On 18 Oct 2006, at 1:30 PM, Marc Guido wrote:

>> I thought EVERY day was troll day on SKIVT-L!?!  (Somebody,
>> stop me! :-)
> It must else could you be defending a 60-day sentence for  
> a guy who
> repeatedly raped a child over a three-year period?
> Treatment to help him? My butt...he can get plenty of treatment  
> during 20
> years in the Grey Bar Motel. Why did those two options need to be  
> mutually
> exclusive, as Cashman asserted?

Because until Cashman handed down the 60-day sentence, that was state  
(DoC) policy.  After the 60-day sentence, the DoC decided that it  
could change the policy and Cashman changed the sentence to include  
more jail time.

> Or better still, simply impose life without
> parole -- I'd gladly pay the taxes to keep that scum away from  
> other kids.
> The recitivism rate amongst those who commit such crimes is  
> ridiculous.

I'd think that longer sentences for sex crimes would make a lot of  
sense (and I'd suggest that the state offset some of the cost by not  
locking up nonviolent drug offenders, regardless of whether they're  
selling or merely using), but victims' rights groups tend to oppose  
longer sentences.  As I understand their argument, a plea bargain is  
a lot more attractive when there's a better chance of getting out  
reasonably soon, which translates into fewer trials and fewer victims  
forced to testify.

 From that standpoint, we need to increase the reporting rate on sex  
crimes and deal with societal and cultural ramifications victims may  
feel (real or imagined) to be a result of coming forward before we  
can increase the mandatory sentences; otherwise, the net result may  
very well be more offenders on the street because victims are unable  
or unwilling to testify and offenders are less likely to take a plea  

Kevin T. Broderick
[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit