Du Pont Heir Rapes 3 Year Old Daughter But

Langues: JP EN DE FR
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » Du Pont heir rapes 3 year old daughter but
Du Pont heir rapes 3 year old daughter but
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-04-02 12:44:30
Link | Citer | R
 
Yea it is kinda messed up that the worse the crime the more people are interested.
[+]
 Sylph.Shipp
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: Shipp
Posts: 440
By Sylph.Shipp 2014-04-02 13:01:54
Link | Citer | R
 
fonewear said: »
The real questions is if he wasn't wealthy would this have made headlines ?
Yes, because these types of cases are usually headlines when kids are involved. Would it have been in the headlines for long? No, because if he wasn't wealthy, he most assuredly would be in jail after molesting TWO children.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Azryel
Offline
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Azryel
Posts: 317
By Ragnarok.Azryel 2014-04-02 13:06:31
Link | Citer | R
 
I heard about this story on the news this morning, and the judge's reasoning for giving this piece of human garbage probation is that he "wouldn't do well in prison." Now excuse me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't being passed around the cell block like a joint at a Phish concert be a punishment befitting the crime?
[+]
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-04-02 13:07:14
Link | Citer | R
 
Well when you have a good attorney you can get away with a lot of things...

A lot of cases from the 70's before DNA evidence people got away with a lot of things also.

Yes he should be in jail but a lot of people should be also...
[+]
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Offline
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Zerowone
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2014-04-02 13:14:39
Link | Citer | R
 
Where's our justifiable rape due to rape fantasies poster to chime in that the girl was clearly in the Anal Stage of development and secretly wanted it?
[+]
 Ragnarok.Azryel
Offline
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Azryel
Posts: 317
By Ragnarok.Azryel 2014-04-02 13:16:16
Link | Citer | R
 
fonewear said: »
Yes he should be in jail but a lot of people should be also...

A lot of people weren't repeatedly raping a 3-year-old...
[+]
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-04-02 13:19:56
Link | Citer | R
 
You are right people do much worse than hurt little kids.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Azryel
Offline
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Azryel
Posts: 317
By Ragnarok.Azryel 2014-04-02 13:24:52
Link | Citer | R
 
fonewear said: »
You are right people do much worse than hurt little kids.

I don't even know what to say to this... There is nothing more heinous in my eyes than someone who deliberately harms a child. Of course there are other egregious atrocities in the world, and this doesn't take away from that, but I think it takes a special kind of piece of sh*t to hurt a kid... especially in a manner this vile.

(mild grammatical edit)
[+]
 Sylph.Shipp
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: Shipp
Posts: 440
By Sylph.Shipp 2014-04-02 13:26:08
Link | Citer | R
 
fonewear said: »
Well when you have a good attorney you can get away with a lot of things...

A lot of cases from the 70's before DNA evidence people got away with a lot of things also.

Yes he should be in jail but a lot of people should be also...
I know your schtick is to be contrary to everything on here, but you cannot compare current cases to cases decades ago where people got off because there was no way to process DNA evidence to link them to crimes.

Look at the Grim Sleeper case. The man was eventually caught a few years ago for murders that went back decades because they were finally able to use familial DNA to determine who he was.

Just because people got away with things years ago, due to a lack of scientific evidence, does not mean it's excusable to let someone get off decades later when the man is guilty.

Playing devil's advocate is great. Being a contrarian for the sake of argument without a leg to stand on to argue your position just makes you look ignorant.
[+]
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Offline
Serveur: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
user: zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-04-02 13:56:37
Link | Citer | R
 
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Where's our justifiable rape due to rape fantasies poster to chime in that the girl was clearly in the Anal Stage of development and secretly wanted it?

That one tops "Slavery, just run!" and Dino/Grenade/Garbage Truck.
[+]
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-02 14:47:26
Link | Citer | R
 
Since a few more people have chimed in, I'll raise the ethics question again.

Yes, my visceral reaction is to want this guy drawn and quartered. Moreover, a crime as vicious as this (all rape is about power, not sex, but to rape someone this small implies a level of depravity on par with genocide) is exactly what harsh punishment was designed for. Lock him up in protective custody (23 hours a day, every day, of solitary confinement) until the world forgets about him.

But what do we do with lesser crimes? I suspect that is what this judge was trying to address. As it stands now, our prisons are hopelessly overcrowded, our incarceration rate is the highest in the civilized world, and everything about our prison system continues to get worse in spite of the rate of violent crime having been on a steady decrease for over 25 years. Something is clearly very, very wrong.

Moreover, even if we stop filling prisons with minorities and minor drug offenders, it doesn't change the fact that prison is not what it claims to be. Most states refer to their system as the department of "corrections." Are we supposed to be correcting them from petty criminals into career criminals? The term "rehabilitation" has been callously tossed around to describe the process by which a person is made incapable of functioning in society, thereby enforcing or outright causing a rehabilitation into a habitual offender.

Even those people who do straighten out their lives in spite of having spent time incarcerated are generally at the bottom of the food chain and will be scraping by to survive for the rest of their life, long past the point that a background check will interfere with their ability to get most jobs (obviously things like security clearance are an exception). Do we turn a blind eye to the fact that an 18-year-old convicted of a felony is, even if he never commits another crime, likely to be living at barely above minimum wage until the day he dies? Do we think a system that offers no real forgiveness is the right answer?

Obviously this is not the right test case, but I have a suspicion that it is exactly because the defendant was a DuPont, that is, a big name, is why she chose it. Which is to say that I don't think his money was the mitigating factor in his sentence but rather a concurrent circumstance with other considerations.

But in the larger scheme of things, I think this judge may be right. Sex offenders are among the most heavily controlled and therapied criminals. Over the long term, this results in them committing fewer crimes than normal citizens. Moreover, those that can struggle out of the mire of their own failures and the stigma that they've earned are actually able to do well because of that attention to genuine rehabilitation. It isn't a perfect situation, but there are a few lawyers and forensic psychologists and others who were pardoned and went on to fight back against their own crimes. It seems the best idea to me: set a thief to catch a thief, and all that.
 Sylph.Shipp
Offline
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: Shipp
Posts: 440
By Sylph.Shipp 2014-04-02 17:00:18
Link | Citer | R
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Since a few more people have chimed in, I'll raise the ethics question again.

Yes, my visceral reaction is to want this guy drawn and quartered. Moreover, a crime as vicious as this (all rape is about power, not sex, but to rape someone this small implies a level of depravity on par with genocide) is exactly what harsh punishment was designed for. Lock him up in protective custody (23 hours a day, every day, of solitary confinement) until the world forgets about him.

But what do we do with lesser crimes? I suspect that is what this judge was trying to address. As it stands now, our prisons are hopelessly overcrowded, our incarceration rate is the highest in the civilized world, and everything about our prison system continues to get worse in spite of the rate of violent crime having been on a steady decrease for over 25 years. Something is clearly very, very wrong.

Moreover, even if we stop filling prisons with minorities and minor drug offenders, it doesn't change the fact that prison is not what it claims to be. Most states refer to their system as the department of "corrections." Are we supposed to be correcting them from petty criminals into career criminals? The term "rehabilitation" has been callously tossed around to describe the process by which a person is made incapable of functioning in society, thereby enforcing or outright causing a rehabilitation into a habitual offender.

Even those people who do straighten out their lives in spite of having spent time incarcerated are generally at the bottom of the food chain and will be scraping by to survive for the rest of their life, long past the point that a background check will interfere with their ability to get most jobs (obviously things like security clearance are an exception). Do we turn a blind eye to the fact that an 18-year-old convicted of a felony is, even if he never commits another crime, likely to be living at barely above minimum wage until the day he dies? Do we think a system that offers no real forgiveness is the right answer?

Obviously this is not the right test case, but I have a suspicion that it is exactly because the defendant was a DuPont, that is, a big name, is why she chose it. Which is to say that I don't think his money was the mitigating factor in his sentence but rather a concurrent circumstance with other considerations.

But in the larger scheme of things, I think this judge may be right. Sex offenders are among the most heavily controlled and therapied criminals. Over the long term, this results in them committing fewer crimes than normal citizens. Moreover, those that can struggle out of the mire of their own failures and the stigma that they've earned are actually able to do well because of that attention to genuine rehabilitation. It isn't a perfect situation, but there are a few lawyers and forensic psychologists and others who were pardoned and went on to fight back against their own crimes. It seems the best idea to me: set a thief to catch a thief, and all that.

My opinion, is that until we have some major reform and stop jailing petty criminals and pot smokers to prison, this guy deserves to be there. Petty crime is one thing, and I completely agree with prison sentences being too harsh for non-violent crimes or victimless crimes, such as prostitution. What I do not agree with is some judge on a crusade of temperance trying to prove a point by not sentencing a child molester, who has molested two children (that we know of), to prison.

I'm all for reform, but this is not the way to go about it. Who gives a damn about what's best for a child molester? Throw him in prison AND make therapy mandatory at the same time for him. To let him go free is just asinine. He wouldn't be going free if he didn't have the name he does. No, it might not be spoken, but it's quite obvious that's the case. Who else molests two children, is found guilty, and doesn't go to prison? I can't think of a single case, to be honest.

Reform is great, but starting with a child molester when others are in prison for far lesser crimes that are victimless, is not only a slap in the face to those imprisoned, but just highlights the bureaucratic BS already going on in our legal system.
[+]
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Offline
Serveur: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
user: zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-04-04 13:17:21
Link | Citer | R
 
I want to preface this by saying that I'm really apprehensive about bumping this.

Delaware's Attorney General has weighed in.

Quote:
"If the case proceeds to trial, and the jury returns a not guilty verdict, this means that the alleged perpetrator will walk away free, with no conditions attached. There will be no punishment. The defendant will not be required to register as a sex offender, will not be supervised by probation and parole, and will not receive sexual offense counseling."

There's also an additional blurb on the case of the eighteen-month old.

Quote:
The Richards case came to light last month after his ex-wife filed a lawsuit against him. Tracy Richards is seeking monetary damages for personal injuries caused by Richards to their two children. Wilmington-based attorney Thomas Crumplar, who represents Tracy, said Richards admitted to abusing his son in addition to his daughter.

"Making matters worse, this self-admitted rapist and child abuser has not paid a single penny to these children for his crimes," said Crumplar. "There is no provision whatsoever for them for their future after they turn 18."
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-04 15:32:55
Link | Citer | R
 
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »
Delaware's Attorney General has weighed in.

Quote:
"If the case proceeds to trial, and the jury returns a not guilty verdict, this means that the alleged perpetrator will walk away free, with no conditions attached. There will be no punishment. The defendant will not be required to register as a sex offender, will not be supervised by probation and parole, and will not receive sexual offense counseling."
This ***pisses me off.

"Guilty until proven innocent" is and probably always has been a lie in our country. Since the invention of the plea bargain, jury trials have disappeared by the wayside. To the uninformed, it seems alright: less time and fewer resources are wasted on trials, criminals get lighter sentences, and the wheels of justice turn on. Except that all of that changes when you see that a prosecutor faced with a weak case or who simply doesn't like the accused can and will multiply the charges and throw everything against the wall 'til it sticks. Someone who, if charged fairly, might face a maximum of 3 years in prison (which is still a serious punishment), instead gets to look at a laundry list of charges that, if convicted, equates to 20 years behind bars. So, of course, his attorney recommends the plea bargain because, as every gambler knows, the house usually wins.

And then there's the fact that any and all arrangements of a plea bargain can be changed, rescinded, or voided entirely after the plea of guilty has been entered and, therefore, the defendant is now unable to defend himself, meaning that 20 year sentence is on the table until the judge himself removes it by imposing whatever sentence suits him.

Basically, the AG's words make me think that, given half a penny to fund it, he'd send everyone over the age of 3 to sex offender counseling and subject them to close scrutiny. May as well throw substance abuse counseling and ex-con job readiness into the mix.


Which, again, isn't to say that I think this particular case was handled well, weak or not.
 Lakshmi.Flavin
Offline
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Flavin
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-04-04 15:36:50
Link | Citer | R
 
fonewear said: »
Yea it is kinda messed up that the worse the crime the more people are interested.
Don't get your panties in a wad there are plenty of cases where parents have molested or killed their children that don't get national attention...

This reaches a higher tier because the guy is rich and the perception is that he's getting off light because of it.
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 12105
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-04-04 19:42:16
Link | Citer | R
 
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »
I want to preface this by saying that I'm really apprehensive about bumping this.

Delaware's Attorney General has weighed in.
Its a GREAT link Zahrah.

But I still think in the same circumstances, if it was a poor man with a public defender, the plea bargain would have included jail time.

Nice to know it did include sex offender registration.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-04 19:54:38
Link | Citer | R
 
Most states have a non-negotiable regulation about being on the sex offender registry. Many states have additional registries that are a bit more flexible. Where I live, you need to be charged half a dozen times with drunk driving before you wind up on the public list, though I'd imagine most people don't know such a thing even exists. I'm not a supporter of public lists, anyhow (police-only registries being a different story).

In a plea bargain situation involving a prosecutor who perceives his case is weak, probation is not uncommon, even if there is a child victim. Probation isn't exactly the easy-off that it sounds like, either: between the registry and the criminal record, life and productive employment are over. The publicity involving this trial enhances that considerably. I will not be surprised if DuPont commits suicide within the next couple years.

But don't discount the abilities of public defenders, either. The ones fresh out of law school are a coin-toss, but if someone has been a PD for 30 years, he or she is probably very good at the job.
Offline
Posts: 42775
By Jetackuu 2014-04-04 20:04:43
Link | Citer | R
 
I have a few issues with the concept of the "sex offender registry," but it pretty much boils down to a few things:

1. why are known violent offenders not in prison for life, and yes it deserves life in prison.

2. If we're going to claim their time as "time served" for their crimes against society, then they should return to as before they were a criminal, don't like the "repeat offender" logic either.

that being said, our prisons are overcrowded with such *** crimes, it's a bit insane that they let violent actual criminals back out, and yet you can get decades for drugs...
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-04 20:09:08
Link | Citer | R
 
I am confused by your questions, Jetackuu. Not all sex offenders are violent offenders.

Simple example, albeit not one from the United States: a 13-year-old boy was arrested, charged, and convicted under child pornography laws in the UK because he drew a picture of what he imagined one of his classmates looked like when naked. And then there's the many, many teenage girls who've been charged with and convicted of similar crimes for sending a nude selfie to someone that subsequently got shared around the local community.
Offline
Posts: 42775
By Jetackuu 2014-04-04 20:26:34
Link | Citer | R
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
I am confused by your questions, Jetackuu. Not all sex offenders are violent offenders.

Simple example, albeit not one from the United States: a 13-year-old boy was arrested, charged, and convicted under child pornography laws in the UK because he drew a picture of what he imagined one of his classmates looked like when naked. And then there's the many, many teenage girls who've been charged with and convicted of similar crimes for sending a nude selfie to someone that subsequently got shared around the local community.

See, that shouldn't be an offense, at all, either one.

Laws are written poorly, go figure.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-04 20:34:37
Link | Citer | R
 
Well, yes, I deliberately grabbed some of the more easily argued instances of dubious law enforcement. Another one would be pointing out that any parent with a picture of their naked children, for instance taking a bath aged 8 months, is violating federal pornography laws.

My question stands, though: why are you conflating violent offenses and sex offenses? Raping a child is almost necessarily violent, but not all rapes are explicitly or even implicitly violent. Under the law in most states, having sex with someone who is intoxicated is rape. If both parties (or more) are intoxicated, both are guilty. I'd bet that qualifies about 90% of the US population.
Offline
Posts: 42775
By Jetackuu 2014-04-04 20:44:01
Link | Citer | R
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Well, yes, I deliberately grabbed some of the more easily argued instances of dubious law enforcement. Another one would be pointing out that any parent with a picture of their naked children, for instance taking a bath aged 8 months, is violating federal pornography laws.

My question stands, though: why are you conflating violent offenses and sex offenses? Raping a child is almost necessarily violent, but not all rapes are explicitly or even implicitly violent. Under the law in most states, having sex with someone who is intoxicated is rape. If both parties (or more) are intoxicated, both are guilty. I'd bet that qualifies about 90% of the US population.

Then the laws need changed, which was pretty much the basis for my point in the first place.

I disagree with many aspects of the laws, however I don't approve of taking/keeping naked pictures of your own children, including taking a bath.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-04 20:49:07
Link | Citer | R
 
I'm still just confused. You said you don't like the registry, which is fine, but then imply that the next two points, which are about violent offenses and the lack of systemic forgiveness, are the reasons why. Excluding the lifetime registry, which is largely used for violent rapists and other people who've committed particularly heinous crimes, there is a built-in "forgiveness," albeit one that takes so long as to be irrelevant (federal law is 15 or 25 years, states vary in conforming to this -- all of them exceed the usual 7-10 years that a background check otherwise captures).

I'm just not seeing how these points mesh up. It's not that I disagree, just that the argumentation is muddled.
Offline
Posts: 42775
By Jetackuu 2014-04-04 20:50:49
Link | Citer | R
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
I'm still just confused. You said you don't like the registry, which is fine, but then imply that the next two points, which are about violent offenses and the lack of systemic forgiveness, are the reasons why. Excluding the lifetime registry, which is largely used for violent rapists and other people who've committed particularly heinous crimes, there is a built-in "forgiveness," albeit one that takes so long as to be irrelevant (federal law is 15 or 25 years, states vary in conforming to this -- all of them exceed the usual 7-10 years that a background check otherwise captures).

I'm just not seeing how these points mesh up. It's not that I disagree, just that the argumentation is muddled.

I don't think violent offenders should be released, if they are in fact "rehabilitated" and or "paid their dues" then I don't agree with further limitations.

Either all or nothing.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-04 21:07:12
Link | Citer | R
 
So eliminate the registry (which, again, doesn't apply solely to violent offenses -- if you go buy a piece of kiddie porn tomorrow and get caught, you're on the registry after conviction), fine, but that is only half of the problem when it comes to what passes for rehabilitation.

The overwhelming problem faced by the convicted is employment and housing discrimination, both of which persist for 7-10 years depending on how extensive a background check someone is willing to pay for. With the internet and persistence of data, we may reach a point where people can be persecuted for life. It's already pretty easy to pull up court records from 20 years ago in jurisdictions that choose to publish on the 'net.

If we make background checks illegal, though, what happens when the allegedly rehabilitated wire fraud felon gets another job at a bank? Relapse happens, even when effective rehabilitation substantially minimizes the risk.

I suspect a better solution should exist, but what? We can't pretend every criminal can be "cured," but nor should we pretend that someone can never turn their life around. Right now, we pay lip service to the latter but seem to operate by the former. Which is why I've been pointing out that DuPont is not getting off as easy as people imagine -- most people don't grasp that the punishment for a crime persists more or less indefinitely.
Offline
Posts: 42775
By Jetackuu 2014-04-04 21:29:32
Link | Citer | R
 
Which is a problem, at the minimum, we can agree with that.

Here's the problem I have with people who rant and rave about child pornography, as far as society goes there's only two reasons it should be illegal and only one of those is "right."

1. ("right") It exploits children.

2. (imo, not "right") because it makes others sick.

As far as the second, to some people porn in general makes people sick, and is even illegal in some places still, hell technically I think in my town it's still technically illegal, and most of the internet I imagine is as well.

With the advances in technology it would be easy to digitally create realistic looking pictures of entirely fake "people" and as far as I'm concerned that shouldn't be illegal, regardless of how old of a person it's made to look, the same with full on known cartoons/animation etc.

Laws need to catch up with the times.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-04 21:37:47
Link | Citer | R
 
What are you babbling about? The law is rather specific about covering real people (remember: that case about drawing a classmate was not in the US) and is very explicit that it is about preventing the abuse, re-abuse, and potential future abuse of children. I'm using colloquial wording here because experts tend to refer to the material in question as "abuse images of minors" to make it clear that the irrelevant question about the value of pornography is absent.

I get the impression you're trying to justify a lolicon obsession or something. Regardless of my feelings on it, US law recognizes that it is not a depiction of a real minor.
Offline
Posts: 42775
By Jetackuu 2014-04-04 21:51:51
Link | Citer | R
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
What are you babbling about? The law is rather specific about covering real people (remember: that case about drawing a classmate was not in the US) and is very explicit that it is about preventing the abuse, re-abuse, and potential future abuse of children. I'm using colloquial wording here because experts tend to refer to the material in question as "abuse images of minors" to make it clear that the irrelevant question about the value of pornography is absent.

I get the impression you're trying to justify a lolicon obsession or something. Regardless of my feelings on it, US law recognizes that it is not a depiction of a real minor.

Laws across states/counties/cities are not consistent by any means.

I don't enjoy material depicting persons that are prepubescent, and personally find it a bit disturbing, but that's just my upbringing as I am fully aware that people cannot control what they are attracted to, and I don't necessarily call them "sick" for enjoying it. I consider people who hurt actual people "sick," but as we stated that's an entirely different thing.

I'm trying to recall the particular case I'm thinking of where artists got arrested/charged for their art, but it's been years since I read it.

Edit: to also clarify: even if it's a drawing of a person, it's still a drawing.
Log in to post.