A Tale Told by an Idiot . . .

More than the fact that Hyman is often wrong in what he says, I find his tendency to dumb down the level of public discourse particularly troublesome.

A case in point is his recent editorial expressing outrage over the light sentence handed down to a convicted child rapist in Vermont. Mark Hulett, convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a young girl, was given a sentence of 60 days plus mandatory psychological treatment. If he does not successfully complete the treatment, he could face a life sentence.

The 60 day sentence certainly seems outrageous, and Hyman provides viewers with Judge Edward Cashman’s phone number, encouraging them to vent their spleen on him.

But Hyman leaves out important facts in order to foment outrage, and this omission denigrates the legitimate public debate that needs to take place around the issue of crime and punishment.

The key point is that in Vermont, only those sex offenders classified as being “at high risk” to re-offend receive psychological treatment while in prison. Hulett is classified as being at low risk to repeat his crimes. Given that even the sentence asked for by prosecutors would have likely only been 8 years, it would mean that Hulett would be back in society, still young, and without having received any treatment for his perversion.

The prosecutors, defense, and the judge in the case are united in their condemnation of the state’s Corrections Department for their no-treatment policy for those deemed at low risk of re-offending. The judge was essentially given the choice of giving Hulett either treatment or a lengthy prison sentence. The judge, citing his belief after 25 years on the bench that punishment by itself does nothing to rehabilitate criminals, chose treatment.

That’s a decision that’s certainly open to counter argument. Reasonable people can disagree. And it raises the much broader issue of how we should handle criminals. Is the purpose of the justice system to punish, or to rehabilitate and prevent future criminal acts? Is it better to punish criminals with harsh sentences, even if it means they will likely emerge from prison more anti-social and more likely to commit crimes, or is it wise to try to treat and rehabilitate criminals, even if it means that “just punishment” might not be done?

This is an important argument to have in any democracy. But Hyman, by blaming the judge rather than the arbitrary rules of the Corrections Department, and by distorting the issue in order to make it appear that the Judge was simply giving the 60 day sentence out of a lack of concern about the crime of child molestation, degrades the public forum with a Point-less harangue that, in stirring people up, only succeeds in muddying the waters.

As is typical, Hyman’s commentary is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And that’s The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 2.65