Vermont - Brooke Bennett case - The need for Mandatory Sentencing.

Brooke Bennett, a twelve year old girl living in the state of Vermont, was abducted, raped and murdered by her uncle, Michael Jacques, a 42 year old convicted sex offender. Jacques was aided in covering up his crime by the girls’ stepfather; both of the men were involved in a “sex” ring that is still active. According to the Burlington Free Press, prosecutors believe that the “Breckenridge” program (an Internet ring), is no longer a risk to children, but they are looking into the possible existence of other victims.

One interesting fact about Michael Jacques, he had been through a rehabilitation program - the programs are designed to “cure” the sexual predator and are touted by those sympathetic to these predators (defense attorneys, legislators and judges in state that do not have mandatory sentencing) as a valid alternative to the mandatory sentencing. Seriously, these people in position of power actually believe this to be true. Or, is it the fact that the majority of those arrested for this type of crime are men, and defense attorneys, who also happen to have day jobs as state legislators, make a huge profit off the destruction of our nation’s most valuable asset, our children.

There are a handful of states that do not have some sort of Mandatory sentencing provisions in the case of child rape, both Vermont and Massachusetts have legislatures that have lobbied hard for the protection of the predator. (Other states that have not enacted any legislation are: Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey) Bill O’Reilly

Not too long ago, 40 years or so, anyone who was convicted of a crime against a child, was sentenced to a long stay in prison, that individual would generally end up on the wrong side of a fork, as other inmates found this type of crime to be disgusting.

Enter advocates for the sexual predators; cures were conceived and sentences were lessoned. The ACLU lobbied hard, and continues to do so, for the civil rights of these base individuals. As our country’s moral authority denigrated further and further with each passing decade, sentences of 60 days plus probation and therapy were considered appropriate punishment – Judge Cashman of Vermont handed down a sentence of 60 days, therapy and probation on one such case, and the Progressive Press reacted – advocating for the Judge (North Country Gazette).

One would think it would be past the time for citizens of the states of Massachusetts and Vermont to stand up and demand that the laws be changed (considering the high rate of such crimes in these states). Not so. A question is not even on the ballot in Vermont. The Mass. House passed a very weak version of mandatory sentencing, giving 15 years for a first offense, and 20 years for a second, a compromise which Speaker DiMasi hopes will pass the state senate. It will then be up to Mass. Governor Deval Patrick, the “Yes We Can” speech writer, to sign the legislation into law. (Deval Patrick's Aid Charged with Sexual Assult (child) Deval Patrick is known as being “soft on crime” in the Baystate. Additionally, certain state legislatures, like James Fagen, of Massachusetts (also a criminal defense attorney) worked to actively block any legislation that would include a mandatory sentence.



Debate on Legislation from NECN

Progressive Party “Democrats” feel that mandatory sentencing is too harsh. This type of ideology make up the legislative body of both states mentioned and includes both states Governors’.

A small sampling of recent headlines from Massachusetts and Vermont (Vermont Archives only)- those reported upon are obscenely numerous.

Convicted Sex Offender Rapes Boy in Libary
Dance Teacher faces another rape charge.
Tewksbury Man,23, pleads guilty
Otis Official Convicted of Child Rape
Teacher Sentanced for Indecent Assault
Ware Man Pleads Guilty to Raping Second Girl
Huntington Man Convicted of Child
Sex Offender Returned to Prison
Burlington VT, Free Press Archives

Rep. James Fagan - Democrat – The Shame of Massachusetts

Massachusetts has no laws on the book that protect the rights of children when it comes to Sex Offenders and mandatory sentencing. Sentences handed down by judges for rape of a child can be as harsh as 5 to 6 years - and when they break probation, they are given an astounding 2 to 3 additional years in prison Springfield Republican Article The fact is, as more states adopt Jessica’s Law or a similar version (mandatory sentencing for Rape of a Child), those states that do not, such as Massachusetts, have an increase in residency, (Visit www.familywatchdog.us for a list of Level 2 and 3 offenders in your neighborhood – free service) and that is good news for Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorneys. It’s all about the money, and should a version of Jessica’s Law pass - It would cut into someone’s income.


It should not comes as a surprise, therefore, that during hearings in the Massachusetts State Legislature, Represenative James Fagan Democrat, Defense Attorney, representing the Third District, went on an absolute rant, in the most abusive and obscene manner towards children.



Should one believe that Fagan’s zeal is an aberration, think again, Law firms across the Bay state actively advertise their services to sexual predators, some even specializing in Internet Sex Crimes. Live in Massachusetts? Watch your Monthly Mailer coupon book for seemingly innocuous advertisements regarding real estate law – reading closer one can find that some attorneys are capable of having one’s sexual predator designation removed or eliminated. Listed below are attorneys who actively advertise to sexual predators with promises of expertise and reduced sentences or no time served. These results are from a 30 second Google search!

The message is clear, children are cheap and it is all about the money. James Fagan made that patently clear in the Massachusetts Legislature. It is time for the citizens of this state to make it patently clear to these representatives who vote against mandatory sentencing and practice criminal law, "Yes We Can" send them into legislative retirement. How they voted: research: Massachustts Legislature

Google 30 Second Seach Results

Ianello
Springfield, MA


Altman
Arlington Massachusetts



Halpern, Boston, MA

Neyman Law
Boston, MA


United Defense Group – Los Angeles Firm Advertising through search engines
(Included due to blatancy!)

NAMBLA, Massachusetts Judges and the ACLU
Strike Again

Jeffrey Curely

From the Bluest State: From the Boston Globe. Parents of Jeffrey Curley, the 10 year old boy murdered and more, by two men who planned via a website that gives directions to pedophiles have dropped their suit. The last remaining witness to the case was judged “incompetent” to stand trial. The ACLU defended NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). One has to wonder why an organization like this is allowed to function within the boundaries of these United States, let alone be defended by the ACLU. What liberties can possibly be extended to an organization that promotes rape of a child?

The organization should be charged as an accessory and the website removed. This would not be allowed to happen in Massachusetts, where the rights of child molesters, rapists and like criminals are held above the rights of mere children.

Duval Patrick – Governing in the Bluest State

Massachusetts governor, Duval Patrick, has come under constant fire from his own party, the media and his constituents since the day he took office. The State Speaker, Sal DiMasi has shut down every proposal from the governor, including a recent proposal to allow casino gambling in the state. (Note: A proposal that was voted upon and approved by the people.).

The New York Times published an article (here) this morning outlining Patrick’s troubles, and comparing/contrasting him to Barack Obama. In reading the text, one derives a note of empathy for the embattled Governor. The author notes that the speaker supports Hillary Clinton, as well as the fact that Obama did not fare well in the Bay State primary. What could the two men possibly have in common?

There are some similarities between the two candidates: both lack experience and both are progressives. What boggles the mind is that what should have worked in Massachusetts (a testing ground for every progressive idea), did not. When progressives have difficulty exporting policy implemented in Massachusetts to other states in the Union, it is not surprising. What is surprising is that the current Governor cannot function as a progressive in the Bluest State. This cannot bode well for Obama, should the country, once again, deny progressive think in favor of a more moderate candidate.

From “upgrading” the state car from a Crown Vic to a Cadillac to marching in the annual Gay Pride Parade, to killing a bill that was supported by the people to allow a vote on the Gay Marriage issue, to changing the drapes in his office – Deval Patrick (also called Devil Patrick by most Mass. Radio talk show hosts), has had a battle on his hands. The Times article implies the blame can be laid at the doorstep of the Speaker (another ridiculed politicians in the Bay state), but is that truly the case? Might it be that the lack of experience coupled with progressive policy, has finally placed the final straw on the camel’s back (the people)?

The Short End of the Stick

Massachusetts Legislature Considers Height and Weight Discrimination Bill

A bill currently before the Massachusetts Legislature would include height and weight bias as a “discrimination” thereby adding an additional burden to already embattled businesses in the Bay State. One phrase comes to mind: “frivolous lawsuits.” Employers look at qualifications, for the most part, allowing that certain positions will take into account physical attributes and health in order to protect an employee (examples: those positions that require a physical exam due to strenuous and or dangerous work). One legislator in favor of the bill has gone so far as to suggest that, without new regulations in place, employers might use height and weight as an excuse not to hire someone who was elderly, gay and/or black. Will it never end?

The only state that currently lists weight and height as discrimination is Michigan (along with municipalities such as San Francisco and Washington). One can find startling similarities in the governing of both Massachusetts and Michigan, to the point where other state legislatures should use them as a model of “what not to include” if one wants to live in a state that is more prosperous and offers a better quality of life to its citizens. The exodus of the population of Massachusetts should offer some insight into what works and what does not. People tend to migrate to states that have better jobs, lower crime rates and less ridiculous governments.

The idea that height would be a consideration for bias is simply ridiculous. As a petite woman, I stand offended! I was taunted, most certainly, as a child and perhaps on occasion as an adult. That said, not once did I feel that my height was a deterrent to acquiring any specific position, or being able to function as well as anyone who might be 6’2”! (Ok, I might need a step-stool or a chair to reach certain items on the shelf – to which I reply – “So what!”) Height is a matter of birth; one’s grandparents, or great-grandparents play a role. Weight on the other hand, may be a matter of choice (except in obvious medical circumstances), regardless, neither should be considered as a disability (which might or might not take taht leap from discrimination thereby adding weight and height to the already burdened entitlement programs in these states.)

Seriously.

This appears to be one more example of why lawyers make such great legislatures; they are constantly promoting legislation that will ultimately benefit their profession.

Story reported here in the Springfield, Massachusetts Republican
(Don’t let the name of the publication fool you.)

Related:

Michigan Population Loss, Michigan.gov



Massachusetts (Boston Globe blames Romney)