This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Do you need some attention?Enraged? All he did was point out you didn't know the facts.
Maybe he admitted it based on getting the lesser charge and not wanting to fight against a more serious charge.
Maybe. Seems like this isn't something you admit to for any reason unless you actually did it or worse though.
the guy who keeps inserting himself into other peoples conversations?I think we all know who needs the attention here.
Jon are you actually suggesting that this guy pled guilty to raping his children but was innocent?
Dude's got the money why not go fight it? Even if only to prove to your daughter at some future date when she is older, that you didn't rape her?
I'm not admitting that unless im guilty. I mean seriously, does anyone think he made up a story about raping his kid in order to get a lesser charge?
"A Superior Court judge who sentenced a wealthy du Pont heir to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter noted in her order that he "will not fare well" in prison and needed treatment instead of time behind bars, court records show.Judge Jan Jurden's sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV suggested that she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards was a rare and puzzling rationale, several criminal justice authorities in Delaware said. Some also said her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is a justification typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists."
It's a message board. If you want a private conversation call your mommy.the guy who keeps inserting himself into other peoples conversations?I think we all know who needs the attention here.
"Truly irks" is a bit strong. Mildly annoying to somewhat comical is probably more accurately descriptive. Especially when the underlying message being offered isn't "you guys are completely wrong" but more of a cautious "hey, pump the brakes, in my personal experience the media often gets these things wrong and, here, let me frame the issue more accurately for you…". To have that then received by "you stupid lawyers don't have common sense" is a bit
You may know more about the law but you still have no common sense."Truly irks" is a bit strong. Mildly annoying to somewhat comical is probably more accurately descriptive. Especially when the underlying message being offered isn't "you guys are completely wrong" but more of a cautious "hey, pump the brakes, in my personal experience the media often gets these things wrong and, here, let me frame the issue more accurately for you…". To have that then received by "you stupid lawyers don't have common sense" is a bit
Let me somewhat paint a picture for you. Imagine you went to school for seven years to do a particular thing. Let's say you studied medicine to become a foot doctor. You learned all sorts of good medicine and doctor stuff, including plenty about being a foot doctor. In fact, while in medical school, you worked part-time as a foot doctor. You then got out and became a foot doctor; working on feet daily, attended seminars on the practice, etc. You don't think you're the wisest foot doctor on the planet, but it's what you do and what you know. You then, for recreational purposes, wander onto a message board. Somewhat to your surprise you see several people talking about a particular foot problem. "Hey, I know all about that stuff," you think to yourself. "Let me see if I can provide some insight." You wander in and see people who are just as smart as you but don't have your training and experience. You see them using a non-scholarly source as a basis for their discussion, one you have personally experienced to usually portray the nuance of foot medicine distinctly wrong from the truth. You offer this caution and then try to add some points and descriptions to enhance the discussion. This is then met with the claim you lack common sense and ruin foot medicine. At that point, I imagine, you'd be slightly annoyed.
I haven't defended anything about this case. I've pointed out that media news sources are often incorrect in their interpretation of a court proceeding and their factual account of what occurred, so much so that we probably shouldn't take everything in the article as a factual certainty or assumes its inclusive of all the necessary facts and is unbiased. I've also pointed out that this defendant pled to one class C felony.You may know more about the law but you still have no common sense."Truly irks" is a bit strong. Mildly annoying to somewhat comical is probably more accurately descriptive. Especially when the underlying message being offered isn't "you guys are completely wrong" but more of a cautious "hey, pump the brakes, in my personal experience the media often gets these things wrong and, here, let me frame the issue more accurately for you…". To have that then received by "you stupid lawyers don't have common sense" is a bit
Let me somewhat paint a picture for you. Imagine you went to school for seven years to do a particular thing. Let's say you studied medicine to become a foot doctor. You learned all sorts of good medicine and doctor stuff, including plenty about being a foot doctor. In fact, while in medical school, you worked part-time as a foot doctor. You then got out and became a foot doctor; working on feet daily, attended seminars on the practice, etc. You don't think you're the wisest foot doctor on the planet, but it's what you do and what you know. You then, for recreational purposes, wander onto a message board. Somewhat to your surprise you see several people talking about a particular foot problem. "Hey, I know all about that stuff," you think to yourself. "Let me see if I can provide some insight." You wander in and see people who are just as smart as you but don't have your training and experience. You see them using a non-scholarly source as a basis for their discussion, one you have personally experienced to usually portray the nuance of foot medicine distinctly wrong from the truth. You offer this caution and then try to add some points and descriptions to enhance the discussion. This is then met with the claim you lack common sense and ruin foot medicine. At that point, I imagine, you'd be slightly annoyed.
Defending a sentence of 0.0 days of jail time for a child rapist proves that.
Where do you get the impression that I can't stand people reading articles and discussing them? I enjoy it. I kind of get the impression that it's you that can't stand people discussing things- after all a discussion is a back-and-forth exchange, which may include people disagreeing with what you say.
Look you need to go back and reread what I wrote. All I was doing was trying to set up a common point of understanding between the two crowds. Then Tobias completely misread it as saying lawyers don't have common sense or some other nonsense and took what was meant to be a post about finding a common perspective and acted all dickish about it."Truly irks" is a bit strong. Mildly annoying to somewhat comical is probably more accurately descriptive. Especially when the underlying message being offered isn't "you guys are completely wrong" but more of a cautious "hey, pump the brakes, in my personal experience the media often gets these things wrong and, here, let me frame the issue more accurately for you". To have that then received by "you stupid lawyers don't have common sense" is a bit
only
people who just don't know when to admit they might have made a mistake in their original stand on this...
It's the sentence, not the plea deal that gets people fired up. No matter how you slice it an admitted child rapist is walking without any jail time. If the prosecution felt they couldn't get a conviction in court after admission he made, then a plea deal is fine. It's the judge's sentence that people feel is off base, mostly because she justified it due to his well being.
I did none of this. I disagreed with your perspective and explained why. The closest anything I wrote here might come to being "dickish" was saying your POV was one of ignorance, something I immediately followed by saying that we all have a POV of ignorance. Everything else I posted was a reason why I think you're wrong to condemn a plea deal and it's actually harmful to think that way, and I stand by that. If you think I'm wrong- if you think it's worth spending tax dollars to roll the dice on a court case where a child rapist might end up exonerated and on back the streets with no penalties or behavior restrictions in order to avoid plea deals that you feel aren't punitive enough- feel free to explain why you think that.Look you need to go back and reread what I wrote. All I was doing was trying to set up a common point of understanding between the two crowds. Then Tobias completely misread it as saying lawyers don't have common sense or some other nonsense and took what was meant to be a post about finding a common perspective and acted all dickish about it."Truly irks" is a bit strong. Mildly annoying to somewhat comical is probably more accurately descriptive. Especially when the underlying message being offered isn't "you guys are completely wrong" but more of a cautious "hey, pump the brakes, in my personal experience the media often gets these things wrong and, here, let me frame the issue more accurately for you". To have that then received by "you stupid lawyers don't have common sense" is a bit
All I said was both camps come from different backgrounds and perspective but both camps can and should have an opinion about what constitutes justice. If you want to take issue take issue with what I actual wrote and not someone's hasty interpretation.
The sentence (and the admission) is a function of the plea deal. They're not independent.
1. Part of the calculation on the prosecution "winning" is based on the extent to which a defendant can "lawyer up." Being a DuPont heir affords him a better deal I'm sure.
This is fair, but then that assumes that this guy had a very good chance to get a not guilty verdict and yet still admitted in court to doing horrible things to his daughter. It's possible that he just had an extremely low risk tolerance and would admit to anything to get such a sweet plea deal.
This is an excellent study of what happens when people become part of dysfunctional institutions. Everyone can defend what their specific role was, though the end result may be a perversion of the institution's stated intent. Then they can all wring their hands and say the system needs to change.
Again, the admission was because of the plea deal. No plea deal, no admission. You can't argue for a sentence based on an admission you wouldn't have gotten without the plea. And once you have the plea the sentence is generally gonna be in accordance with the parameters of the conviction. You don't sentence a guy for first degree murder if he only cops to owning an unregistered handgun. It's all related.
I know you enjoy taking shots at me but please don't do this. Its completely inaccurate, and, given the nature of this crime, it's offensive. I'm not going to make this thread about me so this will be my last post no matter what your response is. But I'm asking you politely to stop.
but if the conviction says he can get up to 15 years for the handgun conviction, you don't just let him walk either...
The guidelines say 0-2.5 years. I don't know the details of their negotiations and relationships, but generally speaking judges would effectively kill a prosecutor's ability to negotiate pleas if they started ignoring sentencing guidelines in order to keep the press and strangers on the internet off their backs.
And here ends the useful part of this thread.
I agree that people who commit this sort of crime should spend some time in prison, but if you actually read all the way through the article, this outcome apparently isn't that unusual for Delaware. I have a problem with the way the law is written, but that's not the fault of the judge or the DA.
No. Just Zow when he stops in with his "you little people aren't qualified to talk about this, while I am even though I don't know much about it" schtick.
No one is condemning a plea deal. No one ever did that to my knowledge. The post you responded to had no condemnation of the plea deal. It wasn't even the subject of the post. I think you guys might be jumping the gun on what you think is people misunderstanding the system or how it works. This judge could have easily sent this guy to prison. She chose not to, because in her own words "he wouldn't fare well in prison." The other elephant in the room is the influence of money in this trial. It is very reminiscent of the Jared Remy treatment in Boston and the sentence handed out to the drunk driving kid who killed four people. He too would not have fared well, and his parents money had a direct effect on him receiving a lighter sentence.I did none of this. I disagreed with your perspective and explained why. The closest anything I wrote here might come to being "dickish" was saying your POV was one of ignorance, something I immediately followed by saying that we all have a POV of ignorance. Everything else I posted was a reason why I think you're wrong to condemn a plea deal and it's actually harmful to think that way, and I stand by that. If you think I'm wrong- if you think it's worth spending tax dollars to roll the dice on a court case where a child rapist might end up exonerated and on back the streets with no penalties or behavior restrictions in order to avoid plea deals that you feel aren't punitive enough- feel free to explain why you think that.Look you need to go back and reread what I wrote. All I was doing was trying to set up a common point of understanding between the two crowds. Then Tobias completely misread it as saying lawyers don't have common sense or some other nonsense and took what was meant to be a post about finding a common perspective and acted all dickish about it."Truly irks" is a bit strong. Mildly annoying to somewhat comical is probably more accurately descriptive. Especially when the underlying message being offered isn't "you guys are completely wrong" but more of a cautious "hey, pump the brakes, in my personal experience the media often gets these things wrong and, here, let me frame the issue more accurately for you". To have that then received by "you stupid lawyers don't have common sense" is a bit
All I said was both camps come from different backgrounds and perspective but both camps can and should have an opinion about what constitutes justice. If you want to take issue take issue with what I actual wrote and not someone's hasty interpretation.
Sexual predators are probably the worst re-offenders. Personally, I'd rather see 9 locked up (well, executed) and 1 free instead 10 wandering around with some "restrictions" that will hopefully prevent them from ruining more children's lives.
What he pled to had a maximum sentence of 15 years. He didn't get a day. Surely you are already aware of this? And I assume you are also already aware of the judge's stated reason for the sentence? Do we really have to point out minor stuff while ignoring the bigger picture?
Or, you know, worry about protecting children from getting raped instead of worried about how a DuPont heir would fare in prison.
I consider it protecting children if we avoid situations where rapists from getting off scot-free because a prosecutor has to try a risky case due to their authority to cut plea deals being undermined by judges. Don't you? Would you rather have ten guys convicted as sex offenders and subject to significant disclosure requirements and oversight and behavioral restrictions, or nine guys in prison as sex offenders and one guy who was charged with a sex offense who is free to move next door to you without notifying you and hang out in your kids' playground all day staring down the kids and there's nothing you can do about it because he was found not guilty of any crime? Personally I prefer the former.
How do you know he's a child rapist? I'll answer that for you- because he admitted it in court after agreeing to the plea. No plea, no admission.
Blowing up plea deals wouldn't make people think she blows up plea deals? If you start with that premise I guess there's not much room for discussion.Clifford said:
I would have taken my chances in court trying to prove that he's a rapist and get a conviction and jail time. If he wins, he gets off scott free which is only slightly better than what happened IMO. If he loses, he gets put in the big house and hopefully gets a lesson from Bubba.TobiasFunke said:
Yeah, it is going to be hell for the unemployed millionaire to kick it in his mansion all day. He definitely got what he deserved!
1) Intensive supervised probation with sex offender terms and EHM
2) Requirement that he register as a sex offender and jump through all the hoops and live with the collateral consequences of such (unemployable, can't be around kids, publication of status, etc.)*
3) A ton of prison time hanging over his head if he screws up in the least.
But yes, this is all just slightly worse than an acquittal.
*To quote a judge in my jurisdiction when describing the absolute crapiness of being on sex offender probation in my jurisdiction, "I would rather put a bullet in my brain than have to be a sex offender on probation with sex terms."
Maybe those are onerous terms for the average person but not for the guy in question. He won and won big.
He likely has:
1) Intensive supervised probation with sex offender terms and EHM
2) Requirement that he register as a sex offender and jump through all the hoops and live with the collateral consequences of such (unemployable, can't be around kids, publication of status, etc.)*
3) A ton of prison time hanging over his head if he screws up in the least.
But yes, this is all just slightly worse than an acquittal.
*To quote a judge in my jurisdiction when describing the absolute crapiness of being on sex offender probation in my jurisdiction, "I would rather put a bullet in my brain than have to be a sex offender on probation with sex terms."
I did send them. Someone threw them out!