Posted by: elderban Feb 8 2010, 02:29 PM
QUOTE
The latest conundrum in child pornography law is restitution, as courts try to nail down whether simply possessing offending images constitutes harm to the victim—and how much that damage is worth. A year ago, a man in possession of 10-year-old pictures of “Amy” was ordered to pay her $200,000 in the first criminal case of its kind. Defense lawyers and even some experts aren’t happy about the precedent.
“Amy” has now made requests of restitution averaging $3.4 million each in 350 criminal possession cases nationwide. A Florida court ordered a man to pay her $3.5 million solely because “he possessed her image on his computer approximately 10 years after that image had been manufactured,” his lawyer complains. Questions of responsibility aside, an expert tells the AP, “it just isn’t appropriate for criminal court” to make decisions on restitution. Poppycock, says an advocate. “There’s a victim, and there’s a real harm.”
Ok, some probably wont like this, but this should be a civil issue and not a criminal issue.
Furthermore, if it becomes precedent, and some unscrupulous relatives know a child victim can rake in millions in damages, it might actually prove to be an incentive for them to hurt their own kids themselves and turn around and sue anyone that looks at their children's pictures.
I'd rather the money get paid into a program to assist victims and provide them counseling rather than be an emotional "band-aid". But I've never understood how money can make emotional hurt go away, anyway.
It seems to me that this "Amy" is in it for the money.
Posted by: WonderHampster Feb 8 2010, 04:10 PM
QUOTE
Ok, some probably wont like this, but this should be a civil issue and not a criminal issue.
No argument from me, and your other point of profiteering is spot on as well.
Posted by: Mustanger Feb 8 2010, 05:12 PM
I too think elderban's analysis of this is spot on. Should be a civil matter.
And there is a danger in letting millions of dollars in law suits be filed too against hundreds of people that didn't take the pictures.
Posted by: Bookie61 Feb 9 2010, 06:50 AM
Me three.
Just as with alot of other restitution cases *cough*, the victim is so far removed from the "crime" that to declare restitution is worthless to correcting the crime.
The original perpetrator is the one to be punished, criminally. The rest, be marked as the bottom dwellers they are, but I don't see a situation that restitution will correct.