-in-law, or Renquist, or Sharon doesn’t need to answer to a Judge is because we accept that they are ill. The reason the abuser sees a Judge is because we refuse to see that he is ill. The abuser will either get treatment or spend many years behind bars.
6)
paul, why should I ask a pedophile to come live in my spare room? Is it because you like to accuse people of being such idiotic things like “you’re the poster-child for ethical relativism. for intellectualizing over common, practical sense. for the hand-wringing liberal.” Not only is your diatribe senseless, it is as morally bankrupt as your entire thinking process. I am not a child. I don’t intellectualize, though I do stand up for what I believe to be right. I don’t wring my hands. And common sense is not as common as you like to believe it is. And it appears you have become intoxicated to the music of your own verbosity.
I hope you wiped the saliva off your chin. And someday I hope you learn the difference between revenge and justice.
there is a cure for pedophilla…..it’s a process known as sterilization. You simply take out his motivation and “weapons” and there goes the problem. Not only will it act as a long-term solution, it will also act as an extremely effective deterrance.
Tim,
I understand that doesn’t always work. I’ve been trying to find the article I read on it but can’t find it yet.
I’m a speaker and author on abuse issues. This is one child abuse case that just blew me away. I live in Minnesota and when the Duncan case emerged I thought that judges conduct was atrocious. But I was dead wrong. I have turned every contact I have onto this horrific injustice that was done to this child. I myself am of victim but now I fight for these children’s rights.
paul t., you are an idiot. You have a problem with answering an argument with sarcasm because, I suspect, you don’t have any answer. Many have disagreed with me, but none have stooped to name calling except you.
“treatment is a wonderful, altruistic notion.” I’ll tell my mother-in-law that you believe treatment is so altruistic.
“schizophrenia isn’t against the law, so long as the schizophrenic doesn’t shove a knife in someone’s gut because he or she thought that person was satan.” Sorry to disagree, but most states can have you committed if a physician tells the court you are a danger. If you did put a knife in someone then then the defense of medical defect or illness may be used.
“Justice consists in doing no injury to men; decency in giving them no offense.
Marcus Tullius Cicero”, From one of those famous Romans that thought slaves were just fine, slaughtering your enemies was normal, murder was par for the course, etc. Yup, great role models you pick.
How about something more contemporary, like Merriam-Webster
a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal
(note, the other definitions were inapplicable to this discussion)
“ i have zero interest in revenge.”
“you’ve made an intellectual rationalization about this loathesome bastard, that he needs treatment. that he needs help, rather than being segregated from the rest of society.”
Sure sounds like revenge to me.
Paul, do yourself a favor and STOP now! Please. Either Pat is a flamebait or he’s crazy and there is no point in arguing with him.
I’ve got into a similar debate about sentencing for crimes. He believes that your sentence should be the same no matter what the crime. That there should be no increased punishment for increased severity. There is no bending Pat on this, believe me, I’ve tried. He’s saying it again under this post: “But to equate her damage to the sentence is wrong.”
What Pat doesn’t understand is that the real purpose of locking someone up is NOT rehabilitation and is NOT to teach him a lesson It is simply to get the person out of society to protect society. If someone is truly sick and cannot be fixed, those are exactly the type of people who should be locked up forever. But not in Pat’s world.
So, like I said. Stop now and save yourself some agony.
Pat, you are what you’re criticizing. You’re letting your emotion for the criminal outweigh justice.
True Paul – I rarely give a shit about what you have to say.
Ok, maybe a small shit.
So what happens, guy gets locked up for 20 years, comes out and sees the errors of his ways? I don’t think. If a Homosexual was locked up for 20 years for being gay, (if, hypothetically speaking it was illegal to be gay), would he come out having changed his ways? no.
The judge was too leanient – no doubt – 1 or 2 years at least (I don’t know the kind of sexual activity, if it was violent – he should have more).But he has the right idea – most people in this guys situation do not want to abuse children, and show honest remorse, so they need treatment or the problem will never be solved.
The real answer though is to offer truly confidential support to anyine who has ‘feelings’ for children. The results show that this is the cheapest and most effective way to solve the problem. Period.
Absolutely the worst misjustice I have ever heard of. The judge needs to go. Hopefully the governor of Vermont, impeaches this guy. The poor girl and her family was now abused by the judge also. Consider the fact, this will also prevent future victims from coming forward.
This child’s life has been affected for the rest of her life. This judge should be thinking of her and therefore sentenced just punishment . This sentence could have included probation of mandatory mental treatment for a designated amount of time at the end of time (years not days) served.
THIS JUDGE SHOUL BE IMPEACHED!!!