A dozen years after Booker, the reversal of any federal sentence as substantively unreasonable is still quite rare and notable. Today, a Second Circuit panel has issued such a rare and notable decision in US v. Jenkinss, No. 14-4295 (2d Cir. April 17, 2017) 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...
Judge Kearse has a small dissenting opinion based on a statement by the defendant:
Defendant Jenkins, disputed any justification or authority for prosecuting him, and argued that instead the children who were victims of the child pornography should have been prosecuted, the district court’s concern for the likelihood that, without a lengthy prison term, Jenkins would re-offend was not unreasonable.
I have to agree that this statement (if true) is at minimum troubling. This is likely why the judge gave him the max. This judge would loose his career if someone who made a statement like that was ever released and re-offended. This way, the judge in the clear by letting a higher court be responsible for the lower sentence.