District Court

A Dorset man was released on conditions after being arraigned in Bennington District Court on charges of inappropriately touching a 12-year-old child.

[jav--vermont]

Here we go again with another sex offender being released on conditions. I think Judge Hayes head needs to be examined and whether or not if she's fit to sit on the bench. If this scumbag couldn't obey his other court orders, what makes you believe he'll obey by the new ones given to him. So far the message that I get from Judge Hayes, is that it's ok to molest children in the State of Vermont, because your punishment won't be so harsh if she's the one conducting your hearing. Why do you think every time we read the banner, we see more and more sex offenders and their crimes listed? I'll tell you why, because Judge Hayes is sending that message! She might as well be a child molester herself. She's making it harder for the poor children to deal with what's happened to them. I know if it happened to me and I knew he was released on conditions, I'd be scared out of my wits, thinking the person would try and come after me again.

[OMG1]

OMG!

"Pierson allegedly admitted to touching the girl inappropriately. Burgess said that Pierson was very remorseful, and could not give police a reason why he would do such a thing.

According to Burgess, Pierson only remembered attempting to touch the girl once. "

Insanity Plea?

[Benny Gio]

It's unbelievable that this person could be released on "conditions" after this happened. Judge Hayes needs to be taken off the bench immediately.

[OMG1]

Its not just Judge Hayes, It's the laws and guidelines we have in VT, Senator Sears needs to get his head out of his butt and get Jessica's Law Passed.

All child abuse is bad but once a alleged Child Molester filters to the top and gets to court it must be mandatory for a Psych evaluation and Alcohol abuse.

What about the possibility the child made up the claim?

Ahh That is why we have "Conditions" This Dude Touched her inappropriately, But fell short of
physically harming her.

If the suspect had no priors then I would say that
his release on conditions would be a reasonable decision.

BUT this guy has four prior convictions for violating an abuse prevention order.

The Public Defender argued he was not a flight risk because of his local ties, and said that he lives far away from the alleged victim.

local ties and and driving his car drunk won't stop him from doing it again to somebody else.

He has proved he can't follow orders of the court and needs to be locked up!

JMHO....

[Thinking Outloud]

This guy's 'conditions of release' does not stop him from re-offending. Jail will.

Please, let's not rush into Jessica's Law without thinking it through. It has some serious downsides to it. It looks good on the surface, but practically, it could do more harm than good.

[wankee]

looks like judge Hayes will be getting the pedophile votes in the upcoming election. How nice for her.

[OMG1]

Thinking Outloud wrote:

This guy's 'conditions of release' does not stop him from re-offending. Jail will.
Please, let's not rush into Jessica's Law without thinking it through. It has some serious downsides to it. It looks good on the surface, but practically, it could do more harm than good.

We can Improve on it but Senator Sears has to play Ball and Be serious All I have seen so far is dragging feat.

[OMG1]

FEET

[Flower Farmer]

Week after week we are getting news of these dudes assaulting young girls. It seems as if most of them are still out walking around. Let's get people to sign the Jessica's Law petition....at least we must have mandatory sentencing, and on another front....voting for judges.

[walt 51]

the area is running rampant with these savage attacks, more people need to come forward, to curb this animalistic behavior!

[vermont native]

when are the judges in this state going to stop slapping the wrists of these offenders who are harming our children?

[heynow]

This piece of crap judge is an awful example of how often this goes on. Well "Your Honor" and I use that term loosely. It will be on your conscience (sp?) if this skumbag touches another child. You can't trust people like this. I hope you can sleep at night knowing you are just as guilty shoudl something happen.

[heynow]

Thinking Outloud wrote:

This guy's 'conditions of release' does not stop him from re-offending. Jail will.
Please, let's not rush into Jessica's Law without thinking it through. It has some serious downsides to it. It looks good on the surface, but practically, it could do more harm than good.

Please educate me. I am asking sincerely and not sarcastically. I am not a VT resident and do not know what this law enails. I would liek to know what the downsides of ridding the street of sex offendors would be.

[heynow]

OMG1 wrote:

Its not just Judge Hayes, It's the laws and guidelines we have in VT, Senator Sears needs to get his head out of his butt and get Jessica's Law Passed.
All child abuse is bad but once a alleged Child Molester filters to the top and gets to court it must be mandatory for a Psych evaluation and Alcohol abuse.
What about the possibility the child made up the claim?
Ahh That is why we have "Conditions" This Dude Touched her inappropriately, But fell short of
physically harming her.
If the suspect had no priors then I would say that
his release on conditions would be a reasonable decision.
BUT this guy has four prior convictions for violating an abuse prevention order.
The Public Defender argued he was not a flight risk because of his local ties, and said that he lives far away from the alleged victim.
local ties and and driving his car drunk won't stop him from doing it again to somebody else.
He has proved he can't follow orders of the court and needs to be locked up!
JMHO....

I agree with you on most of what you say. exceot your first line. IT IS Judge Hayes sole responsibilty to make sure the public is safe until this male awaits trial. This guy isnt a first time criminal with no history, he has a past of violating court orders. And the judge still lets him go?? and if he is an alcoholic that is even more of a risk. I am all for someone with a drinking problem to get help, but if he gets drunk and molests a kid, is that any excuse, no. Hold him on high bail, make him face trial, prove his gulit beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentence him for a long long time.

[Elmer Fudd]

heynow wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you on most of what you say. exceot your first line. IT IS Judge Hayes sole responsibilty to make sure the public is safe until this male awaits trial. This guy isnt a first time criminal with no history, he has a past of violating court orders. And the judge still lets him go?? and if he is an alcoholic that is even more of a risk. I am all for someone with a drinking problem to get help, but if he gets drunk and molests a kid, is that any excuse, no. Hold him on high bail, make him face trial, prove his gulit beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentence him for a long long time.

".. make sure the public is safe until this male awaits trial."

...admirable, but choice of phrasing is not the best.

Would you say the same about "this female"????

[heynow]

Elmer Fudd wrote:

<quoted text>
".. make sure the public is safe until this male awaits trial."
...admirable, but choice of phrasing is not the best.
Would you say the same about "this female"????

Absolutely the female should be safe. That really was the whole point of my statement. And in this particular case the judge should have made that her priority. I said public because I had two thoughts going at once. The point I was trying to make is anytime a dengerous person is arrested and charged with a violent or sex crime, the judge better have just reason to allow someone out on bail. The entire public is at risk the more sex offendors we have roaming our streets. My thoughts are with this poor young girl and her family, and I hope they get the appropriate counselling needed.

Just curious Elmer, are you from VT??

[Thinking Outloud]

heynow,

You say you want to be educated about Jessica's Law and you aren't being sarcastic. Then you ask; "I would liek to know what the downsides of ridding the street of sex offendors would be". That does seem a bit sarcastic to me.

However, I will try and pass on some things I have heard that are downsides to Jessica's Law, for your reading pleasure.

The first thing we need to understand is that no Defender wants his client to get the mandatory sentence. Therefore, he/she will try and make the best deal possible for his client.

Some Defenders push for a jury trial right from the beginning. They do this for a couple of reasons; Because then it becomes the States burden to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the person is guilty" Realize that in most cases like this, that is a hard thing to do. Also, a jury trial may force the victim to have to testify. Who wants to see that happen? Especially a young person. And what if it's a toddler?

The above examples, in most cases, will force the prosecutors to make deals in the accused favor because of the "Mandatory" part of Jessica's Law.

I am definitely no expert on this subject, these are just some of the arguments that I have heard of those against it. It would be beneficial if there was research done on it from those that have the Law in place already.

There's probably stuff on the internet to look up.

I just don't think it's a good idea to jump right into passing the law without knowing the pros & cons first.

The Courts can construct effect sentencing without Jessica's Law. We just need the right Judges on the benches that will hand out the proper sentences.

[jasmine]

I don't see anything in your post that makes Jessicas law a bad thing at all.
If someone in any circumstance is charged with a crime they lmost always plead not guilty and have a jury trial, so what is the dif with a sexual preadtor? he or she will do the same, just like any other type of aqlleged crime, the state has to prove their case against the person charged beyond a resonable doubt. So what does Jessicas law change??? The mandatory part of the law says what? That thre should be no bail when someonbe is charged with harming a child? I don't have a problem with that and why should anyone? Unless they are the alledged, abuser. or a public defender? any attorney representing a criminal would have to work harder....

Thinking Outloud wrote:

heynow,
You say you want to be educated about Jessica's Law and you aren't being sarcastic. Then you ask; "I would liek to know what the downsides of ridding the street of sex offendors would be". That does seem a bit sarcastic to me.
However, I will try and pass on some things I have heard that are downsides to Jessica's Law, for your reading pleasure.
The first thing we need to understand is that no Defender wants his client to get the mandatory sentence. Therefore, he/she will try and make the best deal possible for his client.
Some Defenders push for a jury trial right from the beginning. They do this for a couple of reasons; Because then it becomes the States burden to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the person is guilty" Realize that in most cases like this, that is a hard thing to do. Also, a jury trial may force the victim to have to testify. Who wants to see that happen? Especially a young person. And what if it's a toddler?
The above examples, in most cases, will force the prosecutors to make deals in the accused favor because of the "Mandatory" part of Jessica's Law.
I am definitely no expert on this subject, these are just some of the arguments that I have heard of those against it. It would be beneficial if there was research done on it from those that have the Law in place already.
There's probably stuff on the internet to look up.
I just don't think it's a good idea to jump right into passing the law without knowing the pros & cons first.
The Courts can construct effect sentencing without Jessica's Law. We just need the right Judges on the benches that will hand out the proper sentences.

[Elmer Fudd]

heynow wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely the female should be safe. That really was the whole point of my statement. And in this particular case the judge should have made that her priority. I said public because I had two thoughts going at once. The point I was trying to make is anytime a dengerous person is arrested and charged with a violent or sex crime, the judge better have just reason to allow someone out on bail. The entire public is at risk the more sex offendors we have roaming our streets. My thoughts are with this poor young girl and her family, and I hope they get the appropriate counselling needed.
Just curious Elmer, are you from VT??

Yes, I am from VT, but why does it matter?

The point I was trying to make was it would have more appropriate to say "this jerk", "this scum-bag", etc., instead of "this male". Does being male in itself make him a danger? You are showing your prejudices by stating it that way.

For the record the "male" in question does appear to be a scum-bag.

[heynow]

Thinking Outloud wrote:

heynow,
You say you want to be educated about Jessica's Law and you aren't being sarcastic. Then you ask; "I would liek to know what the downsides of ridding the street of sex offendors would be". That does seem a bit sarcastic to me.
However, I will try and pass on some things I have heard that are downsides to Jessica's Law, for your reading pleasure.
The first thing we need to understand is that no Defender wants his client to get the mandatory sentence. Therefore, he/she will try and make the best deal possible for his client.
Some Defenders push for a jury trial right from the beginning. They do this for a couple of reasons; Because then it becomes the States burden to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the person is guilty" Realize that in most cases like this, that is a hard thing to do. Also, a jury trial may force the victim to have to testify. Who wants to see that happen? Especially a young person. And what if it's a toddler?
The above examples, in most cases, will force the prosecutors to make deals in the accused favor because of the "Mandatory" part of Jessica's Law.
I am definitely no expert on this subject, these are just some of the arguments that I have heard of those against it. It would be beneficial if there was research done on it from those that have the Law in place already.
There's probably stuff on the internet to look up.
I just don't think it's a good idea to jump right into passing the law without knowing the pros & cons first.
The Courts can construct effect sentencing without Jessica's Law. We just need the right Judges on the benches that will hand out the proper sentences.

I was not being sarcastic at all. I was unfamiliar with what the law was since I am not a resident of Vermont and have not heard of this law. I simply asked what the downsides of a law that eliminates scum from the street would be. And you answered it for me. I still believe though any law intended to protect children is a good one. As far as mandatory sentences go, if you do the crime you do the time. Personally I believe if someone molest a child, they should be put to death.