ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (05/21 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

 

 

Commentary

Emily Horowitz: The hollowness of the child porn smear: Ketanji Brown Jackson has been bold and prescient

Source: nydailynews.com 3/24/22

Soon after her nomination, it was reported that as a law student in 1996, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a Harvard Law Review note analyzing the constitutionality of sex offense registries and that during her judicial career she did not always give the maximum sentence in child pornography cases. Unsurprisingly, she was immediately accused by Sen. Josh Hawley of “endangering our children” and not “protecting the most vulnerable.”

These entirely meritless allegations show the extreme risks of speaking the truth about our disastrous and cruel sex offense legal regime. While even conservatives defended her moderate and even “mainstream” child pornography sentencing history, calling the attack a “smear” that “appears meritless to the point of demagoguery,” others said it’s fair to “criticize her for giving too little weight to the public interest in protecting children from sexual predators” because of her early writing analyzing registries.

While it’s political par for the course for judges who don’t dole out the harshest imaginable prison terms to face allegations they are “soft on crime,” there’s a profound and substantive difference in kind when facing the toxic charge of being “soft on child predators” and not caring about children.

Hawley has long fought for increasingly harsh sex offense laws because he understands the politics of fear and the power of these claims. Even as evidence mounts that Jackson’s rulings on child pornography possession are unexceptional, Hawley and others have doubled down and continue to argue Jackson’s sentencing is too lenient — even claiming her decisions could harm his own children.

Child pornography elicits extreme disgust, for good reason, but the wildly excessive sentencing guidelines now on the books are rooted in emotion and junk science. Judges have routinely questioned these sentencing recommendations, with critics on both sides of the political aisle arguing correctly that sentencing should be individualized, proportionate and based on the specific facts and nuances of each case.

Read the full article

 

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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As a registered person let me be the first to say that her sentences were way too lenient in the child porn cases. She understands that registries don’t work but I am not a one issue voter and she could possibly be the worst thing to happen to the Supreme Court.

I noticed Cruz and Hawley repeatedly said that the leninet sentences would endanger children, but it is interesting that both are lawyers, and both have numerous staff memebers at their disposal, but none could produce any evidence showing that lenient sentences are dangerous. In fact we know the opposite is true. CP offenders have a recidivism rate below 5%, and I would bet that most of the additional offenses are violations of sort rather than repeat offense. And we know that harsh sentences can actually endnager the community, as in Florida, where punishment is so harsh that there are entire communities of registrants living in sqaulid camps, unable to find employment, housing,or relationships–that sounds pretty dangerous to me.

As well, Cruz said that these child predators are collecting hundreds of thousands, perhpas millions of images. Really? Millions? But Ted’s staff couldn’t produce a single case of an offender with millions of photos. He is an attorney, so he knows the importance of evidence over hearsay. There just simply aren’t any cases.

And the term child predator, as detestable as viewing CP may be to many, sitting at home looking at images is not predatory. If a person looks at an adult site, as I’m sure Cruz and Hawley have seen a few, does that make them predators of teens and young adults?
What is most disturbing is that it seems the majority of Americans, including our law makers, have no understanding of what CP really is. They Don’t know that the variety of it is extreme from unforgivable violence, to rather tame images of teens undressing, and there are producers of it, distrubutors, and those who viewed it alone. It is all CP. And the ease of access is a large part of the problem. The feds give an enhancement if a computer is used. That is laughable. How else would one find this stuff.

My hope is that this confirmation hearing will generate questions and discussion, and those using it for political points will fall by the way side as the truth is revealed. Is CP a crime?definitely. Should the sentence be so harsh that a person’s life is forever destroyed, a sentence worse than dog fighters and arsonists receive? Hardly.

While I believe the majority of our community believe the sentencing and restrictions post-prison for CP possession offenses to be too harsh, please do not be dismissive as to the harm this crime causes. It is a serious offense (of which I was guilty).

In my studies, I have concluded that the viewing of CP is extremely addictive. Specifically, the brain reward circuitry that is activated by DRUG USE is the SAME as when viewing these images, and just as drug addicts develop addictions to drugs, the same dynamic occurs with those who view CP. However, there are no “rehabilitation centers” existing to treat this addiction, as far as I am aware. And no CP offender can now come forward and ask for help without a “mandatory reporter” (psychologist, psychiatrist, treatment professional, or priest) blowing the whistle. So typically, the addiction continues and only worsens.

Possession of illegal images by one person numbering in the millions is not uncommon. As a defense investigator, I worked on more than one case in which the defendant possessed thousands of DVDs and/or CDs filled exclusively with videos, still images, etc.

From NY Times article of September 2019:

“(An) Ohio man, who helped run a website on the dark web known as the Love Zone, had over 3 million photos and videos on his computers.
The site, now shuttered, had nearly 30,000 members and required them to share images of abuse to maintain good standing, according to the court documents. A private section of the forum was available only to members who shared imagery of children they abused themselves. They were known as “producers.”

Also, from this same article: “Reports to the authorities typically contain more than one image, and last year encompassed the record 45 million photos and videos, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html

I know nothing… Did that come from Sargent Schultz or is much of this registry role playing thru this valued..man made computer? I’m sure Tim can answer that or many more. Yes all mankind are curious creatures and want to know the 5 W’s. Whether one goes to jail, prison or what and many times they come to their own conclusion. Its just man over beast.
Even one’s PO is just in a role with his or her responsibilities. Their is a downside to everything and much of this registry I hate to say is like Eve giving Adam the apple. Even in my own ordeal if the truth be known the officer even fudged a bit during this talking thru his nose acting like a girlish voice as a disguise and trying to cover up his deception if the truth be known. See that’s whats important about truth and their is two sides to every coin.

We are so backwards compared to some other countries relating to this topic. When someone has an addiction and wants help to break that addiction, that person can not obtain help without possibly being made homeless, unemployed and a social pariah for the remainder of that person’s life.

she was there to be confirmed not debate enough prison time or what comes after prison time or the registry or to tell those nincompoops about recidivism , that format was wrong for Canadian Cruz to spew his political crap, as for fist pump hee haw Hawley to act that way so wrong, hopefully they take the cameras out when someone is confirmed for the supreme court in the future

Senators Cruz and Hawley – You want to protect children, wonderful! Then use your political $$ to go after those that kidnap children and force them into CP. Don’t go after a mother’s child whether they are a teenage or over 18-year-old who clicks on a link that allows them to view a website, which then in some states like California can sentence them to a minimum of 5 years of incarceration, per each time viewed. Just take a moment and consider that there are high schoolers that are under 18 years old; and over 18 years old that are sharing images that have absolutely no idea what can legally happen to them.

I posted this to Notorious previously, but I thought it may be helpful to repost:

Addiction 101 as taught to treatment professionals: The hallmark of an addiction is: (1) engaging in recurring and chronic (persistent over an extended period of time) behavior despite negative consequences. These “negative consequences” MAY (and often does) include loss of employment; deterioration of personal relationships (divorce/separation from a spouse; alienation of friends, family, loved ones, and co-workers); change in daily routines to accommodate the behavior; isolation from others; depression, as well as mental and physical deterioration; legal problems including arrests and incarcerations; (2) the behavior is compulsive (uncontrollable urges) in which the subject repeatedly engages in the behavior in spite of a desire to stop; (3) physiological brain changes manifested by the development of new “neural pathways” generated within the brain which, when activated repeatedly, becomes entrenched, leading to habitual behaviors. This invariably leads to impaired cognitive ability and ability to control emotions (e.g., a wider and deeper range of emotional states – higher highs, lower lows, and an increase in intensity of emotions).

These conditions typically develop when engaging in repeated CP collecting/viewing (and potentially other sexual activities), as well as substance abuse. Other behaviors such as gambling, video gaming, and for some, eating fast food (strung out on Big Macs), are included.

As to treatment, there are numerous approaches, and there is no “one-size fits all”. What works for one may not work for another. But all approaches agree that either immediate total abstinence (cold-turkey) or an ‘initial and substantial tapering off’ at the start of treatment is a ‘best practice’.

As a very young adult, I kicked a heroin addiction cold turkey when entering a drug rehab in the late 1960s. The treatment model was a “therapeutic community”. I’ve been clean (from hard drugs) for over 50 years. So we can say that this model worked for me. I cannot state definitively that this would be the most effective treatment model for CP addiction (should one should accept that CP is a true addiction), but I do believe that it likely would. The one-on-one counseling with my psychologist and then my therapists (as part of mandatory treatment) was moderately effective with respect to my CP addiction. However, I found the group sessions (a mainstay of therapeutic communities) to be more effective than the one-on-one. Together, they were even more effective than each standing alone. And to date, I have yet to recidivate.

Hope this was helpful. Peace.

70
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.