Du Pont Heir Rapes 3 Year Old Daughter But

here

A Superior Court judge who sentenced an heir to the du Pont fortune to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter wrote in her order that he “will not fare well” in prison and suggested that he needed treatment instead of time behind bars, according to Delaware Online.

Court records show that in Judge Jan Jurden’s sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards confused several criminal justice authorities in Delaware, who said that her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists.

Jurden gave Richards, who had no previous criminal record, an eight-year prison term, but suspended all the prison time for probation.

“Defendant will not fare well in Level 5 [prison] setting,” she wrote in her order.

“It’s an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well,” said Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O’Neill, whose office represents defendants who normally cannot afford a lawyer. “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 explained that he has previously argued that case if a defendant was too ill or frail for prison, but he had never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”

He added that the public might come to see Richards sentence as the result of “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.”

According to court records Richards is listed at 6 feet, 4 inches tall and weighing between 250 and 276 pounds.

Court records do not cite any physical illnesses or disabilities.

Richards, who is unemployed and supported by a trust fund, owns a 5,800-square-foot mansion in Greenville , Delaware, and also owns a home in the exclusive North Shores neighborhood near Rehoboth Beach.

His great-grandfather is du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, and his father is Robert H. Richards III, a retired partner in the Richards Layton & Finger law firm.

The rape of his daughter came to light in December of 2007, when the girl, then 5, told her grandmother that Richards sexually abused her.

The grandmother, Donna Burg, said that the girl reported that her father told her it was “our little secret” but said she didn’t want “my daddy touching me anymore.”

The girl said her father molested her in the bedrooms of both her mother and brother in their home, according to the arrest warrant.

His wife, Tracy Richards told police he admitted abusing his daughter, when she confronted her then-husband, and that he explained , “it was an accident and he would never do it again.”

A lawsuit filed by his then-wife also accused him of molesting their 18-month-old son.

Richards was arrested and then freed on $60,000 secured bail while awaiting trial on the charges that could have put put him behind bars for years.

While defense attorney Joseph A. Hurley said that it makes sense to him that the judge would be concerned about Richards’ time in prison, stating, “Sure, they have protective custody, but that is solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. We’re not a third-world society,” Kendall Marlowe, executive director of National Association for Counsel for Children, said that individuals who abuse youngsters deserve to be punished.

“Child protection laws are there to safeguard children, and adults who knowingly harm children should be punished,” said Marlow.

“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.”

send him to prison anyways. totally deserves it

In case you didn't read beyond the first few sentences:

A lawsuit filed by his then-wife also accused him of molesting their 18-month-old son.

A super rich guy not going to prison? Not that shocking to be honest. Dude totally deserves to get sent to prison and passed around a few times. But that would be too fair, way easier to just buy a judge.

I firmly believe the death penalty should be an option on child molestation cases. It would be nicer than they deserve to boot.

To me it was not a shock if he avoided paying taxes for a few years, or perhaps got accused of some misdemeanor assault or a 4th degree felony or something..but this is reprehensible to me.

Guys a job creator, stop hating cause he kiddy fiddled. He's suffering from severe affluenza.

Hard to say if his wealth had anything to do with the decision... that said, it's a terrible decision, and I hope people on the outside are equally "friendly" to him.

Wealth perhaps did not have anything to do with this decision? hahaha ok

Our prisons are awful and largely serve to produce better criminals rather than reformed citizens. This isn't helped by the uphill climb back into regular society being practically vertical, nor by overzealous sentencing in the name of vengeance.

Treatment, whether of a sex offender or a DUI or any other crime, is almost always a good idea. It's a shame how few treatment options are any good (looking at you, court-ordered and impossible-to-verify AA meetings).

I'd rather only those who are incapable of being in society be imprisoned. Murderers and those with a history of violence are at the top of the list, but someone who would rape a child that is barely more than an infant may well trump them. However, don't imagine that this guy will have an easy time even on probation. As a fairly public figure, he may never feel safe leaving the house again. With many people who commit crimes, I'd feel some sorrow, but I'm not feeling it here.

Du Pont Family is cursed with a history of mental illness.

Some you may or may not remember that John Eleuthère Du Pont suffering from mental illness killed Dave Schultz, then died while in prison.

A friend and I were having a discussion about court mandated AA meetings just last week..and I have to agree that they are seemingly worthless to some.

What evidence would you offer that his wealth had any impact on the judge's decision? Perhaps indirectly through having a top notch lawyer?

A ridiculous attempt at a straw man argument? I don't get it.

Well, ignoring that AA has a success rate (which they adamantly won't publish but has been extrapolated by critics) that is even with self-determination, the really big problem is that it's anonymous. To everyone. I literally know people who just get random co-workers or folks on the bus to sign off their attendance sheet because it violates the meeting to verify it in a sensible way. There are some ways to improve it (e.g., using an embossing seal like a notary public has), but it's still pretty weak.

Court-appointed therapy, like for a domestic violence case, is almost always through an accredited agency and closely monitored. Go figure that it has a reasonable success rate. But, as this article demonstrates, if you took, say, Chris Brown and said, "He's going to spend the next 100 Monday nights in group therapy or until he completes the program," public outcry would still be rather loud.

I dunno. I really feel like the judge made a bad call here, but it's extreme cases like this that are the cornerstone of ethics. It's tough.

I don't see what's strawman about it, I just offered my take on it, you responded with certainty. I'm asking what evidence you have that challenges what I said, I even through you a bone.

I'm not being argumentative, I just didn't see anything in the article, besides mentioning he is wealthy, that points to his wealth being a factor. The article is clearly written with a bias against wealthy people, but offers no evidence that it played a role.

And, no, I'm not defending this piece of ***or the decision. And definitely not defending the wealthy.

I agree. I personally know a hardcore alcoholic that used AA to quit, so I know that at least in that one instance that it worked.

And regardless of my opinion of right or wrong, it seems pretty obvious that this judge should be impeached.

I'm with Jassik on this. I'm sure a very good lawyer was involved, which generally costs a fair bit of dosh, but this kind of decision is not made lightly. I suspect that either the judge has a crusade or there are some additional details that aren't in the article. Something as grievous as this is not going to be treated lightly even if the judge feels that prison is not the best idea.

I find the lack of soundbites telling. Why even talk to the public defenders when they weren't involved in the case? Possibly because the prosecutor, plaintiff, and judge are keeping close-lipped for a reason?

Could very well be, nobody knows I guess. I'm going to be biased and say that because he's a filthy rich white man that he got off with minimum repercussions, even though I don't know.

The title of this thread is one hell of a cliffhanger!

I decided to look up Judge Jurden out of curiosity, because my first impulsive thought was that she could have been easily bought and sold, but after taking some excerpts from her profile into consideration, I wonder if she might be trying to further her reputation of temperance. Maybe?

I couldn't find anything on her political affiliation or personal life.


I was wondering why that name rung a bell.


That was the second thing that stood out to me.

I can't believe he was allowed a second shot. Where's the defining line?

EDIT: Because, apparently, what I said was more offensive than a father getting off the hook twice for the molestation and rape of his children. Sorry, y'all!

I always wondered what happened to the fabled mental institutions and insane asylums of yesteryear. It seems the privatized prison system has been the be-all, end-all of the justice system, which is rather unfortunate.

I find it quite easy to say. He is from the DuPont clan and they still own Delaware.

I thought of posting this but was totally stumped for a descriptive title.

As much of a joke Affluenza defense truly is (besides being a slap in the face of middle-class folks), its probably entirely true that rich upper class folks really believe they have no consequences to their actions, and are ultimately untouchable. But when the justice system supports this nonsense, it truly degrades the idea of equality and moral fairness.

Evidence? Probably won't find it directly, but just look at Hollywood, all the crimes they get away with, and even that rich kid who got sent to a GROUP THERAPY HOME WITH YOGA AND COOKING CLASSES for killing one of his friends and severely debilitating his other in a huge car crash. Kid fled the scene too, and then ultimately got off with a few months 'treatment' in that facility.

You may not hear anyone flatly come out and admit that money influences people's decision. But if this dude were flat out broke or homeless, dude would be under the jail. Money talks. Money gets better services, even legal cousel (and ultimately legal judgements). The poor middle-class get sent to jail, the rich upper class stay in society to fuel the economy.

There've been a number of cases in the past couple of years, in which certain high-flyers have been found guilty of horrific crimes, but not sentenced to jail time because of how prison would affect them, or because of the domino effect their imprisonment would have on their business, and on their employees.

IMHO, F*** 'em. All convicted criminals should be sentenced according to the severity of their crime, not their status in society. I don't care if a serial rapist has the daintiness of a 9 year old girl; throw 'em in the pit with the other hardened convicts. Reabilitation in prison is a noble goal, but as far as I'm concerned, the primary purpose of imprisonment is to get the criminals off of our streets.

DuPont is clearly pro rape.

Boycott DuPont products (That's about all anyone can do about this) :/

The real questions is if he wasn't wealthy would this have made headlines ?

The media loves it when little kids get raped/murdered.
so yes, I believe it would still have been covered :/