The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images

It should go without saying that child pornography is an absolutely horrible thing, that is especially damaging for the children exploited in the pornography. However, there's a growing question about whether or not those victims deserve to get compensated by those who possess the porn, rather than those who created and distributed it. Dan Goodin has an excellent article detailing the issues at stake, as some people who were exploited as children are now seeking monetary awards from those arrested for possessing the porn that included their images. In one case, a guy who had hundreds of illegal images has been ordered to pay $3.68 million -- just for possessing one image. Again, as horrible as the situation is for the exploited child, the damages here do not seem proportionate with what the guy did. I can understand awards like that from those who actually created or even distributed the works, but merely possessing it doesn't seem like you should have to pay up (get serious medical help, yes, but paying the person depicted seems a bit extreme).

Thankfully, as Goodin notes, many judges appear troubled by this as well, especially noting that the monetary rewards seem out of line with the proportion of "damage" done by the person possessing the image. In at least one case, the judge ruled that there needs to be more proof of how much damage is actually done by the person being ordered to pay:

"The losses described in Amy's reports are generalized and caused by her initial abuse as well as the general existence and dissemination of her pornographic images," US District Judge Leonard Davis, wrote in December when rejecting her claim against Paroline, the defendant in the Texas case. "No effort has been made to show the portion of these losses specifically caused by Paroline's possession of Amy's two images."

The judge went on to express sympathy after concluding that Amy will continue to suffer harm from the pictures for the rest of her life.

"However, the court's sympathy does not dispense with the requirement that the government satisfy its burden of proving the amount of Amy's losses proximately caused by Paroline's possession of her two images," he continued. "Although this may seem like an impossible burden for the government, the court is nevertheless bound by the requirements of the statute."

Some have pointed out that, since the exploited children are able to seek money from anyone possessing the images, the incentives quickly become screwed up:

"There's always a risk in the awarding of restitution that not only a victim is essentially incentivized to assert her harm is as great as possible," said Douglas Berman, a professor specializing in federal sentencing law at Ohio State College of Law. "What really concerns me is we've created an environment in which she will benefit by asserting that she continues to suffer the harms of these crimes."

I'm sure the law allowing such restitution -- the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act -- was put in place with the best of intentions, but it certainly seems like there are some serious unintended consequences there.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101103/14383111709/the-problems-with-letting-child-porn-victims-demand-cash-from-those-caught-with-their-images.shtml

TECHNITROL TAKETWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE SYNTEL SYNTAXBRILLIAN