R.I.S.E. Together: Did you know? – Victim Restitution is in the Supreme Court?

Did you know if you were a victim of being forced to be in child porn, you can actually sue your abuser? The Violence Against Women Act provides that people whose images are used in child pornography can sue the viewers of the pictures and videos—the people who are convicted for possessing them. They can also sue the distributors and the producers.

A woman, only known as Amy Unknown, is filing with the Supreme Court to make it easier for victims of child pornography to collect restitution from people who view their images on their computers.

It all started when Doyle Randall Paroline, 48, was arrested in 2009 after an employee at a computer company found sexually explicit images of minors on his computer.

“Of the 150-300 incriminating images found on Paroline's computer, just two were of Amy. Paroline pleaded guilty and received a 24-month prison sentence. Amy, now her early 20s and living in Pennsylvania, was a child when her uncle sexually abused her and widely circulated images of the abuse, according to court records.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said it has found at least 35,000 images of Amy's abuse in more than 3,200 child pornography cases since 1998.
In at least 174 cases, Amy has been awarded restitution in amounts ranging from $100 to more than $3.5 million.”

In Paroline’s case, he is appealing an order holding him responsible for the full amount of losses, nearly $3.4 million. This amount was calculated by a psychologist working for James Marsh, an attorney for Amy. Though this seems like a ridiculous sum, the money is intended to cover the cost of psychological care, lost income and attorneys' fees.

“Advocates for child pornography victims say that holding defendants liable for the entire amount of losses better reflects the ongoing harm that victims suffer each time someone views the images online.
Last year, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said in a 10-5 decision that victims do not have to show a link between the crime and their injuries.

The threat of a large financial judgment, coupled with a prison term, also might deter some people from looking at the images in the first place, the advocates say.
'The threat that a person in the child pornography market may well bear the entire cost of the harm done to the victim, even if they are a ''minor player'', is likely to be a large deterrent, especially when the harm done typically runs into the millions for a victim's lifetime of care,' said Marci Hamilton, a law professor at Yeshiva University. Hamilton wrote a brief in the case on behalf of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.

The real question is whether a court must impose all of Amy's aggregate losses on each defendant. Regardless of the outcome of the court case, Congress could change the law. The U.S. Sentencing Commission recommended that lawmakers consider doing just that to eliminate confusion among federal judges about the right way to calculate restitution.”

However, the laws in that involve calculating restitution are not steady across the board. In another case involving Amy, The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out a restitution order because it found there was not a sufficient link between a man convicted of possessing child pornography and the women.

Author Emily Bazelon said “I wrote about Amy and a second victim, who goes by Nicole, for the New York Times Magazine a year ago, and they both felt nervous about being the first to come forward and ask for restitution. It’s a hard role to play when your biggest fear is being exposed. But they’ve also taken increasing pride about paving the way for other victims to win compensation, especially to pay for counseling, which has helped both of them overcome their experiences of trauma. Both Amy and Nicole attended the argument on Wednesday. Afterward, Amy told me she was thrilled. And Nicole texted me to say, “I felt like the judges really grasped the issues and tried to hash them out.”

That’s what it’s really about, the money is secondary, but paving the way for healing is the most important part.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Did you know? – Victim Restitution is in the Supreme Court?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Members