Please sign-in to post, vote and interact with the site.
Not a member? Register now
Should a child go hungry at school due to thier parents financial hardship?
Current Debate Topic
Crime and Justice
Robert H. Richards IV was convicted of rape in 2009, the wealthy heir to the du Pont family fortune was spared prison by a Delaware court because he would “not fare well” behind bars, according to court documents.
Richards received an eight-year prison sentence in 2009 for raping his three year old daughter, but the sentencing order signed by a Delaware judge said “defendant will not fare well” in prison and the eight years were suspended. Richards was placed on eight years’ probation and ordered to get treatment and register as a sex offender, the documents show. He was also prohibited from having contact with children under 16, including his own children.
The documents were never sealed, yet the ruling managed to go unnoticed until March, when Richards’ former wife, Tracy Richards, filed a lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court on behalf of their children alleging “personal injuries arising from the childhood sexual abuse.” The 11-page suit alleges that not only was their daughter abused, but Richards also abused a 19 month old son, during the same period. While he was convicted of raping his daughter, Richards has never been charged with sexually molesting his son.
This week, after news of Richards’ 2009 case came to light, many took to social media to criticize the judge in the case, saying that it echoed a recent Texas case in which a wealthy teenager driving drunk killed four people but received no jail time. Ethan Couch was sentenced last year to 10 years’ probation. A witness in Couch’s case claimed the teenager was a victim of “affluenza” — the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy.
Do you think the punishment fit the crime in this case or Do you think this is case of the wealthy receiving preferential treatment?