The sexual revolution begun in the 1960’s was initially supposedly about consenting adults doing whatever they wished to do in the bedroom. 

At the time, few suspected the movement would morph from Hugh Hefner’s and Helen Gurley (Cosmo Girl) Brown’s advocacy for free sexual encounters between men and women.  Few believed sexual “freedom” would mean more than a rapid increase in a playboy and playgirl mentality.

But morph it did, with one domino after another falling in rapid succession.  Sexual freedom began to be redefined in ways formerly not contemplated at the beginning of the sexual revolution, with the LGBT movement leading the way for decriminalizing homosexual behavior. 

The last domino to fall has been the prohibition against sexual encounters with the very young. Try as they may, organizations such as NAMBLA, which openly supports sexual encounters between adult men and teenage or prepubescent boys, have never been accepted by mainstream America.  That is because by and large, Americans have a healthy revulsion toward pedophiles and pederasts, particularly when the abuser is a parent.

The consequence of the nearly universal revulsion toward pedophilia, particularly when incestuous, is that the law has supported the prohibition against sex with underage children.  Sex offenders routinely receive lengthy prison sentences and then remain on sex offender lists for years.  

Until now.

In a case receiving virtually no in depth analysis, a wealthy Delaware DuPont heir accused of raping his three-year-old daughter and molesting his nineteen- month-old son has recently received probation rather than a prison sentence from a Delaware judge.

Judge Jan Jurden, who has since been assigned a security detail because of public outrage over her decision, stated that the accused rapist, Robert H. Richards IV, “would not fare well” in a prison atmosphere, so she recommended probation.   His prison sentence was waived.

This, in spite of the fact Richards admitted the crime after being confronted by his now ex-wife.  According to Cris Barrish of The News Journal, Delaware’s leading newspaper, apparently Richards’ daughter spoke to her grandmother, Donna Burg, reporting that her father told her the abuse was “our little secret” but that she didn’t want “my daddy touching me anymore.” The grandmother then told the girl’s mother, who filed charges.

The eventual result: Jurden gave Richards an eight year prison term, but suspended all the time in prison, substituting probation instead. 

Jurden does not always give offenders such light treatment.  In 2006, she ordered a man who twice exposed himself to a 10-year-old girl at his workplace to wear a T-shirt emblazoned with the words, "I am a registered sex offender" in bold letters for twenty-two months -- after serving a 60 day jail sentence.

Evidently, the case was also disregarded by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, whose spokesman Jason Miller said the Vice President’s son, who has made the prosecution of child predators is a top priority for his office, did not know about the case.

The leniency of the Jurden decision will certainly have repercussions for Delaware and elsewhere.

Jane Agni, who writes satirical pieces for the National Report, sarcastically notes Judge Jurden’s decision has encouraged sex offenders to move to Delaware: 

“Ever since Judge Jan Jurden’s light-hearted sentencing of Robert H. Richards IV on charges of 4th degree sexual assault, pedophiles everywhere have moved to the state in droves, hoping for similar treatment should they be caught committing indecent acts on their underage victims.

“Members of NAMBLA are calling Jurden a hero, and something of a patron saint of pedophiles everywhere. They applaud her for what they believe to be a courageous step forward in decriminalizing sex between adults and children.”

While Agni is writing in the style of The Onion, she has a valid point.  Citizens of Delaware just may find their state facing an increase in pedophiles hoping for an appearance before the compassionate and tender-hearted Judge Jurden, should they be caught raping small victims.

More seriously, angry Delawareans gathered Monday, April 7 to protest the judge’s decision, holding a “Remove Judge Jan Jurden Rally” in front of Attorney General Biden’s offices in Wilmington. Enraged citizens are also petitioning for her removal from office.

The problem is that Jurden’s clemency weakens children’s protection from pedophiles, as it sets a precedent establishing extreme leniency for sexual predators. 

Jurden’s decision is also indicative of the Left’s preoccupation with the perpetrators of crime rather than with their victims.  Obsessed with “rehabilitation” of criminals; determined to uncover and bring out the natural good in every perpetrator of crime; refusing to admit the dark side of human beings is beyond the abilities of the high priests of psychiatry to fathom, much less to effectively address, the liberal manipulation of the legal system turns justice on its head. Liberals are obsessed with trying to “help” rather than to punish the worst members of society. 

The softness of the sort exhibited by Judge Jurden toward hardened sex criminals like Richards has the potential to affect attitudes toward sex crimes such as human trafficking and child prostitution, both of which may be regarded less seriously.

Parents may have even more cause to worry about pedophiles.  Jurden was obviously not moved by the fact Richards violated his own daughter, a mere baby of three years.  The child is scarcely mentioned, much less taken seriously.  Her testimony is considered unreliable, so is of little consequence. This is to say nothing of Richard’s baby son, who allegedly also was sexually molested. 

Where is the justice for the traumatized children?  Who will uphold the law on their behalf?  Protection for children will be considerably weakened if Jurden’s decision establishes a new way of dealing with predators who target the “least of these,” the most innocent among us.

Frankly, Judge Jurden should be removed from the bench.