Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Du Pont heir avoids jail for raping his 3 year old daughter.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another attorney on the matter:
    Source: William D. Kickham, http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2014/04/dupont_child_rape_sentence_jud_1.html

    On the surface, this sentence, in response to the guilty plea on a charge of rape, seems shocking. But people need to understand the details that drive such a sentencing decision. Understand: I’m not necessarily “excusing” this sentence, I’m just explaining it. As a Boston Massachusetts sex crimes lawyerhttp://criminal.attorneywdkickham.com/lawyer-attorney-1851232.html, I know all too well how complex these cases can become.

    First, some realities about sex crimes trials, especially involving children:
    • Without physical evidence, a getting a conviction from a jury is often more unlikely that unlikely.
    • The only real witness in this case, from what I understand, was the child who was alleged to be the victim. Children make extremely unreliable witnesses. They can’t be coached, they don’t understand complicated issues, and what they say can be entirely unpredictable. Further, their testimony is subject to successful attack on cross-examination, which further victimizes them. To put a young child witness on the stand, is always a losing strategy from the word “Go.” The dynamic pits the word of the child against the word of the defendant – who in this case was her own father. Not a promising testimonial structure, at all.
    • For the prosecution to have not offered or considered accepting a plea here, would have been foolish, because I am told that the case was circumstantial and weak.
    • Accepting a Guilty plea meant: 1) A felony sex crime conviction for the defendant, 2) A criminal record that Richards would have forever, 3) A requirement that Richards officially register as a sex offender, and 4) A requirement that he receive psychological treatment as a sex offender.
    All of the above important prosecution victories would have been lost, if the prosecution refused to consider a plea deal – especially with no forensic evidence, and the only prosecution witness being a child. Who says the prosecution’s case was weak? Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (Vice President Joe Biden’s son.) Biden said April 3 that the 2009 case against Richards was weak and prosecutors offered an appropriate plea bargain that spared him prison while convicting him of a felony sex crime. "This was not a strong case, and losing at trial was a distinct possibility,'' Biden wrote, citing a lack of physical evidence.

    © Copyright Original Source



    (He goes on to critique the judge's decision, which I haven't defended. Interestingly, his critique, while opining that the reduced sentence was " inappropriate relative to a guilty plea to rape - especially rape of a young child", focuses more on the "the unavoidable impression would result that Richards’ status as an a heir to a multimillion dollar fortune, somehow, someway “bought” his way out of prison time", he concludes that the judge were foolish, imprudent, myopic, etc. It appears that he seems more concerned about how the public will view the outcome than about the justice of the outcome itself.)
    Last edited by Paprika; 04-08-2014, 01:30 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
      More passive aggressiveness against FF? Gosh, so much for the claim you made earlier... I knew you couldn't follow what you said you would do.
      That’s nothing LPOT except a little sympathy for JCAtheist who seemed to be as frustrated as I used to be when chatting to you. I think I understand you a little better now.
      Take care,
      ff
      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
      “not all there” - you know who you are

      Comment


      • I don't understand

        Comment


        • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          That’s nothing LPOT except a little sympathy for JCAtheist who seemed to be as frustrated as I used to be when chatting to you. I think I understand you a little better now.
          Take care,
          ff
          Of course he's frustrated. He open his mouth, before he had all the facts, and refuses to admit he was wrong when proved wrong. I understand, frustrated fundies need to stick together.
          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            No, the burden of proof belongs much more to the original claimant. If person A says that person B made statement X in a private conversation. If B has no records of that conversation, how is B to prove that B didn't make it? It should be obvious that a priori the burden of proof lies greatly on A.
            And again, the entire case shouldn't have gone to trial, following YOUR logic.


            The prosecutor is rather unlikely to reveal to the defendant all his evidence. The defendant is unlikely not to know precisely what cards the prosecutor has in hand, and may choose to play safe and go for a plea deal with no jail term.
            I'm sorry, but he could have very well spent 2 and a half years in jail, for 4th degree rape. I know this because I went to look it up. It isn't as long as 10 years, but he still was facing jail time, either way. So obviously, his case doesn't seem nearly as strong as you seem to make it out out to be.

            This link? Can you show that the news source makes the nuance between a guilty plea and an admission of guilt, instead of conflating the two? I note that in the sentencing order I linked in a previous post that there is no record of any verbal confession.
            You're seriously asking me now where it makes a 'nuisance' between a guilty plea and an admission of guilt? What do I need to do? Dig up the precise court transcripts and quite them, word for word before you'll accept it? Wow... you're getting beyond reason now pap. Can you give a good reason to doubt the two sources or do you really think that trained journalist, don't know the difference between a guilty plea and an admission of guilt? Can you produce a reason why they don't know the difference?
            Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 04-08-2014, 05:36 PM.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
              And again, the entire case shouldn't have gone to trial, following YOUR logic.
              Nope. Stop assuming you know what my logic is; you don't. If you insist on doing so, show from my words and my words alone the conclusion "I don't think the case should have gone to trial" is entailed. If you can't, keep quiet.

              I'm sorry, but he could have very well spent 2 and a half years in jail, for 4th degree rape. I know this because I went to look it up. It isn't as long as 10 years, but he still was facing jail time, either way. So obviously, his case doesn't seem nearly as strong as you seem to make it out out to be.
              Two words: 'plea bargain' - where it was agreed that the prosecutor would push for no jail time in return for him pleading guilty to a lesser charge.

              You're seriously asking me now where it makes a 'nuisance' [sic] between a guilty plea and an admission of guilt? What do I need to do? Dig up the precise court transcripts and quite them, word for word before you'll accept it? Wow... you're getting beyond reason now pap. Can you give a good reason to doubt the two sources or do you really think that trained journalist, don't know the difference between a guilty plea and an admission of guilt? Can you produce a reason why they don't know the difference?
              You're trusting journalists? For nuance?

              By the way, I've cited the sentencing order as some evidence that there was not admission of guilt; if you want to make your case please do dig up the court transcripts.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                Nope. Stop assuming you know what my logic is; you don't. If you insist on doing so, show from my words and my words alone the conclusion "I don't think the case should have gone to trial" is entailed. If you can't, keep quiet.
                Then go ahead, explain how your logic doesn't lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't bother with most trials of this type because they are so hard to prove. I'll be waiting...

                Two words: 'plea bargain' - where it was agreed that the prosecutor would push for no jail time in return for him pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
                Funny, I always thought it was the judge that gave a sentence and not the DA's office. All the DA's office can do is provide a charge and say what they are seeking. The sentence is up to the judge.


                You're trusting journalists? For nuance?
                And your evidence that they are wrong is what? Oh that's right NOTHING, but of course I guess assertions are good enough, when you use them, but everybody else has to provide multiple sources to prove they are right. Awww... hypocrisy, got to love it. Now put it up or shut up, go ahead, prove that he did not confess to his crime, contrary to what multiple articles have already said. I'm waiting or are you going to keep assertion that they are wrong and you are right because you said so and I should trust your mere word when it is backed up by zero evidence?

                By the way, I've cited the sentencing order as some evidence that there was not admission of guilt; if you want to make your case please do dig up the court transcripts.
                And I cited two articles that disagree with you, but of course, people need to provide tons and tons of evidence to prove you wrong, but when you present articles they must be taken at 100% absolute truth. Got to love the double standards because I always thought an argument from silence, was a very poor argument that should rarely (if ever) be used. You're the one saying the articles are wrong, now it is your job to prove they are wrong and present an alternative theory. Go ahead, put up your shut up. I'll be waiting.
                Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 04-09-2014, 05:28 PM.
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                  Then go ahead, explain how your logic doesn't lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't bother with most trials of this type because they are so hard to prove. I'll be waiting...
                  Nope. You claimed it does first, go ahead, show that it does.

                  Funny, I always thought it was the judge that gave a sentence and not the DA's office. All the DA's office can do is provide a charge and say what they are seeking. The sentence is up to the judge.
                  Indeed, but they generally do give sentencing in line with the plea deals. You were arguing (implicitly) under the premise there wasno rational reason for him to plead guilty if he wasn't actually guilty; I'm responding by showing that there are possible reasons under which he might want to do so.

                  And your evidence that they are wrong is what? Oh that's right NOTHING, but of course I guess assertions are good enough, when you use them, but everybody else has to provide multiple sources to prove they are right. Awww... hypocrisy, got to love it. Now put it up or shut up, go ahead, prove that he did not confess to his crime, contrary to what multiple articles have already said. I'm waiting or are you going to keep assertion that they are wrong and you are right because you said so and I should trust your mere word when it is backed up by zero evidence?

                  I've cited the sentencing order.

                  And I cited two articles that disagree with you, but of course, people need to provide tons and tons of evidence to prove you wrong, but when you present articles they must be taken at 100% absolute truth.
                  I don't, actually, but way to go with the ad hominem

                  Got to love the double standards because I always thought an argument from silence, was a very poor argument that should rarely (if ever) be used. You're the one saying the articles are wrong, now it is your job to prove they are wrong and present an alternative theory. Go ahead, put up your shut up. I'll be waiting.
                  Dear LPOT: I cited the sentencing order, which is a primary source for what happened in the court. You've cited nothing from the court records, only journalists of unknown veracity with unknown information sources. Go cite a primary source.

                  Not that I'm holding my breath until you'd do so. In this thread you've shown a singular inability to admit mistake.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Nope. You claimed it does first, go ahead, show that it does.
                    Don't want to explain where I am wrong at. I understand that you don't even know what your own logic is or isn't anymore

                    Indeed, but they generally do give sentencing in line with the plea deals. You were arguing (implicitly) under the premise there wasno rational reason for him to plead guilty if he wasn't actually guilty; I'm responding by showing that there are possible reasons under which he might want to do so.
                    No I am not. I AM GOING OFF WHAT THE ARTICLES SAY AND YOU HAVEN'T PRODUCED ANYTHING TO PROVE OTHERWISE!!!!

                    Can you read that or do I need to make that into big bold letters before you'll pay attention to it?


                    I've cited the sentencing order.
                    And that therefore means he didn't make a confession, in court? Argument from silence, doesn't help your case out at all. Now, what reason can you produce that the articles in question, are wrong? Anything at all or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, at this point in time?

                    I don't, actually, but way to go with the ad hominem
                    Sorry sweety, no ad hominem at all. You can't produce evidence for your case beyond an argument from silence. Now why should anybody discount what the articles say or is the fact, "WAAA!!!! THE SENTENCE ORDER DOESN'T MENTION IT!" all the evidence you can produce? You do understand that silence isn't evidence, right?

                    Dear LPOT: I cited the sentencing order, which is a primary source for what happened in the court. You've cited nothing from the court records, only journalists of unknown veracity with unknown information sources. Go cite a primary source.
                    Sorry sweety, argument from silence and the sentencing order not mention X doesn't mean it never happened. Argument from silence, isn't an argument. Now can you give a single reason why these journalist are wrong? I would sure hope that most major news agencies hired journalist that knew the difference between a guilty plea and a confession of guilt. Am I not suppose to believe them merely because they say things you don't want to hear?

                    Not that I'm holding my breath until you'd do so. In this thread you've shown a singular inability to admit mistake.
                    Sorry, I don't need to admit to a mistake because I didn't make one. All you got is, "WAAA! THE SENTENCING ORDER DOESN'T MENTION IT!" as though that is proof it never happened. By golly, an argument from silence is all you can produce, why should anybody believe you or are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing and don't even care what is true or false anymore?
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                      Don't want to explain where I am wrong at. I understand that you don't even know what your own logic is or isn't anymore
                      Again, you claimed that my logic would entail a certain conclusion. Back this claim or retract it.

                      And that therefore means he didn't make a confession, in court? Argument from silence, doesn't help your case out at all. Now, what reason can you produce that the articles in question, are wrong? Anything at all or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, at this point in time?

                      Sorry sweety, no ad hominem at all. You can't produce evidence for your case beyond an argument from silence. Now why should anybody discount what the articles say or is the fact, "WAAA!!!! THE SENTENCE ORDER DOESN'T MENTION IT!" all the evidence you can produce? You do understand that silence isn't evidence, right?

                      Sorry sweety, argument from silence and the sentencing order not mention X doesn't mean it never happened. Argument from silence, isn't an argument.
                      ...Sorry, I don't need to admit to a mistake because I didn't make one. All you got is, "WAAA! THE SENTENCING ORDER DOESN'T MENTION IT!" as though that is proof it never happened. By golly, an argument from silence is all you can produce, why should anybody believe you or are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing and don't even care what is true or false anymore?
                      Nice strawman you've set up

                      I was very careful to argue that the lack of any mention of actual confession in the sentencing order would constitute "some evidence" that there was no actual confession, and instead of saying that it was conclusive proof. But nuance appears to be lost on you in your quest for ego preservation. By the way, can you show that all arguments from silence are always, necessarily invalid?

                      Silence can be evidence. In this case, if he had made an actual confession, we would expect with high probability that the judge would have noted it as an important factor in deliberation of the sentence, and that it would be in the sentencing order. Since it is not in the sentencing order, the absence is evidence that such a notable event in the legal proceedings did not happen - again, I do not say conclusive evidence.

                      Now can you give a single reason why these journalist are wrong? I would sure hope that most major news agencies hired journalist that knew the difference between a guilty plea and a confession of guilt. Am I not suppose to believe them merely because they say things you don't want to hear?
                      It does look like I have to spell it out after all. Can you give any single reason why they should be trusted? Obviously, they weren't at the courtroom trial, else this news of "Millionaire child rapists escapes justice!!!!!!!!" would have broken 4 years ago. Many news articles are also derived from other articles covering the same issue and do not engage with any primary sources directly. Not that secondary sources are necessarily inaccurate, but that primary sources are closer to the event and are therefore more likely to be more accurate. Given that we don't even know what sources the journalists are (supposedly) quoting that there was a confession, and what type of source it was, when evidence from them (an unknown times removed from the event) are juxtaposed against competing evidence from a primary source (the court sentencing order), I submit that at the very least it is more likely that the primary source is correct.

                      I have produced the sentencing order as a primacy source to show that there was unlikely any confession in the court room. Would you care to show which primary sources show that they are? If you can't show it, there's no reason why I should take the testimonies of these journalists - non-eyewitnesses, who knows how many times removed from the event - seriously. You may "hope" all you like that they are accurate for the sake of your argument, but that doesn't in anyway substantiate it.

                      Oh, and before you try again, when I present journalistic articles as evidence I don't claim that "must be taken at 100% absolute truth". When I have presented them I have been careful to prefix them with "it is reported". Unlike yourself, I am careful not to place absolute trust in anything reported.
                      Last edited by Paprika; 04-10-2014, 04:27 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Again, you claimed that my logic would entail a certain conclusion. Back this claim or retract it.
                        In other words, make an accusation and refuse to back it up. I already did that Pap, now it is your job to prove otherwise.

                        Nice strawman you've set up
                        I didn't set up any strawmen Pap, you just can't admit that your argument is very poor and all you really got is, "DUH! THIS DOCUMENT DOESN'T MENTION IT!" As though a sentencing order is suppose to mention everything and if it doesn't, it never happened! So beyond ASSuming it should, what other evidence do you have? Oh that's right, NOTHING! All you have left is a mere argument from silence because X doesn't mention it, it never happened!

                        I was very careful to argue that the lack of any mention of actual confession in the sentencing order would constitute "some evidence" that there was no actual confession, and instead of saying that it was conclusive proof. But nuance appears to be lost on you in your quest for ego preservation. By the way, can you show that all arguments from silence are always, necessarily invalid?


                        Nope, what you have argued is because X doesn't mention it, thus it never happened. So where do you get this assumption from? I'm finding a few sources that were saying that he took a lie detector test, before the plea deal, and upon failing it; he confessed to his crime to the investigators and said that he needed 'help'. I have also discovered that he was sentenced, by the judge, to 8 years in prison and she decided to suspend his sentence and gave him 8 years probation instead. So you were wrong on many many counts again. Not only does it appear that he made a confession, but it also appears he was indeed sentenced to jail and managed to get out of it because he 'wouldn't fair well in prison'.

                        Silence can be evidence. In this case, if he had made an actual confession, we would expect with high probability that the judge would have noted it as an important factor in deliberation of the sentence, and that it would be in the sentencing order. Since it is not in the sentencing order, the absence is evidence that such a notable event in the legal proceedings did not happen - again, I do not say conclusive evidence.
                        In other words, you ASSUME, without any sort of evidence, at all, that X document has to mention the event happened or else you'll assert it never happened. What sort of evidence, beyond an unbacked and unproved assumption, do you have to support this view with? Anything? I would think that the goal of a sentencing order would be to say what the sentence was, not to tell every little detail of the case in question. If anybody wanted to know more, I'm sure the court transcripts would have been there too. My point? You don't have a thing to prove your case beyond a mere argument from silence, based upon a single court document, that you just assume, without evidence, should mention every detail.

                        It does look like I have to spell it out after all. Can you give any single reason why they should be trusted? Obviously, they weren't at the courtroom trial, else this news of "Millionaire child rapists escapes justice!!!!!!!!" would have broken 4 years ago. Many news articles are also derived from other articles covering the same issue and do not engage with any primary sources directly. Not that secondary sources are necessarily inaccurate, but that primary sources are closer to the event and are therefore more likely to be more accurate. Given that we don't even know what sources the journalists are (supposedly) quoting that there was a confession, and what type of source it was, when evidence from them (an unknown times removed from the event) are juxtaposed against competing evidence from a primary source (the court sentencing order), I submit that at the very least it is more likely that the primary source is correct.
                        So yet again, an assertion that it should have 'broke 4 years ago' is all you can produce. Why? Plenty of stuff doesn't often break for years and years for one reason or another. What sort of evidence, beyond you just saying so, do you have to make your case? Anything at all? Bottom line is, all you got is a pile of assertions and assumptions that you can't prove, so you attempt to switch around burdens of proof because YOU are making the claim that the confession never happened, so it is your burden to show that it didn't happen. Thus far, you have nothing, but doing the very things you accuse me of. Your hypocrisy and inability to admit you're wrong seems to shine though rather well. So beyond an argument from silence, based by assertions and assumptions, what more can you produce? Let me guess... nothing?

                        I have produced the sentencing order as a primacy source to show that there was unlikely any confession in the court room. Would you care to show which primary sources show that they are? If you can't show it, there's no reason why I should take the testimonies of these journalists - non-eyewitnesses, who knows how many times removed from the event - seriously. You may "hope" all you like that they are accurate for the sake of your argument, but that doesn't in anyway substantiate it.
                        Yep, assumption all the way, is all you got left. Poor pap, so full of pride and just incapable of making his case beyond assertions, assumptions, and arguments from silence. Nice, now in pap word, it appears a lack of evidence is merely evidence that pap is right. Gosh, and I'm the one with the pride issues. Keep digging, China is not far away!

                        Oh, and before you try again, when I present journalistic articles as evidence I don't claim that "must be taken at 100% absolute truth". When I have presented them I have been careful to prefix them with "it is reported". Unlike yourself, I am careful not to place absolute trust in anything reported.


                        I didn't place absolute trust in anything reported either. That is your pile of burning straw. Multiple articles though, that keep saying the same things, and nothing to prove otherwise, is what I'm going off from. Now try again sweety and this time, stop looking in the mirror.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • LPOT: It's no point for me to carry on this discussion with you, as you are more interested in attacking than in the issue.

                          You may have the last word.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            LPOT: It's no point for me to carry on this discussion with you, as you are more interested in attacking than in the issue.

                            You may have the last word.
                            Whatever you want to tell yourself to make you feel better. Next time you jump down my throat though, you better have all the facts before you make assertions you can't back up.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            160 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            400 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            114 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            198 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            379 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X