Supreme Court weighs how much one person should pay pornography victim

A woman with the pseudonym Amy Unknown was at the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices discussed the horrible events that changed her life: Her uncle raped her when she was a young girl, recorded that assault and other sex acts and put the images on the Internet, where they have been viewed tens of thousands of times. All the justices seemed to think that those who downloaded the images of Amy should pay to help her put her life back together. But they struggled to decide what any one person should pay. 

Congress made it clear in 1994 that victims such as Amy deserved restitution from those who have viewed the pornographic images that feature them. The cost of Amy’s abuse, according to a psychological report that described her trauma and ongoing counseling and medical treatment, is $3.4 million. The immediate question before the justices was how much of that should be paid by a Texas man. Full Article

Court considers what child porn viewer owes victim
I’m hoping for a victory for crime victims’ rights tomorrow before the Supreme Court

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Criminal restitution awards are always problematic. This should be handled in civil court where true nexus between the crime and the actual damages can be ascertained.

This sets a dangerous precedent, in any case, as this will allow prosecutors to recommend otherwise-excessive fines to be recommended for all sex offenses, of which the money can either be given to the police department to fund more stings, or to vigilante groups that further the persecution of registrants.

I say nothing. The individual who did the crime is already paying for it. Does she think she is a movie star and entitled to royalties each time her movie is played?

Sounds to me like she is taking advantage of this tragic situation for her own financial gain.

“it has taken Amy 41 / 2 years to collect $1.75 million, from 182 defendants ($1.2 million came from one man)”. Ridiculous. Looks like this kid has found a really big cash cow. It appears every time some views a picture of her (even if she is not aware of it) she gets harmed again?!?! This is absurd. The courts are useing her and she is letting the courts u$e he for her own reasons.

Should convicted criminals pay financial restitution to their victim? While serving my term in a California state prison, I met a lot of convicted criminals. Most of them seemed to be subsisting (in the outside world) at a poverty level. The wealthy people who run the legal system in this country want these poor people to pay and pay and pay—–but they have no money.
If it makes you feel better, have the courts award financial restitution. But allow a US District Bankruptcy Court to wipe out the obligation, if the person meets the criteria for bankruptcy. Stop trying to get blood out of a stone: like so much of the legal system, it is just insane,

3.4 million! I think the mental health counselers are milking it. After all, they wrote the reports. Kind of like a judge going to the warden of a private prison, who gets paid more for more prisoners, and asking,”how much time should we give him?”

My son paid restitution of $6000 to Amy and the other girl seeking restitution for downloading the two videos. He got 78 months federal prison time, and 10 years supervised release, and lifetime on a registry. Solid citizen, no priors, college educated history teacher. The government took his retirement to pay the restitution.