Judge Cashman defends his decision to impose 60 day sentence

BURLINGTON, Vt. --District Court Judge Edward Cashman is standing by the 60-day minimum sentence he imposed on a man convicted of having repeated sexual contact with a young girl.

The goal in handing down the sentence on Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston is the long-term protection of the public from a man Cashman considers to be a greater threat to re-offend if he does not receive immediate sex-offender treatment, the judge wrote.

Cashman said in court documents filed Tuesday that he would have required more jail time for Hulett if he could have received sex offender treatment in jail.

"Sentencing is not the end of a problem," he wrote. "It should be the start of a solution."

Hulett received a combined sentence of a 10-year minimum to a maximum of life in prison for his conviction on two charges of aggravated sexual assault and a lesser offense, with all but 60 days suspended.

"The court maximized the long-term public safety protection at the cost of what now appears as being 'soft' on child molesters," Cashman wrote. "At sentencing, the court viewed the defendant as a dangerous man, likely to engage in future crime unless he has proper and timely treatment."

The maximum sentence of life in prison "sought to ensure public safety should Mr. Hulett fail in or refuse treatment during the first 10-year term," Cashman wrote.

Cashman's decision has been condemned by Gov. James Douglas, who said he was appalled by it. Republican and Democratic lawmakers are calling for legislation with mandatory minimum sentences for sex crimes.

One state senator is urging his impeachment. "This guy has got to go," said state Sen. Wendy Wilton, R-Rutland. "People believe he has flipped his lid."

House Republicans on Tuesday introduced a resolution calling on Cashman to resign.

"Like all Vermonters, Republican legislators are astonished by Judge Cashman's lack of judgment in this case," said Assistant House GOP leader David Sunderland, R-Rutland. "Cashman's decision raises real questions about Vermont's judicial system, a system we already believed needed reforms to protect the public from extreme violent and sexual predators."

Cashman filed court papers Tuesday in which he reconsidered the sentence he imposed on Hulett last week. He did not change the sentence, but the document gave him the opportunity to more fully explain the original decision.

Cashman said he was aware of the criticism his decision had prompted. "The negative comments sting," he wrote.

"I am aware that the intensity of some public criticism may shorten my judicial career," Cashman said. "To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong.

"I owe it to the judiciary and to my own conscience to maintain a stand that I believe is the best possible option in a very difficult situation," he said.

Hulett pleaded guilty last summer to charges that he sexually assaulted the victim on at least three occasions over a four-year period. The assaults included oral-genital contact and genital touching, documents said.

Hulett was a friend of the victim's family and stayed in her home frequently. The victim's parents were aware that Hulett had an interest in the girl and that the two, on some occasions, slept in the same bed.

Police were alerted to the case after the victim told an older girl what had happened.

The Department of Correction's sex offender treatment team and Hulett's attorney argued his risk to re-offend was low and that he should be treated in the community.

But Cashman disagreed with those assessments. He wrote that Hulett had the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year old and Hulett didn't understand why others were so upset by his actions.

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.

"The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," Cashman wrote. "Delay in treatment, especially if connected with lengthy imprisonment, creates additional risks by hardening the defendant into a pattern of thinking that further alienates him from the fundamental social values we are trying to promote."

But the sex offender treatment team told the court that Hulett would not be eligible for treatment during his minimum sentence.

"This creates the most difficult dilemma of the sentencing," Cashman wrote. "Any extensive minimum sentence prevents meaningful treatment. Delay of treatment within a closed facility increases the long-term risk the defendant presents to the community. Given these options the court chose to reduce the long-term risks and permit an opportunity for quick treatment."

Cashman said that during the sentencing hearing he was tempted by the calls for a long prison sentence.

"The issue to this court is not retribution as a sentencing tool, but rather its appropriateness to meet sentencing goals in specific cases," Cashman said. "I hope I have made clear that the amount of retribution sought in this case is self-defeating. Deterring future crimes of sexual abuse of children requires the court's very best efforts to use the available tools."