Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Jessica’s Law and Vermont
First off, I’d like to clarify a few things that I didn’t make clear in my last post.
I understand that having Jessica’s Law in effect would not have made a difference in Brooke Bennett’s case, because the person Michael Jacques was convicted of molesting back in ’93 was not a child. Therefore, the 25 year mandatory sentencing would not have applied in his case. However, he WAS accused of molesting a child back in the ’80s, a case that never went to trial, apparently because the family would not let the teenager being abused testify. That’s a mistake that the FAMILY made, and I sincerely hope that they now realize what a horrible mistake it was.
Second of all, I’m not just some woman sitting here in Florida looking to bash Vermont, having no ties to the state. Far from it. I grew up in the Burlington area, and my family still lives in Vermont. My daughter is getting ready to go there on a visit to her Grandma’s….my mother. I have strong ties to Vermont, and it breaks my heart to keep seeing it in the news this way. Vermont is a beautiful state, and it would be a wonderful place to bring children up, in most circumstances.
Ok, having cleared those two issues up….so far, I’ve had two lawmakers in Vermont who have taken the time to write me back, Senator Jim Condos and Senator Mark McDonald. I’d like to say that I really, really appreciate the fact that they took the time to do this, I believe they both know that I do not live in Vermont, and therefore I have no bearing at all in their retaining their office (and they’re both Democrats, too, so I’d be no help to them even if I were still a resident of Vermont). They’ve both taken the time to try and explain some of the changes that Vermont has made in their sex offender laws….and I’ll give y’all credit, it does sound like Vermonters are trying to make changes to their laws. Is it enough? I don’t know.
Vermont is reluctant to bring in the 25 year mandatory sentencing guidelines, feeling that this makes it much harder in many cases to get a conviction. If you can plea bargain with them, apparently some pedophiles will talk, thereby making it more possible that they at least serve some jail time. In a sense, I guess I can understand this philosophy….but that’s just so sad.
These are some of the changes that Senator Jim Condos brought to my attention:
• An increase to 10 years as a minimum sentence for aggravated sexual
assault, unless the judge deems a lesser sentence to be appropriate and
goes on record with his reasoning. Now, anyone convicted of aggravated
sexual assault must spend at least 5 years in prison, and as much as
life in prison.
• Offenders must stay in jail until they successfully complete a
rehabilitation course, regardless of how much of their sentences they
have served.
• Vermont has expanded the sex offender registry, with stricter
guidelines for previous offenders. Sex offenders will now be under
supervision by the Department of Corrections, every day for the rest of
their lives.
• The public can now access the online sex offender registry without
having to login or provide personal information. All repeat sex
offenders will appear on the internet registry, as well as all high-risk
lewd and lascivious offenders.
• Special investigative unites specializing in sex crimes are now
expanded to serve every region of the state.
Ok, I guess the part of this that bothers me is this (the real sticking part I bolded):
An increase to 10 years as a minimum sentence for aggravated sexual
assault, unless the judge deems a lesser sentence to be appropriate and
goes on record with his reasoning. Now, anyone convicted of aggravated
sexual assault must spend at least 5 years in prison, and as much as
life in prison.
In my opinion (and that’s just what it is, my opinion), if it’s a mandatory minimum, there should be no room for a judge to decide to knock it down. What good is a mandatory sentence, if the judge just has to say, “oh well, I don’t agree, and here’s why”? Explain that reasoning to the child who was assaulted, something tells me he or she will not agree.
The other part I don’t find horribly comforting is that the offender has to stay in jail until they complete the sex offender treatment. I have serious questions about said treatment….as best I can figure from the dates available to me, Michael Jacques was assaulting his step daughter while receiving this treatment. I know everyone likes to think we can treat these people….but we can’t. Especially not pedophiles. They simply are not treatable. Locking them up for the rest of their lives seems to be the only possible way to keep our children safe from them.
All in all, it sounds to me like Vermont is trying. They may still have a ways to go, but they’re trying. Maybe if their governor would take the time to go on and talk to Bill O’Reilly or one of the other “talking heads”, people would take Vermont’s efforts to change more seriously.
Hey Tammy,
Thanks for the update. I’m pleased, as you are, that our state Senators took the time to defend their position to a non-constituent. That shows a bit of class in world that is sometimes lacking.
I had a good laugh, as I had you pegged as a fellow Factor viewer. Being a centrist, I tend to bristle when hearing the neo-cons on either side, but I find O’reilly very entertaining. You have to admire his gumption even when you disagree with him. I doubt you’ll see Governor Douglas on his show anytime soon. But…stranger things have happened.
Keep up the great blogging.
Cid
Hello Tammy. Thanks for the thoughtful blog. Yes, we have very conscientious legislators here in VT for the most part. I think that is one of the benefits of living in a tiny state with old time citizen legislators instead of professional politicians. I too commend Senators Condos and McDonald. Observations about Senator Condos’ points:
This assumes competent judges will make the decisions. If the judge is someone like Judge Edward Cashman who sentenced a vicious sex offender to ten years imprisonment. But then he suspended all but 60 days of the sentence. That is sixty days for torturing a child for four years. Senator, your point has been tried and has been shown to be a failure.
As his excuse, the judge said the state of VT considered the rapist a “low risk” offender. So, not only are judges part of the problem, the VT state department that makes decisions about categorizing child rapists is another part of the problem. It is highly likely that the decision making process should be taken out of the hands of people who do not show a high degree of competence.
What is the success rate of rehabilitation programs? How long do the results last? If they are not 100% successful, how many child rapes should we plan for before the program is abandoned? Does just one person decided whether or not the rapist has successfully completed the program? Is there peer review of the results? How much does this cost? Is this more cost effective for tax payers or would it be more fair to taxpayers and victims to simply keep offenders in jail?
Men who have these urges have the option of getting help before they brutalize another human being. If they do not choose to do so, not much credence can be given to their motivation to get over it. They rape it because they enjoy it. Do you ever wonder how they get someone to stop enjoying it?
Expanded registry with “stricter guidelines for previous offenders.” In other words, we tell multiple time rapists that we’re going to put their names on the board just like in grade school. And what is the thinking behind putting their name on a list if they get caught MULTIPLE times? If they get caught a second time, they should spend the rest of their lives away from civilized society. That way, there won’t be more multiple times and more victims.
How closely are these people watched? Do we have enough probation officers to keep a close eye on them? Are their homes inspected and their computers examined frequently? Which is more fair to victims and taxpayers – jail or probation?
My argument against Jessica’s law is that the time is too short. If a sex offender goes to jail at age 25 and serves 25 years, that leaves too much time to get out and commit more violence. This is far too serious a crime for a quarter century sentence during a three quarter century lifetime.
The most frequent argument here against long sentencing is that it hampers prosecutors. How can that be the case when prosecutors in most other states manage to do their jobs under that requirement? Saying that VT prosecutors will have a tougher job comes very close to sounding whiny rather than offering cogent discussion.
This is a far left state so it is likely that little or nothing will change to protect children. If someone could present it as a case for women’s rights for example, perhaps a little would change but that is not likely either. Readers should check back a year from now and see if any substantive change has been made as a result of Miss Bennett’s tragedy. This story will be forgotten just as Judge Cashman’s episode was two years ago.