I don't know if anyone actually read any facts about the Vermont case, or if they just watched The O'Reilly Factor to get their news.
Not that I agree with the judge in this case (anything less than death is too lenient in my book), but the facts don't support the bloggers on this one. What the judge was given, as a plea deal worked out by the prosecutor, was a guilty plea to 3 counts ONLY IF the lower end of the sentence was less than 90 days. If the judge had not included less than 90 days as the lower end, the guilty plea would have been rescinded, the elocution would not have taken place, the child would have had to testify (which she did NOT want to do, according to the prosecutor). Thus, the prosecutor recommended to the judge to make this sentence. The sentence was: 60 days to 10 years to serve for the first count, consecutive probationary sentence of 5 years to life on the second count, consecutive probationary 2- to 5-year sentence on the third count. Not 60 days, 60 days to 10 years. With the 2nd sentence imposed (life) if the offender did not attend sexual-offender treatment while in prison or if he ever broke probation. So, the sentence was 60 days to 10 years. The parole board in prison (and any "good behavior" or overcrowding time the system imposes) decides how much of that 10 years he serves. The prosecutor wanted 60 days to 20 years (rather than 10). I agree with him, but the difference between the two sentences is not THAT different factually. Of course, he was using the difference for political mileage. The state indicated it didn't want to pay for treatment for an offended considered "low risk" to reoffend. The judge went on to publicly state that he felt that incarceration (punishment) alone was not enough, that the offender ALSO needed treatment. He was trying to use the public outrage of this to get the state to agree. Boy did this backfire. This was the statement taken so far out of context. Finally, the press jumped all over this, followed by the talking heads, and then the bloggers. Unfortunately, they left out the facts and stretched the truth for sensational headlines and sound bites. Further, the politicians in Vermont also then jumped on this, trying to beat each other to the "hang the child molester and the judge that loves him" punchline. If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at the parole board if they were insane enough to let this monster out of jail before every day of the sentence was served. On 3/2/06, Matthew Blatchley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's the fresh air of Vermont....causes people to do crazy things. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198591 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
