The recent controversy surrounding Judge Edward Cashman’s sentence of 60 days in jail to a sex… The recent controversy surrounding Judge Edward Cashman’s sentence of 60 days in jail to a sex offender has many calling for his resignation.

However, the problem seems not to be with this Chittenden County District Court judge and his decision, but Vermont’s system of regulating sex offenders.

The state system has provisions in place to rehabilitate sex offenders in a three-year program in St. Albans, Vt., and an 18-month program in Springfield, Vt. The Department of Corrections determines whether convicted sex offenders are eligible based on whether they are likely to re-offend.

The case of Mark Hulett, the sex offender sentenced to 60 days in jail by Cashman, did not meet Vermont’s requirements for treatment.

Having committed his first offense, Hulett, a man who sexually assaulted a neighbor’s daughter beginning at age 6 for four consecutive years was deemed by the Corrections Department as “a low risk to re-offend,” according to an article at the Burlington Free Press.

The nature of Vermont’s sex offender policy left little room for Cashman to compromise between punishment and rehabilitation, two tenets of our legal system necessary to administer justice. Thus, Cashman opted for rehabilitation with a 60-day jail sentence, an attempt to expedite Hulett’s treatment.

Soon after, phones at Chittenden County courthouse were ringing off the hook and headlines condemned Cashman’s decision.

Fingers are being pointed at the only figurehead tied to the problem. All the while, Vermont’s policies of determining whether sex offenders should be rehabilitated remain.

While the outcome of the case still isn’t satisfactory, Cashman’s decision stirred enough controversy to incite change. There was a unanimous decision to grant Vermont’s Special Investigative Unit’s $500,000 for expansion. In addition, the state has recently offered to overturn their decision regarding Hulett’s eligibility into their sex-offender treatment program.

Cashman must be commended for having the courage to do what he thought was the most effective, the most likely to prevent crime – which is his top priority.

Perhaps an underlying argument that has fueled sentiments against Cashman are the views surrounding the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Most people are irate because they view the molestation of a child as a crime committed with malicious intent and not an offense motivated by mental affliction. Within this framework of thought there is no room for rehabilitation as an option, and Cashman’s decision caused shock and dismay.

Yet, one’s perceptions on what degree sex offenders are malicious or mentally inflicted should not inhibit people from ultimately recognizing that it is the system that has failed us and not Cashman.

Vermont must revise the extremes that judges are forced to choose between when considering Vermont’s sex-offender policy. Several years spent in jail without rehabilitation and little time spent in jail with rehabilitation are not viable options to ensure that victims of sex crimes receive justice. Vermont must call for these options to be changed, not the judge.