O'Reilly on Vermont: "[V]isit at your discretion" because state doesn't "protect the kids" from child molesters
Bill O'Reilly suggested that his listeners "visit [Vermont] at your discretion," because it is a "hopeless, hopeless state" that refuses to "protect the kids" from child molesters. O'Reilly stated that Vermont "is gonna lead the league" among the "six to 10 states" that won't "pass any laws to protect the kids." In fact, the Vermont Senate recently passed legislation requiring a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for those convicted of aggravated sexual assault.
Ignoring the Vermont Senate's recent passage of mandatory sentencing of convicted sex offenders, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly suggested that his listeners "visit [Vermont] at your discretion," because it is a "hopeless, hopeless state" that refuses to "protect the kids" from child molesters. O'Reilly stated that Vermont "is gonna lead the league" among the "six to 10 states" that won't "pass any laws to protect the kids." As Media Matters for America has previously noted, the Vermont Senate recently passed legislation requiring a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for those convicted of aggravated sexual assault and is working with the state House of Representatives to reconcile different versions of the sex-offender legislation. O'Reilly's comments came during the April 27 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.
The Burlington Free Press reported on April 13 that the Vermont Senate "unanimously gave preliminary approval Wednesday [April 12] to a bill designed to crack down on sex offenses" by "increasing the number of investigators who focus on sex crimes, increasing the number of pre-sentence investigations that judges use to help determine a sentence, trying to better coordinate prevention programs ... decriminalizing consensual sex between teenagers"; creating a "a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for aggravated sexual assault"; "expand[ing] the sex offender registry to list more offenders on the Internet and add[ing] a registry for violent offenders."
The Vermont House of Representatives previously had passed legislation that "approved a mandatory life maximum and set advisory minimum sentences, but declined to affix a mandatory minimum out of concerns they would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes," according to the April 13 Free Press article. The Free Press reported on April 5 that "many prosecutors and victims' advocates" oppose mandatory sentencing laws "out of concern that the mandate would force more defendants to take their cases to trial, forcing more victims to testify and creating the possibility of more acquittals because sex crimes can be difficult to prove."
From the April 27 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: You couple that with the press -- you couple that with the press, and you got a real big problem protecting the kids. Now, the good news is we're getting Jessica's Law passed all over the place. Oregon, you know, Oregon. Way to go out there. And you know our affiliate out there, KXL, had everything to do with this. And [radio host] Lars Larson and the guys on that affiliate, you guys ought to be really proud of yourself. Even the Oregonian newspaper, the left-wing Oregonian newspaper got behind Jessica's Law at the end. And, finally, we forced, because -- I say "we" because I'm in in spirit -- these pinheads in Salem, Oregon, to do it, and they did it.
Virginia is the latest state. So we got 25 states, we got half the states now in Jessica's Law corner. Maine, they're gonna take it away from the legislature, they're gonna go around and put it on a ballot. Way to go, Maine. OK. Vermont, hopeless, hopeless state. All right. There are gonna be, at the end of the day, here, probably about six to 10 states that don't pass any laws to protect the kids. And, and those states you visit at your discretion, but I won't -- you know, Vermont is gonna lead the league, unfortunately.
--Yeah right ! Liberals want children to be molested ! I'll bet that BO has checked the (ficticious) magazine--Modern Molestations Quarterly-- to see how his boycott of Vermont has hurt their cause. How can anyone take this idiot seriousely? Unfortuneately, there are many who do. Thank God for BO who's out there fighting for "the folks." Me thinks he doth protest too much.
The Vermont law created a mandatory sentence for "aggravated sexual assault." But there are scores of other crimes against children that Jessica's law covers that are not covered under the Vermont legislation that MM has reported about!
It seems MM is implying that Vermont's new laws are somehow comparable to Jessica's law (link to 'key provisions'). But it looks like Jessica's law provides far more comprehensive protection for children from predators than anything Vermont has passed.
MM's post left me wondering: Doesn't MM think Jessica's law is a good thing?
Anyone else?
Sorry you are mistaken. Big Bad Bill is implying that if you do not pass Jessica’s law your state is somehow happy to let predators molest your children. I don’t believe they were saying Vermont’s laws were the same. As far as Jessica’s Law goes I have issues with certain portions of the law. I like the strict sentencing once you molest a child you should be in jail for a very long time. What I have issue with is the Institutionalization of the criminals and the GPS tagging for life. It is well documented that molesters are very difficult to rehabilitate. But many criminals go back to their life of crime. If as a society we deem that this crime is as heinous as most of us believe then we should appropriately punish the offenders. Life without parole is an option. However, hiding behind a recidivism rate to put people in a mental institution just doesn’t sit right with me. The GPS tagging for life does not fit in what a free society should do. Criminals go to prison for punishment and rehabilitation. If these people are that dangerous they do not need to be on the streets in the first place. I’m not sure if I have a better idea but I know what makes me uncomfortable.
So what has Vermont done in the past that has put them on Bill's list? I know Dean was governor there but what else?
Maybe no one watches/listens to the big blowhard there. Is there a state-by-state breakdown for Nielson ratings?
Vermont is the only state that has multiple representatives in Congress that are independents. Jim Jeffords, Senator, and Bernie Sanders, Congressman, are both independents. Vermont has a long history of being quite liberal on social and economic issues, and Dean as governor was highly successful in the areas of healthcare and education. They're a clear example of how liberal ideas can work for the greater good, and without being "establishment" as their two most prominent legislators are independents. They're a natural target for a shill like O'Reilly.
Okay, I thought I had read that Dean didn't govern from a far left position but that the right only painted him that way. But your examples helped a lot. Much appreciated.
With respect to child molesting (Bill's pet topic of late), I think Vermont ended up on O'Reilly's hate list because a Vermont judge - Cashman, I think - gave a child molester a sentence that O'Reilly felt was too lenient. Then the state made the grievous error of not reacting to the sentence in the way O'Reilly thought was appropriate. Now they will be smeared for ever and ever and ever on The Factor.
The story is here:
[link to www.wcax.com]
This is exactly the kind of thing that would have O'Reilly screaming "Liberalism gone amok". To be honest, it is pretty appalling to me as well. Perhaps this judge should call it a career.
Your're right, but Judge Cashman isn't a liberal, although O'Reilly conveniently ignored that fact when he was exploiting the story. He found a way to make it all the liberals' fault though.
Rusty is right. Cashman is/was not a liberal judge. He set the sentence so that Hulett (the perp.) would get access to sex offender rehabilitation. Under the current VT dept. of corrections guidelines Hulett would not have recieved this because he was considered "low risk" to re-offend, and therefore would not recieve help in prision. After this controversial sentence was set changes were made so that inmates in VT prisons who are sexual offenders WOULD recieve services in prison regardless of their offender satus. BOR(e) fails to mention the Dr. Dinosaur program which ensures that all VT children under the age of 18 have healthcare (I believe only about 5% do not). How is Vermont not protecting it's children? My wife and I moved back to VT so our family would have a better standard of living. I am greatly offended by BOR(e)'s attacks on this great independent state!
Cashman may not be a liberal, I have no idea, but advocating rehabilitation in place of punishment is certainly a liberal philosophy, correct?
But that's like saying I'm a conservative because I support gun ownership (which I do, but anyone who calls me a conservative is going to get the stink-eye).
"but advocating rehabilitation in place of punishment is certainly a liberal philosophy, correct?" No! Stop listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, etc about what liberal philosophy is. I know of NO ONE that says rehabilitate and don't punish. BOTH are what is needed. Throw them in jail for 20 years then let them out does nothing. Putting them in jail for 5 years and making them go through treatment does. (Notice the jail time there? Punishment.) One tries to actively make sure they don't commit a crime again; the other hopes the punishment was enough. Common sense should tell you which works better.
it depends on the offenders personality and biological makeup. Despite treatment in prison, some will continue to commit crimes when they are released. Child molesters (rapists etc) have the highest percentage of recidivism, suggesting that treatment in prison or anywhere else is not working effectively.
Here's one person who thinks that way, the judge in the aforementioned case! From the article linked to above:
"The judge says did it because he no longer believes in punishment and he wants to speed the rapist's entry into a rehabilitation program."
I hope you are right and an equal number of liberals are outraged by this sentence as conservatives, but the article only mentions conservatives (probably conservative media bias ;-0))
BTW, I don't get my info from Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly. I'm strictly an AAR listener and an MMFA reader, with dabblings into the conservative Powerline, Malkin blogs and Radio shows Prager and Hewitt. That's about it. In my mind it's a fairly good mix.
you should read bob_loblaw post again. I think he summarized perfectly why the judge did not believe in punishment.
The explanation given is why he handed out this light sentence in this particular case. But the judge claims (from the article if he was accurately quoted).
"And more importantly the judge announced that after 25 years on the bench, he no longer believes in punishment."
This is a blanket statement across the board Yellow Bird. This goes beyond just this case.
I agree "And more importantly the judge announced that after 25 years on the bench, he no longer believes in punishment." If that were the case he should find another job!
offenders it works, for others it does not. However, one other important thing to put fellons behind bars is to protect society, even when you do not 'believe' (I hate that word in the context he uses, because it suggests that he has no knowledge whatsoever about scientific data on prisoners, recidivism and victims) in it.
If Cashman had sentenced Hulett to strictly jail time than he would not have gotten rehab at all (at least court mandated rehab) under the guidelines set forth by VT Dept. of Corrections at the time of sentencing (Jan. 06'). I agree with other posts here that punishment is deserved, but what good is punishment without an attempt at rehab? The guidelines set were not adequate at the time, and i believe that is what Judge Cashman was trying to expose.
There are two main reasons for incarceration in my view. The first is punishing the criminal and the second is protecting the public. This man was convicted of raping a young girl multiple times over a long period of time.
This judge should have considered the safety of the public ahead of this persons rehabilitation in my view considering the extent to which this man offended. I cannot accept this judges explanation as a reasonable one in this case. If this man reoffends in the next 8 years or however long the average sentence would have been, that is on this judges watch.
I believe thinking people of either political persuasion are in favor of rehabilitation when possible, and punishment when merited. They're not mutually exclusive. "Rehabilitation in place of punishment" suggests that they are.
I agree, you have described mainstream America.
Another reason Bill may hate Vermont is because the Republican Governor, James Douglas, has called for a troop withdrawl from Iraq. A large reason why he is doing this is because Vermont has lost more troops per Capita than any other state.
[link to www.boston.com]
for the info. It explains a lot indeed. What about the other 10 states Bill is talking about?
. . .haven't voted in favor of one of BO's pet laws--Jessica's Law-- where a person convicted of child molestation gets a mandatory 25 year sentence. It is obvious that there should be harsh sentencing for these horrid acts, but, many disagree with the law because it could convict an 18 year old for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. There are other problems with the law as well. Concerning Cashman--Bill failed to mention that the offender was mentally challenged, and had the mental capacity of an 11 year old, which is why Cashman gave such a lenient sentence that required counseling.
thanks for that. It clearly shines light on the issue.
O'Reilly likes the GET TOUGH/FEEL GOOD position of being harsh on child molsetors.
Almost everyone is horrified by such crimes, and wish for the perpetrators to be dealt with harshly.
But, can a "mandatory" sentence be TOO harsh? O'Reilly does not think so. But there are unintended consequences, and they can be very bad for society.
If you tell a child molestor that his sentence will be as harsh as if he were to KILL his victim, he has to make a choice, one involving the leaving of witnesses. If you make a crime's punishment on a par with murder, you set up a different criminal calculus.
If a criminal molests a child, and leave the victim alive, he is more likely to be found out and arrested.
If the punishment for that child molestation is the same as for murder, why take the chance on leaving a witness?
If the child molestor then KILLS his victim, and is found out anyway, he's really no worse off, because O'Reilly has defined the crimes as about equal.
So, the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of O'Reilly's tough guy act is that it will not reduce instances of child molestation, but it WILL increase the instance of children being killed to silence them.
Way to "look out for us", Bill.
You seem to think child molesters are rationally thinking people that weigh their options... "I can do THIS and be sentenced to THIS, or I could really be crazy and do THAT and get sentenced to THAT."
I don't think it works that way. I highly doubt they are motivated in any way by what punishment they might or might not get. If they thought that way the system would deter them in the first place.
Then you must decide to what degree they knew their actions were wrong. That's exactly why we can't just give everyone the minimum sentence.
Unfortunately for O'Reilly, the basis of his whole argument is that child molesters do make rational decisions about where to go commit their crimes based on the severity of punishment they are liable to receive if caught. He said something to that effect a while back. I don't believe him either.
difficult. Most child molesters and other sex offenders have severe problems with impulsivity and compulsivity and to suppress their urges (sexual drive). Compare it to smoking: when smokers feel the urge, they can fight for a little while (if at all), but eventually most will go outside and take a smoke.
Is that even if it is uncontrollable AFTER the action precipitated BY the impulse is completed there is no reason rationality and risk assesment might not take place. Therefore the concept that if you make it so the punishment is as bad for murder as molestation the exact scenario posited has a good possibility of taking place.
Is there some reason that just because they are evil and perverted they can not do a basic risk analysis? I dont see where there would be.
Either he just likes the sound of his own voice pontificating on this subject or he has an incompetent staff. If his staff were up to date they would have seen that the Vermont legislature had indeed passed the child protection laws mentioned above. Or could it be that he thinks he has an easy target and rants on. Go figure!!
What a raving lunatic. Using that same logic, I am going to warn all of my male friends to not watch this scumbags show because it will cause them to make sexually suggestive phone calls to women.
My in-laws live in Vermont, I have been visiting the state for almost 30 years, have taken my kids there for the last 20 years. Has this crack pot even bothered to see what the incidence of child molestation cases are in Vermont?
Bilge has got to be thanking his lucky stars every day that a schlock organization like Fox came along and gave him a job. I don't think that he would have gotten away with just a slap on the wrist if he was Bill O'Reilly, manager of a local bank, sexually harassing his women staff members.
Freaking lunatic.
Come to Vermont if you want to get away from O'Reilly and his idiot audience! Maybe they should change the state motto to "O'Reilly Free"
You got that right!!! I believe that Vermonters have an aversion to a right wing political pundit hack who wears an overabundance of doughy like make-up to the extent that he resembles a talking loaf of bread with two beady raisins for eyes.
Whew, I am out of breath, this bastard gets my goat. Years ago, there were two guys on local channels out of New York - Joe Pine and Alan Burke, who did the same schtick as O'Reilly. Growing up on Long Island like he did, I am sure he saw their shows, so he is about as original as a blacksmith's anvil. My apologies to the anvil.
A state without orielly fans is better than a restaurant that doesn't sing Happy Birthday.
Get an NHL franchise and I'll be moving right over. A state where these neocon idiots have very little sway and I don't have to listen to them....sounds like paradise to me.
My God - O'Reilly is like the gift that keeps on giving. Although I think the man is an absolute moron, I really dread the thought of his show going off the air - he exemplifies everything bad about these right wingers, and it's sort of nice to have him around as an example. What amazes me is how these guys conflate rhetoric into being tough on crime. The objections to the mandatory sentences were based on real life problems with prosecution and would have hindered prosecution in many cases - but don't confuse these guys with the facts.
After reading mmfa's link to the Burlington Free Press I find that mmfa failed to note the following:
- "but the 29-0 vote hardly means smooth sailing for all parts of the legislation. After the Senate votes on the bill again today, the legislation goes to a conference committee, where House and Senate negotiators have some 'major differences to work out'.
--"selective editing...tsk tsk"--
Media Matters is very clear on this. Quoting from the article, they say that the Senate gave "preliminary approval". They also provide you with a link to the full story. What more do you want?
Rather than jumping on MM, why not send a note to O'Reilly asking him to stop twisting the truth?
you end up on his smear site and will be molested by his security!
--"you end up on his smear site and will be molested by his security!"--
There's already a suspicious-looking white van parked outside.
I would seek cover if I were you!
There may be a Loofah in the White Van. Run for you lives.
Bring 'em on. If not for the fact that it's rigged I would have gone for the "Debate Bill" contest they were holding.
Imagine the joy of being face to face with him, then absolutely humiliating him. Hell just for the effect I would make sure I brought a jug of Kool-Aid (a much maligned drink) and a loofa.
Frankly, I don't want BOR(e) and his Ilk visiting my state! We are doing just fine here without him and his support.
After growing up here and living out of the state for 10 years my wife and i decided to move back so we could start a family in a place with an excellent standard of living. We have no regrets... I can assure BOR(e) that our community (and the state as a whole) are very safe and nurturing for children.
A judge recently in vermont only sentenced a child rapist to a 60-day jail sentence.Only after being demonized in the press that judge only resentenced that child molester to the minimum three years.Anyone who who leniant on those who prey on our children should be demonized.So perhaps O'Reilly is right is right about Vermont.
Because they do not protect you from O'falafels basic stupidity and borderline insanity