Posted on 04/23/2014 10:27:17 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the amount of damages that those who possess child pornography must pay victims, throwing out a $3.4 million award that went to a woman whose childhood rape has been widely seen on the Internet.
The court voted 5 to 4 that those convicted of possessing child pornography must pay restitution to victims. But it said the amount of damages paid must be proximate to the harm that a specific offender has caused.[...]
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that his approach “is not without difficulties.”[...]
Kennedy said there were three options: give Amy nothing, because it is impossible to decide how Paroline’s possession of two images affected her; make Paroline liable for all of her damages, even though it is clear that his actions alone did not cause all of her problems; or take the middle ground.
Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he “regretfully” dissented, and said a proper reading of the law would mean Paroline should pay nothing.
“The statute as written allows no recovery; we ought to say so, and give Congress a chance to fix it,” he wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, but in the opposite direction. She said the law requires each individual convicted of possessing Amy’s images be held liable for the “full amount of the victim’s losses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
On the other hand, what does the law say?
They all make me sick.
Porn is not big business. Porn is HUGE business.
Bust ‘em.
At this stage, with no moral foundation In the country, constitutional interpretation is nothing but a mental maturbatory function.
The defendant in this case did not rape the child victim; he was merely one of the (sadly, thousands of) perverts who downloaded the film of her abuse.
Congress said that anyone convicted of possession of child pornography should, in addition to a prison sentence, pay the victim for the damages he "caused." The Government (and most of the lower courts) said that each defendant who possessed the images could be liable for the victim's full damages, until the victim is paid in full. Only Sotomayor accepted that argument. The majority said that each defendant should pay only his own share. Roberts, Thomas and Scalia said the victim was damaged by being raped, not by having people watch the film of her rape, so the defendant should pay nothing.
I guess execution is out of the question...............
Unusual case.
I guess the uncle that did it has no $$$.
So she went after the 70,000, or obviously a subset of them.
Give the leftists few years and the case will be if it’s even illegal to make it.
This wasn't a constitutional case; it was an interpretation of the language used by Congress, and all the Justices agreed that Congress could change the result for future cases by changing the language of the statute.
Then substitute legislative interpretation. The point still stands.
"Is that grandma!?"
Interesting case, sounds like Roberts has it right.
It wasn't "the leftists" who voted for the defendant in this case.
Dear Stupid People in Robes; how about you let a jury decide?
I’m pretty sure that 12 names pulled randomly from a hat can do a better job than you nine.
Great summary.
Scalia and Thomas definitely ruled on the law as usual.
Speaking of ‘The majority said that each defendant should pay only his own share.’
Those would only be the ones they tracked down.
it doesn't indicate how they got this video, a share site or a pay site.
It will depend on the race, gender, and sexual orientation of the victim and attacker.
Fortunately this was just about what a monetary punishment should be for an act that they all universally loathed....for now.
Fortunately this was just about what a monetary punishment should be for an act that they all universally loathed....for now.
**********
Indeed.
That's not the law Congress wrote. The statute says that the jury decides if the defendant is guilty of possession of child porn, and the judge decides his sentence, including the amount of restitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.