Man molests mentally challenged girl from age 13 to 16, gets suspended sentence

[The Straight Story]

Suspended Sentence For East Hartford Man Convicted Of Sexual Assault

HARTFORD — - An East Hartford man whose trial on charges that he sexually assaulted a mentally challenged girl was to begin later this month was convicted of reduced charges Wednesday in Superior Court.

Shaun Campbell, 21, who faced a single count of first-degree assault, pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to three counts of coercion.

He admitted to Superior Court Judge David P. Gold that he induced the girl, beginning when she was 12 or 13 and until she was 16, to have sex with him by making her fear he'd commit a crime against her. The abuse came to light when the girl told a counselor at East Hartford High School about it.

With an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt, but concedes that the state has enough evidence to win a conviction.

Jury selection for Campbell's trial began Tuesday, and three jurors had been picked. As part of the plea bargain, Campbell will not go to prison. Should he violate the terms of his probation, though, he could serve all or part of a three-year suspended prison sentence.

http://www.courant.com/community/east-hartford/hc-east-hartford-plea-0903.artsep03,0,6480136.story

[redqueen]

1. Why are judges so lenient with these kinds of criminals?

*sigh*

[paulsby]

30. not really valid

since he plead to a lesser charge under an Alford plea, it's likely this was a PROSECUTOR's office decision to let him plea under Alford to a lesser offense because there was a high likelihood they could not win the case OR there were concerns about having the girl testify (which is often the case when they are mentally challenged).

iow, there is an excellent chance this was based on tactics and evidence, not leniency.

since he can't plea ALford to ANYTHING except the highest charge WITHOUT prosecutor pre-approval

[abumbyanyothername]

33. I agree that this is not the judge

but it may be a future judge since many of them come out of the prosecutor's office.

[redqueen]

34. It's always something, isn't it?

Bet there's a good reason for this, too.

[BlooInBloo]

43. There's a difference between a justification and an explanation...

The "why" question, however, is ambiguous on which is desired.

[quiller4]

35. The prosecutor probably reduced the charges because s/he had a

difficult case to prove. If her interviewed the witness and she didn't handle the interview well, if there was no physical evidence, I can see the prosecutor negotiating a deal like that to keep the pertrator in some monitored situation rather than risk losing completely in court and havin the perp free to seek other victims at will.

[paulsby]

37. yes, that's my point

i deal with prosecutors all the time. it's a matter of tactics, game theory, and ethics.

there are PLENTY of examples of judges being too lenient with sex offenders. this is not one of them, i think we agree

[kiranon]

50. So its fair game if your victim is mentally challenged?

Yes, it is difficult but the fact that the girl is mentally challenged carries a lot of weight for the young man to suffer more consequences than this. Just my opinion. Otherwise, it is open season on children who are developmentally delayed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. They need a strong chain of evidence

because a victim with disabilities does not make a good witness.

So this could be due to a sloppy investigation more than anything else.

[Skittles]

48. .

[maglatinavi]

2. suspended sentence

Shame, shame, shame.

[Gman2]

3. Likely, to protect the girl, and she would be a problematic witness.

[enlightenment]

4. If the man admitted it, why is it so important to have the girl

testify?

I really don't understand the American judicial system . . .

[FreakinDJ]

5. He was a minor when it happened

thats possibly why

[Gman2]

6. Maybe he was mum, till they gave him the deal.

[Kaleva]

39. He didn't admit it.

What he did admit to was that the state had enough evidence to convict but he himself did not plead guilty.

[Liquorice]

23. A suspended sentence doesn't protect that girl

or the girls who will surely be his victims now that he is free.

[quiller4]

36. Part of the suspended sentence included ankle monitor and

weekly reporting to probation officer.

[Webster Green]

7. He's lucky he didn't have a bag of pot in his possession.

This is absurd! :crazy:

[zonkers]

8. Here is is photo of the guy.

[alphafemale]

12. From this p[icture I'd guess he has some development issues as while.

Either that or they have him drugged there.

[zonkers]

13. can't really tell from one pic. But I do think it is a good thing for stories like this to

include a picture. Not just to shame the individual but to maybe prevent it from happening again.

[I Have A Dream]

14. This person looks a lot older than 21. nt

[JI7]

28. he looks way older than 21, are you sure that's him ?

[chollybocker]

46. There's the reason right there.

He's leniently white.

[Louisiana1976]

51. Well said! If he were poor and of color he'd be locked up and the key thrown away.

[Deja Q]

9. He should be suspended

by a noose.

[tuckessee]

10. Jails are already full of druggies serving mandatory sentences.

No room for molesters, rapists, murderers and violent robbers.

A girl I knew from high school is getting life in prison with a million dollar fine for simple meth possesion/manufacture/sale. She'll take the place of someone like Gorrido or Campbell who'll be free to walk the streets.

[aikoaiko]

11. Based on the article, it hardly seems right.

Perhaps the prosecutor didn't want to put the girl with a disability through the stress of trial.

[Liberal_in_LA]

15. horrible

[omega minimo]

16. Do you have to continuously drag shitty stories in here?

[The Straight Story]

18. Yes, Yes I do. (nt)

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

25. Do you have to continuously insult others who are simply contributing to the site?

If you don't want to read the article, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to read anything TTS is posting here. But feel free to hurl insults to your heart's content. And then scream bloody murder when somebody brings up your new-agey bullshit. That's not hypocritical at all.

[omega minimo]

27. Do you need help finding trashy, ugly stories to read?

That's not "simply contributing to the site." It's not contributing at all. It's cut and paste of ugly shit that clogs up the GD title page.

Asking the question is not "hurling insults." The OP acknowledged that's what they're doing.

YOU are hurling insults, or trying to. That's totally hypocritical.

[EOTE]

29. You are not the sole arbiter of what is to be posted on GD.

Perhaps you think that only happy stories are allowed to be posted here? Or perhaps stories that reaffirm your belief in indigo children or other new agey bullshit? You started with the insults on your first post deriding TTS for posting a news article in a news forum. Apparently incoherant blather on majestic toddlers who are wise beyond their years is acceptable while genuine news articles are not.

[omega minimo]

32. You have reading comprehension problems.

[EOTE]

38. You live in a fantasy world.

And you also need to look up the definition of irony.

[omega minimo]

42. Your meanness hurts only you

[EOTE]

49. Abutebaris modo subjunctivo denuo

Astra non mentiuntur, sed astrologi bene mentiuntur de astris.

Audio, video, disco.

[omega minimo]

53. EOTEBS

ad infinitum

[Odin2005]

40. IMO people need to see how many of these monsters get off easy.

:cry:

[MadMaddie]

17. We will be reading about this guy in the future

Whether he has the IQ or not he knows he got away with doing something wrong. Next time though it will be a child or a murder.

I think we are going to have to get movements going in each individual state to change these laws and the drug laws.

[RidinMyDonkey]

20. WTF!

If anyone ever deserved to be in prison... Seriously... wtf!

[PSzymeczek]

47. In prison?

IMO, this guy deserves to be UNDER the prison.

[MoonRiver]

21. Unfortunately,

I think this reflects the bias against the cognitively impaired in our society. Yes, it does exists. They are still (unconsciously?) considered less than human. Whatever happens to them is just seen to warrant a slap on the wrist. Heck, animal torturer Mike Vick got more jail time than this creep. :mad:

[KamaAina]

41. You got it

In Texas, several employees of an institution for people with cognitive disabilities were caught forcing the residents to fight one another, and taking pictures of it on someone's cell phone.

All but one got off scot-free, 'cause there was some niggling question about whether the cell phone was admissible as evidence. In Texas. :eyes:

[Mimosa]

24. We need to know what's happening

That man has to be older than 21. Looks 31 .

Druggies need treatment not jail. Sex offenders don't seem to be curable. Children and women need protection from them. And yes we do need to know when the judges and legal system fail to protect us.

[peacebaby3]

26. Hmmm... there's something fishy about this.

Not only did the prosecution offer a deal, but they gave him an Alford plea which means he doesn't even admit guilt. This is right when it is going to trial and a partial jury has already been selected. I'd bet money that some part of the prosecution had a big hole in it or something else behind the scene went on that the public will never know. They gave some excuse about it going on for 2 years so this was a way to deal with it, but they were already picking a jury so that makes no sense. The prosecution wouldn't just let this one go if they didn't have a problem that they were worried they couldn't overcome in court.

[Odin2005]

31. OMFG, my disabled friend's rapist got off on reduced charges, as well. This pisses me off!

In my friend's case the defense lawyer assassinated her character, winning over some idiots in the jury that though blaming the victim is OK.

:cry: :grr:

[BlooInBloo]

44. Aargh. There was a lady on Olbermann (if I recall the show correctly) who was up in arms...

over the treatment of female crime victims by our legal system. It was good to see the proper amount of outrage for a change.

[Tim01]

45. Our legal system is a crap shoot. But the richer you are, the better your odds. nt