I actually had to google this after I came across it on tumblr...I thought it must be a prank or sick joke but it's not...
No jail time for DuPont heir who raped an infant
He’s an unemployed heir living off a trust fund, so of course “will not fare well” is just code for “is too rich to serve time.”
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.
I don’t believe the US penal system is an effective deterrent against crime and it is an utter failure at rehabilitating criminals. I believe drug addicts should receive treatment, sexual offenders should receive counselling and therapy, and petty thieves should be sentenced to restitution. I agree with the judge that Richards would not fare well in prison because most people don’t fare well in prison. The difference is my feelings are applicable to the entire population, not just the top 1% who have enough resources to afford the best legal team money can buy and sway a judge who is probably hoping for a kickback in the future.
Richards admitted to assaulting both his son and daughter, each indictment of second-degree child rape carrying a mandatory 10 year sentence. He was offered a plea deal and agreed to plead guilty to one degree of fourth-degree rape, a charge that has no minimum sentencing requirement. That’s what money gets you. You can admit to two serious offenses and your legal team will persuade the prosecution to drop the charges down to one minor offense.
I want everyone investigated. I want to see who the judge talks to and if she has any unexplained funds. I want the prosecution looked into to find out if they’ve had any lump sum deposits. I want everybody involved with this case to be raked over the coals because this is ridiculous. I know the wealthy take precedence over everyone else in this country, but I find it hard to believe that a team of prosecutors and a judge would let a child rapist walk freely just because he has money.
Or maybe this is just another case of our legal system offering affluenza as a viable defense. Rich people don’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else because they’re not cognizant of the same code of cause and effect, according to the courts. Ethan Couch got a spa vacation after killing four people while drunk behind the wheel because rich people don’t understand cause and effect. Maybe Robert Richards is getting the same benefit after raping his two children.
Or — and this is most likely — maybe wealth and worth are so intertwined in our society that rich people always deserve the benefit of the doubt. We look at poor people and assume they’re poor because they deserve it. They must have done something wrong. They must be inferior. If they’re poor in our free market capitalist economy, then obviously they didn’t work hard enough. On the other hand, the wealthy have all earned it. If you have money, you must be doing something right. You must be a good person because you’re rich. Therefore, when you commit a crime, it must be just a little mistake and not a reflection on your moral character, because after all, you’re rich and you must be doing something right to deserve your wealth.
So poor criminals continue to be scum who deserve to be locked up for the rest of their lives while rich criminals made a mistake and deserve to be rehabilitated…even if the wealth is from a trust fund. It must be nice to be born a worthy member of society.
Edited by CherryBlossom - Mar 31 2014 at 1:12pm