Rage...pure rage

[Ghoti]

Richards hired one of the state's top law firms and was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth-degree rape charges -- which carries no mandatory minimum prison sentencing. He accepted, and admitted to the assault.

What. The. Fuck.

[mellenORL]

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/delaware-statutory-rape-laws.htm

So, the rich man got his charges dropped down to a level of what we traditionally call, "statutory rape", which laws were intended to discourage both young or older male scoundrels from seducing young teen girls, "ruining" their virginal purity, their and their family's reputations, and spoiling the girl's marriage-ability back in the day.

I'm pretty sure that law wasn't intended to allow a biological father who raped his three year old daughter to bounce on down the front court house steps a free man.

Statutory rape is prosecuted under Delaware’s sexual assault and rape laws and includes sexual contact or intercourse between an adult and a minor who is 15 years old or younger. It also includes intercourse between an adult who is 30 or older and a 16 or 17 year old minor (unless the marital exemption applies, discussed below).

Within those categories, the offense is broken further into several categories based on what conduct occurred—sexual intercourse, penetration, or contact may all be prosecuted (and punished) differently.

Rape in the first degree includes sexual intercourse with a victim younger than 12 years old, when the defendant is 18 years old or older.

Rape in the second degree includes sexual contact involving some penetration (however slight) with a victim younger than 12 years old, when the defendant is 18 years old or older.

Rape in the third degree involves sexual intercourse or penetration with a victim who is 15 or younger when the defendant is at least ten years older than the victim.

Rape in the fourth degree involves sexual intercourse or penetration with a victim who is 15 or younger, or when the victim is younger than 18 and the defendant is 30 years old or older.

Unlawful sexual contact in the first degree involves sexual contact with a victim who is 13 or younger.

Unlawful sexual contact in the second degree involves sexual contact with a victim who is 14 or 15 when the defendant was more than four years older than the victim.

(11 De. Code Ann. § 770, 771, 772, 773, 768, 769.)

[Barbarella]

Well, there's a petition & I signed it:
https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-honorable-jan-r-jurden-please-sign-petition-to-demand-jail-time-for-robert-h-richards-iv-for-the-repeated-rape-of-his-3-year-old-daughter

[Ultimate Paragon]

Well, there's a petition & I signed it:
https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-honorable-jan-r-jurden-please-sign-petition-to-demand-jail-time-for-robert-h-richards-iv-for-the-repeated-rape-of-his-3-year-old-daughter

I signed it too.

[Ghoti]

Well, there's a petition & I signed it:
https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-honorable-jan-r-jurden-please-sign-petition-to-demand-jail-time-for-robert-h-richards-iv-for-the-repeated-rape-of-his-3-year-old-daughter

I signed it too.

*signing intensifies*

[Zygarde]

Signed...I hope this succeeds.

[mellenORL]

Signed. Hope it goes all viral brush fire in days.....

[ironbite]

Won't do crap though.

[mellenORL]

No, it's just feedback from the general public, but it will get that judges name in the news even more, and possibly a Delaware federal district court judge will remand the decision in for review and retrial, or just overturn it and re-sentence that sick fuck of a douchenozzle.

[Ironchew]

No, it's just feedback from the general public, but it will get that judges name in the news even more, and possibly a Delaware federal district court judge will remand the decision in for review and retrial, or just overturn it and re-sentence that sick fuck of a douchenozzle.

Here I was thinking that, in the absence of new evidence in a case, double jeopardy was unconstitutional.

But don't let little things like the Constitution get in your way.

[mellenORL]

Judicial error is a thing. Declared mistrial over bad sentencing, procedural error, and etc. is a thing. It is not a harassing re-trial of the already convicted person, not the retrial of a person exonerated at court, a person found innocent by a judge and jury. Please, don't cite the Constitution in error.

The charges are declarable as in error - and they were arrived at through a plea bargaining, recall - whether through new evidence or a finding of misapplication, which is what this particular case demonstrates. He was found guilty of the incorrect charges. His sentence was what? Time served? For incestuous rape of his infant/toddler daughter? He is in fact retry-able. Judges have sentences overturned by higher courts all the time. And they get disbarred for them in cases like this. It's known as a miscarriage of justice.