Well, according to the end of the article:
Quote:
Kirk says the argument that Richards would not do well in prison could have been the recommendation of probation or parole officers. However, he said, "common sense suggests that it came from defense counsel."
As for the prosecutor's side, the attorney general's spokesman gave CNN a written statement.
"Cases of child sexual abuse are extremely complicated and difficult," it read. The objective is to "secure justice in every case to the best of its ability given the unique facts and circumstances presented in each case -- sometimes that results in a resolution that is less than what prosecutors would want," the statement read.
"In this particular case, the facts and circumstances made it unlikely that a conviction could be secured at trial. ...This resolution protected the victim and imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others."
That certainly paints it in a different light. But I'm not sure how that comment meshes with the fact that he supposedly was already sentenced to 8 years in prison. I could see this being part of a plea deal, but why wouldn't the deal be for 8 years on probation in the first place, instead of having to suspend part of his sentence?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
