Robert-Richards-du-Pont-heir-avoids-jail-after-raping-three-year-old-daughter

Pathway to Pedophilia: Sicko Gets Probation for Raping 3-Yr-Old Daughter & Molesting Infant Son

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

If the pedophiles of our nation were looking for the symbolic “green light” to engage in their heinous, criminal activities, then they most certainly received it from Judge Jan Jurden, the Delaware Superior Court judge who reprehensibly set a vile sexual predator free to roam the streets.

For those pushing to undermine all moral restraints and sexual standards, they now have a new “hero” for their cause. And don’t anyone dare try to tell me that the recent efforts to normalize homosexual deviancy won’t have adverse, wide-ranging repercussions. In fact, I pin most of the blame for America’s moral free fall squarely on the destructive strategies of the militant homosexual activists. We can’t tear down moral barriers and then be surprised when things like this happen. Once one group is given the license to abandon decency, then every other pervert will soon demand the same “right” — that’s the only “fair and equal” thing to do (Sound familiar?). And in this case, Judge Jurden was, for all intents and purposes, apparently sympathetic to that exact argument.

Black-robed tyrant Judge Jan Jurden sentenced Richard H. Richards IV, a wealthy du Pont heir, to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter. According to the lawsuit filed by Richards’ ex-wife, between 2005 and 2007, Richards not only sexually assaulted his young daughter, but also molested his infant son. The rape case actually occurred in 2009, but it only recently came to light when attorneys for Richards’ ex-wife filed another lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Despite the nauseating nature of the crime, Judge Jurden inexcusably sentenced Richards to an eight-year prison term, but suspended all prison time, opting for probation instead. As the judge noted in the final line of her sentencing order, the “defendant will not fare well in Level 5 [prison] setting,” recommending treatment instead of incarceration. As the order itself notes, “Treatment needs exceed [the] need for punishment.” Wow, talk about favoring the “needs” of the perpetrator over the victim! If this case doesn’t cry out for punishment, then I really don’t know what does!

Several criminal justice authorities have noted, as well, that this type of sentencing “rationale” is typically reserved for cases involving drug addicts, but certainly not child rapists. And Richards could have just as easily participated in a prison treatment program. There was absolutely no need to let this kind of violent criminal get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Judge Jurden also ordered that Richards have no contact with children under 16 and prohibited him from possessing pornography. Doesn’t the judge understand that prison time would have literally guaranteed Richards’ inability to have access to minor-aged children and would have gone much further in prohibiting his access to pornographic materials? Jurden must be held immediately accountable for her egregious ruling, as she is personally responsible for any future victims.  

Since when did we become so concerned about how well a prisoner will fare in a correctional facility environment? Nobody thinks prison should be an enjoyable experience, and Richards should have thought about the negative consequences before he committed his abhorrent offenses. Richards certainly wasn’t concerned about how well his victims would fare as a result of his sexual violation of their trust.

We should be vastly more concerned with the needs of the victims and future victims. How well will a victim fare when they know that their abuser basically went unpunished? And how well will Richards’ potential, subsequent victims fare? The high recidivism rate of sexual offenders is a well-established fact. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, “Compared to non-sex offenders released from state prisons, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.” To be clear, that’s four times higher when compared to other released criminals, not the general public.

“It’s an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well,” Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O’Neill wisely explained. “Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society.” Furthermore, O’Neill expressed his concern about the way in which this case was handled because it calls into question “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.”

What’s even more shocking is just how pervasive this kind of warped legal reasoning has become. Many involved in this case, and the larger Delaware legal system, have unconscionably defended the judge’s appalling actions. The sexual predator sympathizers have come out in full force. The state of Delaware obviously needs to do some major house cleaning.

For instance, it was prosecutor Renee Hrivnak who actually initiated this miscarriage of justice.  So much for getting tough on crime. Attorney General Beau Biden’s office (the Vice President’s son) had originally indicted Richards on two counts of second-degree rape of a child, a Class B violent felony that carries a mandatory 10-year prison sentence for each count. But then, without warning, just days before the scheduled trial in June of 2008, Hrivnak offered Richards a fourth-degree rape deal, which carries no mandatory prison time. Hrivnak and Judge Jurden are now running from the public as they have each refused to answer questions about their asinine decisions.

But the insanity continues…

Richards attorney Eugene J. Maurer, Jr., shamelessly stated, “It was more than reasonable, an enlightened plea offer.” So, in the state of Delaware it’s now considered “enlightened” to set free a man who rapes a three-year-old and molests an infant. When exactly did this kind of abominable jurisprudence become acceptable? I seriously doubt that Maurer would feel the same way if it was his child(ren) who had been victimized.

“I commend her for making such a courageous ruling,” said Brendan J. O’Neill, the public defender. “When I find the appropriate place, I’m going to make that argument.” Translation: We can expect to see more of this horrendous reasoning in our courtrooms. Judge Jurden has not only terribly hurt the victims in the Richards case, but she has also effectively opened the legal door for more children to be sacrificed on the altar of “progressivism.”

Although not involved in the case, Joseph S. Grubb, chief New Castle County prosecutor, defended the judge’s decision as well, stating, “It’s not completely out of left field that a judge would say that.” Left field? Try out of the ball park! There is no excusing or justifying Judge Jurden’s outrageous ruling, no matter how hard someone tries. While even Judge Jurden is smart enough to know that she needs to duck for cover, these sycophants are ridiculously rushing to her defense. Unbelievable!

Likewise, Prosecutor Josette Manning, who spent six years in the sex crimes unit, said, “It’s absolutely appropriate for a judge to consider a defendant’s treatment needs during sentencing” for sex crimes. That may be so, but at the expense of the victim’s need for justice too? It’s one thing to offer treatment to criminals, but it’s another thing entirely to let them go scot-free.

Defense attorney Joseph A. Hurley, another misguided, bleeding heart liberal, said it makes sense to him that the judge would be concerned about Richards’ time in prison. “Sure, they have protective custody, but that is solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. We’re not a third-world society,” Hurley said.

Nor should we be a brain-dead, crime-embracing society either.

“Sex offenders are the lowest of the low in prison,” Hurley said. “He’s a rich, white boy who is a wuss and a child perv. The prison can’t protect them, and Jan Jurden knows that reality. She is right on.”

Does Hurley’s reasoning apply to all sex offenders, since they are ALL “the lowest of the low?” Should we set them all free on probation or only the wussy ones? Once again, why are individuals like Hurley forgetting about the potential for future victims if we allow violent sex offenders to reenter society with impunity? Is he hoping to create job security for defense attorneys like himself?

Besides, court records actually indicate that Richards is no 95-pound weakling. He’s 6 feet, 4 inches tall and weighs between 250 and 276 pounds. The court records also do not cite any physical illnesses or limitations. So, throw him to the wolves, and maybe people will start realizing that child molesters will not be stomached. Unless, of course, as I suspect, letting child molesters off the hook is really all about foisting the agenda of sexual autonomy and anarchy upon America.  

All I can say is that the outraged citizens of Delaware and our entire nation need to rise up and put the brakes on this nation’s rapid descent down the slippery slope. And fast!

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • Halou

    I disagree with the remarks about homosexuality in this article, but what I do agree with is that the ruling judge was out of order and that the guilty man should spend a long time in prison for his crimes.

    My hope is that both children have the chance to recover and can put this tragic episode behind them.

    • RhondaStar

      Did you read in the article how the judge and four or five other legal officials in Delaware all defended this decision? There is no other explanation than the moral decline of America, and the homosexuals are a big part of that. I realize they, and you, want to make a false distinction, but you can’t tear down moral barriers and then be surprised when things like this happen. Once one group is given the license to abandon morality, then every other pervert will soon follow suit.

      • Halou

        Besides saying I disagree with the author’s assertion I decided against making any remarks about homosexuals, the suffering of children should never be used to score political points one way or the other.
        If you want to make your point by taking advantage of these children and their vulnerability in pursuit of your own ends, that to me reflects worse on you than it does on homosexuals.

        • RhondaStar

          There’s no re-winding of the clock when it comes to the children in this case. But what you refer to as an effort to “score political points,” is actually an effort to protect future victims by opening up people’s eyes to the root cause of the problem. It’s not a political point, it’s a moral point! Without morals, we’re all in trouble.

          • TBP100

            And the moral problem is that rich, politically connected people are often above the law, and always have been. It’s nothing new, and despite what the author says, has nothing whatsoever to do with gay people or the gay rights movement.

        • RhondaStar

          You’re the one making it political! You brought it up!

      • Matthew T. Mason

        More than that. There has been not one group more vocal about the normalization of pedophilia than the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

        • TBP100

          Yep, all twelve of them.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Your sarcasm is noted. It doesn’t reflect fact in any way, however.

          • RhondaStar

            There’s a lot more than twelve. You’re dishonesty is showing.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Why do you think I’ve said you can always tell when a homosexual is lying? Their lips move.

          • TBP100

            It’s called hyperbole. Look it up. Of course there are more than 12, but the idea that they have any significant number of members, or have any political clout or cultural influence whatsoever, is absurd. I think they’re despicable, but I don’t worry about them any more than I worry about the Symbionese Liberation Army.

  • TBP100

    Is there anything in the world you won’t blame on gay people? This is about how the wealthy and politically-connected are all-too-often subject to very different legal standards than the rest of us. Period.

    • RhondaStar

      So, this judge loves rich people so much she would be willing to set them free even when they rape infants? Or is it because this nation’s moral compass is so far out-of-wack that this judge and the other four or five individuals cited in this article think it’s okay to set sexual predators free on the streets. I doubt it’s about money unless you’re the conspiratorial type who thinks all these people are all being paid off.

      • https://www.facebook.com/athena.axiom Athena Axiom

        Occam’s Razor. Is it more likely that the wheels were greased or the HUGE jump to blame the minority of the orientation of human beings (pedophilia is not an orientation) for the downfall of society somehow playing with a Judge’s head.

        • RhondaStar

          Pedophilia is not an orientation? The following individuals say that it is:

          Prof. John Money of Johns Hopkins Univ.; Dr. Peter J. Fagan in the Journal of the American Medical Association;
          Prof. Fred Berlin, the founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic; Dr. Richard Green, sexologist and psychiatrist; Sarah Goode, University of Winchester; Theo Sandfort at Columbia University; Dr. James Cantor and Dr.
          Michael Seto at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

          • Matthew T. Mason

            BOOM baby! Rhonda, I think I love you!

          • RhondaStar

            Thanks, Matt. But Rhonda is my wife’s name! LOL

          • unlistedxpat

            education is not an indicator or indicative of intelligence… it is more a method of following an established course of accepted practices and regurgitating an expected result in a fashion that allows a “seemingly, like educated” carbon unit to accept the information that he/she has foisted on alleged intelligent carbon units to pass a series of predetermined results in order to achieve a status of acceptance in a community of similarly educated carbon units… and the preponderance of evidence is it shows (by the crop of highly educated carbon units) that the ability to piss away up to $400k for a piece of paper that says “I is smart” is wasted on clinically corrupt people that would be better served as a warning to people that actually have a clue in life, and pedophilia is IMHO similar to rabid dog (without the introduction of an actual biological agent causing the infection and resulting hydrophobia) and should be put down, as should any supporting the criminal perpetrator of the crime of pedophilia. But what do I know, I pissed all that money on a Masters degree.

        • RhondaStar

          The monthly Harvard
          Mental Health Letter published by Harvard Health Publications (July 2010): “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change…Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation.”

          Or what about “sex researcher” supporters, are (for obvious reasons) deceptively utilizing euphemistic terminology such as “intergenerational intimacy,” instead of what it really is, “child molestation.”

        • RhondaStar

          In 1998, the American Psychological Association released a
          study (A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples) by researchers from Temple Univ., the Univ. of
          Pennsylvania, and the Univ. of Michigan, which concluded that the negative effects of pedophilia were overstated.
          They claim that the “vast majority” reported “no negative sexual effects.”

          Whether you realize it or not, the mainstreaming of pedophilia as an orientation is happening. Where ya been?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I was going to mention the Rind study. Now it seems I don’t have to, save this:

            The study not only said the abused children suffered no long-term ill effects, but also actually suggested they may have benefited from the abuse!

            It got to the point nearly the entire US House of Representatives voted to condemn the study (Four congressmen voted “Present.” One of the four was then Representative Barney Frank. I wonder why.).

      • TBP100

        Keep in mind that he is a DuPont, and this happened in Delaware. I doubt it was anything so blatant as bribery, but DuPonts are automatically accorded huge deference in that state. Are Delaware judges elected? If so, she might well have envisioned lots of DuPont money going to her opponent in the next election cycle if she was too harsh, or perhaps anticipated some campaign contributions if she toed the line.

        At any rate, there is no indication whatsoever that gay people, or the gay rights movement, are to blame in any way whatsoever, unless you just reflexively blame gay people for everything (which, of course, this site does a lot).

      • portertx

        Ethan Couch was convicted of accelerating over 70 miles an hour and hitting a crowd of people gathered by a disabled vehicle on the side of a Ft. Worth road. Couch reportedly blew a .24 on a Breathalyzer test, three times the legal limit (which, of course, doesn’t apply to 16-year-olds in any case)

        But the teen avoided a lengthy prison sentence after his family hired a psychologist to testify that Couch was a victim of”affluenza,” indulged by the family wealth and unable to follow the straight and narrow without counseling.

        • RhondaStar

          Exactly the point. NO moral accountability for anyone.

          • TBP100

            I think you completely missed his point. He is saying that rich people often are treated very differently by the legal system. This has always been true, and has nothing whatsoever to do with gay people.

  • Theodore Fenton

    Matt Barber has adopted his new hero for his cause, just as Tony Perkins adopted the FRC shooter for his.

    • thisoldspouse

      Uh, this article is by Jeff Allen.

      And please look up and learn the definition of “hero.” You look stupid misusing it.

    • RhondaStar

      You may want us to ignore these individuals (and their crimes) as rare aberrations, but they point to a much bigger problem. Without morals, we can only expect to see much more of this…as in fact, we already are!

      Instead, of facing the facts, you just turn it into something personal — an attack on Barber (who as thisoldspouse already stated, didn’t even write the article.)

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Wow. You didn’t read any of this, did you? You got everything wrong, beginning with the byline.

      You should apologize and delete your comment.

  • pixeloid

    WTF does this have to do with homosexuality? Rich people are almost never punished for their crimes. They’re simply not subjected to the same rules as the rest of us, because that might make them sad.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      “WTF does this have to do with homosexuality?”

      Read the article and find out.

      • pixeloid

        I did. It was only the author whining that all of America’s moral failings are because of homosexuality. There was no link at all to this case.

    • RhondaStar

      If you read this article, you’d see that there are about 5 officials who agree with this decision. Are they all being paid off? Or are they all morally bankrupt? I’m not the conspiratorial type, so I’m banking on the latter.

      • pixeloid

        Rich people are ALWAYS given special consideration and leniency. It’s a cultural issue for a country that worships wealth. Don’t know if this judge was elected, but if so, chances are people like this contributed to her campaign.

    • vorpal

      Heaven forbid that we ever imprison a “job creator”!

  • vorpal

    I don’t know a single person – gay or straight – that doesn’t feel the same way about garbage like this guy. Put him away for a long, long time and let his crimes be known. People in the prison system are notorious for “handling” child molesters in a special way.

    As TBP100 said, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, and trying to draw a parallel just shows how low you’ll sink to demonize gay people.

    • thisoldspouse

      How do you feel about Larry Brinkin’s crimes, and the prosecutions handling of them?

      • vorpal

        I don’t really know the details of his case (I didn’t even know who he was before I read his name in your post and googled him), but from what little I do know, it seems he got off too easy. Six months of prison time for child pornography is too lenient. The problem for me is that the term “child pornography” is extremely vague: there is a massive difference, in my mind, between having a naked picture that a 17 year old took of him or herself and having a picture of young, prepubescent children being raped by an adult, but it’s all called child pornography under law. I have no idea what his “child pornography” amounted to: in any case, it was inexcusable, but it’s hard to know how I should feel about the whole thing without knowing more details.

        What is truly shocking is that this Richards in the article here actually had sex with children – his own children no less – and is getting probation. Sexually molesting children is far more harmful than looking at some child pornography, and I can imagine having been sexually molested by your own father must be extremely and particularly traumatizing to a child.

  • portertx

    In Loving v. State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned bans on interracial marriage,

    Virginia’s assistant attorney general R. D. McIlwaine III claimed

    “It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state’s prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

    Note: the taboo reference to incest which is designed to prevent society from progressing by eliciting maximum revulsion–it’s the same technique employed by this author.

    You know the current common themes being uses against consenting adult same sex couples whom wish to marry:

    God/Religion

    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

    Slippery Slopes

    “[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing
    as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

    The Right of Marriage is not Denied to Anyone

    “Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”

    The End Of The World As We Know It

    “Interracial marriages would be a “calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

    Traditional Marriage Destroyed

    “Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

    Think Of The Children!

    “It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Non-sequitur!

  • Emma Duncan

    Well inother news a 25 year old woman in Oregon was found guilty of beating her 4 year old son to death, no doubt you will be delighted to hear, she believed he was going to grow up to be gay. so there’s one less you have to worry about!

    • Matthew T. Mason

      You are quickly becoming the Queen of
      Non-Sequiturs. Do you actually have anything to say that has to do with the topic?

  • vorpal

    Ah… I just saw this post from you, giving me more details. That’s disgusting, and he should definitely have been punished far, far more harshly if what you say is true.

    • thisoldspouse

      Post was withheld until mods could verify the veracity of the link, I suppose.

      But you’re missing the point. The “justice” system in San Francisco first refused to charge him when evidence first came to light in 2012, and then dropped numerous similar charges against Brinkin later when MORE evidence was revealed, including a more serious felony of distributing child porn. He’ll be serving a mere 6 months in jail, 6 months of home detention, and then 4 more years of probation. I’m doubtful that he’ll even serve his 6 months in jail, as averse as these pathetic justice systems are to punishing criminals.

      Brinkin is a despicable criminal and pedophile, but the court system is far WORSE because enables this world view through lax enforcement.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    It is ridiculous to think that the sexual activities undertaken by two consenting adults, of whatever genders, bear any relationship to the rape of a child. Most gays and lesbians would be just as appalled by this offense as most heterosexuals. The light (almost nonexistent) punishment is the result of special favoritism toward the rich, a problem that has only been enhanced by today’s Supreme Court ruling.

  • chasaragdy

    The worse part of the whole case of Richards IV is the Prosecutors and their stance WITH the Defense and the Pervert child molester!! Prosecutors in this country are, or should be, the most ethical of any body or entity of law!!! Sometimes they are wild to the extend of being tyrannical–as there are no reins on them of any kind–but most times they are the court officer’s that accept plea deals, such as this one of Richards IV-Child Molester!!

    In all court jurisdictions the should be MINIMUM sentences for all sexual crimes; any judge that fails to follow the guidelines will be suspended from office until a review panel of judges decide his/her fate according to established policies! All Recall Petitions should be made easier and streatlined (as in quick) in the case of Judges. Prosecutors should in some cases be allowed to be recalled also. There should be a panel of Judges to review extremely unpoplar (as called for by the citizens) deals and Prosecutorial malfeasance! And, lastly, judges should be allowed to be sued criminally and civilly (monetarially) in some situations, such as the gravely botched “Duke soccor players ‘did-not-happen’ rape case”.

  • unlistedxpat

    The judge in this case has utterly failed in his sworn oath to be a disinterested 3rd party, and has accepted wages and compensation for his position, and has instructed the country and his community that there are no “civil rights” for children.

    He represents everything that is wrong with this country. He should be stripped of his judicial powers (not that he actually has any see Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)) and charged with crimes against humanity.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!


EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!