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
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...
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.
(*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*)
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.”
“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.
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.
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?
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.