Criminal Defense Lawyers

Child Pornography Defense Lawyers

The Complex History and Uncertain Future of Federal Child Pornography Sentencing

Child pornography is undoubtedly a serious crime that causes significant harm. However, federal sentencing guidelines for non-production child pornography offenses have become increasingly severe over time, often driven more by political pressures and public outrage rather than empirical evidence. This has resulted in confusion, inconsistencies, and unduly harsh punishments that many argue are disproportionate to the culpability of offenders. Reforming these flawed guidelines will require nuanced conversations and a willingness to make difficult changes.

The Origins of Harsh Sentencing Requirements

Much of the current severity in child pornography sentencing can be traced back to various laws passed by Congress in the 1990s and 2000s. These include the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, which created numerous mandatory minimum sentences.The laws were passed in response to legitimate concerns about the growing ease of accessing child pornography online. However, some experts argue they were also largely reactionary, politically motivated efforts to appear “tough on crime” rather than driven by research on deterrence or proportionality.For example, Troy Stabenow, an Assistant Federal Public Defender, wrote in 2011:

“This Court’s scrutiny of the guidelines has led it to the conclusion that the [2G2.2] guidelines do not guide…[R]ather than exemplifying the Sentencing Commission’s exercise of its characteristic institutional role, they were congressionally directed.”

The Resulting Severity and Inconsistencies

Over time, these mandatory minimums and sentencing directives have interacted with existing guidelines in ways that many judges and experts feel are unjust or fail to adequately distinguish between offenders.Some key issues that have emerged include:

• Disproportionate Ranges Relative to Culpability: The average guideline minimum sentence for non-production child pornography offenses rose from 98 months in 2005 to 210 months in 2019. However, some research suggests this fails to adequately account for factors like the content accessed or whether offenders have a history of hands-on offenses.
• Increased Inconsistencies: One analysis found the sentences for 119 similarly situated possession offenders ranged from probation to 228 months. This disparity results from differences in charging, plea agreements, and judicial discretion.
• Questionable Deterrent Effect: Harsh sentences are often justified as deterring potential offenders. But some studies suggest there is little marginal deterrent effect above five years incarceration.

Judges Are Increasingly Speaking Out

In response to these issues, many federal judges have explicitly critiqued the child pornography guidelines or handed down sentences well below the recommended ranges.For example, Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York has written extensively about flaws in the current sentencing scheme for non-production offenses. In one 2008 case, he highlighted the lack of empirical basis and handed down a probation-only sentence where guidelines recommended over 5 years imprisonment.Some additional examples of judges citing problems with the guidelines include:

• Judge Paul Cassell of the District of Utah varying downwards from 46-57 months to 1 day imprisonment.
• Judge Robin Rosenbaum of the Southern District of Florida sentencing to 60 months instead of 210-262 months recommended.
• Judge Mark Bennett of the Northern District of Iowa calling the guidelines “patently absurd on their face.”

This judicial feedback underscores the need for reforming the guidelines around child pornography offenses.

The Difficulty of Change and Paths Forward

Meaningfully improving federal child pornography sentencing requires addressing complex philosophical, political, and social challenges.On the one hand, child pornography is extremely morally repugnant to most of society. Well-intentioned policymakers likely passed harsh sentencing requirements out of a desire to strongly condemn behavior they saw as irredeemable.Additionally, no politicians want to appear “soft” on such offenses or risk backlash over nuanced changes. This results in a chilling effect preventing more moderate, evidence-based reforms.However, the current flawed state of sentencing guidelines has very real costs. Excessive punishment fails to serve justice or differentiate between extremely varied offenders. It also contributes to prison overcrowding and ballooning costs.Navigating these issues will require an open and thoughtful dialogue between lawmakers, judges, academics, and the public. Suggested starting points include:

• Giving greater weight to empirical evidence on deterrence and recidivism when setting sentencing ranges.
• Crafting guidelines that better account for content, conduct, and criminal history rather than applying generalized enhancements.
• Providing judges with more flexible discretion to consider individual circumstances.
• Incentivizing the pursuit of mandatory counseling and treatment programs tailored to offenders’ risk levels.

Reforms will undoubtedly require political courage and risk backlash. However, the status quo comes with its own social costs that cannot be ignored. With care and wisdom, a more refined, just sentencing scheme can emerge that protects society’s most vulnerable while upholding principles of fairness and proportionality.

Resources

Articles

• Deconstructing the Myth of Careful Study: A Primer on the Flawed Progression of the Child Pornography Guidelines – Analysis of problems with child pornography sentencing guidelines
• Child Pornography and Criminal Justice Reform – Cardozo Law Review article discussing reform options

Cases

• United States v. Riley – Judge varies downwards from guidelines citing lack of empirical basis
• United States v. Grober – Judge Bennett calls child pornography guidelines “patently absurd on their face”