When Amy was a child, she was forced into child pornography by her uncle. The photographs and videos were known as “The Misty Series” and have circulated on the Internet for more than ten years.
Amy, (not her real name) is now demanding that everyone convicted of possessing any photo, even one, of a Misty image, to pay Amy in financial damages until she reaches her total of $3.4 million.
Some people say that this goes too far. One law professor at George Washington University, called the decision “highly questionable” on his blog. He stated that it “stretches personal accountability to the breaking point.” The issue, they say, is about “fairness in sentencing sex offenders.” Some courts feel that heavy sentences are “improper.”
“Corey Rayburn Yung, an expert in sex crimes at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said that while “it’s hard to be too sympathetic” toward those who possess images of child pornography, “there is such a thing as going too far.”
Going too far?
The harm to child pornography victims by those who possess the images, he said, is less direct than that caused by those who abused the children.”
Sympathetic? For what? To whom? Degenerates who demand child pornography? Does this sex crimes “expert” understand that if it were not for the demand of child pornography, that millions of children would no longer be victims of this heinous crime? Those who possess the images are not only directly involved, they are the root cause!
Amy’s uncle is in prison, but every time that the government notifies her that her photos have been seized in a child pornography raid or used in a prosecution of child pornographers, she is being violated all over again.
In 2005, Amy received over 800 of those notices.
Amy’s attorney, James R. Marsh, saw an opportunity to demand restitution through federal prosecutions. Amy has written a victim-impact statement and her lawyer had a psychologist evaluate her. Economists developed a number for the damages which include counseling, diminished wages and lawyer fees. The total is $3,367,854.00
Apparently, each defendant pays a certain amount. One defendant paid Amy $130,000.
However, some Judges have declined to order restitution, saying that the link between possession of child porn and the harm done “is too tenuous to reach the level of ‘proximate harm’ generally required under the law for restitution.” Yet many other judges have issued orders for defendants to pay thousands of dollars. Mr. Marsh has been able to bring $170,000 to Amy so far.
More and more victims are coming forward with this kind of claim and it has been suggested that Congress might have to initiate a victim compensation fund.
A memorandum last summer from a lawyer in the Administrative Office of the Courts, the federal agency that runs the judicial branch, stated that the law did not support restitution for “mere possession.”
Possession of child pornography is far from being a victimless crime. Those who demand and possess child pornography drive the business. Each of those degenerates are personally responsible for the sexual violations, torture, and rapes of children around the world, who are forced to perform for photographers and videographers, who fulfill the orders.
Source: NY Times