Judge: Child rapist spared prison because he would "not fare well" there.

[LSN80]

In Deleware 2009, Robert H. Richards the IV was convicted of raping his daughter, who was a toddler at the time. Name sound familiar? Richards is the heir to the massive Du Pont family fortune, who initially made their money in gunpowder manufacturing. So why was Richards, a child rapist of the worst kind, spared prison? Because the judge ruled that he would "not fare well" in prison.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-rape-case/index.html?hpt=ju_c1

Despite receiving an 8 year prison sentence, Richards had the entire sentence suspended. In its place, the following are the terms of Richards' sentence.

1. He receives 8 years probation.
2. He registers as a sex offender.
3. He obtains treatment.
4. He has no contact with children under 16, including his own.

On Twitter, many have pointed out that this case echoes the one of Ethan Couch, the wealthy teenager from Texas who drove drunk and killed four people, injuring two others. The defense argued, using what became known as the "Affluenza Defense", that the boy was the product of parents who never set limits, so he shouldn't be held responsible. Despite being convicted, the boy was ordered to serve no jail time. He was sentenced to 10 years probation, to a lock-down treatment facility for drugs and alcohol, and his license was revoked for the duration of the probatory sentence.

Though the sentence for Richards was passed down 5 years ago last March and was never sealed, it wasn't truly brought to light until last week, when his ex-wife filed a civil suit against him, claiming that he abused not only his daughter, but his son as well. Richards was never charged with molesting his son. While the judge on the case is legally bound not to comment on the sentence- which was the result of a plea bargain- a spokesman for the Attorney General of Delaware issued the following statement:

"Cases of child sexual abuse are extremely complicated and difficult. The objective is to secure justice in every case to the best of its ability given the unique facts and circumstances presented in each case -- sometimes that results in a resolution that is less than what prosecutors would want."

While I've not read the transcript for the trial, I've always thought that cases of sexual abuse are pretty straight forward. The evidence was overwhelming that Richards raped his daughter. So how was this justice? The man wouldn't fare well in prison, so he doesn't have to go? It's the nature of the penal system that child-rapists don't do well in prison, so under this logic, none of them should spend time in jail.

The statement from the AG continued:

""In this particular case, the facts and circumstances made it unlikely that a conviction could be secured at trial.

The man confessed to doing it after failing a polygraph, and it was unlikely the prosecution could secure a conviction? While polygraphs are inadmissable, confessions are not. If it was "unlikely" that the prosecution could secure a conviction, one, they're inept. Further, why would the defense agree to plea bargain? If I was unlikely to be found guilty of something, I wouldn't plea bargain at all. That's the one thing that strikes me as off here. He confessed. There was testimony from the ex-wife regarding the abuse. There was physical evidence found that strongly pointed towards sexual assault.

I understand that cases of sexual abuse on children are plea bargained all the time. But for me, this is a first, a conviction is secured for a man that raped a child-his own daughter-confessed, and received no jail time. The final part of the statement is the most frustrating for me, personally:

"This resolution protected the victim and imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others."

How nice, they made it "less likely" that he could re-offend. To me, that's no different then sparing a rich serial killer jail, imposing similar regulations on him, and saying that it's "less likely" that he'll kill again. While I realize that jail isn't the be-all, end-all in ensuring a man doesn't re-offend, it's better protection for the victim then allowing the man to walk free. Sex offenders when released from prison have most of the same terms imposed on them, and that's after they've done their time.

If they were hellbent on keeping Richards out of prison, fearing he would "not fare well", the best way to ensure that he has no chance of re-offending? House arrest. The man is rich, let him pay for the therapy he was ordered to undergo to take place inside his own home, and slap a state-of-the-art tracker anklet designed specifically for him on his leg, one that he has to pay for out of his trust fund.

Yes, they've told him where he can and can't go with regards to children, but I'm guessing he knew it was illegal when he raped his own daughter in the first place.

Things to consider:
Is ruling that a man would "not fare well" in prison a justifiable reason to not send him there? Have you heard of a ruling such as this before?

"If we're to assume that it is a fair ruling(which I'm obviously not suggesting we do)were the terms of his deal in step with the line that it's left him "likely not to re-offend?"

How much of this ruling has to do with the man being filthy stinkin' rich?

Off to you, you can discuss this as you see fit. The questions are just things to consider.

 

[DarksideEric]

How much of this ruling has to do with the man being filthy stinkin' rich?

I would bet 99.9% of it does. I've heard that they already want to start an investigation on whether or not the judge was paid off.

To be frank, it's fucking disgusting.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's prison. Not the park, not a matinee, not the mall. You go to prison to be punished for something you did after being tried and convicted, which this man was. I've never been to jail, but I'm smart enough to get the idea that it's not supposed to be fun. Why in the world is this guy getting out of it? Because he's a known name that committed a crime and "wouldn't do well?" That's what the legal system has come to now? In essence he's been told "don't do this again" and that's about it.

The guy is worth millions if not billions of dollars. With no restrictions on him traveling, what's stopping him from going to some other country where laws are a little easier to get around and paying to be allowed to do this again? Oh well see he was told not to do it again, because you have to be told not to molest your children apparently.

As for him not doing well in prison, if that's such a problem, and maybe Jack Hammer can attest to this, isn't there some sort of a system to protect him? As in like solitary confinement or guards that could make sure he isn't attacked? I can understand the idea of not wanting to send someone in where he's tortured every day (though it's not the worst idea in the world in this case), but to say it's not fair to put him through that is insulting to every victim of child abuse ever.

It's another disturbing example of how different life is when you're rich.

 

[Con T.]

I had to check this thrice to make sure this isn't Florida. I'm still not entirely sure.

As much as I'd like to say I can't believe this, I can. The truth is, if you have a lawyer that knows how to work the system, you'll never have to face the issues of another criminal. And when you can get away with such a deplorable crime, because you're able to afford the scum of the Earth, I can't say I'm shocked.

But I am appalled.

 

[ocekit]

A lot of people "don't fare well in prison": the mentally ill, the physically weak and small, the people who lack common sense and are susceptible to gang activity. They still end up in prison because they were convicted of intentionally committing an illegal act.

Did the judge forget that there are facilities like solitary confinement to protect certain types of prisoners who wouldn't fare well in general population? Well, he's certainly going to get investigated because this ruling is absolutely outrageous and downright stupid. Absolutely inexcusable.

Though I suppose he's not necessarily safe outside prison either, he still has almost the entirety of his freedom, which he doesn't deserve, and the money to work around any "restrictions" that might be placed on him. Hell, regular guys who are on probation often do things that violate probation without the probation office ever knowing. They may even leave their restricted areas without the office finding out until months later. How are they going to keep tabs on this guy?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Is ruling that a man would "not fare well" in prison a justifiable reason to not send him there? Have you heard of a ruling such as this before?

If he was deathly ill and didn't have long to live, I could understand if he was kept in a prison medical ward or was sentenced to spend the rest of his life confined to a hospital under constant supervision, someplace like Bellvue Hospital Center for instance. But to let him escape incarceration whatsoever is a severe miscarriage of justice. Since when has the inability to "fare well" in prison a legitimate reason not to sentence a convicted sexual predator to incarceration? Nobody's supposed to "fare well" in prison. It's designed so that many of life's freedoms and pleasures are taken away, not a friggin' country club. If his safety among other prisoners is a factor, put his ass in protective custody segregated from the general population. It may result in him spending 20-22 hours a day in his cell, but it'll also prevent from being cornholed with a shiv by some 300 pound skinhead named Bubba Sue.

"If we're to assume that it is a fair ruling(which I'm obviously not suggesting we do)were the terms of his deal in step with the line that it's left him "likely not to re-offend?"

When it comes to the recidivism rate of sexual offenders is roughly 4 times that of a non-sex offenders. According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, an estimated 43% of sexual offenders will commit another crime. It doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a sex crime, but that's the case in most situations. There are many people including cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, psychiatrists, etc. that don't see any real way of stopping sex offenders without incarcerating them. We've had a few sexual offenders in the facility where I work who've had to have mandatory counseling that's recorded. I've accompanied some of them to parole hearings in which the recordings are played for the court and for most of them, they're ultimately just telling the therapists what they believe they wanna hear; it's an act they put on in the hopes of being granted early release. There've been all sorts of studies over the years and a lot of these people are just flat out wired differently than the rest of us. For instance, even sex offenders who're paroled and are also chemically castrated have committed sexual offenses. That isn't the case for most of them, of course, but for a small number of them. Even if they're not especially aroused and can't perform sexually, that drive to do it is still there. In my opinion, they should at least use chemical castration as part of his plea deal.

How much of this ruling has to do with the man being filthy stinkin' rich?

Quite a bit, I believe. If this had been Joe Sixpack from just down the street, I think the judge would've thrown the book at him and not given it a second thought. The fact is, however, Robert Richards IV comes from one of the wealthiest and most prominent families in American history. His ancestor, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, immigrated to the United States in 1800, founded DuPont in 1802, developed a number of polymers of the years including Vespel, neoprene, nylon, Corian, Teflon, Mylar, Kevlar, Zemdrain, M5 fiber, Nomex, Tyvek, Sorona and Lycra. DuPont developed Freon and essentially kick-started the home refrigerator rather than the old fashioned "ice box". As the OP mentioned, DuPont got started in the manufacturing of gunpowder. In 2012, DuPont's revenue was $34.8 billion. It's not just the fact that this guy has access to limitless financial resources, it's also that familial connection to one of the most recognized names of American business. DuPont was raking in money when wealth was nothing but a glint in the eyes of guys like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. But, of course, there are more than enough loopholes and technicalities in the system for which the judge can justify his decision in this case.

 

[LSN80]

It's another disturbing example of how different life is when you're rich.

Something I found interesting that I found on another site- and edited into my first post-that I figured would still be worth another mention here is this.

He confessed. He failed a polygraph, and he confessed. While I realize that polygraphs aren't admissible in court, confessions usually are. I'm not one for speculation, but either the prosecution was entirely inept, or this was a special condition for the reason you stated above: The man is rich.

Not only is he rich, he's a trust-fund 46-year old man who doesn't have a job. Even if they put trackers on his computer to ensure that he doesn't access child pornography, he's got 24/7 on his hands in terms of time. The last thing a sexual offender needs is time on their hands to do nothing. They can't take his fortune away, but another thing that should have been mandatory-as it is with rapists who leave prison-is that he get a job.

The guy is worth millions if not billions of dollars. With no restrictions on him traveling, what's stopping him from going to some other country where laws are a little easier to get around and paying to be allowed to do this again?

I would guess that his passport was seized and he was ordered not to leave either his state or the country, but as a man that is incredibly rich, it would be easy for him to have a fake passport made, one that would hold up to the highest scrutiny. There, he could flee to a country with no extradition laws, and pay destitute families to allow him to perform "special favors" on their children in exchange for giving them money for food and clothing.

As I said, if there was so much worry about his well-being inside, put him on house arrest. The therapy that he's ordered to attend? Make him pay for the most expensive psychologist who specializes in treating sexual deviants to come to his home. Have a state-of-the-art tracking device fastened to his anklet, so there's no slipping away.

All the judge essentially did is wag her finger like a kindergarden teacher at lil Johnny who pushed his classmate down at recess and said: "Next time, young man there will be consequences!. Consequences, I tell you!"

I don't much care how the man would fare in prison. I realize the judge can't look at it that way, but any suffering he would endure would be far less then what he made his daughter suffer through.

I only pray that- as she was three years old at the time- his daughter doesn't remember and never has to find out.

According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, an estimated 43% of sexual offenders will commit another crime. It doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a sex crime, but that's the case in most situations. There are many people including cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, psychiatrists, etc. that don't see any real way of stopping sex offenders without incarcerating them.

I believe it, and I'm surprised that the number is that low, to be honest. I'm not a psychiatrist, but am a psychologist, and while I'm enough of an optimist that I want to believe that some offenders can be rehabilitated, I no longer will treat them myself in therapy. I've seen clients re-offend, and I've seen others who have expressed a desire to, without overtly stating it. As much as I hate to admit it, because it's the field in which I work and believe in, I would tend to agree that incarceration is preferable to treatment. Close to 1 in 2 re-offending is simply too high of a rate, and shows that despite what medication a psychiatrist may put them on, or how intensive the therapy, it simply isn't enough.

We've had a few sexual offenders in the facility where I work who've had to have mandatory counseling that's recorded. I've accompanied some of them to parole hearings in which the recordings are played for the court and for most of them, they're ultimately just telling the therapists what they believe they wanna hear; it's an act they put on in the hopes of being granted early release. There've been all sorts of studies over the years and a lot of these people are just flat out wired differently than the rest of us.

This is true, but despite them, the latest edition of the DSM(The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the DSM-5, rejects rape, under any circumstances, as being a mental disorder. The DSM is the gold standard for how my field is supposed to work with patients. Thus, what they're saying is that rape is simply a criminal act, not one done out of mental illness. As someone who has had the unfortunate function of treating a few sex offenders in the past, I can't say I completely agree with my much more knowledgeable colleagues(much much much more knowledgeable). I've seen the unnatural glint in the eye of a client who has raped as he painstakingly describes, in detail, every last act he committed upon his victim and how it made him feel. There's just something off there, a place in their eyes that says they're dead to rhyme or reason and can't be reached. That speaks to both evil and mental illness, in my eyes. Sometimes, I honestly believe that having some rapists in therapy is more harmful then it does good, because they're getting another opportunity to relive their crimes, and to an audience. In doing so, that makes them more likely to re-offend, I've found.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Is ruling that a man would "not fare well" in prison a justifiable reason to not send him there?

Never.....and I've got a super-duper, handy-dandy way of avoiding being sent to prison, whether you would (or wouldn't) do well there......don't do the crime! Novel concept, I'm sure.

But if you do the crime, I can't see a person being spared prison because he "wouldn't do well" there. Yes, if he's mentally incompetent, send him to a mental facility instead of jail, but the key is to separate him from society so he can't do what got him in trouble in the first place. You want to treat him like a king while he's locked up? Fine, give him all the booze & broads you want......but keep him away from the rest of us.

How much of this ruling has to do with the man being filthy stinkin' rich?

It has everything to do with it. We'd all like to think the legal system is beyond treating convicted offenders better because they have money & fame....and the situation probably has improved in the last generation because of all the controversy and publicity that's surrounded it.

Yet, I keep coming back to Paris Hilton. When she was imprisoned for her second drunk driving offense, the jailer let her go home because while in her cell, she cried and told him she didn't like it there(!)

Well, yeah....you're supposed to not like it there; being locked up is an unpleasant experience and one of the reasons to avoid doing the crimes that would get you there, for crying out loud.

But, consider: if you got thrown in jail and didn't like it, try crying to the jailer to let you go home and see how far it gets you. It worked for someone rich and famous like Paris Hilton......see if it works for you.

(P.S.) The public outcry against the jailer and the system was so great that the police went to Paris' house and brought her back to jail to serve the rest of her sentence. So, there is some hope for the rest of us. Still, that this happened in the first place is the problem between treatment of the rich and the rest of us......and the DuPont heir discussed in this topic is a great example of why there's a long way to go in the area of equitable dealings under the law.