On Tuesday, the Second Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Brown. The opinion presents an interesting debate about how the federal system punishes defendants accused of child pornography charges. I encourage defense attorneys to check out both the concurrence and dissent, for some powerful arguments about the risks of unreasonable sentences in child pornography cases. Full Article
Related posts
-
A $5 Billion Proposal to Fight Online Child Sexual Abuse
New legislation would try to curb the illegal imagery with record levels of funding for law... -
Why Will This FBI Agent Not Be Prosecuted for Child Porn?
We don’t know why the Department of Justice declined to prosecute the supervisory FBI analyst who... -
Should psychotherapists be required to report patients who look at child porn?
For years, California law required psychotherapists to report any patient who admitted developing, duplicating, printing or...
This 60 year sentence seems fine to me. (it’s harsh, I don’t think it’s necessary, but it’s fine)
This case involves a man who produced contact child porn with girls under age 10 on more than one occasion.
My biggest problem is that THIS is the guy Americans think of when they hear the term “sex offender”. This is the guy sex offender laws are made for. This is the guy that requires lifetime supervision, public awareness, and harsh sentences.
This is the guy Americans think of, but then they broadly apply the laws to many, many, people who are nothing like this monster.
No person should be sentenced to life in prison or what amounts to a life sentence. For anyone wishing to use the “some people are too dangerous argument”, I ask why societies allow people to go that far in the first place? People do not start out dangerous, they get there over time. Granted some arrive faster than others and some people don’t ever end up in a position where their full potential for destruction is realized. Something should definitely happen with the man in this case. Not that I have a concrete idea of what other than not 60 years in prison.
Perversely, this guy scores lower on the Static 99R scam than had he not had physical contact with his victims at all. In other words, the mere fact that this was a “contact” offense gives this guy a LOWER Static 99R score than a single non-contact offender. Tell me how this makes sense.