It is fascinating, if a bit scary, to watch the S-P game plan to target American children in action. S-P indoctrination of kids is the goal, but the strategy is largely hidden behind the touchy-feely “nurturing” description of education. However, if you cut through all the bull, the key question is clear: If S-Ps are sincerely looking out for the kids, what is the secular-progressive philosophy on criminal justice, especially when children are directly affected? A brutal criminal case in Vermont and a civil lawsuit in Massachusetts shed some powerful light on that question.
At six years old, Susie (not her real name) was by all accounts an adorable child. Cute and generally nice to be around, Susie enjoyed the rural outdoor life in northern Vermont. But then, oddly, Susie began to change. She became withdrawn, sometimes sullen, and she didn’t want to leave her house all that much. The innocent smiles of her toddler days become only a memory to those who knew her.
Susie lived with her uneducated mother and stepfather in a trailer home. Every Sunday, beginning when the girl was six years old, her mother’s friend from high school, a laborer by the name of Mark Hulett, then thirty, would babysit for a few hours. This arrangement went on for about four years, until Susie was ten. And during that time, Hulett repeatedly raped the little girl.
Finally, Susie told her parents the story. Hulett was charged with a variety of sexual felonies and pled guilty. In a shocking statement, he explicitly told authorities what he had done to the little girl. I cannot recount what Hulett confessed to doing in these pages. The confession is simply too monstrous.
Presiding over the case was Judge Edward Cashman, a Vietnam vet with a rather eccentric sentencing record. In some cases, Cashman handed down tough penalties, but at other times he was inexplicably inappropriate. For example, the Burlington Free Press reported that he told a rape victim she had experienced “one of the harsh realities of life.” After the young woman burst out crying, Cashman apologized. Onlookers in the courtroom were aghast.
As the confessed child rapist, Mark Hulett, stood before Judge Edward Cashman, some in the courtroom were expecting the criminal to get the maximum sentence: life. Instead, Cashman handed down a sentence of sixty days to ten years in state prison—and all but sixty days of the sentence was suspended. Why? So that the rapist could get “treatment” outside of prison. “The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn’t solve anything,” the judge explained. “It just corrodes your soul.”
Vermont Judge Edward Cashman ignited a firestorm when he sentenced a convicted child rapist to a mere sixty days in jail.
Susie’s family was stunned. A man who had brutally and methodically violated an innocent child over a four-year period would be serving less time in prison than Martha Stewart had. How could this happen in America? Surely, the civil liberties groups, the press, and the public would not stand for it.
Wrong. Most of the Vermont media, generally very liberal, actually supported the judge! In a shocking display of journalistic irresponsibility, the media portrayed him as a courageous man bent on reforming the justice system. Noah Hoffenburg, editorial director of the Bennington Banner, summarized the Vermont media position when he wrote: “We can see sexual predation as the disease itself; and make every attempt, as Judge Cashman did, to get to the source of the illness, thereby preventing the devastation of sexual assault in the future.”
So, according to many in the Vermont media, child rape is an illness—not to be punished, but to be treated. Believe me, this kind of insane thinking is very, very common in the secular-progressive movement. In fact, there’s even a name for it: “restorative justice.”
During my investigation of Judge Cashman, I found that he actually taught a course on “restorative justice” at the National Judicial College, which advertises itself as “the nation’s top judicial training institution.” In other words, Cashman is a huge proponent of this madness, which encourages the legal system to find a way to “reintegrate offenders into society.” The “restorative” crowd does not believe in retribution for crimes; they believe in “repairing harm” for both the victim and the offender. That is to say, society has a responsibility not only to the person who is harmed but also to the person doing the harm. Criminals need to be “nurtured.” The S-Ps strike again.
Don’t believe me? Well, guess who else has poured millions into getting “restorative justice” into the minds of those in the U.S. legal system? Does the name George Soros ring a bell?
Here’s how bad this Vermont situation really was. Shortly after Judge Cashman sentenced the child rapist Hulett to sixty days, a man named Ralph Page ambled into the courtroom of another Vermont judge, Patricia Zimmerman. Page was there to answer charges that he had punched a woman in the face. Upon hearing the evidence against him, Page screamed at Judge Zimmerman: “That’s f——bull—.” The judge promptly ruled Page in contempt of court and sentenced him to—you guessed it—sixty days in jail.
So there you have it. In Vermont you can get the same amount of jail time for systematically raping a little child over a four-year period as you can for cursing before a judge.
As for Judge Cashman, he remained defiantly steadfast. Before issuing his atrocious sentence, Cashman listened to the plea of the little girl’s aunt, June Benway, who broke down sobbing in the courtroom while saying:
The thought of my niece enduring years of sexual abuse sickens me. For four years she was a prisoner in her own home. For four years she had to fear going to bed at night.
She’s already developed behavioral problems that help to alienate herself from her peers…. When she is an adult, she won’t be able to reminisce about her first kiss and experience the laughter and joy that should come with that memory. For her, the thought of her first kiss will probably evoke pain and anger. Her first kiss should not have been shared with some pervert….
But Cashman was unmoved by the words of Ms. Benway. After she finished her statement, the judge began his explanation of the “justice” he was dispensing:
I feel very strongly about retribution. And why? I didn’t come to that easy. It isn’t something that I started at. I started out as a just-dessert sentencer. I liked it. Cross the line, pop them. Then I discovered it accomplishes nothing of value. It doesn’t make anything better.
And I keep telling prosecutors, and they won’t hear me, that punishment is not enough. You can’t be satisfied with punishment.
So in the mind of Vermont judge Edward Cashman, harshly punishing a child rapist is not the answer; “restorative justice” is. This abdication of common sense is truly shocking in a nation built on the bedrock concept of “equal justice for all” and “the punishment must fit the crime.” But Vermont, it seems, has left the United States. Asked about Cashman’s deplorable decision, retired Vermont chief justice Jeffrey Amestoy described Cashman as a “competent, caring, and conservative” trial judge.
Maybe in the Land of Oz, he would be.
Cashman’s outrageous behavior, and the Vermont media’s acceptance of it, made me furious. I was personally outraged and figured the national media would feel the same way I did. So I vigorously reported the story and asked the national press barons to get behind me and support the little girl and her family.
They didn’t. Once again, I was the naïve culture warrior. Please call me Dopey Tzu. The network news organizations and CNN totally ignored the story, as did the major urban newspapers. Even though millions of Americans were deeply concerned and angered, the elite media passed.
Perhaps encouraged by the national media’s apathy, some Vermont newspapers picked up the pace and actually began attacking me for my anti-Cashman stance: The Brattleboro Reformer called Cashman “One Tough Judge” in its headline and implied that I was a “demagogue.”
The Rutland Herald editorialized: “Cashman issued the sentence precisely to protect children. It was the only way to provide Hulett the treatment he needs in a timely manner in order to deter him from committing a similar offense in the future.”
r />
Uh, the only way? I believe life in prison would deter Hulett from raping another child, would it not?
In fact, the only newspaper in Vermont to initially criticize Cashman was the Burlington Free Press (which also skewered me so it could have it both ways). But most Vermont media fell in with the S-P troops, a disgraceful exhibition that is not easy to digest. The plight of, and justice for, little Susie was obviously secondary to the “needs” of the rapist. And the Vermont media had no problem with that.
Yet the more I thought about the situation, the more it came to make sense. Vermont is the land of Howard Dean, who was five times elected governor. It is a state split between traditionalists and secular-progressives, with the S-Ps obviously controlling much of the media. The public outcry in Vermont was also muted. To be sure, thousands of Vermonters were angry, but many of them told Factor producers they were afraid to stand up for fear of criticism. Everyone agreed there is a powerful and intimidating S-P presence in the state of Vermont.
But the Factor culture warriors wouldn’t let go. My staff and I pounded the story night after night, with revelations about Vermont’s weak leaders and chaotic legislature. Thousands of Americans besieged the Vermont governor with e-mails. Finally, the state wobbled. Judge Cashman, realizing his career was sliding down the drain, issued a new sentence for the child rapist Hulett: three to ten years. And Hulett would get “treatment” in the Big House.
This case is one of the most vivid examples of the culture war ever on display. A guy rapes a little girl over a four-year period and it takes an intensely fought national battle just to see he spends three years in prison. Most legal experts in Vermont believe he’ll be paroled after doing the minimum.
There is no question the little girl’s human rights were violated. But not one person from the S-P groups Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, or the National Organization for Women stepped up to protect her. Likewise, liberal Vermont politicians, who are supposedly looking out for the downtrodden, like Senators Jeffords and Leahy, Governor Dean, and Congressman Bernie Sanders, said not a word. All the S-P warriors sat it out. And that’s a fact.
Now, the logical question is: Why would the S-P movement want to stand behind an insane sentence for a child rapist? What’s in it for them?
Well, we’ve explored the “restorative justice” link, but there’s also something else. In the S-P world, few judgments are made about personal behavior; the old “if it feels good, do it” adage from the sixties is commonly accepted. But, usually, even the ACLU draws the line at violent criminal behavior. However, the restorative justice concept is picking up steam in the S-P ranks—the “disease” excuse is featured prominently in S-P criminal philosophy. We shouldn’t prosecute street-level dope dealers, for example, we should give them “treatment,” because substance abuse is a disease that needs to be cured, not punished. And it is the “illness,” not the person, that is the cause of the harm people might do. It’s really not their fault, you see. In the words of Judge Edward Cashman: “Punishment is not the answer.”
Many of us would like to kill a person who raped our child. That is a natural reaction, a genuine emotional response to a crime that is so heinous it is off the chart. But in the brave new world of the S-P movement, even child rape is not enough to condemn the criminal to spend much of his or her life behind bars. Even though the child is devastated for life, the criminal must be “healed” in order for true justice to take place. This is what America will come to if the secular-progressives ever take over—and if you think I’m exaggerating, you’re wrong. The states of Minnesota and Vermont have been heavily influenced by secular-progressive thought. It is no accident that those two states are the only ones in the Union that officially sanction the philosophy of “restorative justice.”
The final part of this miserable story deals with our pals at the New York Times, the “all the news that’s fit to print” newspaper. Apparently, the plight of the little Vermont girl was not “fit to print,” because the Times totally ignored the story. Now, I thought that rather strange. You’ll remember the vicious attack on me by Times columnist Nicholas Kristof over the Christmas controversy. Kristof, the human rights guy, described me as akin to a Muslim fundamentalist. He also challenged me to join him in reporting human rights abuses abroad. Well, here’s my question: If Africa is in play, Nick, why not Vermont?
So on February, 3, 2006, I dedicated my syndicated newspaper column to Kristof and his employers at the Times and wrote this:
Here’s an update on that young Vermont girl whose life has been made a living hell by a justice system that literally could not care less about her.
You may remember that 34-year-old Mark Hulett pleaded guilty to raping the child over a four-year period, starting when she was just six-years-old. The judge in the case frowned when he heard the confession and promptly sentenced the vicious criminal to 60 days in prison. A few journalists, including myself, picked up on the outrage and, under enormous pressure, Judge Edward Cashman changed the sentence to three years; still an incredible miscarriage of justice.
The girl, now 10, is being raised by foster parents. Vermont authorities believe her mother and stepfather are incapable of properly protecting the child. She is undergoing counseling and is in school, but, according to those who see her every day, she’s confused and unhappy.
Surely this young girl’s human rights have been violated; no person on this earth should have to suffer the way she has.
A few weeks ago, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof criticized me for reporting on the Christmas controversy. Kristof asserted that I fabricated the story and ignored “real” stories like the suffering in the Sudan.
Kristof wrote: “So I have a challenge for Mr. O’Reilly: If you really want to defend traditional values, then come with me on a trip to Darfur. I’ll introduce you to mothers who have had their babies clubbed to death in front of them, to teenage girls who have been gang-raped…”
Now, I do three hours of daily news analysis on TV and radio; there’s no way I can go to Africa in light of those commitments. However, I’m glad Kristof can go because somebody needs to spotlight that terrible situation.
But an interesting thing happened shortly after that Kristof column: the 60-day sentence for the child rapist came to light. Because Kristof had referenced teenage rape in his criticism of me, I fully expected to see him and The New York Times all over the Vermont situation. After all, this human rights violation happened just a few hundred miles north of New York City.
But the Times didn’t cover the Vermont story—didn’t even mention it. And there was not a word from my pal Nicholas Kristof, the human rights guy.
So what’s going on here? Aren’t liberal press advocates champions of the downtrodden? Maybe Kristof can write another column explaining to me why the Vermont child doesn’t matter to him or his newspaper.
I hope this doesn’t sound bitter, because I don’t mean it to be. I am genuinely perplexed by the sanctimonious left-wing press, which doesn’t consider a 60-day jail term for a child rapist an outrage.
While the Times rails against alleged human-rights violations in Guantanamo Bay and other far-off places, it apparently has no interest in protecting poor American children from predators and irresponsible judges.
Something isn’t right here. What say you on the left?
Now, that column was written with the intention of embarrassing Kristof and the New York Times. I admit it. Remember, that newspaper is the secular-progressive Bible. My feeling is that the Times ignored the Vermont story because I was so involved in it and because the Times is definitely on board with the “restorative justice” movement. But I could be wrong.
For the record, about a week after I wrote that column calling the Times out for ignoring the little girl in Vermont, Nicholas Kristof wrote another column asking his readers to send money so a ticket could be purchased in order to send me to Africa. It was a dopey article, the point of which escaped just about everyone I
know. But Kristof did comment on my crusading for justice in Vermont. He called it “good stuff.”
Well, thanks, Nick, but I’m still waiting for your employers to assign someone to expose the myriad of human rights violations going on inside the United States. It would be great for the powerful New York Times to get behind Jessica’s Law, a tough anti–sexual predator law being adopted by states across the country, wouldn’t it?
Never gonna happen.
And the atrocities keep on coming in the USA. Soon after the Vermont debacle, an Ohio judge named John Connor pronounced sentence on a man who forced a five-year-old boy and an eleven-year-old boy to have sex with him. The man admitted committing the felonies and to doing a number of other horrendous things to these children. Connor could have sentenced the predator to ten years in prison. But he did not. He gave the degenerate probation. No prison time at all. Connor pronounced that the man had a “disease.”
I let Judge Connor have it on The Factor, arguing that the state had to impeach him. Even after the Vermont experience, I thought the Ohio press would be on my side. The Toledo Blade was. But most of the other media condemned me. Newspapers in Cincinnati, Akron, and Dayton actually supported Connor. It was another shocking display of media irresponsibility. The Dayton Daily News was the worst. It leveled personal attacks on me, the governor of Ohio, and the attorney general of the state for demanding Connor’s removal. It was, perhaps, the most despicable thing I have ever seen in an American newspaper. And, no surprise, the Dayton paper is a bastion of secular-progressive opinion.