Liberal Activist Judges Strike Again

[Shady]

Rapist's Prison Sentence Triggers Outrage

Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005

There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.

Link

[FTA Lawyer]

Rapist's Prison Sentence Triggers Outrage

Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005

There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.

Link

Insanity should not be mistakenly labled "Liberal Activism". Cases like this are why we have 1) Appeal Courts and 2) Judiciary Review Panels.

FTA

[America1]

Rapist's Prison Sentence Triggers Outrage

Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005

There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.

Link

Insanity should not be mistakenly labled "Liberal Activism". Cases like this are why we have 1) Appeal Courts and 2) Judiciary Review Panels.

FTA

The case has nothing to do with Insanity. The wacko judge just feels punishment doesn't work. He is dead wrong on the issue and it seems he will be removed from the bench.

[Black Dog]

I'm still trying to see what this case has to do with judicial activism.

[legamus]

this kind of stuff burns me up. if that guy re-offends the judge should be tried as an accessory or something.

[Argus]

The case has nothing to do with Insanity. The wacko judge just feels

Eh?

[Argus]

I'm still trying to see what this case has to do with judicial activism.

Well then, perhaps you'll like this. It's an excellent read, though I have my doubts many will put in sufficient time to go to the end.

Robed dictators

Some of the points:

On the Mortgentaler decision:

"In a dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice William McIntyre raised this same

point. He did not challenge Judge Wilson's views on the evolving value of

life in the womb. He did not express any opinion on the morality of

abortion. Instead, he argued that the courts should not pass judgment on an

abortion law in interpreting the Charter. He insisted: "The solution to this

question in this country must be left to Parliament. It is for Parliament to

pronounce on, and to direct, social policy. This is not because Parliament

can claim all wisdom and knowledge but simply because Parliament is elected

for that purpose in a free democracy and, in addition, has the facilities -

the exposure to public opinion and information - as well as the political

power to make effect its decisions."

On the Latimer decision

The case of Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan man who killed his severely handicapped daughter, provides a particularly flagrant example of judge-politicians setting aside the law. In sentencing Latimer for second degree murder, Mr. Justice G. E. Noble of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decided that the Criminal Code's mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years would violate the Charter guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, he found Latimer guilty of "compassionate homicide" — a crime unknown to the Criminal Code — and sentenced him to one year in prison, plus 12 months of house arrest.

While many Canadians applauded the verdict, others were horrified. Lost in this debate are the alarming implications of Judge Noble's flouting of the law. Can the rights of any citizen be secure in a democracy that allows a judge to set aside the Criminal Code in favor of whatever penalty he considers appropriate?

On Feeney

With this statement, Judge Sopinka stood truth on its head. Far from affirming the rule of law, he abandoned it. Instead of upholding the common law, he and the Supreme Court imposed their own peculiar ideas of what the law should require. To compound the effrontery, the court gave Parliament just six months to either enact a new arrest warrant law or see the courts release thousands of other criminals on grounds that they, too, had been arrested contrary to the Supreme Court's newly minted legal requirements.

Senator Anne Cools, a Liberal appointed to the Senate by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, bristles at such judicial blackmail. During a debate on federal legislation introduced at Judge Sopinka's bidding, she rebuked him for usurping "the singular and exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada." She told the Senate "that Mr. Justice Sopinka has reviewed Parliament's wish to pass or not pass a statute, and has made an order that effects a command to Parliament to enact a statute by his deadline as ordered; that Justice Sopinka could come to this Chamber to give royal assent to this same Bill C-16, is an exercise of power unknown to Canada's constitutional monarchy and, more important, unknown to Canadian parliamentary history and practice."

[legamus]

that latimer decision is a tough one - i don't know what i think of it; i'm certainly glad i didn't have to pass judgement on him!

(i think cases like that though are a decent argument to not scrap that notwithstanding clause - please excuse my putting that in this thread, it just came to mind reading (skimming) through that stuff.)

[geoffrey]

that latimer decision is a tough one - i don't know what i think of it; i'm certainly glad i didn't have to pass judgement on him!

(i think cases like that though are a decent argument to not scrap that notwithstanding clause - please excuse my putting that in this thread, it just came to mind reading (skimming) through that stuff.)

Latimer should have had murder one and life.

Whats the age of consent on euthanasia? You can't consent to sex until 14, you can't drink until 18-19, you can't vote until 18... but you can consent that your life is no longer worth living at 12?

Or is the argument the parent can decide if the child's life is worth living until they can?

Doesn't this justify any case of killing your kids, for all, the parent always knows?

[YankAbroad]

Ah, yes, the infamous "activist judge."

Activist judge = judge who makes a decision about the law which I disapprove of

Proper jurist = judge who makes a decision about the law which I approve of

Legislating from the bench = judge who strikes down an unconstitutional law which I supported

Defending our liberties = judge who strikes down an unconstitutional law which I opposed

Etc., etc., etc.

[FTA Lawyer]

Ah, yes, the infamous "activist judge."

Activist judge = judge who makes a decision about the law which I disapprove of

Proper jurist = judge who makes a decision about the law which I approve of

Legislating from the bench = judge who strikes down an unconstitutional law which I supported

Defending our liberties = judge who strikes down an unconstitutional law which I opposed

Etc., etc., etc.

Well put.

FTA

[Guest eureka]

The most succint commentary on this that I have ever seen. Millions of words have been written an that summarizes them.