TailOverTeaKettle.com

I really wonder if there’s anyone out there who would believe that a 60-day sentance (time served) plus probation is an appopriate response to a conviction for child molestation. And there has been much outrage from many in the days since Vermont District Court Judge Edward Cashman sentanced Mark Hulett. (Burlington Free Press, State offers sex offender treatment in controversial case : 12 January 2006). Supposedly, the judge made some statements indicating that the lack of in-jail “treatment” for his sexual affliction caused him to make the original decision.

It’s great that he wants to help poor Mark Hulett. (I mean, forget about the victim… we need to help the poor, poor rapist).

After saying that he refused to be pressured into changing the sentance, he did succumb to the pressure and change course, giving a three year sentance (Burlington Free Press, Sex offender’s 60-day sentence increased to 3 years: 27 January 2006).

At Hulett’s original sentencing Jan. 4, Cashman said the best way to prevent Hulett from committing similar crimes was quick treatment, but because Corrections would not offer counseling to Hulett in prison, the minimum term needed to be short.

After some initial comments from the judge indicating that the sentancing was really in line with others being handed out in the state, it really made me wonder what the heck was going on. Even the new sentance seems very light. Is it really the ‘norm’ to give out such ridiculous punishments (if you can even call it a punishment)? But actually, it does seem that, even in Vermont, there is justice, on average. (Burlington Free Press, Average child-rape sentence is 8-25 years, statistics say: 27 January 2006):

The average sentence for the crime in the past five years was eight to 25 years, Robin Adler, associate director of the center, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

But despite all of this, there are many who said that the uproar was misplaced. That it really was about preventing crimes in the future and rehabilitation is better than retribution. If he ever stepped out of line and violated his probation, he would be sent to prison. Of course, that line of thinking convienently forgets two facts: (1) You can not commit a crime like this while you are locked up in prison the first time, and (2) Upon release from prison, Mr. Hulett would have begun receiving ‘treatment’ anyway.

But maybe they are all just so much smarter about what to do with convicted sex offenders. Even the Burlington paper said that outrage just misses the point. (Burlington Free Press, Hulett cases puts spotlight on sex offender treatment, 29 January 2006):

From the armchair, the arguments go like this: All sex offenders are the same. Treatment doesn’t work. We might as well lock them all up forever.

Those are the sort of comments that have cropped up over dinner tables and television talk shows in recent weeks in the sandstorm of debate swirling around a highly publicized case of a Williston man who sexually assaulted a young girl for four years.

The debate started with outrage over 34-year-old Mark Hulett’s original sentence to a minimum of 60 days in prison, but the sentence — and the judge’s underlying reasons for issuing it — also raise hard questions about sex-offender treatment: when and where it’s given and whether treatment is even worthwhile.

Georgia Cumming has heard the questions before. The director of the Vermont Corrections Department’s sex-offender treatment program has been working in the field for more than 30 years and runs a nationally acclaimed program. Reality, she said, is different from many of the perceptions.

“Treatment can be effective,” Cumming said. “You never talk about curing an alcoholic. An alcoholic can choose to live their life differently. Most need outside help to do that. It’s the same thing with sex offenders.”

Studies back up her argument. Two Vermont studies indicate that offenders who completed treatment — either in prison or in a community program — were much less likely to commit a new crime, particularly a new sex crime, than those who had some or no treatment.

“In reality, most sex offenders don’t recidivate,” said David D’Amora, director of the Center for Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior in Connecticut.

“One can do a very bad thing and not do it again,” D’Amora said.

This is very interesting. Of course, one week earlier, the same newpaper had a slightly different story. It was one of Franky Niles. He stands accused of murdering his girlfriend. The body of the dying woman had to be discovered by her 6 year-old daughter. Then it came out that Franky had a past. He had been convicted of raping a minor at knifepoint in Massachusetts (Burlington Free Press, Murder suspect’s long record included sex crime, early release and probation violation, 22 January 2006). He also received a sentance of five to eight years but suspended all but 146 days of it. Very similar to the Hulett sentance. He violated parole several times, And later found himself living in Vermont, in a community that did not know there was a predator in their midst.

Bachand, the Vermont State Police detective lieutenant, said he questions whether sex-offender treatment was an effective response to Niles’ conviction for child rape.

“This treatment stuff works for some who really want it, and it doesn’t for others who are good at playing the game,” Bachand said. “Their concern should be protecting the public.”

University of Vermont Professor Gale Burford, who teaches in the Department of Social Work and has researched treatment for sex offenders, said outcomes can vary. “Overall,” he said, “you get better results than you do with no treatment.”

Among the factors that influence whether counseling is effective are the rigor of the program, whether it includes risk prevention and the level of commitment from the offender, Burford said.

“Sex-offender treatment works best when the person is willing to engage in it,” he said. “There are these people who can bluff their way through it. It’s a complicated story.”

Vermont data suggest that in-prison counseling is effective as long as inmates complete the process, said Georgia Cumming, director of the Corrections Department sex-offender treatment program. Those who finish counseling re-offend at a rate of 5.4 percent, Cumming said, compared with a rate of 30 percent for offenders who receive only some counseling or refuse it.

Sex offenders can learn to manage their urges, but there is no “cure” for their sexual deviancy, Cumming said. She drew a parallel to alcoholics, who, even after becoming sober, never stop being alcoholics, but they can learn to control their desire to drink. Sex offenders also can be taught to manage their temptations, Cumming said.

“They can learn it’s not an out-of-control, impulsive behavior; they can learn the risk factors; they can learn coping strategies; and they can maintain a normal life,” she said.
Niles and Fontaine

Niles’ history of sex-crime convictions and orders to seek treatment were unknown to Fontaine and her family and friends, loved ones said last week.

Not much help for the family, who are learning just what kind of person did this.

Bianchi said she can’t fathom why the prison term Niles served for child rape in Massachusetts was as short as it was, even after he was incarcerated for violating his probation.

“He deserved a hell of a lot longer than what he got, because that obviously did not do anything,” she said, taking note of the current charges against him. “Why are they getting such light, lenient sentences?”

Maybe she didn’t hear that it’s all about rehabilitation. Maybe she should study the case of Mark Hulett.

Or better yet, maybe Judge Edward Cashman should look at the case of Franky Niles before he gives his next sentance.