Supreme Court rules against child porn victims


Supreme Court

 

The Supreme Court rejected a plea for victims of child pornography to collect money from people who view their images online, throwing out a nearly $3.4 million judgment in favor of a woman whose childhood rape has been widely seen on the Internet.

Despite dissent from two justices, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that victims may seek restitution from offenders but only those directly tied to the offense. In the case Paroline vs. Amy Unknown, a woman known in court papers by the pseudonym “Amy” was awarded $3.4 million to cover psychological care, lost income and attorneys’ fees. This was based on the ongoing Internet consumption of images of her being raped by her uncle.

The original judgement was against Doyle Randall Paroline who was held liable by a federal appeals court for the entire amount.  His computer contained 150 illicit photographs, with two of the attack on Amy among them.

She has received more than $1.75 million from those convicted of possessing pornographic images of her. One man, Arthur Staples, paid $1.2 million.

The ruling steered a middle ground between the woman’s call for full restitution and Paroline’s claim that there was no relationship between his conduct and the woman’s losses, so that there should be no award of restitution.  The case turned on the interpretation of federal law granting restitution to victims of sex crimes, including child pornography, according to a report by the associated press.

Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that the appellate judges went too far when they said Paroline was responsible for all of the woman’s losses without determining how much harm he caused her. Kennedy said federal judges must figure out the right amount, but he provided only “rough guideposts for determining an amount that fits the offense.”

Kennedy Continued:

 “the victim should someday collect restitution for all her child pornography losses, but it makes sense to spread payment among a larger number of offenders in amounts more closely in proportion to their respective causal roles and their own circumstances.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined Kennedy’s opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the restitution law as written should mean that Amy gets nothing.

In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she would have upheld the full award.

“It’s significant that the Supreme Court said that based on this harm, you have a right to restitution,” said Mai Fernandez, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. Fernandez also said Congress should write a clear formula into the law to make it easier to force offenders to pay.

Advocates for child pornography victims argued 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. 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 said.