60 Days Sentence for Child Rape in Vt.

[Tigger_Magic]

I don't think anyone has said ALL liberal judges would have made this decision. We're saying a liberal judge is more likely to make decisions like this. Anyone who can't see the plain truth that liberal judges tend to be liberal in their decisions are not capable of honest discussion.

That doesn't mean liberal judges can't be tough on crime and give out long sentences. It also doesn't mean conservative judges never give a slap on the wrist. But in the big picture, with thousands of judges, how can anyone deny liberal judges are more likely to make liberal decisions?

And you consider it "honest" to present opinion as fact and try to persuade using sweeping, unfounded generalizations? Is it honest to present your opinion as fact and then refuse to provide any evidence to support it?

In order for the judicial system in America to maintain ANY credibility, we must assume that for the most part (with Judge Cashman being an exception), judges have taken an oath to do justice and when they don the robe and bang the gavel are able to put aside their political tendencies in order to follow the law. And if there is by some remote possibility a vast left-wing conspiracy to populate the courts with completely liberal judges, don't you think it would be rather STUPID for the MSM to point out sentences like the one handed down by Judge Cashman? Because according to the conservative credo, the MSM is right in bed with the vast left-wing conspiracy. Therefore, this conspiracy is shooting itself in the foot!

IF there were any evidence of additional examples of Judge Cashman's out there, I am certain the O'Reilly's and Hannity's and Limbaugh's would expose them, especially O'Reilly whose radar is finely tuned into these types of cases.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Perhaps, but at least I managed to grow up.

ford family

Then please demonstrate it. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[BuckNaked]

An abortion is a medical procedure.

Agreed. So if a girl is mature enough to decide for herself whether or not she can have a medical procedure performed on her body, then she is certainly mature enough to decide for herself whether or not she wants to offer that body up for sex with the hot stud 19 year old that lives next door.

Statutory rape is about the abuse of power and the concept that adults should not have sex with children.

In some cases, I agree, but certainly not in all cases.

 

[CheshireVal]

Seriously, the entirety of your current contributions to this thread amount to, 'Haha, you're stupid!' Yeah, you're definitely on safe ground when it comes to challenging the intelligence and relevancy of someone else's post.

Before you even bother, ford family, let me respond for you.. 'You're dumb 'cause you didn't use Latin in your post and I'm better than you because I know conservative people are right.' I know, I didn't fancy it up for you, but that's about the bulk of it, right?

If we're just going to be randomly and pointlessly insulting people who disagree with us, so be it, I just thought I'd join, too.

Thank you!

I don't know what your deal is, ff, but I don't have time for immature little prats who would rather take unprovoked and bizarre potshots at other posters than debate intelligently about serious issues.

Take your attitude and leave.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

As for the real issue.. I think what happened to this child is horrific.

I will say this on the liberal judge issue- Yes, liberal judges are more likely to go outside of the traditional vein of sentencing (not outside the guidelines usually, just outside what people expect in a sentence) when traditional sentencing does not seem to be serving as a deterrent for the crime in question. While this has, IMHO, been a good thing in some areas (check the numbers on relapse in drug use in people who were sentenced to long term rehab vs. prison), this judge was clearly applying this in a situation that I, and most everyone, feel is terribly wrong. I completely disagree with what the judge did, but agree that prison does not serve as a future deterrent for pedophiles. Considering the recitivism rate of these offenders (which is ridiculous), combined with the heinous nature of the crime (as opposed to drug abuse which often mainly effects the abuser his/herself), I'd think the logical response would be a life term in either a prison or a state hospital. While I tend to think getting to the root of the problem and fixing it is a good idea (yes, I know, how liberal of me), that does not apply to these offenders and keeping the public safe from them should be the first priority in these cases.

I missed this part of your post. I tend to agree with you. It is hard for me to believe that a pedophile can be cured and to that end, judges need to consider the public safety above that of any attempt to rehabilitate the offender. These are not crimes I am comfortable with a 3 strikes law on -- one strike is one too many. You do this crime, you go away for life.

 

[CheshireVal]

Iwas trying to find the actual recidivism rate for child molesters, but the numbers all seem to vary widely depending on the source.

Whatever the number, though, it's too much.

 

[ford family]

Seriously, the entirety of your current contributions to this thread amount to, 'Haha, you're stupid!' Yeah, you're definitely on safe ground when it comes to challenging the intelligence and relevancy of someone else's post.

Before you even bother, ford family, let me respond for you.. 'You're dumb 'cause you didn't use Latin in your post and I'm better than you because I know conservative people are right.' I know, I didn't fancy it up for you, but that's about the bulk of it, right?

If we're just going to be randomly and pointlessly insulting people who disagree with us, so be it, I just thought I'd join, too.

---------------------
As for the real issue.. I think what happened to this child is horrific.

I will say this on the liberal judge issue- Yes, liberal judges are more likely to go outside of the traditional vein of sentencing (not outside the guidelines usually, just outside what people expect in a sentence) when traditional sentencing does not seem to be serving as a deterrent for the crime in question. While this has, IMHO, been a good thing in some areas (check the numbers on relapse in drug use in people who were sentenced to long term rehab vs. prison), this judge was clearly applying this in a situation that I, and most everyone, feel is terribly wrong. I completely disagree with what the judge did, but agree that prison does not serve as a future deterrent for pedophiles. Considering the recitivism rate of these offenders (which is ridiculous), combined with the heinous nature of the crime (as opposed to drug abuse which often mainly effects the abuser his/herself), I'd think the logical response would be a life term in either a prison or a state hospital. While I tend to think getting to the root of the problem and fixing it is a good idea (yes, I know, how liberal of me), that does not apply to these offenders and keeping the public safe from them should be the first priority in these cases.

Interesting post.

Looking past your bad tempered personal attack I see that you agree with my comments on liberal judges in post 85 that sparked such animosity in CheshireVal. Good.

As for the first part of your post I am sorry that using a well known foreign phrase threw you into such turmoil. And before you get too apoplectic about comments that are "randomly and pointlessly insulting people " look back at the posts of your fellow liberals:

"So if we're going to slap definitions on people, then we can surmise that conservatives are just the opposite: opposed to progress, intolerant of others, and closed-minded. Sounds like a nice person!"

or

"And the basis for that opinion is:
1) Studies
2) Polls
3) Back passage
I pick #3.
Here's a fresh idea: Admit your opinion is based on nothing other than your own prejudices and, as a reward, you get back some of your credibility. "

or

"Ah, a pseudo intellectual! I suspected as much.
I stopped debating with those types when I stopped dating unemployed musicians, stopped hanging out at coffee houses and stopped wearing all black. Sorry."

If you don't want people to respond in a negative fashion then don't start insulting them or their viewpoint in the first place.

ford family

 

[Tigger_Magic]

If you don't want people to respond in a negative fashion then don't start insulting them or their viewpoint in the first place.

ford family

The old "he/she did it first" defense. Interesting.

Perhaps, but at least I managed to grow up.

 

[dcentity2000]

If you don't want people to respond in a negative fashion then don't start insulting them or their viewpoint in the first place.

ford family

Darn right! That's your trick!



Rich::

 

[Mariposa]

Interesting post.

Looking past your bad tempered personal attack I see that you agree with my comments on liberal judges in post 85 that sparked such animosity in CheshireVal. Good.

As for the first part of your post I am sorry that using a well known foreign phrase threw you into such turmoil. And before you get too apoplectic about comments that are "randomly and pointlessly insulting people " look back at the posts of your fellow liberals:

"So if we're going to slap definitions on people, then we can surmise that conservatives are just the opposite: opposed to progress, intolerant of others, and closed-minded. Sounds like a nice person!"

or

"And the basis for that opinion is:
1) Studies
2) Polls
3) Back passage
I pick #3.
Here's a fresh idea: Admit your opinion is based on nothing other than your own prejudices and, as a reward, you get back some of your credibility. "

or

"Ah, a pseudo intellectual! I suspected as much.
I stopped debating with those types when I stopped dating unemployed musicians, stopped hanging out at coffee houses and stopped wearing all black. Sorry."

If you don't want people to respond in a negative fashion then don't start insulting them or their viewpoint in the first place.

ford family

First, no, I did not agree with your opinion on liberal judges. I, at no point, said that I feel liberal judges are more lenient on crime, I said that they have shown a willingness to step outside of the generally held (and sometimes erroneous, IMHO) ideas on sentencing in order to better prevent the person before them from committing a crime again. There is a difference. I would say that if it produces better results than the traditional sentencing then whatever take a judge is using to decrease crime (as long as it is within the law and within the sentencing guidelines) is, indeed, being 'tough on crime.'

As for your quotes, regardless of how crass some of the wording in the first two they at least related to previous posts about the topic and were, in fact, remarks on people's (didn't note whose) positions or opinions on the topic. Your attack had nothing to do with the topic and was just an attack on the poster's intelligence. There's a difference.

As for my your "well known foreign phrase throwing [me] into turmoil" -- Not so much. But, understanding (or attempting to understand) the posts of other users here is clearly not a priority for you.

 

[ford family]

Thank you!

I don't know what your deal is, ff, but I don't have time for immature little prats who would rather take unprovoked and bizarre potshots at other posters than debate intelligently about serious issues.

Take your attitude and leave.

What are you talking about?
Your response to my post (85) was both rude and inaccurate (92) and indicated you hadn't understood. You seem to prefer sniping to answering questions and then you have the gall to take offence at a phrase like QED??
You make unprovoked and bizarre potshots employing crude language to other people and then complain when they don't lie down in front of the liberal juggernaut.
This is a serious subject, one that it is very important to resolve in order to protect other children in the future. I am pleased that the people in Vermont see the need to get rid of this liberal judge. It is sad that you seem incapable of understanding the difference between liberal and Liberal.

ford family

 

[Tigger_Magic]

What are you talking about?
Your response to my post (85) was both rude and inaccurate (92) and indicated you hadn't understood. You seem to prefer sniping to answering questions and then you have the gall to take offence at a phrase like QED??
You make unprovoked and bizarre potshots employing crude language to other people and then complain when they don't lie down in front of the liberal juggernaut.
This is a serious subject, one that it is very important to resolve in order to protect other children in the future. I am pleased that the people in Vermont see the need to get rid of this liberal judge. It is sad that you seem incapable of understanding the difference between liberal and Liberal.

ford family

I've always said, when you can't debate, obfuscate!

 

[cats7494]

By the way...this is about a CHILD - for those who might have forgotten the bigger picture here.

So far I have heard back from 7 Senators/Representatives that I e-mailed yesterday about this issue and the replies are pretty similar.

Here is an e-mail from Michael Marcotte
"Thank you for your e-mail. I could not agree with you more.
There is a bill being introduced in the House, which I am a co-sponsor,
which will require a 25 minimum sentence for rapes, etc. on children
under 12 years of age. Michael Marcotte"

Like I said in a previous - we are all disgusted by this but we are not solving anything if we only sit around and gripe (and argue politics) about it.

So - those of you who have not contacted the VT government - please do it!
Once again - how about some of you stop arguing about the politics of this and do something about it?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The best thing that anyone can do is to work to have legislation similar to Jessica's Law passed in your state. This link shows the status of each state and provides a link so you can email the governor of your state. http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels

 

[cats7494]

The best thing that anyone can do is to work to have legislation similar to Jessica's Law passed in your state. This link shows the status of each state and provides a link so you can email the governor of your state. http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels

Yes, I agree. A response I received from Senator Wendy Wilton mentioned Jessica's law as well.

 

[ford family]

First, no, I did not agree with your opinion on liberal judges. I, at no point, said that I feel liberal judges are more lenient on crime, I said that they have shown a willingness to step outside of the generally held (and sometimes erroneous, IMHO) ideas on sentencing in order to better prevent the person before them from committing a crime again. There is a difference. I would say that if it produces better results than the traditional sentencing then whatever take a judge is using to decrease crime (as long as it is within the law and within the sentencing guidelines) is, indeed, being 'tough on crime.'

As for your quotes, regardless of how crass some of the wording in the first two they at least related to previous posts about the topic and were, in fact, remarks on people's (didn't note whose) positions or opinions on the topic. Your attack had nothing to do with the topic and was just an attack on the poster's intelligence. There's a difference.

As for my your "well known foreign phrase throwing [me] into turmoil" -- Not so much. But, understanding (or attempting to understand) the posts of other users here is clearly not a priority for you.

Ok, finally getting somewhere.
You said "Yes, liberal judges are more likely to go outside of the traditional vein of sentencing (not outside the guidelines usually, just outside what people expect in a sentence) when traditional sentencing does not seem to be serving as a deterrent for the crime in question."
I said "So, we should expect prominent liberals, members of the legislature or the judiciary for example, to be at the leading edge of those "new ideas for progress". We should, equally, expect the majority of the general public, both conservative and liberal, to disagree with those new ideas, at least in the beginning, and loudly say so."
See the similarity?
You said "I, at no point, said that I feel liberal judges are more lenient on crime,"
Neither did I. What I did say was that this judge was the product of liberalism "...cause and effect; in this case liberal state, liberal appointment , liberal judge, liberal verdict." Different comment altogether.
As for therapy helping paedophiles, it doesn't, they will re-offend.

On the part "regardless of how crass some of the wording in the first two they at least related to previous posts about the topic and were, in fact, remarks on people's (didn't note whose) positions or opinions on the topic. ", the first and last quotes were attacks on me, so are you saying that the first attack is ok but the response is not allowed?

Lastly, "understanding (or attempting to understand) the posts of other users " is a two way street.

ford family

 

[LuvDuke]

I've always said, when you can't debate, obfuscate!

Or as it was known in my neighborhood, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...............

 

[LuvDuke]

Of course not. But then again, I never said I wouldn't have a problem with my 16 year old having sex with an 18 year old. But I still wouldn't consider it rape, in either case. Sorry, to compare a situation where a girl says "yes, yes, yes" to one in which a girl is forced after saying "no, no, no" is ludicrous.



I agree, but that still doesn't make forcible rape and statutory rape anywhere near the same type of situation.



I agree, and for me, the younger the child is or the bigger the age gap between the two, the clearer it becomes.

To pick up on something cardaway alluded to earlier, here is my pet peeve with the whole statutory v. forcible rape. You have a 15 year old whose parents have forbid her to see her 19 year old boyfriend. She sneaks around, sneaks out of the house, meets him in the park and they have consensual sex in the car. Then, the parents cry "My daughter was raped!"

Come on...is that really the same as that same 15 year old being dragged into a dark alley and forcibly raped? Maybe you see them as the same, but I don't.

As for the "she's not old enough to consent" issue...sorry, but if the girl in my example is old enough to consent to have an abortion, she's old enough to consent to the sex that made the abortion necessary.

Brenda, this is an intervention. Step away from the keyboard. You are starting to defend statuatory rape. No good can come of this.

 

[BuckNaked]

Brenda, this is an intervention. Step away from the keyboard. You are starting to defend statuatory rape. No good can come of this.

Nope, not defending it at all. Just stating the obvious, i.e., that in many, if not most cases, it is in no way comparable to real rape.

Are you seriously saying that they are the same? If so, I think you might want to keep the for yourself.

 

[chobie]

Nope, not defending it at all. Just stating the obvious, i.e., that in many, if not most cases, it is in no way comparable to real rape.

Are you seriously saying that they are the same? If so, I think you might want to keep the for yourself.

Maybe they should rename the crime because your right in it being a much more heinous crime when someone is forcibly raped. However, I do think as a society we should make legal adults responsible for not having sex with teenagers.

You keep trying to conjure up the image of a slutty, hormone-enraged teenage girl.

So, I'm going to conjure up the image of the creepy 20 something year old trolling jr high schools for dates.