Atlanta Child Pornography Defense Lawyers
faced growing criticism in recent years for being excessively severe, inconsistently applied, and disconnected from empirical evidence on offender risk and recidivism. This article provides an in-depth look at the complex, evolving landscape of federal child pornography sentencing.
Contents
- 1 Background on Federal Sentencing Guidelines
- 2 History of Child Pornography Sentencing Guidelines
- 3 Key Problems with the Current Guidelines
- 4 Impact on Plea Agreements and Charging Decisions
- 5 Case Law and Congressional Directives
- 6 Proposals for Reform
- 7 Defense Strategies
- 8 The Future of Child Pornography Sentencing
- 9 Resources
Background on Federal Sentencing Guidelines
The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a standardized sentencing range for various federal offenses based on the offender‘s criminal history and characteristics of the crime. First enacted in 1987, the guidelines aimed to promote transparency and reduce unjustified disparities in sentencing.Judges have some discretion to impose sentences outside the guideline range through “departures” and “variances”, but the guidelines exert substantial influence. As one analysis noted, “A sentencing court in a federal child pornography case must begin its sentencing calculus by determining the applicable sentencing guideline range.”
History of Child Pornography Sentencing Guidelines
Since 1987, Congress has repeatedly directed the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the guidelines to increase penalties for child pornography offenses.As a result, the average sentence for non-production child pornography possession rose from just 20 months in 1997 to over 9 years in 2010. This was not driven by empirical evidence on harm or recidivism risk, but rather by statutory directives.
Key Problems with the Current Guidelines
Experts argue that the current child pornography sentencing guidelines suffer from three main flaws:
1. Excessive Severity
The guidelines use enhancements that quickly ratchet up sentences to extreme levels:
“For a first time offender, the punishment range for distribution of child pornography is 5-20 years. The mandatory minimum for this offense is 5 years” – Criminal Defense Attorney
This translates to guideline ranges of 15-40 years for many first-time receipt/distribution offenders.Such extreme sentences put non-production child pornography on par with offenses like kidnapping, bank robbery, and sexual abuse. Critics argue this lacks justification and empirical basis.
2. Inconsistency
The broad sentencing ranges lead to major inconsistencies, with different judges interpreting the vague guidelines very differently:
“The sentences for 119 similarly situated possession offenders ranged from probation to 228 months” – USSC Report
This undermines the guidelines’ goal of reducing disparities. Geographic location, judge assignment, and other factors lead to wildly unpredictable sentences.
3. Disconnect from Evidence
The guidelines are not grounded in empirical evidence on harm, dangerousness, or recidivism risk. One analysis found:
“This Court’s scrutiny of the guidelines has led it to the conclusion that the [child pornography] guidelines do not guide.”
Recidivism rates for possession offenders are generally low, especially with treatment. But the guidelines make little distinction between types of offenders.
Impact on Plea Agreements and Charging Decisions
The problems with the guidelines have cascading effects:
- Plea Agreements: Prosecutors often offer pleas to lesser charges to avoid guidelines seen as unjust. In 2019, 43% of child pornography cases were resolved by a plea agreement with a non-guideline sentence. – USSC Report
- Charging Decisions: Variations in charging lead to inconsistencies. For example, receipt carries higher penalties than possession, but the distinction is not always clear-cut.
Case Law and Congressional Directives
In recent years, some courts have pushed back on applying the guidelines rigidly, while Congress has continued directing increases:
- Courts: Some federal judges have imposed below-guideline sentences to avoid excessive punishment. But appellate courts have sometimes reversed these variances.
- Congress: Through 2018’s SESTA-FOSTA and other bills, Congress continues to direct increases to the guidelines. These have focused particularly on adding enhancements related to the content of images.
Proposals for Reform
Experts have urged reforming the guidelines to focus on core factors relevant to sentencing:
“Focus sentencing of these offenders on three primary factors: content, community, and conduct” – USSC Report
They recommend balancing sentences based on the type of material possessed, engagement with communities that promote abuse, and hands-on abusive conduct. Other reforms like defining victim impact more precisely have also been proposed.There seems to be growing momentum for reforming the child pornography sentencing guidelines to address their flaws while still providing strict punishment for harming children.
Defense Strategies
For defendants facing child pornography charges, possible defense strategies under the current guidelines system include:
- Challenge warrant validity: If there were issues with the warrant allowing search and seizure of devices, evidence may be suppressed.
- Dispute possession/receipt: Defendants may claim they never actively sought out or possessed illegal content. Technology makes proving intentionality complex.
- Argue for variance: Defense attorneys can present arguments for imposing a below-guideline sentence if the calculated range seems unjustly severe.
The Future of Child Pornography Sentencing
The debate around reforming child pornography sentencing guidelines is likely to continue, with many judges, commissions, and legislators recognizing the need for change.Core issues include finding the right balance between:
- Punishing a very serious crime
- Basing sentences on empirical evidence
- Avoiding excessive penalties and inconsistencies
- Providing treatment and managing recidivism risk
Meaningful reforms would help make sentences better serve victims, community safety, fairness, and human rights.