This is Sick & Wrong! Total, Unadulterated B.S.!
#1
Quote:One Percenter Convicted Of Raping Infant Child Dodges Jail Because He 'Will Not Fare Well'

[Image: n-ROBERT-H-RICHARDS-IV-large.jpg]

A Delaware man convicted of raping his three-year-old daughter only faced probation after a state Superior Court judge ruled he "will not fare well" in prison.

In her decision, Judge Jan Jurden suggested Robert H. Richards IV would benefit more from treatment. Richards, who was charged with fourth-degree rape in 2009, is an unemployed heir living off his trust fund. The light sentence has only became public as the result of a subsequent lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, which charges that he penetrated his daughter with his fingers while masturbating, and subsequently assaulted his son as well.

Richards is the great grandson of du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, a chemical baron.

According to the lawsuit filed by Richards' ex-wife, he admitted to assaulting his infant son in addition to his daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was initially indicted on two counts of second-degree child rape, felonies that translate to a 10-year mandatory jail sentence per count. He was released on $60,000 bail while awaiting his charges.

Richards hired one of the state's top law firms and was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth-degree rape charges -- which carries no mandatory minimum prison sentencing. He accepted, and admitted to the assault.

In her sentence, Jurden said he would benefit from participating in a sex offenders rehabilitation program rather than serving prison time.

Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O'Neill told The News Journal that it was "extremely rare" for an individual to fare well in prison. "Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn't proven to be true in most circumstances," he said, adding that the light sentence for the member of the one percent raised questions about “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.” (Though perhaps it provides more answers than questions.)

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

Kendall Marlowe, executive director of the National Association for Counsel for Children, told The News Journal that sex offenders are jailed for the safety of the children they threaten.

"Child protection laws are there to safeguard children, and adults who knowingly harm children should be punished," she said. "Our prisons should be more rehabilitative environments, but the prison system's inadequacies are not a justification for letting a child molester off the hook."

News of the lenient sentence for the confessed rapist comes as a new book, Thomas Piketty's Capitalism In The 21st Century, has put new focus on the distorting role of inheritance in the free market economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30..._hp_ref=tw
Reply
#2
(03-31-2014, 10:06 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
Quote:One Percenter Convicted Of Raping Infant Child Dodges Jail Because He 'Will Not Fare Well'

[Image: n-ROBERT-H-RICHARDS-IV-large.jpg]

A Delaware man convicted of raping his three-year-old daughter only faced probation after a state Superior Court judge ruled he "will not fare well" in prison.

In her decision, Judge Jan Jurden suggested Robert H. Richards IV would benefit more from treatment. Richards, who was charged with fourth-degree rape in 2009, is an unemployed heir living off his trust fund. The light sentence has only became public as the result of a subsequent lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, which charges that he penetrated his daughter with his fingers while masturbating, and subsequently assaulted his son as well.

Richards is the great grandson of du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, a chemical baron.

According to the lawsuit filed by Richards' ex-wife, he admitted to assaulting his infant son in addition to his daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was initially indicted on two counts of second-degree child rape, felonies that translate to a 10-year mandatory jail sentence per count. He was released on $60,000 bail while awaiting his charges.

Richards hired one of the state's top law firms and was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth-degree rape charges -- which carries no mandatory minimum prison sentencing. He accepted, and admitted to the assault.

In her sentence, Jurden said he would benefit from participating in a sex offenders rehabilitation program rather than serving prison time.

Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O'Neill told The News Journal that it was "extremely rare" for an individual to fare well in prison. "Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn't proven to be true in most circumstances," he said, adding that the light sentence for the member of the one percent raised questions about “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.” (Though perhaps it provides more answers than questions.)

According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.

Kendall Marlowe, executive director of the National Association for Counsel for Children, told The News Journal that sex offenders are jailed for the safety of the children they threaten.

"Child protection laws are there to safeguard children, and adults who knowingly harm children should be punished," she said. "Our prisons should be more rehabilitative environments, but the prison system's inadequacies are not a justification for letting a child molester off the hook."

News of the lenient sentence for the confessed rapist comes as a new book, Thomas Piketty's Capitalism In The 21st Century, has put new focus on the distorting role of inheritance in the free market economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30..._hp_ref=tw

Ah, come on Scrappy, anybody can make a mistake. Or two. Embarrassed

Seriously: Wouldn't a guy have to have some kind of real sickness (maybe a brain tumor) or something? I mean, I can understand a guy who might want to have sex with a ripe mellon (who wouldn't) or jerk off while watching Janet Yellen reporting on interest rates, but a guy's own children?
Hey…I don't excuse it, but I gotta believe this guy needs more help than just a lock up. If, he can even be fixed. This is not just criminal…it's sickness.
I often wonder about guys like this: I mean, does it come on all of sudden? I doubt it. I think it's a "creep" from less sick feelings that are allowed to fester, and THAT is the crime in my mind. I think (feel) that people like this have some "point" where they can turn it around, get help, simply change behavior, or stay drunk all the time and sleep in their own puke.

Sad. More than sad.

I don't really like "sensational" news items like this, but I'm bringing to think they are really necessary and might deserve front page (if it would help). Exposer might (just might) keep other perverts from acting out.

What we do to other adults (an ripe melons) is one thing: When it involves children it's above and beyond understanding and impossible to excuse or defend.

Even if he has a brain tumor, I hope they take it out THEN put him in the joint.

And the judge? I just don't get that.
Reply
#3
I don't believe for a second that a man who would do that to his own child (or ANY child!) can be helped. Short of your idea of a brain tumor... there is NO excuse... and, IMO, he should sit his ass behind bars (and let others there punish him as he did to his children) until the day he dies! Or... just kill him. Either way. I have no patience, understanding or compassion for ANYONE that would do this kind of thing.
Reply
#4
(03-31-2014, 10:44 AM)Scrapper Wrote: I don't believe for a second that a man who would do that to his own child (or ANY child!) can be helped. Short of your idea of a brain tumor... there is NO excuse... and, IMO, he should sit his ass behind bars (and let others there punish him as he did to his children) until the day he dies! Or... just kill him. Either way. I have no patience, understanding or compassion for ANYONE that would do this kind of thing.

OF COURSE i agree.
I just can't help but wonder "why".

EDIT: Forgot to mention: Notin' wrong with a ripe mellon now and then.LaughingRazzEmbarrassed
Reply
#5
He should never see the light of day, and neither should the Judge. I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.
Reply
#6
WHY?Who freaking cares "why"?

In her sentence, Jurden said he would benefit from participating in a sex offenders rehabilitation program rather than serving prison time.

He would benefit??? We want this guy to "benefit" ?

This judge needs to be fired impeached deposed or whatever you call it.
Reply
#7
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: He should never see the light of day, and neither should the Judge. I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

All a part of 'God's Plan', eh?

Rolling Eyes
Reply
#8
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

OH HORSE SHIT LaughingLaughing If you find solace in your delusions that your god or Devil will punish this guy after he's dead then maybe you should keep that bull crap to yourself.
Reply
#9
(03-31-2014, 12:19 PM)tvguy Wrote: WHY?Who freaking cares "why"?

In her sentence, Jurden said he would benefit from participating in a sex offenders rehabilitation program rather than serving prison time.

He would benefit??? We want this guy to "benefit" ?

This judge needs to be fired impeached deposed or whatever you call it.

Agreed!
Reply
#10
(03-31-2014, 12:22 PM)Scrapper Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: He should never see the light of day, and neither should the Judge. I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

All a part of 'God's Plan', eh?

Rolling Eyes

Yeah, Thanks a lot God for protecting the children Rolling Eyes I'm sure they will be thrilled to know this guy will burn in hell.
Reply
#11
[Image: 9GAjkPY.jpg]
Reply
#12
(03-31-2014, 12:23 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

OH HORSE SHIT LaughingLaughing If you find solace in your delusions that your god or Devil will punish this guy after he's dead then maybe you should keep that bull crap to yourself.

Now we come down to a point of order here on this forum. It is being suggested that I should not voice my opinion.

There is a name for that, and it is censorship. Combined with the forcefulness of the suggestion, I would call it it being bullied off the site. I have no choice but to report this violation of the site rules.
Reply
#13
(03-31-2014, 12:22 PM)Scrapper Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: He should never see the light of day, and neither should the Judge. I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

All a part of 'God's Plan', eh?

Rolling Eyes
To believe in good, it is also required to believe in evil. There are two forces in play here, and free will is what we are judged on. I believe this man is evil, and I believe this Judge is on the wrong side of justice in this case.
Reply
#14
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: He should never see the light of day, and neither should the Judge. I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

Agreed! Wink
Reply
#15
(03-31-2014, 02:36 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 12:23 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

OH HORSE SHIT LaughingLaughing If you find solace in your delusions that your god or Devil will punish this guy after he's dead then maybe you should keep that bull crap to yourself.

Now we come down to a point of order here on this forum. It is being suggested that I should not voice my opinion.

There is a name for that, and it is censorship. Combined with the forcefulness of the suggestion, I would call it it being bullied off the site. I have no choice but to report this violation of the site rules.

OK fine Rowan at lest now we know who you areLaughingLaughing No choice?? Wow and I thought what you said before was BS.

I voiced MY opinion and I said MAYBE you should keep that bull crap to yourself.
Reply
#16
(03-31-2014, 02:39 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 12:22 PM)Scrapper Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: He should never see the light of day, and neither should the Judge. I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

All a part of 'God's Plan', eh?

Rolling Eyes
To believe in good, it is also required to believe in evil. There are two forces in play here, and free will is what we are judged on. I believe this man is evil, and I believe this Judge is on the wrong side of justice in this case.

The judge is thinking about what is best, right or wrong. You on the other hand are putting your hopes, trust, faith in something imaginary.
And if you don't like what others like me say about it then don't bring it up.

And here I was actually fighting for you believers Rolling Eyes
Reply
#17
(03-31-2014, 02:36 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 12:23 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

OH HORSE SHIT LaughingLaughing If you find solace in your delusions that your god or Devil will punish this guy after he's dead then maybe you should keep that bull crap to yourself.

Now we come down to a point of order here on this forum. It is being suggested that I should not voice my opinion.

There is a name for that, and it is censorship. Combined with the forcefulness of the suggestion, I would call it it being bullied off the site. I have no choice but to report this violation of the site rules.

And you have a valid point.
Im not a believer, feel that organized religion has been, on average, a negative force in the development of our social evolution, and it's impossible for me to understand your faith.
But you do have a right to voice the opinion you do, and did.
One of the great freedoms of our wonderful system is just that: Your right to speak your mind and you should not be "bullied" and never censured for your views.
But don't expect that some of us won't rebut your views, and voice our own opinions about how "your God" could tolerate something so tragic as what is described here.
We should honor your place here, even as we might find your views very different from many of our own.
Continue to post as you will: Be prepared to be opposed, but hopefully with more respect for your person, if not your views.
Reply
#18
(03-31-2014, 12:23 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(03-31-2014, 11:34 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: I know it is no consolation to either of you, but I know that one day they will both be Judged again.

OH HORSE SHIT LaughingLaughing If you find solace in your delusions that your god or Devil will punish this guy after he's dead then maybe you should keep that bull crap to yourself.

Why? Why can't SD say what he feels?
Reply
#19
I'm confused. Wonk, did you go back to your original name? Or account?
Reply
#20
As the old testament is the jewish law . Let's convert to Judaism. Then we can stone him.
He could be judged a little quicker.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)