Wealthy Child Molester Gets Probation, Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison

[Nanners52674]

HEIR DODGES PRISON FOR CHILD RAPE BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T 'FARE WELL'

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.

One Percenter Convicted Of Raping Infant Child Dodges Jail Because He 'Will Not Fare Well'

[Kevin]

I once had a similar case where I obtained a suspended sentence for similar reasons. Big difference was that in my case, the victim was a 14 year old prostitute who had subsequently attempted to burglarized my client's (an octogenarian) home. Not the most sympathetic of victims.

As far as what his ex-wife says, if she's after money, I'd take what she says with a grain of salt. It's hard to know what really happened.

As far as the actual child rape goes, he may have admitted to doing those things, but may not necessarily have done them. Imagine the terrible choice of having to choose between admitting you raped your own children and get a suspended sentence and get to live with all of your money or deny it, risk conviction carrying a 10-year mandatory sentence per count.

It's really hard to know what all happened here, what the Judge knew, what the prosecutor who signed off on this deal knew, etc. Tough to know.

That said, in the civil trial he's already guilty/liable. The only question will be how much he's going to have to pay. I'm guessing that's a lot. I'm also guessing that's one reason the prosecutor and probably the mother didn't protest much when the deal was made.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As far as what his ex-wife says, if she's after money, I'd take what she says with a grain of salt. It's hard to know what really happened.

No. It's not hard to know what really happened. This man raped a child. I know you are a defense attorney, but rape apologism like this is one reason victims have such a hard time coming forward.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

No. It's not hard to know what really happened. This man raped a child. I know you are a defense attorney, but rape apologism like this is one reason victims have such a hard time coming forward.

And how do you know for a fact that it happened?

You don't.

These things tend to have a lot of moving parts. Especially here where there's going to be a major civil lawsuit. I've had to defend people accused of raping their children before on more than one occasion. On one occasion, it was a case very similar to this in facts (except my guy wasn't a DuPont) When we're talking about a young child, in this case, age 3, you have a VERY unreliable witness.

Think about it--you can get a 3 year old to believe literally anything. If their parents tell them there's this fat guy in a red suit who flies around in a sleigh pulled around by reindeer, and [spoiler alert] he knows if you're naughty or nice, that 3 year old has no doubt that Santa Claus is very real.

If you can convince a 3-year-old of that with very little difficulty, how tough is it to convince them that daddy touched them inappropriately?

So here, mom who feels slighted by being divorced by the rich ne'er do well heir, wants more money. Maybe the way the trust is paid out deprives her of what she thinks she should be getting for child support and support alimony. Mom hatches a scheme to get the child to cry rape (you would be surprised how very common this is in child custody cases) and now, basically, dad has to prove it didn't happen.

There are a number of ways to lend credibility to dad. The child will typically undergo a forensic interview. If the child, however, has been adequately prepared for the forensic interview, or somehow just answers the questions the way they need to be answered, forensic interviews aren't 100% effective.

Then you can subject dad to a psychosexual evaluation. This would usually entail all the usual stuff, MMPI, other assessments and sometimes include a Penile plethysmograph test, something I would find utterly humiliating if subjected to. In one case, my guy got a clean bill of health from that test, except it came back that he also might be a sociopath... so again, these things have limited value.

I'll bet you're just as sure this guy is guilty as you were certain of the Duke Lacrosse team's guilt or that Zimmerman would be convicted.

You need to learn the difference between fact an opinion.. or at least review it.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And how do you know for a fact that it happened?

You don't.

These things tend to have a lot of moving parts. Especially here where there's going to be a major civil lawsuit. I've had to defend people accused of raping their children before on more than one occasion. On one occasion, it was a case very similar to this in facts (except my guy wasn't a DuPont) When we're talking about a young child, in this case, age 3, you have a VERY unreliable witness.

Think about it--you can get a 3 year old to believe literally anything. If their parents tell them there's this fat guy in a red suit who flies around in a sleigh pulled around by reindeer, and [spoiler alert] he knows if you're naughty or nice, that 3 year old has no doubt that Santa Claus is very real.

If you can convince a 3-year-old of that with very little difficulty, how tough is it to convince them that daddy touched them inappropriately?

So here, mom who feels slighted by being divorced by the rich ne'er do well heir, wants more money. Maybe the way the trust is paid out deprives her of what she thinks she should be getting for child support and support alimony. Mom hatches a scheme to get the child to cry rape (you would be surprised how very common this is in child custody cases) and now, basically, dad has to prove it didn't happen.

There are a number of ways to lend credibility to dad. The child will typically undergo a forensic interview. If the child, however, has been adequately prepared for the forensic interview, or somehow just answers the questions the way they need to be answered, forensic interviews aren't 100% effective.

Then you can subject dad to a psychosexual evaluation. This would usually entail all the usual stuff, MMPI, other assessments and sometimes include a Penile plethysmograph test, something I would find utterly humiliating if subjected to. In one case, my guy got a clean bill of health from that test, except it came back that he also might be a sociopath... so again, these things have limited value.

I'll bet you're just as sure this guy is guilty as you were certain of the Duke Lacrosse team's guilt or that Zimmerman would be convicted.

You need to learn the difference between fact an opinion.. or at least review it.

Thank you.

I agree with what DeltaBetaBaby said, but at the same time, we have to realize that charged does NOT mean guilty. Innocent people are arrested and charged all the time for crimes that they didn't commit or crimes that are an exaggeration of what actually happened. There has to be a balance between emphasizing that the victim is NEVER at fault, but also investigating each case to make sure that the rape actually occurred and the alleged victim is telling the truth. False rape claims, while rare, do occur and that means that each case must be thoroughly investigated.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

False rape claims, while rare, do occur and that means that each case must be thoroughly investigated.

These are not rare at all when it comes to child custody cases. On any given day, I have at least one of these cases I'm defending when representing dad.

What you read in the media and what is really happening is often two different things. For example, last year, I had a case which was prominently mentioned on the crime page of the Huffington Post. It made local and national news. You never heard about the work I did because it's all confidential.

Suffice to say, this mom and dad were accused of just horrible, despicable things, now has their family back when it should have never been torn apart because the intake process was incredibly botched and the state went off half cocked when they should have worked it differently.... but guess what made the headlines anyhow.

[Kevin]

Legally, he's proven guilty. RTA.

You just keep showing your ignorance of the legal system post by post.

And how can you maintain that I'm prejudiced if I haven't taken a position? I'm just pointing out the possibility of other positions and that drawing absolute conclusions from the evidence presented is not a rock-solid position to be in.

I have taken the position that CPS caseworkers are often underqualified and that there are no jobs out there which require so little training for so much responsibility. If you can think of one, let me know.

[DrPhil]

Yes, I know this man has been found guilty. The news story (that has been discussed all over the media) is that he "dodged a bullet" after being found guilty.

Anyway, no one in this thread is without prejudice and bias. Including you.

[DrPhil]

Since Kevin insists on playing the letters game:

Kevin needs to be schooled on what the letters behind his name mean, different professional opinions regarding those letters, and the professional difficulties faced by the average person with those letters.

[Kevin]

It's safe to say that a case worker is going to generally have these letters after her name: "B.A." Anything more and she's qualified to do better paying and much less stressful work. 99% of the time, this is a very safe assumption. So yes, in just about all cases, my training and expertise >>>> the case worker's. You might have advanced degrees now, which I still doubt, but you damn sure didn't as a CPS worker.

Let's get back to the question you don't seem willing to answer--are forensic interviews of three-year-olds iron-clad?

[als463]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's safe to say that a case worker is going to generally have these letters after her name: "B.A." Anything more and she's qualified to do better paying and much less stressful work. 99% of the time, this is a very safe assumption. So yes, in just about all cases, my training and expertise >>>> the case worker's. You might have advanced degrees now, which I still doubt, but you damn sure didn't as a CPS worker.
Let's get back to the question you don't seem willing to answer--are forensic interviews of three-year-olds iron-clad?

There you go assuming again. Like Iamblue mentioned, not everyone feels the need to shout it from the rooftops about how much education they have. You never answered any of my questions. What is comparable to your degree? Did you receive your JD from a top-tier law school? Were most of your degrees from well-known institutions? I'm just asking. Also, as I stated earlier, when you get pulled from college to go to war that will later help pay for your education, then you can come talk to me about working "hard" for your coveted degree. Until then, you present yourself as an attorney with poor deductive reasoning skills ("You damn sure didn't as a CPS worker"), assumptions that people on GC must have lesser degrees than you or potentially attended lesser institutions, and your need to continuously harp on how those people who choose to do a job because they care--I mean, because the money sucks--aren't fit enough to sit with you at the head table with the silver spoons. I bet you are great at making all types of friends in those "lowly" positions you choose to turn your nose up to.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by als463

There you go assuming again. Like Iamblue mentioned, not everyone feels the need to shout it from the rooftops about how much education they have.

In this context it's relevant because I am higher up the food chain than the case worker. I issue subpoenas, prepare orders, examine or cross-examine them on their reports and observations, I run my show and they are just players. Important players, but role players nonetheless.

And often, as in this case, they arrive at certainty without all of the facts. You wouldn't accept that someone could have a gun and meth in their car and be clean. You seem to be jumping to accept this case at face value. Those aren't good traits for a case worker.

You never answered any of my questions. What is comparable to your degree? Did you receive your JD from a top-tier law school? Were most of your degrees from well-known institutions? I'm just asking.

Relevance? Yes, my J.D. and further training and experience qualify me to be an officer of the court. A B.A. in Business Management does not help a caseworker be qualified to do her job, but it's often accepted.

Also, as I stated earlier, when you get pulled from college to go to war that will later help pay for your education, then you can come talk to me about working "hard" for your coveted degree.

I'm pretty sure the money I took out of my IRA last year to pay my loans off paid for my education.

Until then, you present yourself as an attorney with poor deductive reasoning skills ("You damn sure didn't as a CPS worker"), assumptions that people on GC must have lesser degrees than you or potentially attended lesser institutions, and your need to continuously harp on how those people who choose to do a job because they care--I mean, because the money sucks--aren't fit enough to sit with you at the head table with the silver spoons. I bet you are great at making all types of friends in those "lowly" positions you choose to turn your nose up to.

Like I said... they love me. My assumption is pretty firmly rooted in the fact that you are accepting things as absolutely true without knowing what's really going on. Tell me--you are accused by a three year old of molesting her. You have a choice--no jail time, take a plea, be a sex offender with a trust fund or face a trial and 20+ years in prison.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's safe to say that a case worker is going to generally have these letters after her name: "B.A." Anything more and she's qualified to do better paying and much less stressful work. 99% of the time, this is a very safe assumption. So yes, in just about all cases, my training and expertise >>>> the case worker's. You might have advanced degrees now, which I still doubt, but you damn sure didn't as a CPS worker.

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I find this argument really interesting. So here's my 2 cents:
1-advanced education only expresses a certain amount of intelligence. And lack of said advanced education does NOT reflect the opposite. I could have 3 PhD's if I wanted and I'd still be an underpaid travel agent. But I LIKE being a travel agent and no degree is required for that whatsoever (although most agents I know do have undergrad degrees). Thank god for smart people who choose to do shitty jobs even though they could be lawyers or work on Wall Street. (my career not included in that thanks. I mean nurses, CPS types, garbage men, the really crappy jobs, excusing the pun)

This.

Not everyone aspires to be the President of the United States or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. That doesn't mean that everyone who works below those people are actually "below" them. I know people who went to college, but lack any kind of common sense. I also know people who never attended college, but they're extremely intelligent.

More prestigious positions don't always = more money and less stress. And some people thrive on being stressed; they need the pressure to stay motivated. Others, like DubaisSis, could have a high-paying job, but they choose not to because they love what they do, and making six figures isn't their number one priority.

To say something like, "You might have advanced degrees now, which I still doubt, but you damn sure didn't as a CPS worker," is kind of ignorant. I have a friend who is very intelligent, has a college degree, and he's delivering pizzas right now. I have another friend who has 2 degrees, a master's, and she's teaching 2nd grade. You just never know.

Originally Posted by Kevin

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justic...html?hpt=hp_t4

Check out the prosecutor's public statement at the end.

Will some of you just admit that I might know what I'm talking about?

The problem isn't you "knowing what you're talking about", it's that you sound like you think less of the rest of us because we don't have the same letters following our names that you do. Maybe that's not how you intended to come across, but that's exactly what it sounds like.

[SWTXBelle]

Are forensic interviews of anyone iron-clad?

FWIW - the CPS/social workers I know 1.) have advanced degrees (if there were no reason to have advanced degrees I doubt there would be as many graduate programs) and 2.) don't do "higher paying or much less stressful work" because they are unable to - they do it to make a positive difference in the life of a child. I realize that our society doesn't value that particular motivation - but there you have it.

[Sen's Revenge]

A case worker is not necessarily the same as a social worker. But I guess everyone knows that.