FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
It makes it economically feasible for one of the perps who's viewed the video to post images from it on a billboard somewhere to increase the number of viewers and decrease his share of the damages, right?
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of truth in that.
Give the leftists a few years and every child will have the right to be raped and videotaped.
The Statute is pretty clear. I actually tend to agree with Roberts. Wanna be upset with someone, be upset with those who wrote the law.
Clearly Sotomayor is looking more like a crazy person
Paroline vs United States is the decision.
But then that would expect quality journalism from the Washington Post...
What does it matter what the amount is? If it was trillions or even a few hundred grand, the odds of the offender having the funds and being able to pay anything are pretty remote. Still, who can pay $300 mil?
It might be a constitutional issue under cruel and unusual if the amount was a crazy amount.
There isn’t really anything they can do to make someone pay, short of wage garnishments, etc., which they do, but as there are no debtor prisons in this country, assuming he gets out, they just keep taking a percentage of his pay check.
I think the amendment that addresses bail is limited to just that, bail, but no one seems to pay it any mind when people can be held on sveral million dollars bail or remanded without bail.
It is easy to say, “Who cares?” or “Fry him.” But it has a bearing on other issues. Can a contientious objector sue if something he worked on becomes part of a weapons system? Can he collect every time the system is deployed? Can a vegan running a vegetable farm sue if his veggies are served with meat? Poor analogy, but all I can think of at the moment.
What often happens is a judgement is divided among plaintiffs. For example, some idiots racing bicycles struck a cow. They could not identify the cow. The cow was determined to be at fault (or owner). As the owner could not be identified, everyone within a certain radius of the incident who had cattle had to pay on the judgement based on the percentage of cattle they owned. I am surprised that the judgement in this case isn’t divided among the 70 some odd thousand who viewed it.
So in other words, all the "superior constitutional wisdom" of these highly educated black robed thugs & tyrants and they still ended up in 3 different opinions. Gee I think the first 9 names in any telephone book could have done just as good a job as these bastards, if not better! Our judicial system is so screwed up because of the liberal, godless ideology, that 95% of all judges are incapable of issuing a correct verdict even if their lives depended on it.
Isaiah 5:20-24
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
The total judgment in this case was $3.4 million, not $300 million, and she already collected $1.2 million from one other defendant. (Must have been one wealthy pervert.)
There isn’t really anything they can do to make someone pay, short of wage garnishments, etc., which they do, but as there are no debtor prisons in this country, assuming he gets out, they just keep taking a percentage of his pay check.
There are more things they can do (seize houses, bank accounts, cars) but your basic point is correct-- most criminal defendants don't have much to seize.
I am surprised that the judgement in this case isn’t divided among the 70 some odd thousand who viewed it.
That's more or less what the majority said should be done. The problem is that most of the viewers have never been identified.
What do you think was the correct decision in this case?
Punitive damages are as close to criminal punishment as civil law gets, and is technically a separate trial (usually held concurrently with the trial in chief). Punitive damages are to punish and deter.
The problem with this is she can’t drag some 70,000 viewers into court
to sue them the perpetrator has no money!!!! I wonder though if she could
sue the porn site for carrying the photos!!!!
If a child in the womb has zero value, how much value does the life of a five, ten or fifteen year old child have?
If it's that crystal clear, why won't you tell us what the correct decision was?
highest rate for PTSD and chronic PTSD goes to...sexually abused kids. Pay up porn brokers.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
FYI..a recent episode of “Law & Order SVU” dealt with the same issue...they find one very rich person who possessed the child porn images, and he paid millions to the victim..It’s very well done...you can watch it online..
That’s my question. I’d like to read it for myself. How can their views be so divergent?
The decision is here.
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.