Skip to main content

View Diary: Defendants' rights, victims' rights, and the worst of crimes (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Court got it right (9+ / 0-)

    The uncle was the true perp. Sure, he went to prison, but $6000 of restitution from him was awfully low.  And by the same token, having Paroline pay 500 times as much, because he was the one jerk who got caught in posession, was too high, very disproportional.  There should be efforts to collect from a broader number of perps, and to also focus on the ones who create it.

    •  or perhaps fix a statutory minimum (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smartalek

      Say $5000/ image to go into a victim restitution
      fund.  

      then individual victims apply to the fund for
      medical losses and therapeutic support.

      •  that makes a lot more sense IMO (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        patbahn, Adam B

        or simply just add it as a mandatory minimum fine for possession of child porn.  

        But holding one guy liable for millions of dollars because they viewed child porn? There's a wide range of folks who view child porn, from the accidental to the curious to the guy who has tens of thousands of images.  I've prosecuted/defended the entire range.

        They aren't all created equal.  I say make the person who uploads child porn liable perhaps, to me that's a lot more actual damage than simply viewing, and the fairness argument is tremendously lessened.

        •  i always fear that an excellent setup (0+ / 0-)

          is to email child porn to someone.

          The laws having strict liability,  it would be easy enough
          to set it up so the sender is never traceable
          yet, the local cops could ruin the recipient.

          we had a case of a local school administrator
          confiscates some cell phones from students for sexting.
          does as instructed, sends image gallery dumps to
          central HQ for "Adjudication". He ends up getting indicted
          for child porn.

          took 2 years and 80K to get to a jury, which dismisses it.

    •  The uncle might have abused her (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skyye, Errol

      under any circumstances, but pornography is a business, and it's unlikely this continuing harm would have happened if there hadn't been a network of consumers and providers of child pornography.

      He got jail time for his crime, but the ongoing damage would have been less if there hadn't been such a market for the product.

      It's kind of like the need to punish johns, not just prostitutes. Sexual exploitation is not a victimless crime in any circumstances, but when children are involved the culpability is greater.

      Thanks Adam. I had not known the details of the case, and you have helped me to understand the issues involved in the decision. I agree with Sotomayor in general, though I'm not entirely certain how joint and several culpability works.

      We need a world in which we ask "What's happened to you?" more and "What's wrong with you?" less. (From a comment by Kossack nerafinator)

      by ramara on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:33:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A Business? Not exactly... (0+ / 0-)

        As I understand it, these images are generally not being bought and sold at all.  They are shared on a non-profit basis among like-minded individuals via anonymous forums.

        •  That was not clear in this case (0+ / 0-)

          The kiddie porn business works both ways.  The law predates the widespread use of the Internet.  In that period, it was mostly in the form of magazines or other printed matter, sent by mail, bought and paid for.  So if you were in possession of a magazine, it was highly likely that you paid someone for it, and that clearly contributed to the crimes involved in its production.

          For good measure, the criminal statutes threw in an adder for using a computer. This was when computers were still not as widespread, were a bit scary, and computer crime (breaking into bank or government computers) was a new fear for the newsmongers to raise.

          But with the web, there is not necessarily money changing hands.  Pictures can be shared; web sites can be free.  So while one can argue that any demand encourages supply, it is arguably not the same thing as sending money to the producer.  It is not obvious from the article if Paroline paid any money to anyone for the pictures.

      •  punishment for child porn (0+ / 0-)

        is pretty strong already.  I don't think this is a we treat child porn too lightly so they keep doing it.  The folks who are the true deviants can't help themselves, it's a sickness.  They are going to do it anyways.  The folks who are curious it might stop, but generally those folks are too dumb.

        I don't see how you can hold a guy who views a pic one time liable for the entirety of someone's life before he viewed (but after others viewed it) and through to death.

        I don't have a problem with some type of fine payable to a victim's fund though.

        •  Viewing one time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kfunk937

          Under federal law, there is an affirmative defense for viewing a pic one time. The vast majority of folks prosecuted federally for these offenses are large scale collectors and traders...the deviants you talk about who can't help themselves. But this isn't about the deviants. It's about the victims and how the deviants' sick world affects them every single day. Every day those victims live in terror because they think that they are being recognized by strangers who watched the videos of their rapes.

          •  well my understanding is (0+ / 0-)

            they generally require 3 or more images (or is it more than 3 images?).

            And they usually go after the bigger guys.  Of course, I don't think this ruling is limited to Federal convicts is it?  So one would think someone convicted under state law would apply as well.

            I know in the military we don't have a minimum number of images, so all it technically takes is one.  We don't usually have someone with just one, but it is not infrequent that we try folks caught with high single digits or teens or well under 100.

    •  Can you provide us a list of names? (0+ / 0-)

      Just curious.

      No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

      by koNko on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:35:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site