Lee Hancock at the Dallas News has an
interesting account of a sympathetic defendant from my hometown who received a below-guidelines sentence in a federal child pornography prosecution. Reports Hancock:
Child porn possession has been a federal crime since 1990. In the last decade, federal prosecutions more than doubled in Texas and nationwide. In Texas, the cases have grown faster than nearly any category of federal offense, according to Syracuse University's TRAC database. Since October 2007, more child porn cases have been filed in Texas than old-school federal prosecutions for bank robbery or bank fraud, mail fraud or wire fraud.
The cases often involve seemingly ordinary people with stable jobs and families. The nearly 1,000 Texans prosecuted since 2000 include band instructors and businessmen, physicians and pastors and prison guards, restaurant managers and retirees.
Further,
In the last decade, according to a federal public defender's 2009 analysis, the mean federal child porn sentence increased by nearly six years in the decade ending in 2007 to more than 7 ½ years in prison.
Some experts note that those increases came without any scientific data or rationale. Most offenders, like Paroline, have no prior records – let alone sex offenses.
"People who look at child porn need to be arrested and need to have consequences. I think the consequences should be equitable," said psychologist David Delmonico, director of Duquesne University's online behavior research and education center in Pittsburgh. "I think we're on a modern-day witch hunt for child-porn offenders.
See this related chart (pdf) depicting the growth in child porn prosecutions both nationally and in Texas over the last decade.
.jpg)
16 comments:
Anyone who gets his jollies looking at children being sexually molested needs to be locked up. There's no excuse for it. Period. End of discussion.
Unless you work for tyc then you get a pass.
Why do we not go after the people making the child porn and offer treatment, counseling for those first time GUILTY offenders viewing it? Seems logical to me, and would not devastate the families of the offenders and possibly put them on the welfare rolls. Then we pay for the incarceration of the offender and the well being of their families. Just a thought
@1:01: "needs to be locked up ... End of discussion."
That can never be the "End of discussion." For how long? To what end? Do you want to pay for the guy's end of life healthcare because of that crime? Is viewing porn a worse offense than making or distributing it? If not, what should be the difference in sentences? Only in rare cases is it realistic or justified by any cost benefit analysis to just say "lock them up and forget about them," and this isn't one of them. You may not want to talk about the subject, but as a practical matter it must be discussed.
Cheap shot on TYC, 1:03.
2:53, I'm more or less with you on this where there's no evidence of any other offense. I've heard the argument made that they can't go after the people making it because there are too many of them, but if so, there are damn sure too many consumers!
Deport them along with the illegals. Send them to France.
All good points, Grits, but this is still hardly a victimless crime. Seems to me that aggressive enforcement should be directed toward the producer, distributors, and consumers. There will never be a justification--as in drug crimes--that the problem is simply to big to solve. If you don't want to lock these offenders up, then perhaps it's time to reconsider what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in this country. Maybe a little Indonesian justice like flogging or caning should be considered. It would be much cheaper than incarceration and still be a huge deterrent.
i think we need to lock up for their own protection and our's the idiots making statements like this!
"Anonymous said...
Anyone who gets his jollies looking at children being sexually molested needs to be locked up. There's no excuse for it. Period. End of discussion.
11/28/2010 01:01:00 PM"
A modern day witch hunt. Using federal troops to harass a state icon for weed and busting our preachers for child porn. One has to wonder that perhaps the current administration in Washington has it in for Texas. Seems to me if they really wanted to stop child porn they would go after the distributors. I wonder how much of what is getting found on these peoples pc is really little kids vs teenagers who are saying they are over 18. Our sex offender laws do not distinguish between Romeo and Juliet and the sick pervs who like little kids why would the federal prosecutors do any different?
Hey Grits, I think 1:03 is spot on about tyc not a cheap shot but a simple word association. Wish I would have thought of that. Those people do seem to get a pass on their shenanigans.
Sheldon
Anonymous is one of those types of people that jumps to the deepest end of the pool when ever the CP card is tossed in the ring.
So the question O must ask of Anon 11/28 01:01:00PM:
If your view states that anyone looking at CP needs to be locked up, does this thought hold to your Teen-aged grandson who looks at pictures of his same aged teen-aged girlfriend? What about the GF who might have taken the pictures to send to him? She is producing Child Porn right? so what shall we do to her?
When jumping off the deep end, make sure you look out for Sharks, they bite the innocents too.
I don't think that it's about whether or not there is a justification for viewing child pornography or for there even being child pornography -- there isn't one. That, however, is an issue that is separate an apart from whether it is appropriate to incarcerate passive consumers for terms longer than those who are actually doing the abuse. It seems to me that if what is operating here is an unspoken, irrebutable presumption that a consumer of child pornography is also molesting children, then there's one hell of a due process argument to be had. I mean, maybe I didn't get the top grade in my criminal procedure class, but I don't remember hearing the phrase guilty until proven innocent.
Who says that the feds aren't going after the producers and distributers, too? Of course they are. That's no reason not to go after the consumers. They feed the market. Supply and demand.
Also, it's a red herring to talk about teenagers or adults who look under 18. The child porn that the feds go after are of little kids being raped and tortured. Not teenagers taking pictures of themselves naked.
A big reason why some actual abusers get shorter sentences than some child pornographers is that the abusers are being prosecuted by the states and the child pornographers are often prosecuted by the feds. Unless a defendant travels across state lines with a child, or entices one to travel to him/her, then there is no fed jurisdiction.
@7:57
How exactly are they feeding the market if the vast majority of this material is downloaded on peer-to-peer networks with no exchange of any goods/services/money/etc? It's like saying a guy growing a pot plant in his basement for personal use is supporting Bolivian drug kingpins by doing so.
@7:57
No red herring here, I mentioned specifically cases where the young man receives CP from his also teen GF. These are not made up ideas, several cases have already been prosecuted, some with good outcomes (children are disciplined in a non judicial way) while a few have been put on probation and are now the newer members of the Registry.
I am no way saying that the molestation or rape of small children and captured on photo media is something to be down-played. I am saying that taking the stance of ALL CP is generated for the deviant pleasure of the old man in the dark room is simply a fallacy and the approach of throw all under the jail is unbending, and needs to be rethought.
I did not mention the looks under 18 crowd, i specifically said what I meant. I agree that child porn is a terrible harmful thing, What I do not agree with is the baseless idea that all CP is acquired solely by only guys over 18 and that it is solely pictures of tortured 8 year olds. There needs to be some thought put into laws so they don't throw the innocent teens in with the people that are harming children.
These are federal cases. Not the ones your referring to CP and GF and that nonsense. These are adults, trafficking clearly child and early adolescent pornography.
These are federal cases. Not the ones your referring to CP and GF and that nonsense. These are adults, trafficking clearly child and early adolescent pornography.
Post a Comment