Judge Weinstein Takes on Child Pornography Laws

New York Times ^ | May 21, 2010 | A. G. Sulzberger

[reaganaut1]

In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography.

Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next cast of jurors about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”

There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20-year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.

Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week.

[reaganaut1]

Judges who want to change the laws should resign and run for Congress. The judge thinks consumers of child porn are harmless, but even if they never directly abuse children, they create the demand for child pornography, whose creation often involves child abuse.

[Fido969]

One issue is, if a guy has a kiddie porn problem, and knows it, he’s screwed, he can’t get help.

[Dayman]

I understand the arguments for and against criminalized child pornography. I also hear arguments daily both on FR and elsewhere that prohibition never works and only creates a black market for things. This is usually stated with respect to the war on drugs and the legalization of pot.

My question is, what basis is there for a free country to prosecute someone for possessing an image that they didn't produce but simply have in their possession? Particularly when you're talking about some pretty serious consequences such as >25 years in prison and lifetime registration as a sex offender. The word “draconian” comes to mind.

The fact that a market may promote the further production of new images is a pretty far removed consequence of one individual possessing one (or more) image. Particularly where the supreme court has said that simulated child pornography is not criminal.

[antiRepublicrat]

The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.

That is a valid point. My solution: Increase the recommended sentences for those actually sexually abusing children.

[rellimpank]

-—I suspect this is also the Judge Jack Weinstein who has been one of the most virulently anti-firearms on the bench, stretching every possible legal point to promote the anti-gun agenda—

[cherry]

don’t come near my grandchildren, ever....

[cherry]

no....increase the penalties to those perverts looking this stud stuff and make the punishment so bad that they come squealing with the names of who sold the crap, who made it, etc...

[Drew68]

The child pornography industry has flourished through the Internet; the number of federal cases grew from fewer than 100 annually to more than 1,600 last year.

That's disturbing. It seems the internet has created a monster where there wasn't one before. Prior to the internet, people who wanted to view child porn had to enter a highly-secretive black market community. Now, it's a few mouse clicks away. Any one of us on this forum could probably find child porn within five minutes if we were so determined.

Sixteen hundred people busted each year. Are all of them pedophiles? Probably most are but certainly there are a few who just got a little too curious at what they could find on the 'net. Possibly a handful of others who for many legitimate reasons didn't even know they had it on their computer when they took it to Best Buy to get it fixed.

Scary stuff out there. Be careful what you click on and what you open. I can think of fewer things that would more thoroughly destroy a hard-earned reputation and good name than facing a child porn rap.

[Dayman]

Whatever. LOL. It was a valid question.

[Dayman]

Liberal emotionalism like you displayed in your post are out of place on FR. If you aren’t able to form an actual argument to address either the original post or the question I raised in my post then that’s a failing on your part and should cause you to take a good long look at what you believe and why.

I tend to take a disinterested objective look at issues and like to ask “why.” Why are things one way for some topics and another way for others. I also detest mallum prohibitum laws, even when they are for something which is socially undesirable or awkward like this subject is. You apparently like to get emotional and fail to take a critical view of issues. Good luck with that.