You know what the cruelest part of the Hunger Games is? Forcing children into an arena everyone knows will take their lives away.
Fortunately, in the real world we love children and most of us can agree that children need to be protected, which is why, today, disappointment fills this post. Robert H. Richards IV was NOT convicted after admitting he raped his three-year-old daughter.
The oxford definition of prison is “a building in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial.” Raping and molesting children is illegal, so… why is prison not suitable for this rapist? According to Judge Jan Jurden, this rapist would benefit more from a Sex Offenders rehabilitation program; apparently prison deals are more appropriate for other people who need to be separated from our society, like drug addicts.
If the rapists wasn’t a rich heir, would he still be considered unfit for prison?
How is this related to media?
This guy is a rapists, by making an exemption simply because he is a wealthy, heterosexual male paints an unfortunate picture about our government: we treat people differently based on wealth and race, no matter how bad the crime may be.
If this rapists was a middle aged male of color, and wasn’t as rich as this guy, would the judge have found him “unfit” for prison too?
I would also like to bring to your attention that it is perfectly legal to create pornography that insinuates rape, that is, a father having sex with his own child or someone who is underage. Also, pornography featuring virtual adults having sex with virtual children is a thing. A legal thing, all made possible in the name of “freedom of speech.” So when such violent media is perfectly legal in our country, are we really surprised when fathers rape their daughters and get away with it? We can’t possibly expect this kind of media to exist and not wonder where the demand is coming from.