Pastor convincted of repeatedly raping his adopted daughter gets off light for being Christian

Reactions
746 342 15
#2
He's still getting 12 years in prison for it. Not making light of it, but prison is prison. And I gotta think there are going to be those behind the walls who aren't going to be charitable towards a minister who's a rapist.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,088 565 6
#3
He's still getting 12 years in prison for it. Not making light of it, but prison is prison. And I gotta think there are going to be those behind the walls who aren't going to be charitable towards a minister who's a rapist.
The prosecution was seeking 72 years. He got off light.
 
Reactions
2,718 789 25
#4
Nowhere near the first "but the judge reduced his sentence because he was a good Christian" story I've heard over the last few months, unfortunately.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
479 88 1
#5
The prosecution was seeking 72 years. He got off light.
According to the article, that's because the prosecution pushed for maximum sentencing for each count, which totals 72 years. The article also states that each charge in the case with the exception of sexual battery--which is a minimum of 3 years---only requires a minimum of probation.

Also, the only reference to the judge being lenient because he was Christian came from a random tweet about the decision. The article didn't quote the judge either way on that issue, only that:

David Richards had no previous criminal record, and a pre-sentencing report deemed him a good candidate for rehabilitation.
Ultimately, Sword said the call for a 72-year prison term was "well beyond a just result."
So I'm curious if that was an actual stated reason by the judge, or simply assumption due to the faith of the defendant.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,088 565 6
#6
So I'm curious if that was an actual stated reason by the judge, or simply assumption due to the faith of the defendant.
I read a bunch of articles on the issue, some of those quoted the judge as saying that he was being lenient because of the good work that the rapist had done in the community.
 
Reactions
361 76 1
#7
According to the article, that's because the prosecution pushed for maximum sentencing for each count, which totals 72 years. The article also states that each charge in the case with the exception of sexual battery--which is a minimum of 3 years---only requires a minimum of probation.
The guy was repeatedly raping his adoptive daughter for 2 years. Damn right the prosecution was pushing for maximum sentencing.

Also sexual battery was the only charge he faced that requires a jail sentence if convicted? Rape doesn't carry a mandatory jail sentence in Colorado? What the fuck!?
 
Reactions
479 88 1
#8
The guy was repeatedly raping his adoptive daughter for 2 years. Damn right the prosecution was pushing for maximum sentencing.

Also sexual battery was the only charge he faced that requires a jail sentence if convicted? Rape doesn't carry a mandatory jail sentence in Colorado? What the fuck!?
Tennessee actually. The petition was started by a woman in Colorado but I think the whole thing went down in Knox county.

Let's see:
nine felony counts including rape, incest and sexual battery by authority figure
most of the charges Richards was convicted of, including rape, are punishable by probation alone under state law
But that doesn't make any sense. I've looked up TN statues and sentencing for felonies, and as far as I could see, across multiple sources, no felony charge is punishable by probation alone. Rape is considered a class B felony, incest and sexual battery by authority figure are both Class C.

Here's a handy chart:

sentencing.png
 
Reactions
746 342 15
#9
Essentially he got the max based upon no priors. Only problem is that he's eligible for parole in about four years.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,542 1,190 23
#10
Man, it's a good thing his victim is going to be fine both physically and mentally before that guy gets out of jail and can start living him fine christian life again.

Oh, wait...
 
Reactions
746 342 15
#11
Dude is going to have the SO label on his record for the rest of his life. Might as well put a scarlet A on his shirt.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
#12
Essentially he got the max based upon no priors. Only problem is that he's eligible for parole in about four years.
I think the 14 is when he's first eligible for parole. Still sounds like a light sentence for repeated rape.

Edit: 9 years until he is eligible for parole.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
407 178 0
#13
He's now both a felon and a registered sex offender (found him listed after 10s of googling) so there's the consolation prize of a lifetime of punishment as part of two under-classes.
 
Reactions
1,355 599 31
#14
Dude is going to have the SO label on his record for the rest of his life. Might as well put a scarlet A on his shirt.
I feel like he can just say it's fake and anti-Christian persecution and his congregation will eat that shit up.
 
Reactions
312 100 0
#15
I'm not sure about the case in hand, but I'll use it to posit a thought I've been having.

Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Our current Government has decided that it's okay to deny services to others based on your religion (not treating trans individuals for medical conditions, for example). I'm sure this will eventually include elected officials as well, like that lovely lady who refused to give the gay couple a completely legal marriage certificate based on her religious beliefs.

Given that, is there an argument to be made that the only way to guarantee continued freedom of religion is to ensure that no elected official subscribe to any particular religion, and that only agnostic individuals be allowed to hold office? (It would never get through obviously, but I like the mental exercise of it.)
 
Reactions
882 351 14
#16
I'm not sure about the case in hand, but I'll use it to posit a thought I've been having.

Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Our current Government has decided that it's okay to deny services to others based on your religion (not treating trans individuals for medical conditions, for example). I'm sure this will eventually include elected officials as well, like that lovely lady who refused to give the gay couple a completely legal marriage certificate based on her religious beliefs.

Given that, is there an argument to be made that the only way to guarantee continued freedom of religion is to ensure that no elected official subscribe to any particular religion, and that only agnostic individuals be allowed to hold office? (It would never get through obviously, but I like the mental exercise of it.)
That's the French approach - obligated laïcité. Anyone working for the government has to be completely "neutral". No crucifix around your neck, no turban, no headscarf, no rainbow t-shirts, whatever. It keeps everything neutral, at the cost of making certain groups much less likely to apply...And of course, since headscarves etc are much more noticeable than a small cross, Muslims still consider it discrimination. A Christian can work without wearing a cross; a muslim female isn't allowed to leave the house and be nude.
 
Reactions
506 263 2
#17
Man, it's a good thing his victim is going to be fine both physically and mentally before that guy gets out of jail and can start living him fine christian life again.

Oh, wait...
Exactly, 12 years is way too easy. Raping by itself should be 15-20 yrs then add that it was a child should be another 15-20 then add that it was his adopted child which should be another 15-20. So, that 70 yr mark sound about right to me. He should die in prison. God can forgive him while he rots in his cell. Fuck this injustice bullshit. Let's keep putting away "dangerous" pot dealers for decades, but go light on the rapists.:mad:
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,088 565 6
#18
Dude is going to have the SO label on his record for the rest of his life. Might as well put a scarlet A on his shirt.
I feel like he can just say it's fake and anti-Christian persecution and his congregation will eat that shit up.
IIRC, at least 30 people from his congregation were there supporting him, saying that they didn't believe he could so something like this. I think Blots might be right.
 
Reactions
1,406 272 6
#19
That's the French approach - obligated laïcité. Anyone working for the government has to be completely "neutral". No crucifix around your neck, no turban, no headscarf, no rainbow t-shirts, whatever. It keeps everything neutral, at the cost of making certain groups much less likely to apply...And of course, since headscarves etc are much more noticeable than a small cross, Muslims still consider it discrimination. A Christian can work without wearing a cross; a muslim female isn't allowed to leave the house and be nude.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,088 565 6
#20
Given that, is there an argument to be made that the only way to guarantee continued freedom of religion is to ensure that no elected official subscribe to any particular religion, and that only agnostic individuals be allowed to hold office? (It would never get through obviously, but I like the mental exercise of it.)
The problem with this is how to define religion as compared to any other ideology. Is veganism a religion? What about social darwinism? How strongly does someone have to Beliebe in Justin Bieber before that counts as their religion? Is being an atheist still neutral enough, or do they still have to intellectually permit the possibility that a god might exist? If they don't believe that the universe was created, but believe that beings could ascend to god-like powers, like the Q in Star Trek, does that still count as atheist? How fervently can someone be an environmentalist before it's a religion? Does saying "mother earth" immediately rule them out as agnostic? What if they believe that humanity should wipe itself out to save the planet, but from a purely non-supernatural, rational empiricisism based ethical framework? Can they still hold office if they believe that any action that furthers humanity's presence in the universe is fundamentally unethical?
 
Reactions
682 255 4
#21
The problem with this is how to define religion as compared to any other ideology. Is veganism a religion? What about social darwinism? How strongly does someone have to Beliebe in Justin Bieber before that counts as their religion? Is being an atheist still neutral enough, or do they still have to intellectually permit the possibility that a god might exist? If they don't believe that the universe was created, but believe that beings could ascend to god-like powers, like the Q in Star Trek, does that still count as atheist? How fervently can someone be an environmentalist before it's a religion? Does saying "mother earth" immediately rule them out as agnostic? What if they believe that humanity should wipe itself out to save the planet, but from a purely non-supernatural, rational empiricisism based ethical framework? Can they still hold office if they believe that any action that furthers humanity's presence in the universe is fundamentally unethical?
Yes. Yes. On a scale of 1 to 10, 7. No. If so, then I couldn't serve. No. Right up to the point they drink their own (hopefully recycled) urine. No. That's a better plan than Thanos had. No.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
#22
Yes. Yes. On a scale of 1 to 10, 7. No. If so, then I couldn't serve. No. Right up to the point they drink their own (hopefully recycled) urine. No. That's a better plan than Thanos had. No.
...and still a better love story than Twilight.

(I haven't had a chance to use that in a while.)
 
Top