All too often child molesters and rapists are not brought to justice. At times it is because of a lack of evidence, while other times the criminals are known but unable to be apprehended.
But a wealthy du Pont heir recently dodged what should have been a lengthy prison sentence for raping his own 3-year-old daughter.
A Superior Court judge explained the controversial decision by saying that Robert H. Richards IV would “not fare well” in prison. Thus, the judge explained, he needs treatment instead of prison.
Judge Jan Jurden explained the controversial decision, saying these are “unique circumstances.” She says she was forced to consider these circumstances when deciding the punishment for the Du Pont heir’s fourth-degree rape conviction.
Prison life, the judge explained, would have “adversely affected” Richards. Thus, the she continued, Richards’ 2009 rape case ended this month with disappointed attorneys for his ex-wife Tracy, who said that justice had not been served.
Tracy’s lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive damages for the sexual abuse of their daughter.
Defense lawyers and prosecutors said that the judge is normally a quite tough sentencing judge. They were at a loss to explain the obvious reason why she was so lenient with this “one percenter.”
“It’s an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well,” Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O’Neill said. “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.”
O’Neill said he has never seen a judge cite such a thing as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”
What do you think is the reason why this rapist got off without prison time?
(Article M.B. David)