Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Richmond Journal of Law and Technology
Publication Date
2010
Volume
16(3)
First Page
1
Abstract
(Excerpt)
Sexual exploitation of children is a real and disturbing problem. However, when it comes to the sentencing of child pornography possessors, the U.S. federal system has a problem, as well. This Article adds to the current, heated discussion on what is happening in the sentencing of federal child pornography possession offenses, why nobody is satisfied, and how much the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are to blame. At the heart of this Article are the forgotten players in the discussion—computers and the Internet—and their role in changing the realities of child pornography possession. This Article argues that computers and the Internet are important factors in understanding both the victimization of the children portrayed in the illegal images and the formulation of appropriate punishment for those who view and possess such images. Discussion on the topic thus far has failed to pay proper attention to the effect computer behavior and the Internet have on the manner in which offenders possess child pornography and to the type and extent of punishment that is appropriate, given the characteristics of that possession. While some district judges are thinking about these issues when they impose sentences, they have little guidance from experts in the fields of punishment and sexual crimes because sentencing guidance provided to judges has largely been restricted to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In promulgating Guidelines for child pornography possession offenses, the United States Sentencing Commission has largely treated the possession offenses as traditional possession crimes, and has been increasingly influenced by Congress’ response to political pressure to severely punish such offenders without regard to the stated purposes of punishment. Now that the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, many judges are forgoing the Guidelines’ advice when it comes to sentencing the possessors of child pornography and forging out on their own. These judges often receive criticism for being too lenient. While there may be some truth to that assessment, what is even more apparent is that: judges are ill-equipped to respond to the punishment needs of this group of offenders; critics of lenient sentences often discount the faults in the Guidelines; and the computer and Internet, the root of controversy, have been largely overlooked in the sentencing discussion. A system reboot is in order.
Comments
Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolt/vol16/iss3/2/