you almost agreed with him??? almost??? so I guess you didnt. which means you are ok with the vermont decision of probation?
One thing you wont hear from Oreilly (or at least I hadnt) was that the man is mentally retarded. I hate to admit but yes, that changes my opinion about punishment vs. rehabiliation. I dont know enough about the Vermont case to say. But again, I have never ONCE heard Oreilly mention that. Selective reporting?
One thing you wont hear from Oreilly (or at least I hadnt) was that the man is mentally retarded. I hate to admit but yes, that changes my opinion about punishment vs. rehabiliation. I dont know enough about the Vermont case to say. But again, I have never ONCE heard Oreilly mention that. Selective reporting?
I pray we arent talking about the same case. Mark Hulett was convitced of raping a 6 year old girl for 4 years. 4 years!!!!!! and got 60 days. and you think its ok because he is retarted? which I dont even know is true.
Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.
Judge Edward Cashman disagreed with prosecutors who thought Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston, Vt., deserved eight to 20 years in prison, reported WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vt.
Cashman said he's more concerned now about rehabilitation.
"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," Cashman told a packed Burlington courtroom made up mostly of people related to the victim.
Prior to the decision, Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued punishment "is a valid purpose."
"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does," she said, according to the Burlington TV station. "The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider."
Cashman said he wants to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment.
Under Department of Corrections classification, however, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense, which means he doesn't qualify for in-prison treatment.
Cashman, therefore, issued a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete sex-offender treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.
The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes "it accomplishes nothing of value."
"It doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court, WCAX reported.
Members of the victim's family were outraged.
"I don't like it," the victim's mother told the TV station, in tears. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house."
They are two different cases. There was one with a 4-year-old boy and one with the six-year-old.
I absolutely think child molesters belong behind bars. For life. Look at the man in Idaho who killed those two kids family, then killed the brother. He has admitted to killing 3 other children years ago. It doesnt stop.
But I take issue with OReilly reporting what he wants to report. A long time sexual predator is different than a mentally retarded man who touched a child. Its not black and white as he makes it seem. He knows that. But thats not what makes headlines so thats not what makes "Talking Points".
I'm not defending child molesters. I said "almost makes me agree with him," and someone jumped on that, as if it proves I'm sypathetic with it. That's just silly and combative and asking for an argument where one was not necessary.
If OReilly fashions himself such a champion of the people, then why does he report only half of the story? Does he not think his viewers can handle it?
Or is it simply "if it bleeds, it leads"? Isn't that what we all DONT want?
They are two different cases. There was one with a 4-year-old boy and one with the six-year-old.
I absolutely think child molesters belong behind bars. For life. Look at the man in Idaho who killed those two kids family, then killed the brother. He has admitted to killing 3 other children years ago. It doesnt stop.
But I take issue with OReilly reporting what he wants to report. A long time sexual predator is different than a mentally retarded man who touched a child. Its not black and white as he makes it seem. He knows that. But thats not what makes headlines so thats not what makes "Talking Points".
I'm not defending child molesters. I said "almost makes me agree with him," and someone jumped on that, as if it proves I'm sypathetic with it. That's just silly and combative and asking for an argument where one was not necessary.
If OReilly fashions himself such a champion of the people, then why does he report only half of the story? Does he not think his viewers can handle it?
Or is it simply "if it bleeds, it leads"? Isn't that what we all DONT want?
fair enough. lilke you, like me, I still think O'Reilly is looking to protect children from predators. even if he doesnt go about reporting it the best way
Comments
One thing you wont hear from Oreilly (or at least I hadnt) was that the man is mentally retarded. I hate to admit but yes, that changes my opinion about punishment vs. rehabiliation. I dont know enough about the Vermont case to say. But again, I have never ONCE heard Oreilly mention that. Selective reporting?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48219
Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.
Judge Edward Cashman disagreed with prosecutors who thought Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston, Vt., deserved eight to 20 years in prison, reported WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vt.
Cashman said he's more concerned now about rehabilitation.
"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," Cashman told a packed Burlington courtroom made up mostly of people related to the victim.
Prior to the decision, Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued punishment "is a valid purpose."
"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does," she said, according to the Burlington TV station. "The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider."
Cashman said he wants to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment.
Under Department of Corrections classification, however, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense, which means he doesn't qualify for in-prison treatment.
Cashman, therefore, issued a 60-day sentence and ordered Hulett to complete sex-offender treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.
The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes "it accomplishes nothing of value."
"It doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court, WCAX reported.
Members of the victim's family were outraged.
"I don't like it," the victim's mother told the TV station, in tears. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house."
I absolutely think child molesters belong behind bars. For life. Look at the man in Idaho who killed those two kids family, then killed the brother. He has admitted to killing 3 other children years ago. It doesnt stop.
But I take issue with OReilly reporting what he wants to report. A long time sexual predator is different than a mentally retarded man who touched a child. Its not black and white as he makes it seem. He knows that. But thats not what makes headlines so thats not what makes "Talking Points".
I'm not defending child molesters. I said "almost makes me agree with him," and someone jumped on that, as if it proves I'm sypathetic with it. That's just silly and combative and asking for an argument where one was not necessary.
If OReilly fashions himself such a champion of the people, then why does he report only half of the story? Does he not think his viewers can handle it?
Or is it simply "if it bleeds, it leads"? Isn't that what we all DONT want?