U.S. justices weigh child porn restitution

[onehandle]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared to struggle on Wednesday as they considered how much defendants convicted of possessing images of child pornography have to pay in restitution to victims.

Advocates for crime victims say there has been an explosion in the distribution of child pornography since the Internet made it much easier to exchange digital images.

The change in distribution model, which means the same image may have been viewed thousands of times, has created a problem for judges trying to assess how much restitution each defendant should pay.

Questions posed by the justices seemed to suggest they agreed all defendants convicted of possessing a copy of the same image should owe something to the victim, but they appeared unsure how to determine how much each defendant should be ordered to pay.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/22/us-usa-court-restitution-idUSBREA0L1V320140122

[Squinch]

1. Of course I would like there to be a way to make those possessing child porn pay through

the nuts. But here is my fear about this: there is some sick parent or caretaker out there who will figure out some way to put a kid's photos out there and cash in on the fact that everyone in possession of the photo has to pay restitution.

[7962]

4. Good point. I'm afraid you are exactly right, too. nt

[Xithras]

5. Restitution doesn't work that way, which is why this is before the USSC

Technically, restitution is not punitive and simply compensates for actual financial damages. The purpose of restitution is to compensate the victim for actual losses they have suffered.

In this case, a court calculated that the victim suffered over $3 million in damages because of long term medical and counseling needs, and lost income caused by the mental problems she suffered as a result of the abuse. Because she has not yet collected any damages from the people who viewed her photo, she's suing each of them for $3.4 million until that total is reached. If one pedophile has the dumb luck to be the first person on her list, and he has a million bucks in the bank, he has to pay that $1 million toward her damages and make payments on the rest. If someone else gets sued years later and has $10 million in the bank, but she's already collected $3.2 million from other pedophiles, that guy only has to pay $200,000. And after he pays it off, every OTHER pedophile after that doesn't have to pay anything, because her damages have already been compensated.

The pedophile in this case is arguing that the system is unfair. If 100,000 million pedophiles viewed her photo, and the court, determined that she suffered $3.4 million in damages, he is arguing that he should only have to pay $34.00 in restitution because that is his part of the damages.

There is no legal circumstance in which she would actually get to collect $3.4 million from each pedophile. She is simply saying that she has the right to sue EACH of them for $3.4 million until she actually collects her entire $3.4 million in damages.

In order to game the system, the parent would not only need to put the photo out there, but would need to have a court establish the damages that could be pursued. The very first thing any court would ask is "Who took and distributed the photos?" I can't see a parent getting past that phase without getting busted and incarcerated for taking and distributing the photos in the first place, and they would lose custody of the kid forever. Sure, the kid would have money, but the kind of parents who would do that aren't typically motivated by their childrens well-being.

FWIW, I happen to agree with the young woman. You download kiddy porn, and you take your chances. If you don't want to risk your financial future, don't download the images. It's that simple.

[Squinch]

6. Thanks for that.

Currently, does she have any institutional recourse to get the money from a given individual? Like wage garnishment or seizure of assets?

[Xithras]

7. The process of pursuing damages varies by state.

Generally speaking, the process works like this:

1. A court declares that the damages are due in full and immediately from the individual.
2. The individual declares that they can't pay, or simply ignores the order.
3. The individual is served with papers demanding that they list all of their income and assets.
4. The victim goes back to court and asks the judge to order a seizure of assets to satisfy the judgement.

If the victim wants to garnish wages, that's usually a separate process. Garnishment is rarely worth the effort though. In most cases you'll spend more on the court filings than you'll ever recover from the individual (especially if they are in prison).

This is part of the reason why she's filing these suits the way she is. Most of the pedophile defendants are in prison and have no assets. When they get out, none will ever have a decent job again, so they won't have much income to garnish. While each "owes" her $3.4 million, she'll be lucky to see anything beyond five figures from each of them individually over the course of their lifetimes.

[Squinch]

8. Thanks again. God, that process makes her relive the issue over and over forever.

[PatrynXX]

2. oh sure just use the mp3 model the RIAA uses

which hey I guess if you share music it's far more illegal than child porn. fucked up system we live in

[Shoulders of Giants]

3. I've heard of people owing hundreds of thousands for torrenting 20 or so songs.

They would be better off if they just stole the CDs from the store.