IA: Supreme Court upholds prison sex offender treatment process

Source: radioiowa.com 11/24/21

The Iowa Supreme Court rules against a group of inmates at the Newton prison who said their constitutional rights were violated by a delay in getting sex offender treatment need to be considered for parole.

The ruling says the Iowa Department of Corrections has not postponed treatment in order to delay parole. It says it is a numbers problem where there are more male sex offenders in Iowa’s prison system than spots available for treatment.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is exactly what happened to me. It took almost 19 months for me to get into a treament group into a 24 month minimum sentence and the treatment class lasted 18 months plus a 9 month maintenance course afterwards. The state DoC recognized the backup in parole eligibility because of this and changed the 9 month maintenance course which by the way original met only once a month for one hour to the new 2 x a week for a month. They were literally pushing us through the treatment course to get us out the door. There just were not enough seats available when each group started to place the needed inmates in when the group started.

Last edited 2 years ago by NorthEastPA

My sentence was one to four years; which I had to do six months to two years of time. When I went for my first parole review the board ended up giving me a final hearing, but then I started “treatment” the board decided to give me a review instead. Every time I had a review they would deny me a hearing, so I jammed. Not everyone in prison needs “treatment” and I rather have treatment on the outside. Maybe they should deny people with violent crimes and their numerous convictions, but the registrant is more of an issue.

Knowing what I know about how Iowans think, “treatment” probably involves chemical castration. These people are little more than animals.

The Times-Republican newspaper (Marshalltown, IA) writes:
“The opinion issued Tuesday [by the Iowa Supreme Court] states that the Iowa Department of Corrections has acted reasonably in attempting to address the fact there are too many sex offenders in the system to provide treatment on a timely basis.”

So the solution is to continue their incarceration???? WTF?! 😡

These idiots make the laws, then they can’t fulfill the requirements that they themselves have mandated, so others have to suffer for their incompetence???
And their moron Supreme Court says, “All good.” 😡

My question is, why is there sex offender treatment in prison when the majority of people say sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated?