Du Pont heir dodged prison for raping 3-year-old daughter after judge ruled he 'would not fare well'

[The Almighty Aardvark]

on one hand the fact this seems to be a classic case of two tiered justice and that is obviously wrong. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind.

But on the other hand i'm also one of those crazy people who doesn't believe the best way to handle pedos is by putting them in jail. And since no source shows he repeated the offense after the trial one has to ask themselves what would have been the benefit to put him in jail? Pedos should be forced to follow psychiatric therapy, it is after all a mental illness. The problem with the way we deal with pedophilia is that there is so much hatred towards it the people suffering from it don't dare to seek help out of fear of condemnation. And ultimately this leads to them remaining ill until they commit a horrible act and than we clog up the prisons even more.

There's a big distinction between pedophiles and rapists though. Just because you have a sexual attraction to children doesn't force you to rape them. Hatred to pedophiles I will agree with you, it creates more problems than it solves. This guy isn't just a pedophile though.

Doing something like that to a three year old is horrible. And he did it multiple times. He didn't seek therapy or treatment for his mental illness for 8 years. Only time he goes pleading mental illness is when he's been caught and being threatened with jail time. No, he doesn't deserve to die in jail, but that doesn't mean that he should get out of jail free card. As far as I know that's not customary for child molesters to just be thrown on probation, I wouldn't be surprised if money turned this into his favor, be it through bribes, status, or just the fact he could afford good enough lawyers.

 

[RoonMian]

I have brought Friedrich Nietzsche to this Forum already a number of times but it seems I have to do so again:

"But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had ? power."

I'm glad someone mentioned this because I wholly agree with FN's sentiment but I don't see what it has to do with this situation.
Just because you want to impose sadistic punishment on a man who violates his own daughter does not make you a sadist. Just because you eat a big meal does not make you a glutton. Violence is a temporary solution to a permanent problem but in some cases it is neccessary and in others - such as this - it is richly deserved.
I don't doubt that many of the crusaders who call for this filth's head are nothing more than angry people, eager to find a target for their hatred that they can attack with impunity. I also do not doubt that just as many are nothing more than people with empathy.
Those of us with children in our lives know that to call the thing that did this an animal is an insult to animals.

No, you are exactly the kind of person I had in mind when I posted.

 

[Zef Otter]

If this guy was a nobody who is poor then he would be in jail. But no since he is well known and rich he gets to get off with a light sentience. I mean if everyone able to go to get rehabilitated then that would be fine but in this case it shows how bad our justice system is and how unequal it is.

 

[Wereduck]

I have brought Friedrich Nietzsche to this Forum already a number of times but it seems I have to do so again:

"But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had ? power."

I'm glad someone mentioned this because I wholly agree with FN's sentiment but I don't see what it has to do with this situation.
Just because you want to impose sadistic punishment on a man who violates his own daughter does not make you a sadist. Just because you eat a big meal does not make you a glutton. Violence is a temporary solution to a permanent problem but in some cases it is neccessary and in others - such as this - it is richly deserved.
I don't doubt that many of the crusaders who call for this filth's head are nothing more than angry people, eager to find a target for their hatred that they can attack with impunity. I also do not doubt that just as many are nothing more than people with empathy.
Those of us with children in our lives know that to call the thing that did this an animal is an insult to animals.

No, you are exactly the kind of person I had in mind when I posted.

Oh, I'm quite certain that you did have me in mind. I've repeatedly seen that quote used as a blanket assertion of moral superiority to anyone who believes that punishment is occasionally justified. What I'm pointing out is that there's a difference between the general desire to punish people who offend you and the specific desire to punish the admitted perpetrator of a particular outrage. That's what I was getting at with my food metaphor above, apologies if I wasn't clear.
In psychology it's called the fundamental attribution error; the tendency to ascribe a stranger's behavior to their personal disposition rather than to their circumstances. Nietzsche's assertion (not fact mind you, his eloquence doesn't mean he's right) is a statement about general disposition - whatever you or Nietzsche think about a person's reaction to a specific situation you don't have knowledge on their general disposition, it's not the same thing and the quote is not relevant.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I never understood why courts had to care if a person would do well in prison or not. I get that the idea behind prison is supposed to be reform and that other inmates would have this guy gone in a heartbeat for what he did, but it's the court's job to worry about it, or at least shouldn't be. I guess you can't put all these guys in their own totally separate holding cells and segregate them all to one corner of the prison but it feels lik it sends a bad message. not just the "well he's a du pont, are you mad, we can't sentence this guy he'll bury us in money" message, but rather a "yeah child sexual abuse/rape is pretty bad, but really you'll get off (comparatively) easy by having a house arrest (especially if you're rich/high profile) and just admit you do it.

I mean, I don't want to get to into it, its not really my business to be concerned with what happens to him since I'm neither god or his juror/judge but it just makes it all feel like its too easy.

 

[softclocks]

Maybe not, but at least he'd be forced to suffer for it.

That doesn't solve anything.

Oftentimes later interactions between victim and perpetrator can help the victim overcome some of the problems they're likely to struggle with. Having this guy shanked in prison harms the little girl's chances of recovering from her trauma.

Edit: And this guy's already suffering. He's clearly suffering from some kind of mental illness and odds are he was abused as a child as well.

 

[therightpirate]

[quote="Baron Teapot" post="18.846188.20863331"

This man does need help. No sane person would choose to do this.[/quote]

Sorry you're confusing sanity with evil. If he was insane then he wouldn't be criminally responsible. He was completely sane. As it turns out most research these days says that certain people are hard-wired to be attracted to children, it's a sexual orientation, though not all pedophiles have that disorder, some are just twisted evil people. To harm your own flesh and blood, to harm any child does not speak to a disorder, it speaks to being evil. And yes, humans have the capacity for evil. This man has shown that he has no ability to not do evil - he has raped both his son and his daughter. He could have just fantasized and masturbated to whatever desires he had. But he chose to rape. This is not about sexual orientation. This is about the capacity to do evil - in this instance to rape.

I am attracted to women. I have no desire to rape a woman because I know that would cause them tremendous harm and because that action is evil. This monster, who is clearly functional and intelligent (he lives in a mansion, has wealth, had a significant adult relationship with a woman), decided to forgo that truth because he felt that any harm caused to his own two children was of less worth than the pleasure he would receive. And now society has all but agreed with him in barely handing him any punishment.

Please forgo feeling sorry for this miscreant. He isn't worth your care or attention. He is only worth of our scorn for committing such a heinous and disgusting offense.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Are you fucking kidding me? These are some of the worst examples of people you could ever think of and you let him go AFTER he admitted to it more than once? What the hell is wrong with you, Judge? You're enabling him to abuse again, and if he does you should be held accountable as well, and chances are you're probably some closet rape apologist!

[*incoherent shouting*]

Christ, these cases make me upset. Fuck the judge, fuck the rapist father, they both need to face prison time for this.

Capatcha: "Inside out"
Inappropriate Capatcha, but granted I did snicker a little. I swear these things are becoming sentient.

 

[Fulbert]

Soooooo... If 'affluenza' really didn't have anything to do with the case, then the judge ruled that, basically, child molesters shouldn't be put into prison. That's some interesting precedent we have here.

 

[RoonMian]

Oh, I'm quite certain that you did have me in mind. I've repeatedly seen that quote used as a blanket assertion of moral superiority to anyone who believes that punishment is occasionally justified. What I'm pointing out is that there's a difference between the general desire to punish people who offend you and the specific desire to punish the admitted perpetrator of a particular outrage. That's what I was getting at with my food metaphor above, apologies if I wasn't clear.
In psychology it's called the fundamental attribution error; the tendency to ascribe a stranger's behavior to their personal disposition rather than to their circumstances. Nietzsche's assertion (not fact mind you, his eloquence doesn't mean he's right) is a statement about general disposition - whatever you or Nietzsche think about a person's reaction to a specific situation you don't have knowledge on their general disposition, it's not the same thing and the quote is not relevant.

You dehumanise what is after all still a human being, calling it "filth" and "thing". You describe those who cry for blood as the ones with "empathy" (pretty selective empathy that is). And you feel perfectly justified in your self-righteousness that your (and other people in this thread's) emotional response should be the measure that man's guilt should be weighed against. That quote is very relevant here because exactly that general disposition is showing in you and so many others.

 

[Deadcyde]

'would not fare well'

IS THE DAMN POINT!

Generally most people don't commit those crimes because they're bad. Duh.

Sick fucks however, need some encouragement not to be fuckwits so the horrors of jail serves as a deterrent. If they fail to listen to their conscience and ignore the threat of jail then tough.

Off to jail you go.

None of this "wouldn't fare well" nonsense.

Besides, if you're that bleeding heart then they've got solitary. Basic point is, they've confirmed their inhumanity and so they need to be separated from humanity. Death does this fairly capably, but if you insist upon them not dying then they at least need to be physically segregated from humanity.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is a good start, it's not hard data to find to be honest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Recidivism_rates . And yes, I know it's Wiki but it has links to several actual studies there if you want to look at primary sources.

Er, that link says 2.5% of rapists (not specifically child rapists) are rearrested for another crime within 3 years, not that they didn't offend. Not the same, especially as arrest rates for rapes are tiny.

The level of disgust I have for this is pretty much the same as my disgust level (really high btw) for anyone who rapes someone else (particularly white boys raping girls), gets off, blames the victim, and then is made a victim by the media (even if it's locally only) and people go "oooh the poor [boy] there goes their future down the drain" and villanize the person who got raped (the most recent one going through my head is the boys who played football who their career was ruined because they decided to rape a drunk girl at a party).

Very much this.

Tellingly, I don't know which rape you mean, because even the ones that make it to the news are far too many for me to remember them all. I end up only remembering the ones in towns that have unusual names.

 

[Wereduck]

Oh, I'm quite certain that you did have me in mind. I've repeatedly seen that quote used as a blanket assertion of moral superiority to anyone who believes that punishment is occasionally justified. What I'm pointing out is that there's a difference between the general desire to punish people who offend you and the specific desire to punish the admitted perpetrator of a particular outrage. That's what I was getting at with my food metaphor above, apologies if I wasn't clear.
In psychology it's called the fundamental attribution error; the tendency to ascribe a stranger's behavior to their personal disposition rather than to their circumstances. Nietzsche's assertion (not fact mind you, his eloquence doesn't mean he's right) is a statement about general disposition - whatever you or Nietzsche think about a person's reaction to a specific situation you don't have knowledge on their general disposition, it's not the same thing and the quote is not relevant.

You dehumanise what is after all still a human being, calling it "filth" and "thing". You describe those who cry for blood as the ones with "empathy" (pretty selective empathy that is). And you feel perfectly justified in your self-righteousness that your (and other people in this thread's) emotional response should be the measure that man's guilt should be weighed against. That quote is very relevant here because exactly that general disposition is showing in you and so many others.

Thanks for cherry-picking my inital comment & completely ignoring my second, now I won't feel the need to continue this exchange later today while I should be working ; )

By the way; I never said I was perfectly justified in my self-righteousness. I'm only saying that I'm confident in my superiority to admitted (not just accused or even convicted) child rapists. There is someone here claiming righteousness though - pot, meet kettle.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

It's hard to have pity for whatever happens to men of his kind. Normally I'm against people getting killed in prison, but I really don't feel bad for incestuous child rapists no matter what happens to them.

There's also no evidence that he'll stop doing this. Child rapists are rarely rehabilitated.

So, yes, he preyed on his own kids, most likely out of convenience and ease of getting away with it, for a while anyway. When his probation is up, what stops him from preying on other kids, either here or in one of the sex tourism places of the world? I mean, he received no major punishment for his previous offenses, why wouldn't he do it again if all he gets is a slap on the wrist and an out of court settlement he can definitely afford?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Maybe not, but at least he'd be forced to suffer for it.

That doesn't solve anything.

Oftentimes later interactions between victim and perpetrator can help the victim overcome some of the problems they're likely to struggle with. Having this guy shanked in prison harms the little girl's chances of recovering from her trauma.

Edit: And this guy's already suffering. He's clearly suffering from some kind of mental illness and odds are he was abused as a child as well.

Really? How does understanding why he's a sick fuck help her recover?

Also suffering from a mental illness and suffering for your crimes are not the same thing. Nor should mental illness be an excuse.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oftentimes later interactions between victim and perpetrator can help the victim overcome some of the problems they're likely to struggle with. Having this guy shanked in prison harms the little girl's chances of recovering from her trauma.

Sometimes yes, but I'd hardly be surprised if she wanted never to see him again

Edit: And this guy's already suffering. He's clearly suffering from some kind of mental illness and odds are he was abused as a child as well.

Nope.

Being abused increases the chances that someone will become an abuser, but most aren't. If nothing else, most perpetrators are male, and most victims are female.

And, he's not "clearly" suffering from a mental illness just because he commits a terrible crime. That's nothing more than othering, saying one of Us would never do something like that.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Why not sentence an 8 year stay at a locked facility for psychiatric evaluation or perhaps solitary confinement to ensure his safety while in prison? Seems to me there are plenty of child rapists who have went to prison, with the majority surviving their sentence. Perhaps this particular judge was swayed by an enormous bribe...

 

[faefrost]

"Wouldn't do well"? Since when is that a determinant for sentencing? No one does well in prison. That is kind of the point. And there are plenty of cases of far far worse child rapists than this clown serving their time so well as can be expected. Heck the miserable piece of human garbage that I had the displeasure to become acquainted with during my childhood has sat there in Osining for 25 years now. He was a pediatrician. A multi millionaire pillar of the community. Extremely active in scouts and every sports team and school on Long Island. When he was arrested Police had 1800 victims for whom they could bring charges. They knew definitively of 3500 including those for whom the statute of limitations had past. They strongly felt the true number was upwards of 7000. These were individual victims, not incidents. Good old Dr. Gary is currently serving 350 to life. Thankfully no one asked if he would "do well". His victims certainly didn't.

 

[HardkorSB]

Guys, I'm pretty sure the phrase "Wouldn't do well" isn't referring to him being uncomfortable due to the shitty living conditions, I think it's referring to him being raped and murdered by other inmates. The judge just didn't want to give him a death sentence.

This has exactly shit to do with his money, and it REALLY has nothing to do with "affulenza".

So in that case we can assume that this judge will, from now on, not send any rapists whatsoever to prison, right?
I'm sure that will be the case.