ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings 2018: Mar 10: Berkeley, April 7: Los Angeles (date change!), May 12: San Diego [details]
CA Family Law Clinic: Feb 24 [details]

2018 ACSOL Conference

General News

New DOJ Report Demonstrates Stunning Disingenuity on Cases Involving Sexual Exploitation of Children

A recent bombshell report from the Department of Justice claims that the number of people prosecuted in federal court for commercial sexual exploitation of children roughly doubled between 2004 and 2013. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. R M

    Thanks to Injustice Today for setting the facts straight.

    Suspects referred for the possession, receipt, or distribution of child pornography (72%) accounted for the majority of all CSEC suspects referred.

    Most suspects arrested for CSEC crimes were male (97%), white (82%), U.S. citizens (97%), had no prior felony convictions (79%), and were not married (70%).

    Type of sentence imposed for convicted defendants in commercial sexual exploitation of children cases, 2004–2013… prison only 96.8%.

    So, 72% of the cases were for the “possession, receipt, or distribution of child pornography”. When did taking a nudie of your underage self… become JUST a thing of the present?

    So, 79% of the offenders had NO PRIOR FELONY… only validates that the registry ISN’T working.

    So, 96.8% got ONLY a prison sentence… My arse…. They neglect to say the had to register and restricted for 10 years to life too, AFTER their confinement.

  2. AJ

    (*Shocked Face*) You mean DOJ is making up statistics to look like they’re accomplishing something that, in fact, they are not? (*End Shocked Face*)

    • Tim Lawver

      Ahhhh Behold, the power of the database! Besides unfettered use to spy on Americans, more racial balanced incarceration rates, and most important political security through mere appearance of reasonable intent. What else was gained for the surveillance state via the ruling in 2003 Smith V Doe decision?

  3. Joe123

    What an excellent article, full of common sense and critical thinking, which so many people lack apparently these days.

    “No other class of offense in the federal system (or, indeed, in many states) is characterized by such extreme sentences. As courts have noted, there is virtually no empirical or reasoned bases for any of these enhancements beyond naked revulsion and desire for retribution. Some scholars have suggested that such severe punishments represent punishment by proxy. In other words, they are intended to obscure and compensate for the failure of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute actual cases of child sexual trafficking and commercial exploitation. In seeking to justify such draconian punishments even for “end users,” prosecutors and others (including courts) have advanced a market theory — that even possession of such images drives a market for child pornography. The United States Sentencing Commission, in a 2012 report to Congress, noted that such arguments are without empirical support. Notably, similar arguments were made in support of harsh treatment of drug addicts in the 1970’s and 80’s as a way of winning the war on drugs.”

  4. AlexO

    “Whatever the underlying rationale, the draconian nature of these sentences has attracted attention and push back in recent years, including from an extremely unlikely group: federal judges, some of whom are recognizing the inherent unfairness of enhancements for these types of offenses, and beginning to impose sentences far more lenient than those recommended by the guidelines.”

    While I commend these judges imposing more lenient sentencing, just about any time behind the bars this would get it you is almost trivial compared to the Sex Offender tag one receives upon exiting. Reducing prison sentences will do little if they’re still handing out the RC tags like candy on Halloween. I personally would’ve gladly done more time behind bars if it meant I could actually get back to my life once I was done.

    • AJ

      handing out the RC tags like candy on Halloween.
      Was this intentional, given the bans placed on Halloween? 🙂

      (My late English teacher would be dismayed that I’m no longer sure if it qualifies as a simile.)

  5. T

    Jeez! More and more junk phony statistics to make everybody believe in the truth of the frightening high thing just to scare and trip people off. They keep taking weak evidence and make it into strong evidence and make all seem believable. Remember, if you multiply any number with zero it is going to be zero no matter what the number is.

    • T

      I’m sorry I meant to say you can’t multiply a number with zero and get a number all except you get zero.

  6. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    Not surprising that the DOJ would write and twist words in a fashion to incite hysteria. Remember that now infamous DOJ manual cited in Smith v. Doe? You know, the one that makes its conclusion on a Psychology Today article?

  7. Margaret Moon

    Thanks to Guy Hamilton-Smith for finding the DOJ report that backs up my oft repeated assertion that many reasons mentioned in this article are exactly why non-contact CP offenders will be on tier 3 of the last, precipitously passed, California tiered registry. While some contact offenders will be in lower risk levels. There is lots of federal funding for training and running the special task forces which come out and arrest offenders. The software and ISPs catch them. And the agents are chosen from local law enforcement agencies, allowing them extra pay and job security. CP offenders are plentiful, an easy target, easy to convict, and generate so many jobs in the “containment” industry.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *