SIXTY DAYS. That's the jail timeout of a possible life sentence thata child rapist was sentenced to on Jan. 4 after he admitted to sexually assaulting a girl from the age of six for a period of four years. While this ruling should sound completely absurd to all of us, akin to something straight out of a twisted courtroom drama movie, it's reality for Mark Hulett, a sex offender from Vermont. Believe it or not, this one sentence is not an aberration to the system; to defend the sentence, Hulett's attorney Mark Kaplan pointed out that it wasn't drastically different from other Vermont courts' rulings -- something that should trouble everyone. This extremely lenient sentence is wrongheaded and imprudent, and the philosophy behind it is equally unsound.
This ruling stemmed from Judge Edward Cashman's belief in the relative unimportance of punishment. He commented during the original sentencing that it "accomplishes nothing of value. It doesn't make anything better." Instead of jail time, Cashman felt that Hulett should be released as soon as possible so he could get sex offender treatment. Hulett was apparently classified as a low-risk repeat offender by the corrections department in Vermont and, according to the law, was not eligible for treatment until he was released from jail. Regardless, this classification shouldn't have had any sway over Cashman's decision. According to The Burlington Free Press, Mike Smith, secretary of the Agency of Human Services in Vermont, clarified that the ranking system was created merely for the corrections department's internal use and "never intended to be used by judges to determine a sentence."
Cashman's logic in this case is flawed in many aspects. Primarily, he judged actual punishment (i.e. prison time) inferior to sex offender treatment when given an ultimate choice between the two.
Sex offender treatment is ambiguous as a means of reducing repeat sex crimes drastically. A study released in 2001 by the Center for Sex Offender Management, which falls under the U.S. Department of Justice, reported that one type of treatment, the cognitive behavioral approach, "holds considerable promise" in lowering recidivism rates, which, according to one review cited in the study, ranged from seven to 35 percent for rapists and 10 to 40 percent for child molesters. The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers even admits on its Web site that "treatment does not work equally well for all offenders." According to the Boston Globe "Experts found that Hulett was in a group of sex offenders who are harder to treat than others and that he would need a lifetime of supervision."
In short, Cashman felt that an option that hasn't yet been definitively proven effective on a wide scale would be more appropriate than jail time for a candidate that was deemed difficult to treat from the outset. This is not to say that treatment is not beneficial in some cases; some evidence indicates that the rate of recidivism is slightly lower, on average, for some who undergo treatment (depending on a wide range of factors), and many states have implemented some sort of treatment program. However, treatment should never absolve a serious jail sentence.
Secondly, the idea that a longer punishment will diminish the chance for lower recidivism is misguided. Obviously, more time spent in jail is less time spent outside of jail where a sex offender could commit more crimes. Eighteen states have passed or are currently deliberating over some form of "Jessica's Law" in light of the high-profile rape and murder of Jessica Lunsford last year, which calls for stricter sentences and usually a minimum 25 year sentence for sex crimes involving children.
Additionally, recidivism rates drop as age increases. In February 2004, The Minnesota Department of Safety cited a 2003 Bureau of Justice statistics study which concluded, "The older the prisoner at the time of release, the less likely they were to re-offend; the lowest recidivism rates were for sex offenders age 45 or older." Aside from the practical faults of the decision, the spirit in which it was decided is disconcerting. The judge told the victim's family they shouldn't be angry at Hulett, and he believed a lengthy prison sentence wasn't necessary.
What about paying a debt to society after committing a heinous act? It's hard to envision justice being served in a scenario such as this. We live in a nation of laws. When a person breaks a law, he should be punished fittingly.
On Jan. 11, the state of Vermont proposed sex-offender treatment for Hulett in prison, which was mean to influence Cashman to toughen the sentence. After much publicity, protests, state government pressure and national media attention, Judge Cashman changed the sentence to a minimum of three years (maximum of 10) last Thursday following a motion filed by the prosecution.
There is a silver lining in Cashman's actions -- they have evoked an outcry among Vermont representatives for an examination of sex offender statutes -- which will hopefully inhibit any more injudicious sentences.
Whitney Blake's column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 2 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
