I was able to track down a news article released today by the Burlington Free press that gives a bit more information on the case against Derek Kimball, the second man accused of sexually assaulting the young girl Mark Hulett was convicted of raping.
How it is that both of these men where able to make bail when their crimes where of the most heinous sort, mystifies me. I'd deeply bothered by the fact that Mark Hulett had been investigated back in 2003 for sexually abusing this child, and was able to continue doing so for two more years. It is a gross failure of the system to protect someone unable to defend themselves.
For more information on the case against Kimball, you may find stories so far at the Burlington Free Press (quoted from above) and WCAX 3 News.
Meanwhile, those of you watching to see where your future votes should be going, WCAX has quoted Republican Rep. Michael Kainen, a lawyer and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the Vermont House as saying "If it were accurately reported, I think there would have been a little less furor." I couldn't disagree more. What Judge Edward Cashman said, that is really the defining problem behind the sentence is that "And I keep telling prosecutors, and they won't hear me, that punishment is not enough." In this case there really was no punishment. Hulett was allowed bail until the day he was sentenced, and even then it still stands that he received 3 years, with all but 60 days set aside. I'm sorry, but that is no punishment. It is not fitting of the crime, and it endangers the rest of the public. Hulett was charged for a crime he committed against a child, a heinous crime that deserves justice be done in this case. A sentence of confinement in a prison is not suppose to deter him from future crimes, but punish him for the crime committed.
The very reason Hulett was charged, and convicted was not because there was a fear of future crimes, but because of the crime that had already been committed. Judge Cashman, has a responsibility to hand out punishment for that crime, before he is obligated to find a way to treat the possibility of future crimes.
A major reason why there is so much concern connected between the Mark Hulett sentencing, and Derek Kimball's charges are because of the possibility of Hulett's sentence effecting Kimball's. Even if the judge in this case hands him a lengthy sentence, because his case is related to Hulett's, he could easily appeal it. Two connected crimes should have similar punishments, how can anyone reason that patting one on the back while sending the other away to a life behind bars is just?
Categories: predators, molesters judges,
Derek Kimball, 33, of Hinesburg was arrested in October and is charged with sexual assault on a victim less than 10 years of age, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He was briefly jailed, then released on $25,000 bond and a series of conditions, including that he not contact the victim or any girls under the age of 16. He could face up to life in prison if convicted. Court papers describe Kimball as a friend of Hulett's.
How it is that both of these men where able to make bail when their crimes where of the most heinous sort, mystifies me. I'd deeply bothered by the fact that Mark Hulett had been investigated back in 2003 for sexually abusing this child, and was able to continue doing so for two more years. It is a gross failure of the system to protect someone unable to defend themselves.
For more information on the case against Kimball, you may find stories so far at the Burlington Free Press (quoted from above) and WCAX 3 News.
Meanwhile, those of you watching to see where your future votes should be going, WCAX has quoted Republican Rep. Michael Kainen, a lawyer and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the Vermont House as saying "If it were accurately reported, I think there would have been a little less furor." I couldn't disagree more. What Judge Edward Cashman said, that is really the defining problem behind the sentence is that "And I keep telling prosecutors, and they won't hear me, that punishment is not enough." In this case there really was no punishment. Hulett was allowed bail until the day he was sentenced, and even then it still stands that he received 3 years, with all but 60 days set aside. I'm sorry, but that is no punishment. It is not fitting of the crime, and it endangers the rest of the public. Hulett was charged for a crime he committed against a child, a heinous crime that deserves justice be done in this case. A sentence of confinement in a prison is not suppose to deter him from future crimes, but punish him for the crime committed.
"Mark should spend the rest of his life in prison because that is the sentence he has given to (the victim)," she said. "(The victim) has had her innocence and freedom stolen from her by Mark and, therefore, should - he should have his freedom stolen from him."
She ended her testimony by saying: "The one final thought that I want to leave people with is this: Would you want your children or grandchildren to run into Mark someday?"
Cashman thanked her for her testimony, saying "That's a very powerful statement," and then detailing from past cases his feelings about how hard life will be for the victim and everyone around her.
"I think everybody who loves this young girl are going to be carrying this burden," he said. "No question about it. You're carrying it, you're carrying it, everyone. I can see it in the faces in the people in the back. He has touched everybody negatively."
Weaving throughout the hearing, though, was Cashman's concern for how best to ensure that Hulett received proper treatment to ensure that he not be a future threat to others.
"I'm not doing this for the family," he said at one point. "My heart goes out to this family and I would hate to be in the situation this family is, but there's other
families out there and there's other people who could be victimized and I'm
trying to take the long view." SOURCE
The very reason Hulett was charged, and convicted was not because there was a fear of future crimes, but because of the crime that had already been committed. Judge Cashman, has a responsibility to hand out punishment for that crime, before he is obligated to find a way to treat the possibility of future crimes.
A major reason why there is so much concern connected between the Mark Hulett sentencing, and Derek Kimball's charges are because of the possibility of Hulett's sentence effecting Kimball's. Even if the judge in this case hands him a lengthy sentence, because his case is related to Hulett's, he could easily appeal it. Two connected crimes should have similar punishments, how can anyone reason that patting one on the back while sending the other away to a life behind bars is just?
Categories: predators, molesters judges,
Comments
"Judge Cashman, has a responsibility to hand out punishment for that crime, before he is obligated to find a way to treat the possibility of future crimes."
Exactly! And even if he were really considering "the long view," as he said, he would have given him the max. 25 years. Or didn't he know about that?
Fantastic entry, Lilo. Thanks for sharing the new info.
-J