News
News Flash: No One Fares Well in Prison
As the old adage goes, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” But for Robert H. Richards IV, heir to the fortune of a chemical company called Du Pont, this age-old rule doesn’t seem to apply.
Back in 2009, Roberts was charged with fourth-degree rape after violating his 3-year-old daughter. He now faces a subsequent lawsuit filed by his wife, who claims he sexually abused his son as well.
Brought to light by this new trial, the details of Richard’s first trial are, to say the very least, troublesome.
Although Richards was initially indicted on two counts of second-degree child rape, which carry a mandatory 10-year jail sentence per count, he was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth degree rape charges – and no mandatory jail time.
Instead of placing him behind bars, Judge Jan Jurden ordered Richards to attend a sex offender’s rehabilitation center, claiming he would “not fare well” in prison.
When I first came across this story, I had to read over that quote twice. Was I missing something? What does that even mean? Last time I checked, prison isn’t typically a place where any person “fares well” – that’s kind of the point. It’s a place where people go to be punished.
In an interview with The News Journal, Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O’Neill said what we are all thinking: it’s “extremely rare” for an individual to fare well in prison. “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,” he said.
According to O’Neill, while lawyers will often argue that a defendant is too ill or frail for prison, he has never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”
Even if Judge Jurden’s rationale was based on this ill and frail scale, her ruling would still be flawed. At 47 years of age and roughly 250 pounds, Richards certainly isn’t frail. Although it’s clear that anyone who would violate their own child is sick, court records make no mention of physical illnesses.
So why did Richards get away with such a light sentence? Myself, O’Neill, and many other criminal justice authorities in Delaware believe the answer is simple – he, or rather his family, has money.
While one side of Richard’s family built a chemical empire, the other side co-founded the law firm Richards, Layton and Finger, one of the most prominent corporate law firms in Delaware. Needless to say, Richard’s family clearly has influence in the area.
And as for Judge Jurden, she isn’t exactly known as a softy. According to The News Journal, “the fact that Jurden expressed concern that prison wasn’t right for Richards came as a surprise to defense lawyers and prosecutors who consider her a tough sentencing judge.” Jurden’s decision on treatment rather than prison raises even more questions. The “treatment instead of prison” rationale is characteristically used in the sentencing of drug addicts, not child rapists. Additionally, if Jurden was worried about Richard’s safety once in prison – those who abuse children are sometimes targeted by other inmates – protective custody could have easily been arranged.
Looking at the all facts, it’s difficult to see a reason, besides money and family influence, why Richards isn’t behind bars. After all, this wouldn’t be the first time money has appeared to influence a judge’s ruling. In February 2014, Ethan Couch, a boy who drove drunk and killed four people, was sent to rehab rather than prison. The case made headlines after a witness claimed Couch was a victim to “affluenza,” or as CNN puts it: “the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy.” Although the presiding judge claimed the affluenza defense did not influence her decision, many suspected that had the boy’s financial situation been different, there would have been a very different outcome.
When it comes down to it, it appears as though this is yet another example of the longstanding notion that money and a good lawyer can manipulate the justice system. If Richards hadn’t been a trust fund baby and wasn’t so well-connected, I have a very hard time believing he would have been able to score the deal he did – or pay his $60,000 bail. Amid all these questions, we’re left with just one. If the law doesn’t apply to those with money and a top-notch lawyer, is the system broken? My answer: unequivocally, yes.
[Detroit Free Press] [Huffington Post] [CNN] [Detroit Free Press]
—
Matt DiCenso
Feature Image Courtesy of [Victor via Flickr]
Comments