Another case of Affluenca?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

http://kfor.com/2014/04/03/wealthy-heir-convicted-of-raping-toddler-gets-suspended-sentence-because-he-will-not-fare-well-in-prison/

DOVER, Del. (CNN) – After a man, who is an heir to a fortune, was convicted of raping his 3-year-old daughter, authorities say he was not sent to prison because he would “not fare well” there.

Robert H. Richards IV is a great-grandson of Irenee du Pont, one of the wealthiest Americans during his time.

Richards was sentenced to eight years behind bars in 2009 for raping his 3-year-old daughter.

However, a Delaware judge decided the “defendant will not fare well” behind bars and the sentence was suspended.

According to court documents obtained by CNN, Richards was placed on eight years’ probation, ordered to get treatment and register as a sex offender.

He also was prohibited from having contact with children under 16, including his own.

Last month, Richards’ former wife filed a lawsuit on behalf of her children, alleging “personal injuries arising from the childhood sexual abuse.”
The lawsuit alleges that Richards not only abused their daughter but also their son.

Richards was never charged with molesting his son.

The prosecution told CNN that while it is not completely happy with the decision, it still protects the victim and “imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others.”

**Soladrin**

I...

Who...

What.

**Co'tor Shas**

Well feth.

**FirePainter**

Ya know I think a case could be made for another american sterilization project. There are a lot of people who should not be breeding.

**Relapse**

I saw this yesterday. It pissed me off so badly, I couldn't even say a word about it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seems like agood place to leave this about another of Nature's Gentlemen:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/republican_lawmaker_very_sorry_he_said_men_should_be_able_to_rape_women_if_abortion_is_legal/

**d-usa**

On one hand I agree that it will be difficult to keep him safe, and we should be responsible for his safety. I don't think "throw him in prison to get raped, beat, and/or killed" is something that we should condone in the civilized society that we strive to be.

But if the choice are "probation" or "solitary confinement for his protection while in prison" then I think the choice should be obvious.

**KingCracker**

I remember a time when regardless of what your condition in prison would be like.... you simply fething went to prison.

**Orlanth**

America, where a big chequebook means paedophilia is no longer an offense punishable with a prison sentence.

Are you up for this?

The UK is on a slippery slope but if that happened here there would be mass protests.

**Krellnus**

Another triumph for the world's greatest justice system.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Orlanth wrote:
America, where a big chequebook means paedophilia is no longer an offense punishable with a prison sentence.

Are you up for this?

The UK is on a slippery slope but if that happened here there would be mass protests.

Screw that, Game of Thrones is coming back this Sunday

**Bullockist**

my favourite line from the OP has to be this "The prosecution told CNN that while it is not completely happy with the decision, it still protects the victim and “imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others.”

Telling that guy he's not allowed to stick it into children will definitely stop him the 2nd time around, I mean this time he actually knows he's not supposed to do it. Job done, pats on the back all round.

**whembly**

Bullockist wrote:
my favourite line from the OP has to be this "The prosecution told CNN that while it is not completely happy with the decision, it still protects the victim and “imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others.”

Telling that guy he's not allowed to stick it into children will definitely stop him the 2nd time around, I mean this time he actually knows he's not supposed to do it. Job done, pats on the back all round.

Child rapist should be castrated. Even after they've served their time.

**Mathieu Raymond**

Relapse wrote:
I saw this yesterday. It pissed me off so badly, I couldn't even say a word about it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seems like agood place to leave this about another of Nature's Gentlemen:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/republican_lawmaker_very_sorry_he_said_men_should_be_able_to_rape_women_if_abortion_is_legal/

I love this part:

Maine Rep. Lawrence Lockman is now trying to distance himself from decades worth of hateful remarks

In one term, in wants to distance himself from *decades* worth of comments? Great.

**Bullockist**

whembly wrote:
Bullockist wrote:
my favourite line from the OP has to be this "The prosecution told CNN that while it is not completely happy with the decision, it still protects the victim and “imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others.”

Telling that guy he's not allowed to stick it into children will definitely stop him the 2nd time around, I mean this time he actually knows he's not supposed to do it. Job done, pats on the back all round.

Child rapist should be castrated. Even after they've served their time.

Whilst I agree with you in theory, in practice i find the idea problematic. What happens if you wrongfully convict someone? What do you do to women ( roughly 10% of offenders)?
I'm very much a "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent [defendant] suffer" kind of guy , and feel that police and prosecutors need to do their jobs better. The thought of the state taking away some ones life/body part and being wrong absolutely horrifies me. What does society do after the result to rectify the situation, nothing repays 20 years.

**whembly**

Bullockist wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bullockist wrote:
my favourite line from the OP has to be this "The prosecution told CNN that while it is not completely happy with the decision, it still protects the victim and “imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others.”

Telling that guy he's not allowed to stick it into children will definitely stop him the 2nd time around, I mean this time he actually knows he's not supposed to do it. Job done, pats on the back all round.

Child rapist should be castrated. Even after they've served their time.

Whilst I agree with you in theory, in practice i find the idea problematic. What happens if you wrongfully convict someone? What do you do to women ( roughly 10% of offenders)?
I'm very much a "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent [defendant] suffer" kind of guy , and feel that police and prosecutors need to do their jobs better. The thought of the state taking away some ones life/body part and being wrong absolutely horrifies me. What does society do after the result to rectify the situation, nothing repays 20 years.

I know...

But, I can dream... right?

**poppa G**

I remember hearing about this, I hate the court system.

**Bullockist**

whembly wrote:
Bullockist wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bullockist wrote:
my favourite line from the OP has to be this "The prosecution told CNN that while it is not completely happy with the decision, it still protects the victim and “imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others.”

Telling that guy he's not allowed to stick it into children will definitely stop him the 2nd time around, I mean this time he actually knows he's not supposed to do it. Job done, pats on the back all round.

Child rapist should be castrated. Even after they've served their time.

Whilst I agree with you in theory, in practice i find the idea problematic. What happens if you wrongfully convict someone? What do you do to women ( roughly 10% of offenders)?
I'm very much a "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent [defendant] suffer" kind of guy , and feel that police and prosecutors need to do their jobs better. The thought of the state taking away some ones life/body part and being wrong absolutely horrifies me. What does society do after the result to rectify the situation, nothing repays 20 years.

I know...

But, I can dream... right?

I'm not sure that dreaming about castrating people is healthy ;p

**SlaveToDorkness**

Isn't "not fairing well" the fething POINT of prison?

**whembly**

Bullockist wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bullockist wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bullockist wrote:
my favourite line from the OP has to be this "The prosecution told CNN that while it is not completely happy with the decision, it still protects the victim and “imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others.”

Telling that guy he's not allowed to stick it into children will definitely stop him the 2nd time around, I mean this time he actually knows he's not supposed to do it. Job done, pats on the back all round.

Child rapist should be castrated. Even after they've served their time.

Whilst I agree with you in theory, in practice i find the idea problematic. What happens if you wrongfully convict someone? What do you do to women ( roughly 10% of offenders)?
I'm very much a "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent [defendant] suffer" kind of guy , and feel that police and prosecutors need to do their jobs better. The thought of the state taking away some ones life/body part and being wrong absolutely horrifies me. What does society do after the result to rectify the situation, nothing repays 20 years.

I know...

But, I can dream... right?

I'm not sure that dreaming about castrating people is healthy ;p

EDITED: spoiler'ed in case you didn't see the season finale

Spoiler:

*in season finale of Walking Dead.

**timetowaste85**

FirePainter wrote:
Ya know I think a case could be made for another american sterilization project. There are a lot of people who should not be breeding.

Hey! It's my job to post first about sterilizing donkey-caves so they can't do more lasting harm through burdening the world with their genetics. It also pisses off the bleeding hearts, who I suspect won't even be able to stand against those of us wanting this guy to be sterilized (or hung).

**Bullockist**

Careful man or I'll stab you with my patchouli stick and strangle you with my dream catcher.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
On one hand I agree that it will be difficult to keep him safe, and we should be responsible for his safety. I don't think "throw him in prison to get raped, beat, and/or killed" is something that we should condone in the civilized society that we strive to be.

Sure, but the answer there probably ought to be to work towards a sufficiently resourced and properly managed prison system so that rapes, beating and murder don't happen to anyone inside.

**d-usa**

sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:
On one hand I agree that it will be difficult to keep him safe, and we should be responsible for his safety. I don't think "throw him in prison to get raped, beat, and/or killed" is something that we should condone in the civilized society that we strive to be.

Sure, but the answer there probably ought to be to work towards a sufficiently resourced and properly managed prison system so that rapes, beating and murder don't happen to anyone inside.

Very true. But working with what we got I would have gone with years of solitary to keep him protected instead of propation "for his safety".

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
Very true. But working with what we got I would have gone with years of solitary to keep him protected instead of propation "for his safety".

Agreed.

**Dreadclaw69**

An absolutely disgusting sentence

**Howard A Treesong**

People in prison who actually are raped and beaten don't get let out for not faring well and they are proven cases at risk. But this guy doesn't even go to prison because it's speculated he wouldn't 'fare well'. And for child rape too. It's shocking, while he should ideally be safe in prison, the public also deserve to be safe. I'm glad he's taking priority.

**Relapse**

The courts can be really screwy on these cases. One of my cousins was a social worker for thirty years helping troubled youth.

He told me of one case he was involved with where the father would hang his son on the wall and burn him with cigarettes.
Sexual abuse was also part of the package, and he would also prostitute the boy, around age 10, to his friends at $2 a session.
My cousin did all in his power to try to get the boy away from that situation, but the courts kept putting him back with his father.

Finally one day, the father had an epileptic siezure by a lake, fell face first into the water, and drowned. My cousin said that was a good place for him to die, with his face in the frog gak.
As for the boy, he was 14 by that time and well messed up.

During the course of his investigations, he compiled a list that consisted of several prominent citizens around that town that had been in on the sexual abuse. He turned it in to the prosecutor and was told it would be thrown out of court because of the sheer number of people involved, so no one was ever prosecuted.

After thirty years of that, it's no wonder my cousins health suffered.

**Ouze**

There is a good article here, I thought, if you'd like a contrast between our two judicial systems.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
On one hand I agree that it will be difficult to keep him safe, and we should be responsible for his safety. I don't think "throw him in prison to get raped, beat, and/or killed" is something that we should condone in the civilized society that we strive to be.

But if the choice are "probation" or "solitary confinement for his protection while in prison" then I think the choice should be obvious.

Safety never factored into it for poor people. Put him solitary for the rest of his life. He will be safe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:
I remember a time when regardless of what your condition in prison would be like.... you simply fething went to prison.

Exactly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:
On one hand I agree that it will be difficult to keep him safe, and we should be responsible for his safety. I don't think "throw him in prison to get raped, beat, and/or killed" is something that we should condone in the civilized society that we strive to be.

Sure, but the answer there probably ought to be to work towards a sufficiently resourced and properly managed prison system so that rapes, beating and murder don't happen to anyone inside.

Very true. But working with what we got I would have gone with years of solitary to keep him protected instead of propation "for his safety".

No its not that difficult. Just put him in a cell and don't open it up again. Problem solved.

**Dreadwinter**

He was only going to get 8 years for raping a 3 year old?

I feel like that is a little low in the first place.