United States v. R.V.
| Citation | 157 F.Supp.3d 207 |
| Decision Date | 21 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | 14–CR–0316 |
| Parties | United States of America, v. R.V., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Peter W. Baldwin, United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York, 271 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, 718–254–7000, peter.baldwin@usdoj.gov, for United States.
Len H. Kamdang, Federal Defenders of New York Inc., One Pierrepont Plaza, 16th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201, 718–407–7414, len_kamdang@fd.org, for Defendant.
Statement of Reasons for Sentencing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2)
, Senior United States District Judge:
Table of Contents
This adult defendant viewed child pornography in his home on his computer. He also participated in electronic “chat room” sexual conversations with minor females. His sentencing demands consideration of the manifold relevant differences among child pornography offenders.
Under the federal criminal code, child pornography viewing through computers is a serious felony. The theory is that (1) computer depiction of children being sexually exploited creates a permanent widespread record of abuse, perpetuating and potentially exacerbating the harm initially suffered by the victim in the production, and (2) acquisition of these images encourages abuse of children in their production since viewers create demand.
Prosecution under the current sentencing framework has largely failed to distinguish among child pornography offenders with differing levels of culpability and danger to the community. The applicable structure does not adequately balance the need to protect the public, and juveniles in particular, against the need to avoid excessive punishment, with resulting unnecessary cost to defendants' families and the community, and the needless destruction of defendants' lives.
One of the foundational rules of our criminal justice system is that punishment should be commensurate with the crime—its threat to society. The need to tailor sentences to the dangers and needs of the individual being sentenced (and his family and community) are also foundational. Proportionality in sentencing encourages a fair system. Increasingly, judges, prosecutors, advocates and concerned citizens have recognized that the current sentencing approach to child pornography offenders is often unfair, unreasonable, cruel, and conceptually deficient.
Child pornography offenders can be broadly divided into two main categories: those who produce child pornography and those who are viewers of child pornography. By definition, producers of child pornography are child molesters, frequently representing the worst and most dangerous type of offender. Non-production offenders, by contrast, encompass a wide range of individuals with varying degrees of culpability. They include occasional viewers with no particular sexual interest in children as compared to adults; viewers with pedophilic tendencies who are aroused by images of minors but do not possess the intent or capacity to engage in any sexual contact with a minor; users of peer-to-peer files who passively and unintentionally distribute child pornography received on their computers; viewers who intentionally engage in the trafficking of child pornography for economic or psychic gain; and viewers who have, intend to, or are likely to, engage in sexual contact with a minor—i.e., actual or potential child molesters.
Child pornography viewing is played out against a primal parental fear of pedophiles harming their children. While there is a degree of overlap between child pornography viewers and child molesters, most non-production child pornography offenders—and particularly the one now before the court for sentencing—show no mens rea suggesting the likelihood of future harm to children.
The Internet revolution has vastly increased the availability and accessibility of child pornography online, greatly expanding the category of people arrested for possession and distribution offenses involving explicit sexual images of minors obtained through home computers using various peer-to peer file sharing programs. As a result there has been an enormous increase in this criminal class, governmental resources used to ferret out its members, criminal prosecutions, and incarcerations.
Prosecutions and sentencing should differentiate among offenders' varying degrees of culpability. Failure to distinguish among the multitude of vectors involved in a sentencing decision is particularly grave in the field of child pornography offenses. To be adjudicated guilty necessarily results in denomination as a sex offender; automatically provided is a lifetime of continuous punishment—being marked as a pariah with severe restrictions on residence, movements, activities and associations. Adding unnecessary, unduly long, periods of incarceration is inappropriate and it should be avoided.
In order to deliver reasonable sentences for child pornography offenses, a detailed recategorization and typology of offenders is warranted. The divisions below offer a tentative illustration of one possible taxonomy. Each category implies different mental states, which need to be considered when tailoring appropriate punishment and measures for control.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Pyles, 14-3069
...offenders may be low, with most child pornography viewers unlikely to engage in future sexual offenses." United States v. R.V. , 157 F.Supp.3d 207, 240 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).These studies are not the end of the matter. Actual recidivism may be higher than known recidivism, given the underreportin......
-
United States v. D.W.
...of defendants "frequently represent [s] the worst and most dangerous type of offender." United States v. R.V. , No. 14–CR–0316, 157 F.Supp.3d 207, 210, 2016 WL 270257, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016).Substantial punishment is warranted. First, and most importantly, the public needs to be pro......
-
United States v. E.L.
...of these images encourages abuse of children in their production since viewers create demand." United States v. R.V. , 157 F.Supp.3d 207, 209, 2016 WL 270257, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016).No mandatory minimum applies to the instant offense. The sentencing factors under section 3553(a) of ......
-
United States v. Burdulis
...at liberty to disregard. See United States v. Jones , 289 Fed.Appx. 798, 799 (5th Cir.2008) ; United States v. R.V. , 157 F.Supp.3d 207, 249–50, 2016 WL 270257, at *33 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016). Petitioner further contends that it is impermissible to impose a term of supervised release that ......