Man rapes toddler, gets no jail time

[thefamegangsta 100]

The judicial system in this country is so broken and backwards it's horrifying to watch. 

[666 others 1,856]

Even if the toddler's family wants to forgive him (for whatever reasons I cannot even fathom ) isn't it the State's responsibility to press charges and punish the rapist? I mean for all we know he or some influential ally of him might have threatened the family into issuing that press release.

[Lassex 1,169]

3 hours ago, JustLikeHoney said:

That guy looks super mentally handicapped. Does anyone have the details? Was he set free because of his handicap? If not, the Judge needs to be looked at real closely and removed from his or her position.

This kinda shît infuriates me. How the hell does this happen.

Exactly, it must have something to do with his mental health. Still can't understand the family and the judge, even if the rapist had mental issues... 

[Red Velvet 10,988]

Is it just me or does that guy looks like Jocelyn Wildenstein after surgery!?

 

and of course, f*** you!

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

I would put him 6 feet under!  The jail or the cemetery, take your pick?!  😡😡😡

 

[Nicole 1,809]

He received a suspended sentence with supervised release (basically good behaviour bond) conditions. This means that in court, he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, but it has been suspended on the conditions provided by the judge. These conditions included being under 5 years of probation, undergo a compulsory sex offender treatment program, supply his DNA for profiling and a lifetime registration on the sex offender registry. The judge also said he is to be supervised for life. If any of these conditions are breached, the judge reserved the right to send him to jail to serve his time. While the title may be literal in the fact that he is not going to jail right now, but it is a little bit misleading when considering the court process. 

To everyone asking: the parents of the child said that the reason they were against incarceration is because they would rather him get adequate treatment instead, something we should all know is not something readily available in prison. Prison is not the prime environment if the goal was to rehabilitate or address mental health issues. (stated here: http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/kraigen-grooms-photos-toddler-child-rape-video-prison-sentence-judge-myron-gookin-petition/ )

The following considerations were made in deciding Grooms' sentence (as per the statement from the court case):

- Consideration for the wishes of the victims family, who would rather him receive treatment 

- Age at time of offence. The state of Iowa have eliminated mandatory sentenced for juveniles. Additionally, due to the overcrowdness of prisons in Iowa, prisoners receive statutory earned time for every 1.2 days spent in prison. He had already spend 860 days in prison prior to his trial, giving him 1032 days of credit. If he had been sentenced, he would have been on parole shortly after anyway

- Key witnesses were unwilling or unable to testify 

- His age and opportunities for rehabilitation. Research indicates that 90% of young offenders who are treated will not reoffend. Young offenders who serve significant prison terms tend to commit more serious offences after they are released. Long term imprisonment rather than probation would have posed him as a greater risk to the community

To be clear, I am not condoning his actions nor the decision of the judge to take the families wishes so directly into account. However, as a student in both the social work and criminology field, I am basically against imprisonment for anything that is not violent or is more appropriate to be addressed via mental health treatment means and other punishments other than incarceration. I think it was a good move to favour mental health/rehabilitation over incarceration - especially considering the empirical research that favourites the former, and it's important to note I said incarceration, and not punishment - he is being punished everyday for rest of his life. Constant supervision, having to tick the "have you ever committed a crime against a child", being unable to work in various occupations around minors, being unable to go to certain places due to minors being there, disclosing his status to future significant others, employers, social isolation from communities who are notified of his residence. 

In a perfect world, the defendant would be able to receive both mental health treatment and appropriate punishment in a jail facility, but unfortunately that is not the case and you cannot deny the negative effects of prison, especially in regards to recidivism. 

[The Surrealist 27,470]

2 minutes ago, Nicole said:

He received a suspended sentence with supervised release (basically good behaviour bond) conditions. This means that in court, he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, but it has been suspended on the conditions provided by the judge. These conditions included being under 5 years of probation, undergo a compulsory sex offender treatment program, supply his DNA for profiling and a lifetime registration on the sex offender registry. The judge also said he is to be supervised for life. If any of these conditions are breached, the judge reserved the right to send him to jail to serve his time. While the title may be literal in the fact that he is not going to jail right now, but it is a little bit misleading when considering the court process. 

To everyone asking: the parents of the child said that the reason they were against incarceration is because they would rather him get adequate treatment instead, something we should all know is not something readily available in prison. Prison is not the prime environment if the goal was to rehabilitate or address mental health issues. (stated here: http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/kraigen-grooms-photos-toddler-child-rape-video-prison-sentence-judge-myron-gookin-petition/ )

The following considerations were made in deciding Grooms' sentence (as per the statement from the court case):

- Consideration for the wishes of the victims family, who would rather him receive treatment 

- Age at time of offence. The state of Iowa have eliminated mandatory sentenced for juveniles. Additionally, due to the overcrowdness of prisons in Iowa, prisoners receive statutory earned time for every 1.2 days spent in prison. He had already spend 860 days in prison prior to his trial, giving him 1032 days of credit. If he had been sentenced, he would have been on parole shortly after anyway

- Key witnesses were unwilling or unable to testify 

- His age and opportunities for rehabilitation. Research indicates that 90% of young offenders who are treated will not reoffend. Young offenders who serve significant prison terms tend to commit more serious offences after they are released. Long term imprisonment rather than probation would have posed him as a greater risk to the community

To be clear, I am not condoning his actions nor the decision of the judge to take the families wishes so directly into account. However, as a student in both the social work and criminology field, I am basically against imprisonment for anything that is not violent or is more appropriate to be addressed via mental health treatment means and other punishments other than incarceration. I think it was a good move to favour mental health/rehabilitation over incarceration - especially considering the empirical research that favourites the former, and it's important to note I said incarceration, and not punishment - he is being punished everyday for rest of his life. Constant supervision, having to tick the "have you ever committed a crime against a child", being unable to work in various occupations around minors, being unable to go to certain places due to minors being there, disclosing his status to future significant others, employers, social isolation from communities who are notified of his residence. 

In a perfect world, the defendant would be able to receive both mental health treatment and appropriate punishment in a jail facility, but unfortunately that is not the case and you cannot deny the negative effects of prison, especially in regards to recidivism. 

This.

Yeah, he is a horrible guy but he looks mentally disabled and nobody deserves to die. If he in fact is mentally disabled he should be in a psychiatry.

I still don't understand the parents, though. It's hard for me fathom.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

18 minutes ago, Nicole said:

In a perfect world, the defendant would be able to receive both mental health treatment and appropriate punishment in a jail facility, but unfortunately that is not the case and you cannot deny the negative effects of prison, especially in regards to recidivism. 

Wow. You really opened my eyes on this. I had kind of always known some of these details, but never put them together. There's no proof that the family knew this, but I think a victim or their relatives that actually cared about the wellbeing of the person responsible for whatever crime might make a similar in this specific circumstance. It makes sense to me now. Thanks for the eloquent response  Our prison system IS ****ed upand its not just because of the population in prisons, its about the fact that we have forgotten the importance of rehabilitation as part of the punishment process  

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

29 minutes ago, Nicole said:

He received a suspended sentence with supervised release (basically good behaviour bond) conditions. This means that in court, he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, but it has been suspended on the conditions provided by the judge. These conditions included being under 5 years of probation, undergo a compulsory sex offender treatment program, supply his DNA for profiling and a lifetime registration on the sex offender registry. The judge also said he is to be supervised for life. If any of these conditions are breached, the judge reserved the right to send him to jail to serve his time. While the title may be literal in the fact that he is not going to jail right now, but it is a little bit misleading when considering the court process. 

To everyone asking: the parents of the child said that the reason they were against incarceration is because they would rather him get adequate treatment instead, something we should all know is not something readily available in prison. Prison is not the prime environment if the goal was to rehabilitate or address mental health issues. (stated here: http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/kraigen-grooms-photos-toddler-child-rape-video-prison-sentence-judge-myron-gookin-petition/ )

The following considerations were made in deciding Grooms' sentence (as per the statement from the court case):

- Consideration for the wishes of the victims family, who would rather him receive treatment 

- Age at time of offence. The state of Iowa have eliminated mandatory sentenced for juveniles. Additionally, due to the overcrowdness of prisons in Iowa, prisoners receive statutory earned time for every 1.2 days spent in prison. He had already spend 860 days in prison prior to his trial, giving him 1032 days of credit. If he had been sentenced, he would have been on parole shortly after anyway

- Key witnesses were unwilling or unable to testify 

- His age and opportunities for rehabilitation. Research indicates that 90% of young offenders who are treated will not reoffend. Young offenders who serve significant prison terms tend to commit more serious offences after they are released. Long term imprisonment rather than probation would have posed him as a greater risk to the community

To be clear, I am not condoning his actions nor the decision of the judge to take the families wishes so directly into account. However, as a student in both the social work and criminology field, I am basically against imprisonment for anything that is not violent or is more appropriate to be addressed via mental health treatment means and other punishments other than incarceration. I think it was a good move to favour mental health/rehabilitation over incarceration - especially considering the empirical research that favourites the former, and it's important to note I said incarceration, and not punishment - he is being punished everyday for rest of his life. Constant supervision, having to tick the "have you ever committed a crime against a child", being unable to work in various occupations around minors, being unable to go to certain places due to minors being there, disclosing his status to future significant others, employers, social isolation from communities who are notified of his residence. 

In a perfect world, the defendant would be able to receive both mental health treatment and appropriate punishment in a jail facility, but unfortunately that is not the case and you cannot deny the negative effects of prison, especially in regards to recidivism. 

Is this the same treatment the 4 young adults in Chicago should receive as well??

 

[Nicole 1,809]

26 minutes ago, Sycamore said:

This.

Yeah, he is a horrible guy but he looks mentally disabled and nobody deserves to die. If he in fact is mentally disabled he should be in a psychiatry.

I still don't understand the parents, though. It's hard for me fathom.

Yeah that part confused me too. I couldn't find much more information regarding the justification of their wishes. There were parts of the statement I didn't really understand without having read the case itself. It said the victim (apparently a toddler) was not injured. And I find it difficult to believe that a toddler would not have any injuries if she was raped by an (almost) adult - I wonder if the word 'rape' (implying sexual intercourse) is being used synonymously with sexual assault. I'm not making assumptions or trying to lessen the impact of what he did - it's just a bit confusing based on the couple of articles I read that explained the evidence and the statement by the court.

Back to the parents, it is confusing. Part of me wonders if the defendant knew the child or was a close family member, perhaps the family was aware that there were mental health limitations and saw this as a final straw that realised his need for treatment. Or maybe, like myself they are simply extremely aware of the effects of prison on prisoners, particularly young people. 

10 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Wow. You really opened my eyes on this. I had kind of always known some of these details, but never put them together. There's no proof that the family knew this, but I think a victim or their relatives that actually cared about the wellbeing of the person responsible for whatever crime might make a similar in this specific circumstance. It makes sense to me now. Thanks for the eloquent response  Our prison system IS ****ed upand its not just because of the population in prisons, its about the fact that we have forgotten the importance of rehabilitation as part of the punishment process  

Thank you for reading + responding! Especially since starting my studies, I've really become a strong advocate for the positives of rehabilitation over incarceration and I'm really glad that my response has put all your thoughts together to illustrate the current state of prisons in the US (and Australia, on my part haha). 

4 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Is this the same treatment the 4 young adults in Chicago should receive as well??

 

In all honesty I do not know enough about that case to comment on it. I spent this afternoon reading various statements, articles and court excerpts to draw up my opinion on this particular case and there is still so much I don't know about it. What works for one offender may not work for another. However, I still stand by my belief that in majority of cases, there is almost always a way other than incarceration to adequately address and punish crimes committed by an individual. 

[Princess Die 1,864]

Handicapped or not, he should be at least sterilized. Disgusting ****wits like this almost always offend again. 

[Princess Die 1,864]

Aaand of course Special Snowflake Daily is defending a child rapist. What else is new? 

[Nicole 1,809]

8 minutes ago, Princess Die said:

Handicapped or not, he should be at least sterilized. Disgusting ****wits like this almost always offend again. 

 

4 minutes ago, Princess Die said:

Aaand of course Special Snowflake Daily is defending a child rapist. What else is new? 

Not one person here has condoned or defended the actions of the defendant. 99% of people here have disagreed with the judge, preferring jail time - something I assume you to also believe. However, your assumption that "****wits like this almost always offend again" is more likely to happen when offenders are locked up in a jail cell with no prospects of rehabilitation or not given access to much needed treatment for mental health issues or behavioural issues. If your concern in cases like this is re-offfending, you should be open the idea of applying empirical research from all around the world, including the U.S. that imprisonment does not work especially where treatment is needed, but rather addressing the issues surrounding the offender - whether societal, environmental or personal - provides stronger grounds for the offender to reintegrate into society as a functional member that is not likely to reoffend. 

 

[Princess Die 1,864]

15 minutes ago, Nicole said:

 

Not one person here has condoned or defended the actions of the defendant. 99% of people here have disagreed with the judge, preferring jail time - something I assume you to also believe. However, your assumption that "****wits like this almost always offend again" is more likely to happen when offenders are locked up in a jail cell with no prospects of rehabilitation or not given access to much needed treatment for mental health issues or behavioural issues. If your concern in cases like this is re-offfending, you should be open the idea of applying empirical research from all around the world, including the U.S. that imprisonment does not work especially where treatment is needed, but rather addressing the issues surrounding the offender - whether societal, environmental or personal - provides stronger grounds for the offender to reintegrate into society as a functional member that is not likely to reoffend. 

 

I apologise. I missed the part where it said he was sentenced to treatment. 

[Sepsami 21,094]

6 hours ago, Ooolong said:

If my child was raped and the rapist wasn't charged, I'd take matters into my own hands .

Hunty I'll hold ur earrings