Friday, October 5, 2012

encouraging signs of common sense

This is a year old and it is still a breath of fresh air.
A victim of child pornography seeking restitution should not receive court-ordered payments from those who possessed the images but had no hand in creating them, a federal appeals panel ruled Thursday.
Why not?
Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that while the prison sentence was appropriate, the monetary award was not because “the victim’s loss was not proximately caused by a defendant’s possession of the victim’s image.” The victim impact statement and psychological evaluation, he noted, were written well before Mr. Aumais was arrested “or might as well have been.”
I want to see the lovely, sensible part again: the victim’s loss was not proximately caused by a defendant’s possession of the victim’s image. See? Logic is such a nice tool. We should use it more often.

Victim impact statements are commonly a bit of boilerplate stuck into the presentence investigation report, with no real consideration of whether it applies to the case or not. If the defendant used child porn, it is assumed--and used against the defendant--that his looking at images has damaged a child. Even a child who cannot be identified, who has no idea that this particular man looked at those photos, and perhaps has no idea that the photos are out there at all.
...Amy’s lawyers have entered pleas in hundreds of child pornography possession cases around the country seeking payment for their client’s lost wages and counseling through federal criminal restitution statutes, asking for more than $3 million in each case. They have submitted nearly 700 of these pleas, and have recovered $345,000 so far. 
Some federal district courts have granted nothing, stating that the link between Amy’s harm and the act of possession is too tenuous to support a restitution order. A Florida court ordered the full $3,680,153, with others in between.
Amy has a tough life, with a horde of lawyers eager to remind her that her photos are still circulating out there and that she could benefit from taking child porn users to the cleaners.

The fact that the lawyers will also benefit is completely coincidental. Ahem.

8 comments:

Lexi said...

Wow, how backwards your view is as well as that statement.

Child porn is not art. It doesn't matter who looks at it or not.

It is, quite simply, photographic evidence of child abuse.

Please get help.

Anonymous said...

You're husband is a disgusting pervert How on earth can you want anything to do with a man than thinks sexualisation and/or sexual abuse of innocent children is a turn on. He should be shot. I honestly what kind of desperate women would actually want to stand by his side when that is the kind of person he has become.

Anonymous said...

This is beyond disgusting. If you don't think there is anything wrong with looking at child pornography then you are a very messed up individual.

Anonymous said...

Back off people! She is trying to make sense of this whole mess! No, she doesn't think that it is okay to look at child porn! What I feel she is trying to say is......there is a much bigger picture here. Why can't they CATCH the individuals that PRODUCED it in the first place. It is like going after the druggie instead of the dealer! She and her kids did not ask to be pulled into this mess. We all seem to jump to conclusions here. Let's try to give her a little compassion here, she is trying to figure out where to get off this roller coaster ride she has been thrown on!

Anonymous said...

^^ If perverts like her fuck up of a husband didn't look at the pictures there would be no point in anyone making it. He is helping create a 'market' for it. No one seems to be saying the producers of it should not be caught. But people like her husband are just as bad for supporting it.

L. said...

" It is like going after the druggie instead of the dealer!"

Right. Because people who choose to spend their time fantasizing about raping and molesting little kids have nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the fact that people do and record it. Grow up. The reason that thousands and thousands of traumatized, molested kids DO NOT GET HELP is because they are told by their rapists that no one cares, that it's normal and okay, that they just need to put up with it...there is a whole culture that contributes to the continued victimization of children and if you think this man did not CHOOSE to be a part of that, a FATHER CHOSE to beat off to pictures of kids in horrific situations then I don't know what to say to you. Back off...why didn't he just back off?

Marie needs serious help and therapy, and she needs to protect her kids. Other people might be able to help this guy, but as his kids' mother she needs to put them first. Clearly he has not. He has ruined his family, ruined his own life and contributed to ruining a bunch of kids' lives who are being molested RIGHT NOW to produce this stuff. Marie's support of him is incredibly unhealthy and morally reprehensible.

Antigone said...

I think that your opinion would be a little different if it were YOUR HUSBAND that taped YOUR KIDS and posted it online for the perverts of the word to masturbate to. You are victim blaming Amy here and it is... there really are no words.

If men like your husband did not exist, there would be no market for child porn and INNOCENT CHILDREN like Amy would not BE victims.

How you can blame her for trying to seek retribution yet expect people to lighten up on your husband?Q It's... again, there are simply no words to get the point across of how completely ridiculous and sick you sound. I say this with all seriousness, you need to get help. You need to get your kids away from that man who clearly doesn't understand how to properly treat, care for and respect them. You need to stand up and do the right thing and trying to convince people how poorly treated your pedophile husband it is NOT THAT.

Lori Dixon said...

No, she is trying to make her husband out to be the victim of the legal system, rather than the true victims- the many children who were powerless in their situations whose images he got off to.