Federal Judges Recommend Reduced Child Porn Sentences
[Guest post by DRJ]
The U.S. Sentencing Commission is taking testimony on changes to federal sentencing guidelines. Apparently some federal judges think the child porn sentencing guidelines are too severe:
“From New York to Chicago, and recently in Denver, federal judges have testified before the commission, which sets federal punishments, that the current sentencing structure for possessing and viewing child pornography is too severe.
The commission has made reviewing child-pornography sentencing guidelines a priority of its work, which will end in May and could include a change to the guidelines to allow shorter sentences for future offenders.
Judges, for the most part, have based their argument on a belief that some of the defendants who view child pornography have never molested a child or posed a risk to the community and may be better served by treatment rather than prison.
As federal guidelines now stand, the number of images and the way the contraband is obtained enhance prison terms. A first-time offender with no criminal history can be sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.”
Interesting.
— DRJ
Are these the same judges (sic) who have been caught with child porn?
Scrapiroon (996c34) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:35 pmIf they’re talking about real child porn, then no, sentences should NOT be reduced in return for “treatment” options. If, however, we’re talking about some 18 year old with pictures of his 16-year old girlfriend, then that really shouldn’t be considered a “sex crime” to begin with, and certainly shouldn’t be treated like “child porn.” But the answer there is to redefine the crime, not to reduce the sentence for everybody convicted of that crime.
PatHMV (a00c3c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:43 pmWas Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings any part of this? Go NAMBLA. No need to check on the gpevernment union NEA. Nothing to see here, move along. One month = http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/2009/10/women-with-troubles-october-2009.html. Scroll baby scroll.
halfacarafe (1ae1db) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:52 pmThis is interesting in light of the recently aired allegations that child-porn is being deposited on hacked computers via viruses, with no input from the computer owner.
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:01 pmPatHMV,
Here’s one of the examples given at the link:
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:02 pmMy take DRJ is that Parker should receive a long sentnce because it is people like him that drive demand for kiddy porn which then incentivizes (is that a word?) low life scum to pray on young kids in order to turn a buck. In that sense they are very much a danger to their community.
Gazzer (f4dafa) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:05 pmString ’em up, I say!
AD, I am paranoid, but I think that virus is an effort to protect pedophiles (I guess this might be obvious?). that’s not to say there aren’t innocent victims of that virus.
what a world.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:06 pmGazzer,
I think you’ve stated the original intent of the law and the severe sentences, but I never practiced in that area so I can’t say that for sure.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:07 pmInternet virus deposits child porn on computers.
Read about it here.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:12 pmHere is more information.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:16 pmI have to agree that the sentencing guidelines should be changed. Viewing child porn is not the same as molesting a child. I am not aware of any other felony in which it is a crime to merely possess images of it’s commission.
Clearly those who possess child porn are being punished for what they thing. That’s wrong.
Chris (ded5f2) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:23 pmOkay. What is happening to the child in the picture? You want to foster this?
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:25 pmI have to agree that the sentencing guidelines should be changed. Viewing child porn is not the same as molesting a child. I am not aware of any other felony in which it is a crime to merely possess images of it’s commission.
Clearly those who possess child porn are being punished for what they think. That’s wrong.
Chris (ded5f2) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:28 pmI think they are being punished for possessing, downloading and/or buying porn, not for thinking about it once they have it.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:32 pmComment by PatHMV — 11/29/2009 @ 5:43 pm
I agree with your statement. The crime should be redefined and clearly so. With the advent of cell phone cameras, and stupid girls and boys being what they are, there are alot of kids that could be (and are) facing serious charges because of sending skin pics of themselves. It’s hardly the same as small children being viciously exploited by perverts.
Viewing child porn is not the same as molesting a child. I am not aware of any other felony in which it is a crime to merely possess images of it’s commission.
It is molesting a child, though, in a less direct way. They are driving the business, they are exploiting the child through visual exploitation, and through the sexual self-gratification of the visual.
Those who possess child porn are being punished for the exploitation of children, not what they think: those pictures are someone’s child who has been degraded and dehumanized by a sick fetish and that is not a victimless crime. Even the one viewing it and taking pleasure in it, is guilty of usery at the very, very least.
It’s very difficult to not reflexively react to this subject.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:39 pmWhat about fake child porn? Either photo-shopped or legally adult models (who look very young, although it’s unlikely that any adult looks like a toddler.)
KateC (7f3e3d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:45 pmChris, I don’t think people who possess or traffic in child porn are punished exactly the same as they are for raping or filming the rape of kids.
Also, I don’t think someone would be prosecuted for merely thinking about child sex.
There’s a lot of money to be made in porn. Let’s keep the market for child porn as absolutely unprofitable as we can. People possessing child porn get all the normal civil rights. It’s outrageous to possess that stuff. We can’t have a perfect legal system, but is this being a crime at all really a major defect in it?
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:45 pmIf you cross-examine the judges closely, you will find that it is not the severity of the sentences they object to — it is the discretion they are allowed. They want to be free to go on their little power trips at sentencing — from probation to life in prison — holding another person’s life in their politically-appointed hands. Remember that most of these guys on the federal bench got appointed based on how much money they contributed to, and raised for, the party in power.
nk (df76d4) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:50 pmNope, actual rapists receive an Oscar.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:04 pmyou know, I would love for judges to have wide discretion in this arena. Some of these offenses deserve the book being thrown, and some do not. But our judges can go on ‘little power trips’, as nk puts it, and basically require that we put them in a little box. If they somehow policed their own, this wouldn’t be necessary. If we make sure that kids looking at kids aren’t treated quite as badly, I think that’s about enough.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:11 pmDRJ… I try to avoid reading the details of such crimes whenever possible (seen too much sick crap already back when I had to deal with real cases in a professional capacity), so I didn’t click through to see what specific cases were leading them to want to alter the sentences, and just made a general comment. Those are definitely in the first of the two categories I described, and I would support an increase in the penalties, certainly not a decrease.
PatHMV (003aa1) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:20 pmnk…this is the last time I’m going to back-stop you….
“… it is the discretion they are not allowed…”
Judges have been bitching about mandatory sentences ever since they came into being,
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:47 pmregardless of the fact that it was their own inconsistency in sentencing that drove the public up the wall and into their legislators offices demanding change.
They need to be very careful here, and mindful that other than SCOTUS, all Federal Courts are creations of Congress, who gets to set the rules.
And, if enough voters call for their backsides, Congress will be more than happy to start stripping off skin, if only to save their own.
Goddamn it, everybody’s correcting my grammar today. http://xrlq.com/2009/11/28/black-friday-isnt-over-yet/
nk (df76d4) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:54 pmYeah, well that Black Friday comment is a two-fer.
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:05 pmI have to second this. Child pr0n is awful, but viewing it is not the same as engaging in molestation or filming it, etc.
carlitos (68257b) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:14 pmThat’s the status quo. You get worse penalties for raping a child than for owning a picture of a child being raped, generally speaking. And you’re right, that’s the way it should be. child porn is awful, and people have no right to own it. The freedom of speech has exceptions, thank goodness in this case.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:17 pmAs the father of a seven year old, I would have no problem with the judicial blinding of people who like to watch child porn. Preceded by their castration.
They are enablers of child molestation, paying money to animals who raped children to provide them their filth.
nk (df76d4) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:27 pmAre these the same judges that support harsher sentences for “hate-crimes”?
Just sayin’.
Icy Texan (fc6afa) — 11/29/2009 @ 9:11 pmThat is a different Chris than the one who used to publish
Chris (c5afb1) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:09 pmHere frequently. Try and fry if guilty. Only a
Slight exaggeration of my feelings on this.
I have read that a large proportion of people caught viewing such material are pubescent boys, under 18. In that case, I would think discretion should be allowed but maybe there are different rules for juveniles.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/30/2009 @ 8:24 amMMS does not work, no matter the crime involved.
STILL
If we have men and women with the title of Judge, then lets allow them to be the Judge.
If we dislike their decisions then create an avenue to get rid of them.
Never should judges be able to gain their position by an election. But the voice of the people should be able to remove them.
Lawmakers need to apply great restraint in their eagerness to please the many voices in their heads, not to mention the $$$in their reelection fund bucket.
Just thinkin is all.
TC (0b9ca4) — 11/30/2009 @ 1:53 pmIrish priest admits abusing 100 kids
Article
I think these guys could use some internet porn worse than anybody, might help them remain jolly and prevent their hands from wandering into children.
TC (0b9ca4) — 11/30/2009 @ 2:03 pmTC, the kind of subhuman monster that would destroy 100 children is not going to be averted by porn.
OK, I don’t really know that, I have heard the compelling argument that porn accessibility does reduce a lot of sexual crimes. but 100 kids? How about giving up your preacher career and having a sex life? I have a hard time not seeing that this predator picked this career, even with its sexual prohibitions, as a way to get access and power.
‘course, you couldn’t pay me enough money to leave anyone’s kids alone with a Catholic priest. so I’m no sure how that ‘access’ thing is going.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/30/2009 @ 2:25 pmOh, c’mon, Dustin, that’s tarring with a very broad brush, isn’t it?
In any event, does child pornography include art? And by art, I mean the lolicon stuff Japanese go nuts over? No offence to any Japanese readers… but it’s Japan. I’m sorry.
Does it also include ‘child pornography’ created in countries where the laws are not identical with those of the USA? Because I understand that the Feds take the position that US citizens are to be subject to certain US laws regardless of where they are – which I think is several steps too far towards the government owning you.
Gregory (f7735e) — 11/30/2009 @ 8:22 pm