Bourgeoise scum rapes toddler, gets NO jail time

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

It's true. This bourgeois spawn of the DuPont family of capitalist scum actually raped his three-year-old daughter (more than once), and gets absolutely NO jail time! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30/robert-richards-rape_n_5060386.html)

The judge actually said he 'wouldn't do well in prison'.

And you know what they set this multi-millionaire's bail at?

$60,000

For raping a child.


And people thought that the whole 'affluenza' case from a couple months back was just a fluke. BULLSHIT. This is a clear indication of class conflict in America if there ever was one.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Personally I think he should go to prison because he wouldn't do well there. Prison folk ain't that bad people except for the large minority of ultra violent fellas though prison is a hella tough gig and I personally would love to see this posh piece of shit rot like hell there.

[BIXX]

Fuck I wanna see the blood of the bourgeoisie run through the streets. I wanna see their heads role, along with all other oppressors and symbols of this fucking society.

[Prometeo liberado]

"How long oh Lord, how long!"

[Tenka]

In her sentence, Jurden said he would benefit from participating in a sex offenders rehabilitation program rather than serving prison time.

So would all child-fondlers. Most of them aren't filthy stinkin' rich though. And is there any doubt now that the bourgeoisie, with their powerful capital passed down the lines, are practically a new aristocracy? Heads will roll.

[Bala Perdida]

Benefitting from rehabilitation, BULLSHIT! You have actual diseased drug addicts who need rehabilitation being sent into misery, and bourgeois child rapist scum getting off free. If this gets more attention, their illusion of justice and equality will crumble.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Fourth-degree rape" sounds like a charge invented specifically for situations such as this one - what does it even mean? Also I think the rhetoric of the article is problematic - the "one percent", inheritance "distorting" "free-market capitalism" etc. but that's not the main issue here. Of course the bourgeois juridical system is fucked up. Anyone familiar with the Mumia case should be aware of that.

[Sinister Intents]

I've about 50 feet of rope for this bourgeois fucker, I'm with the people who'll kill these rapist fuckers.

[Bostana]

Something tells me that that judges bank account will be doing well

[Sinister Intents]

Something tells me that that judges bank account will be doing well

Something tells me this judge would be lynched after the revolution. Fuck bourgeois scum and their lackeys!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I've about 50 feet of rope for this bourgeois fucker, I'm with the people who'll kill these rapist fuckers.

Just keep it down with this idiotic violence-retribution shit, please. It's fucking embarrassing.

[Creative Destruction]

this slate post points to a generally troubling leniency in cases of rape:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/31/dupont_heir_roberts_h_richards_iv_gets_probation_f or_raping_his_daughter.html


It’s also part of a disturbing pattern of late in which judges treat sexual assault crimes as worthy only of a slap on the wrist. There’s the case of Austin Smith Clem, an Alabama man who was convicted of raping his neighbor when she was 14 and 18. Judge James Woodroof suspended Clem’s 40-year prison sentence in full, sending him to a community corrections program instead. When the state appeals court ordered a resentencing, Woodroof doubled down, still refusing to send Clem to prison and even reducing his suspended sentence. And in Montana last August, Judge G. Todd Baugh suspended all but 30 days of a 15-year prison sentence for Stacey Dean Rambold, a former teacher convicted of having sex with one of his students, who was 14 at the time and committed suicide two years later. Rambold walked away with this light punishment even though he’d already violated the rules of a sex-offender treatment program not to have unsupervised contact with children (by having visits with minors who were his relatives). Baugh had the gall to say in court that the teenage student was “as much in control of the situation” as her teacher was, and “older than her chronological age.” After a petition circulated for his removal, he apologized for his remarks but defended the sentence he gave.

As Dahlia Lithwick wrote about Baugh and his ilk, “these are judges who find ways to empathize with the accused and to shift blame and consequences onto the victims.” Much of the time, the problem seems to start with the notion that the crimes were nonviolent. “It was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies,” Baugh said of Rambold’s conviction for sexual intercourse without consent.


...


Like I said, that’s one goal. And I should mention that the judge’s ruling was in line with the guidelines for this crime issued by a Delaware sentencing commission, which (despite the 15-year range on the books) call for a prison term of zero to 2½ years. The problem is that when a father (or anyone) abuses a small child, the zero end of the guidelines are a travesty. In general, I’m in favor of sentencing guidelines, like Delaware’s, which aim to nudge judges toward greater leniency overall. That’s because over time, punishment tends to ratchet only in one direction: up. Sentencing reform for truly nonviolent crimes, especially drug and gun possession, is very much in the interest of justice. But to let off a convicted child rapist, who just happens to be living off his trust fund in a mansion, thanks to his wealthy and famous family? That seems like the definition of injustice.

[BIXX]

Just keep it down with this idiotic violence-retribution shit, please. It's fucking embarrassing.


Actually no fuck you I'm angry and I think expressing that rage is perfectly appropriate.

However I would recommend that members do not make references to doing anything to these bourgeois assholes.

[Firebrand]

The thing is people have this tendency to believe that the legal system exists to protect people. It's not their fault, they've been brainwashed into it, but the fact remains the purpose of the legal system is not to protect people. It is to protect property, and to a lesser extent to maintain order. If you actually look at the law you can see that most of it is devoted in one way or another to maintaining private property, or maintaining the ruling class's monopoly on violence.

The reason violent crimes are punished is because people who commit violent crimes have proven themselves to be dangerous to the existing order. They have taken violent action and in doing so have broken the ruling class's monopoly on violence. If they are not made an example of then that monopoly will collapse and the forces of coercion needed to maintain control will collapse. That is why violent criminals are punished.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation the fact remains that someone who commits a violent crime has declared themselves a threat to order and as such the system is set up to neutralise the threat.

Child abuse is by nature a quiet and secret cruelty. As such it is no threat to the system. In fact people involved in such things are actually more likely to be forces of order, possibly because they like control, possibly because they don't want to draw the attention of the law. Either way there is no benefit to the maintenance of order in giving heavy sentences to child abusers. They harm those weaker than themselves, always, and therefore they are not likely to challenge the ruling classes authority by redirecting their violence back at them. Instead they are doing exactly what those in charge want and passing the misery down to those further down the ladder.

[Decolonize The Left]

It's sad because I heard about this and... just wasn't surprised.

[Ocean Seal]

Just keep it down with this idiotic violence-retribution shit, please. It's fucking embarrassing.
Let him have his fun. Its not like non-communists actually read this far into the forum. Its good to release some energy.

[synthesis]

Who does do well in prison? (Aside from racketeers and kingpins and such, and even they'd be healthier on the outside while heavily monitored.)

It's also absurd that judges can "find ways to empathize" with rapists of children but not with mentally ill and/or homeless drug addicts.

[Sabot Cat]

Affluenza reaching epidemic levels; communism remains a much shunned cure for the global ailment.

[Centre-left]

I think it's appalling that this man has not been jailed and that the need to rehabilitate him and his own rights are more important than that of the child he raped. You feel he definitely would not have got off the hook if he didn't have the money he has access to. It would appear it's one rule for the richest 1% and another for drug addicts, the mentally ill and poorest in society.