The victim-hood industry made a huge leap forward with the discovery of yet another class of oppressed and down trodden persons. They were always here, it turns out, it just that no one bothered to look down when trodding on them. Intrepid reader Miranda Marmorstein directed me to this story, at Fox News:
A judge's decision to sentence a 5-foot-1 man to probation instead of prison for sexually assaulting a child has angered crime victim advocates who say the punishment sends the wrong message.
But supporters of short people say it's about time someone recognizes the unique challenges they face.
Cheyenne County District Judge Kristine Cecava issued the sentence Tuesday. She told Richard W. Thompson that his crimes deserved a long prison sentence but that he was too small to survive in a state prison.
Though he could have been sentenced to 10 years behind bars, he ended up with 10 years of probation instead. On Thursday, the state's attorney general, Jon Bruning, promised to appeal within two weeks, calling the sentence far too lenient.
"I'm concerned about the message this sends to victims and perpetrators," said Marla Sohl with the Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition, adding that it shows more concern is being placed on the criminal and his safety in prison than the victim.
But Joe Mangano, secretary of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults, agreed with the judge's assessment that Thompson would face dangers while in prison because of his height.
Being somewhat shorter than five and a half feet myself, I here provide personal testimony. Altitudinally Challenged Persons (who you callin' "little man,") are just as capable as anyone else of bearing responsibility for their actions. We just bear it a wee bit closer to the ground than the altitudinally enabled. Thompson belongs in the slammer. What happens to him there will depend much more on the size of the fight in the dog than on the size of the dogs in the fight.
I note that this is the second such decision this year. Fox reports on a decision handed down in Howard Dean's wonderland:
Judge Edward Cashman should be the darling of conservatives: a churchgoer, a former prosecutor, a Vietnam vet and a member of the bench known for his hard-line stands: A decade ago he jailed for 41 days the parents of a suspect in a rape case because they refused to cooperate with prosecutors.
In the past few days, though, Cashman has been vilified by conservatives on TV and on blogs. On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA." And several Vermont Republican lawmakers have demanded he resign or be impeached.
The reason: Cashman sentenced a child molester to just 60 days of jail time — a sentence he said was designed to ensure the man got prompt sex-offender treatment but critics say was too soft.
"As far as we're concerned, Cashman's district can hereby be considered a predator's sanctuary," wrote the Caledonian Record newspaper of St. Johnsbury. "As long as judges like Ed Cashman are allowed to sit on Vermont benches, children cannot be considered safe."
Cashman has been unswayed: "I am aware that the intensity of some public criticism may shorten my judicial career," he wrote in a memorandum this week. "To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong."
The firestorm erupted last week when Cashman sentenced Mark Hulett, 34, for having sexual contact with a girl, beginning when she was 6, over a four-year period.
Cashman said he would have imposed more jail time — a three-year minimum — if the state promised treatment while Hulett was jailed.
"The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," the judge wrote. He also noted that Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old and did not understand why others were so upset by his actions.
No one seems to have thought to ask how tall Hulett was. I agree that treatment is in order and suggest that Judge Cashman be cashiered so that he can receive it. He is laboring under two delusions. One is that sexual deviance is treatable. Short of very invasive surgery, it isn't. The second is that it is the business of a judge both to prescribe therapy for offenders and to legislate his own view of social policy from the bench. The latter delusion was obviously shared by Cecava.
ps. I have always been opposed to affirmative action, but if NOOSSA can get short statured adults included as a suspect classification, listed just after Eskimos and Pacific Islanders, well, I'm off to Harvard boys!
Recent Comments