Can labeling someone a sex offender be considered a cruel and unusual punishment? Well, a man in Ohio is attempting to argue exactly that before the Ohio Supreme Court. He’s claiming that his mandated 25 years on the Sex Offender Registry, which one judge called an undeserved “scarlet letter,” is a cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, this has become a case that could potentially change the way sex offenders are classified in the United States.

Clark County native Travis Blankenship, 21, had sex twice with a 15-year-old girl in 2011. According to the the Columbus Dispatch, Blankenship was examined by a psychologist who determined that he was not a sexual offender, did not require any sort of treatment, and was unlikely to reoffend. Taking the psychologist’s findings into consideration, the judge sentenced him in 2012 to serve 12 days of a six-month sentence for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, which is a fourth-degree felony.

Because the girl was 15 at the time, his crime was automatically classified as a Tier II sex offense under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act, which requires that he register with the Sex Offender Registry for no less than 25 years, with verification of his information twice a year. On March 10, Blankenship’s public defender Katherine Ross-Kinzie presented her oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court, attempting to prove that this mandatory punishment is “grossly disproportionate” with Blankenship’s offense and thus cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional.

This is Blankenship’s 2nd appeal after the Second District Ohio Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld the ruling that declared him a sex offender. Before 2007, whether or not someone would have to register as a sex offender was decided by a judge, not an automatic penalty under the law.

Judge Mary Donovan was the dissenter in that decision, writing:

He was punished with a scarlet letter of 25 years duration. This 25 years is part of his punishment and, in my view, is grossly disproportionate in severity to the crime committed.This classification carries significant restraints on Blankenship’s liberty and a social stigma that interferes with employability, travel and housing.

In her oral argument that can be viewed here, Blankenship’s lawyer said that she is not disagreeing that her client is a sex offender under the revised law, but rather that there is a discrepancy between the revised code’s definition and the psychologist’s determination in this particular case.

The idea behind the registry is to publicly notify citizens where sex offenders are located in an effort to protect the public, especially children. People have the right to share this information and even put up fliers notifying residents of local sex offenders, which can easily ostracize those offenders from the community. Failure to register is illegal and could land an offender back in jail. The sex offender registry system has been widely criticized as potentially doing more harm than good, with many people demanding it be reformed. A Law Street issues brief on reforming the Sex Offender Registry can be read here.

The case is still ongoing and the court is not expected to make a decision until later this year. Whatever the court’s ruling is, it may set the tone for future cases that could potentially impact how we define sex offenders.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Sex Offender Registration a Cruel and Unusual Punishment? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Yet again I have to question what is wrong with the female teachers in this country. Back in January, two teachers were arrested for allegedly having a beach sex party with five male students in California. Yesterday these two sick, sad teachers were hit with new charges. Melody Lippert, 38, and Michelle Ghirelli, 30, are both charged with a felony count of unlawful sexual intercourse and a felony count of giving a controlled substance to a minor. Ghirelli has also been charged with a felony count of oral copulation of a minor.

According to Ghirelli’s attorney, Stephen DeSales:

We intend to plead not guilty and intend to vigorously defend this case. What you will get from the district attorney is what they think they can prove. There’s two sides to every story.

I’m sorry, how is there a second side to this story that would make sense? These two women had sex with young boys at a beach and supplied the booze and drugs to go along with it.

I’m a few months shy of 30 and the idea of sex with a teenager is just repulsive, not to mention wrong. How do teachers and administrators at schools expect parents to feel comfortable sending their kids there when there is the possibility that their child is being preyed upon by the very people who are supposed to be protecting and teaching them?

I hope these women are convicted swiftly and thrown in jail. Registered sex offenders immediately!

I’m so disgusted by the number of female school teachers who have been arrested and convicted of sexual encounters of some kind with their students. It is unreal. I used to always suspect male teachers more than anyone, wrong I know but true. Nowadays you can’t go a month without hearing about some female teacher having some kind of sexual encounter with a student. Something is fundamentally wrong with these women and clearly the punishment is not strict enough to deter any of them from doing what they are doing. Perhaps the laws need to be revisited and a harsher punishment should be considered. These women are predators. These women are pedophiles. Desperate, pathetic disgusting pedophiles.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Felony Charges For Teachers Involved in Cocaine & Sex Trip appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is the only country in the world to have such an array of laws that monitor, track, and restrict individuals convicted of sex offenses. Both federal and state laws govern the lives of sex offenders in all 50 states; convicted adults and juveniles alike are required to register as sex offenders, making their crimes, addresses, and other information public. The United States is also the only country in the world that prohibits people with prior sex crime convictions from living in certain areas. There are more than 800,000 individuals currently on the national sex offender registry, so many question if this nation-wide initiative to curb sex crimes is effective and worth the effort. Read on to learn more about sex offender laws, registries, community notifications, and current issues.

How many sex crimes are committed in the United States?

The sex crime category is broad and can involve unwanted or forced sex or any sexual contact that involves minors. Even crimes with no physical contact–such as those committed online–can lead to sex crime convictions and require sex offender registration.

It’s estimated that one in every five girls and one in every seven boys are sexually abused before they reach adolescence. The rate of sexual abuse for adults is lower; one in six adult women and one in 33 adult men have experienced sexual abuse. In 2005, sexual offenses accounted for 3.7 percent of all violent crimes. During the same year, it’s estimated that arrests for sexual crimes occurred only 27 percent of the time. Men account for 95 percent of arrests for sex crimes. Sex offenders represent only one percent of all arrests in the United States. Currently, there are around 150,000 sex offenders in the American prison system, and 10,000 to 20,000 are released to the community every year.

What is the sex offender registry?

The National Sex Offender Public Registry (NSOPR) was first established in 2005. It’s a database of information about convicted sex offenders who are released to the community, and it is coordinated by the U.S. Department of Justice. The registry can be fully accessed by law enforcement agencies and partially by the general public.

The information made available to the public is provided through the National Sex Offender Public Website that links state, territorial, and tribal sex offender registries. It includes information on a sex offender’s physical description, date of birth, residency, and crime committed. Essentially, state sex offender registries collect data from all cities and counties, and forward it to the NSOPR. As each state has its own system, there are variations in what information can be accessed by the public on a state-by-state basis.

Who is required to register as a sex offender?

The registration takes place after sex offenders are released to the community. Individuals who were convicted of specified sex offenses are required to register with law enforcement agencies. Sex crimes that involve minors or any from of sexual assault are the most common offenses that require registration, but sex crimes committed online or public sexual indecency can also lead to sex offender registration. In addition, failure to register in itself is a criminal offense.

Sex offenders usually have to re-register every year, and every time they move to a new location. Some states require an update to the registration every three to six months, depending on the crime committed. Sometimes, depending on state regulations, individuals convicted of  certain sex crimes don’t even have to register as sex offenders, or they are required to register with law enforcement only, without their information being released to the public. Some states have limits on how long sex offenders should be registered for, establishing a designated period of time after which their information is permanently removed from the registry. Sex offenders also have the right to petition for their name being removed from the public sex offender registry, but this practice is rarely used and often not successful.

What laws govern sex offender registration?

The majority of states created their sex offender registries in the 1990s, but there are a few states that established their registries even earlier, dating back to the 1940s.

The federal government came into play in 1994 with the passage of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. The act mandated states to establish sex offender registries or they would lose a certain percentage of their federal funding. Under this law, individuals convicted of sex crimes and released to the community were required to register for a flat ten-year period, regardless of the offense. At that point, states could exercise their discretion in releasing sex offender information to the public by assessing risks to the community. The 1996 Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act lengthened the period of registration for certain sex crimes, mandating lifetime sex offender registration for those individuals who committed aggravated assault or were repeat sex offenders.

At the same time, Megan’s Law came into effect, requiring states to establish community notification systems. The law was named after seven-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped and killed by a known sex offender who was living across the street from her family without their knowledge. This law mandates public access to sex offender information, and requires law enforcement to notify the public about any sex offenders who live in the area. Megan’s Law also created the National Alert Registry, which allows the public to learn if a sex offender lives in their area by entering their zip code into the tool.

In 2005, Florida and several other states passed the so-called Jessica’s laws. Even though the Jessica Lunsford Act, a federal version of the law, was never enacted by the Congress, as of now 42 states have enacted similar pieces of legislation. Among other things, Jessica’s laws can require a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for committing sex crimes against a person under 12 years old, followed by lifetime probation and sex offender registration. In addition, Jessica’s laws mandate electronic monitoring for certain sex offenders who are on probation or parole.

The NSOPR was also established at this point, and it was re-authorized in 2006 with the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The act also expanded the categories of people, including juveniles, who were required to register as sex offenders, and increased the period for which convicted sex offenders had to be registered.

Under Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Act, Congress also passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which extended monitoring and tracking of sex offenders by requiring states to notify the public about sex offenders in the area and creating three risk levels of registrants. The risk assessment is solely based on committed offense, and the level of registrant further determines the duration and frequency of registration. For example, lower risk offenders must register every year, while higher risk sex offenders register every three months. Prior to 2006, sex offenders were required to only register at the jurisdiction where they lived, but now sex offenders are also mandated to register at the jurisdictions where they work or go to school.

What is the purpose of sex offender registration and public notifications?

Generally, all individuals convicted of sex crimes are required to register with law enforcement. The main purpose of sex offender registries is to investigate and prevent new sex crimes. As law enforcement agencies keep information about convicted sex offenders, the practice allows for closer monitoring and faster identification when a new sex crime is committed.

In addition to crime prevention, sex offender laws aim to monitor and restrict those who reside in the community and have committed sex crimes in the past. All sex offenders released to community supervision are mandated to approve their residency with supervising officers. Those who are not under community supervision often face residency restrictions as well, such as the prohibition of registered sex offenders from living within 500-2,500 feet of schools, playgrounds, daycare centers, and parks. Some states also prohibit sex offenders from passing through these “child safety zones.” Many states also use electronic monitoring for highest risk and violent sex offenders.

Another purpose of sex offender registration and community notification is to provide information for the citizenry so they can can exercise caution and be vigilant about their proximity to sex offenders who reside in the community. Not only can community members obtain information about sex offenders in their area, but they can share this information through organizing meetings, posting flyers, informing residents by going door to door, and posting in the local newspapers.

Is the sex offender registry effective?

The proponents of sex offender registration and public notification systems argue that they protect the public, especially children, from being sexually victimized. Their claims are based on the argument that such systems allow law enforcement and parents to work together to ensure public safety. Law enforcement has readily available information about convicted sex offenders in the neighborhood, while community members have tools to identify and exercise caution with sex offenders who reside in the area. Some state officials believe that sex offender registration and notification systems improve monitoring and facilitate information-sharing between law enforcement agencies.

Advocates also believe that residency restrictions can prevent future sex crimes as sex offenders have limited access to the areas where children usually congregate, such as parks, schools, and playgrounds.

Another common argument in support of current sex offender laws is that sex offender registration is a punishment for the committed crime. In this view, sex offenders should be shamed by the public as a ramification for what they have done in the past.

What are the arguments against the sex offender registry?

Some opponents of sex offender registration believe that such a system is inherently unfair as it targets people who have already served their sentence. Others point out the differences in sex offenses, denouncing a “one size fits all” approach to sex offenders. Those who advocate for changes in sex offender laws often don’t reject such a system completely, but refer to its shortcomings and the need to address its underlying issues.

Watch the video below for real stories of those who were convicted of sex offenses when they were juveniles and learn more about arguments against sex offender registry.

Sex Offender Laws Are Too Broad 

Sex offender registration applies to all individuals convicted of sex crimes without regard to severity of offense. As a result, both violent and non-violent sex crimes can lead to registration. In many states, prostitution, consensual teenage sex, and even public urination convictions can require individuals to register as sex offenders. Those who believe that the laws are too broad argue that in many cases the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, as urinating in the park is not the same thing as committing sexual abuse against a minor.

With recent laws requiring mandatory sex offender registration and public notification, even those who committed a single sex offense decades ago are required to register. That means that those who have fully rehabilitated and haven’t re-offended are placed on the public sex offender registry anyway. In addition, children are subject to the same regulations as adults. Those who advocate for changes in sex offender laws suggest making individualized risk assessments before requiring registration.

Watch the video below to learn about “one size fits all” sex offender laws in California.

Too Much Work for Law Enforcement

As there are around 800,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, with some updating their information every three months, the workload of law enforcement agencies has greatly increased. As mandatory registration is required for non-violent and low-risk offenders, law enforcement agencies also face difficulties in identifying potential crime suspects and those who require closer monitoring. Essentially, the effect is the opposite of the goal as law enforcement spend more time and resources on administrative registration and less on investigating leads.

Housing Restrictions Do More Harm Than Good

Most of the supporters of reforming current sex offender laws agree on the point that housing restrictions are harmful to offenders. As most states prohibit registered sex offenders from living close to public spaces where children can congregate, those individuals are pushed to move out from their families and familiar communities. In some instances, sex offenders cannot find a single place to live and become homeless. Some become unemployed because all employment opportunities are located in restricted areas, or because they live so far away that it’s impossible for them to commute to work. Restricted housing options result in lack of supervision and support, which are essential for successful re-entry and rehabilitation. Those who oppose residency restrictions also suggest that there is no evidence that such restrictions lead to a decrease in sex crimes. The concern is the opposite. In their view, community disenfranchisement can increase the likelihood of re-offending as registered sex offenders lack all supportive mechanisms needed for building successful lives.

Watch the video below to learn more about housing restrictions for sex offenders.

The Sex Offender Registry Doesn’t Deter Crimes

Opponents of sex offender registration and community notification systems argue that such a system is useless in itself because most of the convicted sex offenders don’t re-offend, particularly juveniles. In fact, recidivism rates for juvenile sex offenders are very low and few adult sex offenders committed prior sex crimes. In addition, most sex crimes against children are perpetrated by family members or trusted authority figures, not strangers.

Public Access Can Lead to Violence and Harassment 

The public nature of sex offender registration in itself prompts many risks. Online access to sex offender information can lead to harassment from neighbors and trigger violent behavior in those who were victimized. The bottom line is that information obtained through the public sex offender registry website can be used irresponsibly and even unlawfully by the same public that  such a system is trying to protect.

Conclusion

Indisputably, the current sex offender registration and public notification system was created with good intentions, but unfortunately it is filled with issues that require urgent public attention. Among others, there is a need as to create risk assessment mechanisms of released offenders to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Establishment of treatment and re-entry programs for convicted sex offenders is another necessity to ensure that those individuals can become productive members of society. It’s important to make sure that the sex offender registry is effective for both the people on it, as well as the people it aims to protect.

 Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

U.S. Senate: S.1675 Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996

U.S. Department of Justice: National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW)

U.S. Government Accountability Office: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Additional

National Alert Registry: Jacob Wetterling Act

National Alert Registry: Home

ABC News: Five Myths About Sex Offender Registries

FindLaw: The Sex Offender Register: What You Need to Know

FindLaw: Sex Offenders and Sex Offenses: Overview

FindLaw: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Human Rights Watch: US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good

Human Rights Watch: No Easy Answers. Sex Offender Laws in the U.S.

Newstimes: Is the Sex Offender Registry Fair?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reforming the Sex Offender Registry appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: October 25, 2014

Well, that was quick. As of today TLC has pulled the plug on its uber successful reality show “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” The announcement comes after weeks of speculation and reports asserting that Mama June, Honey Boo Boo’s mother, has been dating a convicted sex offender since splitting with her long-time partner Sugar Bear.

Here is the family’s response to the news, posted to their Facebook fan page earlier today:

According to Mama June in the video, she is not dating Mike McDaniel, who was convicted of aggravated child molestation in 2004.

“The statement of me dating a sex offender is totally untrue. Pumpkin (June’s daughter) has openly said that I’m not dating him … I would never, ever, ever, ever put my kids in danger.”

TLC, unsurprisingly, has been cautious when addressing this situation. “TLC has cancelled the series ‘Here Comes Honey Boo Boo’ and ended all activities around the series, effective immediately. Supporting the health and welfare of these remarkable children is our only priority. TLC is faithfully committed to the children’s ongoing comfort and well-being.”

No word yet from Sugar Bear on this controversy. It remains to be seen if the Shannon-Thompson family’s fans are as loyal as those of another major cable network’s reality family: the Robertsons of “Duck Dynasty” on A&E. A&E briefly barred the Robertson family patriarch from filming when he likened homosexuality to bestiality in a GQ interview. The whole family threatened to walk and many viewers revolted against the network, which later walked back the suspension.

Read our prior coverage on Mama June and Sugar Bear’s split, which kicked off speculation over the show’s future, here.

UPDATE October 25, 2014: Anna Shannon Cardwell, the oldest daughter of Mama June Shannon, reportedly was the eight-year-old child who McDaniel molested between 2002 – 2003. Cardwell defended her mother against reports that she was dating the man who spent ten years in jail for her molestation, until yesterday when she received more information about her mother’s relationship. Cardwell reportedly came forward with this information about her experience because of the nature of what she sees as her mother’s betrayal.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Horatio Agostini via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TLC Cancels Honey Boo Boo, Possible Sex Offender Connection appeared first on Law Street.

Every two minutes, another American is sexually assaulted. Forty-four percent of those victims are under the age of 18, and 15 percent are under the age of 12. These percentages are quite frightening when applied to the United States’ population of almost 320 million.

That’s why something called Jessica’s Law was passed in 46 states. That’s why Gov. Chris Christie publicly signed the law in New Jersey, which lengthens the sentences for sex offenders who assaulted children, with Jessica’s father present. But who is Jessica? And why are four states lagging behind?

Jessica’s Law

The Jessica Lunsford Act is named after a 9-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive by a twice-convicted sex offender, John Evander Couey, in February 2005 in Homosassa, Florida. A neighbor of the Lunsfords, Couey was known for his long history of drug violations. Police found Jessica three weeks after her abduction, buried in the backyard of Couey’s half-sister’s trailer. Jessica was wrapped in two garbage bags, clutching her favorite stuffed animal; she had just managed to poke two fingers through the bags. Her brutal death led her father, Mark Lunsford, to begin his crusade for further legislation for child protection against convicted sex offenders.

Jessica’s Law focuses on increasing the monitoring of sex offenders and lengthening their sentences. The original bill was passed in May 2005, in Tallahassee, Florida. Nine years later, New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, signed the The Jessica Lunsford Act. He held a ceremonial signing June 2 to raise awareness for the cause after officially signing the bill May 15.

Similar to the Florida bill, the New Jersey law increased the minimum sentencing for aggravated sexual assault against children under the age of 13. Previously, the minimum was 10 to 20 years in prison; now those convicted must serve at least 25 years without parole. The New Jersey law allows a plea deal to lower the minimum sentence to 15 years under certain circumstances outlined by the state Office of the Attorney General.

But some states still lag behind.

Each state’s version of the law varies its specific regulations for sentencing and monitoring. But four states have yet to sign even a partial version of The Jessica Lunsford Act. Mark Lunsford said Colorado will enact its own version of the law later this week, according to the Asbury Park Press. This is not enough.

Lunsford has waged war in the name of his daughter, but he cannot rest, we as a nation cannot rest, until all 50 states sign the bill. He remains a fierce advocate for full passage throughout the nation, as do I.

I deem sexual assault an unforgivable crime; the emotional damage such a crime causes could be enough to destroy its victim’s life. Rape victims are prone to suffer depression and trauma, and are more likely to attempt suicide. For that, perpetrators of sexual assault on children deserve to serve the time for their crimes and to be monitored upon release.

Perhaps the budget is an issue preventing those last four states from hopping on board, but the future generations of our nation should be granted peace of mind. My father and his siblings roamed the streets of the Bronx, NY, without fear in the 1950s; nowadays helicopter moms fear turning their backs on their children for just a moment in public.

Justice for tomorrow’s Jessicas

The nationwide recognition of this bill would signify further protection for our nation’s children by declaring sexual assault on a child a first degree crime. The necessity to ensure children’s security from sexual predators can be seen from the startling sexual assault statistics in this land of the free.

So, I stand with Mr. Lunsford. We must make it known from the Pacific to the Atlantic, that sexual assault is unacceptable. The installation of this bill in all fifty states means a higher possibility of lowering the percentage of children who are sexually assaulted.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [theodoritis via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jessica’s Law Should be Law of the Land appeared first on Law Street.

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]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post News Flash: No One Fares Well in Prison appeared first on Law Street.