How on earth is this justice? Teen rapes toddler, puts video on line and doesn't do jail time.

[tinydancer]

Is this unreal or what? What on earth was this Judge thinking? AND he produced child porn. Aye carumba! The air is blue right now in the house.

The baby was only 12 to 18 months old.

"An Iowa man who raped a toddler on camera will serve no time in prison.

Kraigen Grooms, 19, pleaded guilty on Monday to Engaging in a Lascivious Act with a Child according to KTVO, and was given a 10-year suspended sentence by the judge and just five years of supervised release."

Iowa man 19 who sexually assaulted a toddler receives NO prison time



.
.

 

[Penelope]

That judge should not be a judge anymore. The creep, I mean disgusting animal, should of got life of hard labor.

 

[tinydancer]

That judge should not be a judge anymore. The creep, I mean disgusting animal, should of got life of hard labor.

Agreed. Apparently there's a petition at the White House website to get this Judge off the bench. This is one of those stories that make your head go thru the computer screen.

I'm still spitting bullets.

 

[OldLady]

Wonder how much money the judge just found in a suitcase in the trunk of his car.....

 

[Gracie]

The judge should be tarred and feathered...and reported on constantly. Kinda like one would do with lousy social workers that do nothing while kids die they are supposed to protect. Same with this judge.

 

[OldLady]

I wonder if the perp cut a deal and gave the feds LOTS of names of people he sent his porn to? Seems like a pretty drastic deal, but ya know, they do that shit . He must have had a gold mine of information.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Per the criminal justice classes I attended, justice in this nation depends upon:
1. Who's courtroom you're in.
2. How much money you have.
3. How good your lawyer is.
OR
Perhaps he converted to Islam and that was his initiation to prove he was a true Sunni Muslim.

 

[Penelope]

Per the criminal justice classes I attended, justice in this nation depends upon:
1. Who's courtroom you're in.
2. How much money you have.
3. How good your lawyer is.
OR
Perhaps he converted to Islam and that was his initiation to prove he was a true Sunni Muslim.

I think its 1& 2.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To me, that baby's family should sue the judge for every penny they are worth which is sadly not very many if any at all.

God bless you and the baby and its family always!!!

Holly

 

[aaronleland]

Apparently there was a lot more to the story...

Prosecutor Explains Sentence for Iowa Child Sex Assault

A prosecutor in the case of an Iowa teen who was given a suspended 10-year prison sentence for molesting a 1-year-old girl said Thursday that the teen was duped into the act by child pornographers posing online as a teenage girl.

The suspended sentence for Kraigen Grooms, 19, issued Monday has stirred outrage on social media and led to an online petition calling for an Iowa judge's removal.

But Wapellow County Attorney Gary Oldenburger said Grooms' sentence was part of a plea agreement based on a bevy of factors, including that the victim's parents refused to participate in prosecuting Grooms.

"My original intent was to send him to prison for a long time," Oldenburger said. "The girl's parents didn't want Grooms to go to prison; they wanted him to go to rehab."

Court records show that Grooms — who was 16 when the crime occurred — received a 10-year suspended sentence and five years of supervised release. He was given credit for nearly 2? years spent in a juvenile detention center and, later, adult county jail while he awaited trial. He must register as a sex offender and faces prison time if he reoffends.

Oldenburger said the toddler was not raped or physically harmed; the prosecutor told the Des Moines Register that Grooms was masturbating in the video. He also said Grooms did not know the abuse was being recorded by pornographers.

So I guess it turns out the teen didn't harm the child in any way, and had no idea there were child pornographers recording him. I'm assuming it's true since it would be easy to obtain that evidence through a computer forensics investigation. Still pretty sick on the boy's part, but certainly explains the light sentence.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Welcome to the Age of Obama.

 

[GLASNOST]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

 

[aaronleland]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

Turns out he hadn't harmed the child, and had no idea child pornographers were recording him. I'm assuming the fact that he plead guilty and had already spent two years in jail also affected the decision.

 

[Picaro]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

... and had no idea child pornographers were recording him..

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

 

[aaronleland]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

... and had no idea child pornographers were recording him..

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

Why would you cut out the rest of my quote? All of it would have affected their decision.

 

[GLASNOST]

Turns out he hadn't harmed the child, and had no idea child pornographers were recording him. I'm assuming the fact that he plead guilty and had already spent two years in jail also affected the decision.

I'm trying to see how him not knowing he was being filmed makes his crime any less grave.

 

[aaronleland]

Turns out he hadn't harmed the child, and had no idea child pornographers were recording him. I'm assuming the fact that he plead guilty and had already spent two years in jail also affected the decision.

I'm trying to see how him not knowing he was being filmed makes his crime any less grave.

I'm assuming the fact that he never actually did anything with the child was the major factor in their decision. In the end it sounds like they only charged him for masturbating in front of the child. That and the fact that he had already spent two years in jail and plead guilty I'm not sure how harsh of a sentence they could have thrown at him. Depends on the laws in that state.

 

[Picaro]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

... and had no idea child pornographers were recording him..

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

Why would you cut out the rest of my quote? All of it would have affected their decision.

Because it's the most ridiculous 'rationalization' of this degenerate's actions.

 

[aaronleland]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

... and had no idea child pornographers were recording him..

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

Why would you cut out the rest of my quote? All of it would have affected their decision.

Because it's the most ridiculous 'rationalization' of this degenerate's actions.

The media has been reporting all day that he raped a toddler and recorded it for a child pornography ring. Turns out he masturbated in front of a child, didn't tape it and wasn't aware of any child pornography ring. If you can't see a HUGE difference how that would affect a sentencing decision then you haven't the slightest idea how our courts work.

 

[Picaro]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

... and had no idea child pornographers were recording him..

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

Why would you cut out the rest of my quote? All of it would have affected their decision.

Because it's the most ridiculous 'rationalization' of this degenerate's actions.

The media has been reporting all day that he raped a toddler and recorded it for a child pornography ring. Turns out he masturbated in front of a child, didn't tape it and wasn't aware of any child pornography ring. If you can't see a HUGE difference how that would affect a sentencing decision then you haven't the slightest idea how our courts work.

Like I said, your 'rationalization' is just ridiculous, and your inability to recognize that makes it clear you shouldn't be allowed around children either.