Source: Dawinder S. Sidhu & Kelsey Robinson
Drug offenses lie at the heart of the movement for criminal justice reform, and
for good reason. Drug policy is defined by severe and disproportionate penalties
owing to a retributive, factually flawed, and hurried congressional process. These
central characteristics apply to the child pornography context as well. Though drug
sentencing is problematic enough, child pornography sentencing is arguably worse.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has disavowed the child pornography sentencing
guidelines and invited judges to vary from them. Judges have done just that, varying
in sixty-three percent of all cases, more than any other offense type.
In this Article, we identify the common issues with drug and child pornography sentencing and outline the doctrinal implications of this shared foundation, especially as to district court discretion which varies under Kimbrough v. United States. We also suggest how improvement to the uniquely distressed area of child pornography policy can inform criminal justice reform more generally, especially as to substantive reasonableness review under Gall v. United States, mandatory minimum sentences, and sunset provisions for penalty levels.
Following the confirmation hearing of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, child
pornography law became part of the national conversation at policy and public
levels. We aim to seize on this newfound interest and ensure that both this area of
law and criminal justice reform more generally are enriched and enhanced.
Read the article below:
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
“The only unnatural sexual behavior is none at all.” — S. Freud