du Pont Heir Plead Guilty to Raping 3-year-old Daughter; Received Probation, no Jail Time

I do not support the death penalty often, but this is a case were I would make an exception.

That being said I do not know what "fourth-degree rape" means, but I guess it is as bad as it sounds.

 

The extra-judicial restrictions that certain sex offenders are subject to in the last quarter century precludes them from working or living most places after whatever sentence they're given.

 

Would be interesting to see if she ever runs for office and coincidentally there's a mystery donation to her campaign. #conspiracytheory

 

Sickening...

 

That is one f-cked up family. No joke.

 

Really? Honestly, you can make an argument that we're too harsh on them.

As for the case here: fact is that they probably didn't have enough to actually convict Mr. Richards, and so got the guilty plea in exchange for probation. I mean, come on. Are you really, really going to convict a man over the claims of a pissed-off ex wife? I doubt a jury would.

 

Sociopaths are bad enough, 1% are bad enough, combine them and you get a real life monster who can pretty much get away with anything.

 

I wouldn't say they are too light. I dont know the details of this case, and if there was a true crime committed, then yes, this was very light. However, some of the statutory laws are very severe.

 

Rape in the 4th degree is the lightest charge you can give for child rape in Delaware that I can find. It's a Class C felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But, it specifies intercourse or penetration. So what he pled guilty to was not just some fiddling, but a full-on rape. Maybe you can say they would have gotten nothing at all without taking jail-time off the table. But, I'm not too happy with that. If he's innocent, its a miscarriage of justice to force him into an admission to save him the risk of a trial. If he's guilty of a full-on rape of a 3 year old, admission without prison time isn't any better. I think I'd prefer they take their chances with a jury trial. If he's found not guilty, they've lost little compared to a conviction without punishment.

Of course, there's also all the money that's involved.

 

Except that doesn't seem to be what happened here. The sentencing was by the judge - and she made the decision because he "wouldn't fare well" in jail, after she had originally sentenced him to 8 years and then changed her mind. The probation was not part of a plea agreement.

 

What king of messed up father would admit to rape of his daughter if hè didn't do it.

Anybody that can harm their own child in such a way is totally crazy. And should be punished severely

 

You'd be surprised just how many people have "confessed" under interrogation to crimes objective evidence said was impossible for them to have committed...

 

This is not actually stated in the article at the top. It is simply insinuated that it is so. Could not a suspended sentence of 8 years be part of a plea bargain, after all?

Except this conviction does carry punishment. He has to report to a parole officer, and his name is placed on the sex offenders register, which is basically a life-ruiner. Hopefully, these measures will ensure that Mr. Richards never pulls this crap again.

 

Which country is the one where public stones,beat, and hang you for stealing something?

 

The Judge states in her order that her sentencing decision was based, in part, on the fact that he would not fare well in prison. If that was not part of the reason for the sentence, then she is lying in her order.

From my understanding of how a plea bargain works, it is between the prosecutor and defendant - not the judge. So while the prosecutor can offer a lesser charge, he could only have recommended no jail time, and the judge is under no obligation to follow that recommendation. The crime he pleaded to still could have included jail time - she made the decision on that.

 

Having been involved in orchestrating settlements and compromises, I can tell you that 99% of the time there is more is more than meets the eye in plea and settlement agreements that appear one sided. Prosecutors and Judges do not want to risk their professional life by making agreements that are one sided.

Having said that, I am curious what exactly are the reasons that Judge relied upon in reaching her decision. Simply stating that "he would not fair well in prison" is not sufficient... most child rapists will not fair well in prison.

On second thought, I don't want to know.. the Du Pont family historically is about as ****ed up as you will find.

 

Mississippi

 

For normal people, yes it's a lifelong punishment that limits your ability to get jobs, find housing and so on. For someone as rich as du Pont is supposed to be, it's probably not nearly so burdensome. His biggest problem is probably limits on his tourism destinations.