Judge Battles Child Pornography Mandatory Minimum Sentence He Considers Unjust

With momentum building for sentencing reform and federal judges among the most avid supporters of rolling back harsh mandatory minimum sentences, one judge is standing up for lower sentences for a particularly controversial category of defendant — those guilty of child pornography offenses.

As with other offenses, lawmakers have ratcheted up the sentences for child pornography sentences — including for online possession. And some judges have insisted that, as reprehensible as the offense can be, long prison terms are not the answer. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. 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 please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. 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.
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

“lawmakers have ratcheted up the sentences for child pornography” Yes, they have. What a farce! The law enforcement/judicial system cannot catch the 90+ percent who actually molest children so they, the lawmakers, keep making harsher laws to justify their existence!
They are using the “lookers” as scapegoats for the actual abusers. This makes as much sense as charging someone who watches a video of a robbery or assault with a worse crime, and imposing a longer sentence, than the actual perpetrator would receive. After all, software catches the lookers, they have to work to catch abusers.
There are a few judges, like Judge Weinstein, who realize how wrong this is but don’t seem to be having any success at putting a halt to this downhill slide! And the gutless politicians are not about to tell the truth. That would be “political suicide” so they just continue to ruin lives to keep their jobs.

I came across the report to Congress on strategies for battling internet crime on children. The goal is to “eradicate” crime on the internet. Come on. Do they think they are God? If they had a policeman in every house looking at you on the internet… Ah, the NSA!…some of the policeman themselves would be involved in the crime. How are you going to control that? Policeman watching over policeman? The word “Orwellian” seems to be overused, but you know if it smells like totalinarianism….