Sentencing Commission Report on Child P*rn

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has released its report on sentencing in child p*rn cases. It makes several recommendations, including lowering penalties for some offenders.

The Commission believes that the current non-production guideline warrants revision in view of its outdated and disproportionate enhancements related to offenders’ collecting behavior as well as its failure to account fully for some offenders’ involvement in child pornography communities and sexually dangerous behavior. The current guideline produces overly severe sentencing ranges for some offenders, unduly lenient ranges for other offenders, and widespread inconsistent application.

The executive summary is here and the full report is here. The findings and recommendations are here.

< ICE Releases From Detention Are Overdue | ACLU Uncovers U.S. Marshal's Drone Project >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    a few things (none / 0) (#1)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    Ok . . . per this report, about half of those being sentences for federal sexual expl of minors law violations are for possession only.  

    In today's world with computers, possession at times may result from merely having clicked on a webpage to view it . . . if the prosecutor and his forensic team are passionate about getting a guy.  Though admittedly the case in which this is clear is that of Sheriff Mark French, who was investigated cause he had used his credit card to buy access to a website from Russia.  Though, as for which of the possible websites it was that Sheriff French subscribed to I don't know . . . I don't know enough to safe how bad or more merely nude it was.

    The report states as if it were a certainty one could simply assume that possession is morally a crime and should be regarded as a crime legally.  Or, rather, the report states the alleged reasons for believing this to be true.

    Society obviously has not asked me for my views, but there are a lot of different kinds of "possession" and a lot of different kinds of alleged child pornography.  Several years ago, there was a teen model website called, if I recall correctly Marie's palace or Marie's place.  Marie was a happy and willing model for the website and she also created on her own some provocative photos using a timed-release camera . . . in court, she testified that she got all or most of the ideas of her poses of the photos in question from magazines one might find in grocery stores and normal bookstores . . . and her dad saw and retained the photos she produced.

    She was at times in lingerie, a thong or perhaps topless . . .  She loved and appreciated her dad, before, during and after the photography and testified, so far as she was able, in his defense at trial.  The fellow was Steven Joseph Yurick.

    In the last ten years, in Washington state, there was a case of a guy being prosecuted, convicted and having appealed his conviction for possession of child porn for possessing nudes of his gf which she had given him . . . (this was under state law, not federal law, if it matters . . .)

    There are or were lots of nude and topless images from a group in Ukraine several years ago . . .

    Prosecuting people for such images I believe is actually morally bad.  

    Society would be better off under the older standard of child porn considered prosecutable only if it was actually obscene . . . and possession of obscenity without more also being constitutionally protected.

    interesting quotation here (none / 0) (#2)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    In the case of a Minnesota sports coach named Todd Hoffner  who was charged with producing and possessing cp cause of nudes of his kids after they had taken a bath . . .

    " .  . . [S]ometimes the pictures you first see in a child pornography case might be very similar to benign family photos,"

    --Meg Garvin, the executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute in Portland, Ore.

    . . . and basically, if someone or a dad thinks the daughter is sexually pretty, or if the girl or daughter is in lingerie, then, the photos are criminal . . . even if, no abuse by the normal meaning of the word has taken place . . .


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 09, 2015 at 09:02:20 PM EST
    you do realize no one here is going to click your stupid link and the comments will be deleted?

    Have fun posting before you are given the boot.