Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Too Much Restitution for Child Pornography Victims? The Role of Proportionality

By Sherry F. Colb

In my Verdict column for this week, I discuss the case of Paroline v. United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court confronted the question of how to interpret a federal law providing for restitution for victims of child pornography.  In the column, I review the different approaches of the majority and the two (very much opposed) dissenting opinions, and I also suggest that the restitution focus at the Court (and in the federal statute as well) ignores a whole group of victims of child pornography who could virtually never meet an individualized causation requirement established as a prerequisite to receiving monetary compensation: those victims whose later exploitation was fueled and motivated by prior possessors' demand for child pornography.

In this post, I want to talk about a very different matter that goes mostly undiscussed in the Supreme Court's opinions in Paroline:  the tension between the majority's worries about disproportionate restitution and the Court's general indifference to proportionality in the context of sentencing convicts to extremely long sentences for their (sometimes trivial) offenses.

The Court's majority opinion  expressly states that forcing Paroline to pay for all of child-pornography-victim (and respondent) Amy’s pornography-induced injuries would be grossly out of proportion to Paroline's relative role in causing those injuries (given the number of other offenders who have possessed her images).  Indeed, the Court goes beyond making this observation as a matter of simple statutory interpretation and indicates that requiring such a "joint and several liability" payment might well violate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.  In the Court's words:

“The reality is that the victim’s suggested approach would amount to holding each possessor of her images liable for the conduct of thousands of other independently acting possessors and distributors, with no legal or practical avenue for seeking contribution.  That approach is so severe it might raise questions under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.”

This statement is striking, given that this is the same Court that has seen fit to tolerate – against Eighth Amendment disproportionality challenges – the imposition of a life sentence for shoplifting, in Ewing v. California, and of a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for the possession of 672 grams of cocaine, in Harmelin v. Michigan.  Justice Kennedy in particular, who wrote the majority opinion in Paroline, joined the majority in Ewing and joined a concurring opinion in Harmelin, in which Justice O'Connor said that life without parole was not grossly disproportionate punishment for the crime of cocaine possession.  

If it is unfair and disproportionate to make someone in possession of child pornography pay money for much more than his share of his victims’ injuries, is it any more fair and proportionate to lock someone up for the rest of his days in a prison cell, when it is impossible to trace his particular conduct to anyone's suffering serious injuries at all?

I will share here  two admittedly speculative potential accounts of this oddity,  The first guess is about ideology. To oversimplify the terrain, outside the death penalty context, this Court has, on the whole, been hostile to criminal defendants’ complaints about the severity of their punishments, while the Court has simultaneously been rather friendly to civil defendants' claims that they are denied Due Process by plaintiffs’ demands for large punitive damages awards for tortious behavior.

When a convict complains about having to go to prison for a long time, such a claim may accordingly be triggering a law-and-order “don’t complain about your punishment” attitude in many (including some of the Justices on the Supreme Court).  Yet at the same time, when a plaintiff (or here, a victim who seeks restitution and thus resembles a civil plaintiff in that respect) asks for a large amount of money to compensate for her injuries, some of the same people who feel little empathy for the criminal convict may nonetheless feel impatience and annoiyance at the civil tort plaintiff's (or here, the similarly situated victim seeking restitution's) argument that she wishes to receive a seemingly enormous amount of money from the defendant.  Though Justice Kennedy in Paroline distinguishes Paroline himself from a civil defendant in virtue of the litigation's connection to his criminal prosecution, his similarity to civil defendants may do a better job than Justice Kennedy's distinction in accounting for the mercy that his circumstances seem to engender.  

In a number of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that punitive damage awards can be so high that they violate the defendant's right to Due Process.  Such cases include BMW of North America v. Gore, State Farm v. Campbell, and Philip Morris USA v. Williams.  This line of cases may help explain a reluctance on the part of the Supreme Court to award Amy, a victim of child pornography, an amount of restitution that would be extremely disproportionate to the relative contribution of the particular defendant here to her suffering.

A second potential source for the oddity (of toothless proportionality analysis in Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment consideration of prison sentences coupled with more exacting Eighth Amendment excessive fines scrutiny of proportionality in restitution awards), I believe, is the regrettable fact that shockingly long prison sentences no longer shock people, including the Justices.  The U.S. is such a leader in incarceration that sending people away for life for relatively trivial matters no longer raises eyebrows.  They’re “just criminals,” after all.  On the other hand, there is a perception among Americans (and perhaps among some of the Justices as well) that plaintiffs (and plaintiff-like victims) are greedy people who seek unearned awards while the “rest of us” have to work for a living.  This uncharitable view of both convicted criminal defendants and injured plaintiffs creates the otherwise peculiar sentiment that comfortably tolerates draconian prison sentences but takes offense at the possibility of over-compensating a plaintiff-like individual such as Amy.

Whatever its source, I would suggest that it may be time for the Supreme Court Justices (and perhaps for Americans more generally) to apply some critical scrutiny to their willingness to allow extremely long prison sentences to fall under the radar, while money awards -- which take less away from defendants than incarceration does and which, unlike incarceration, may directly help in restoring the wellbeing of injured victims -- trigger outrage and cries of "unconstitutional."  At the very least, there is a tension here, if one is truly concerned about proportionality, that deserves our attention.

14 comments:

el roam said...


Thanks for an interesting post. Would you consider the following :

1) That doctrine of reducing or not being " too large " concerning the amount of compensation in criminal cases, derives out of back mind of the system and judges who and which consider always the level or degree of inherited immunity of the state and particularly police officers, while exercising their duties. The idea that a victim of a criminal act should be well compensated, does affect or does or may project on the liability of the state in lets say: false procedures, false arrests and so forth....such " theologie " or new one of such , may affect seriously in their eyes , the capabilities of the state to handle or fight criminality .strictly , it may constitute not so well come new norm.

2) Second: you may consider the level of criminality perceived by judges, in light of the: offender and the nature of the offense. Drug dealing and possessing are considered (let alone harsh ones ) as far greater more severe and criminal by nature . As far as I know, in the US, conspiracy for drugs dealing, bears the same sentence as the commission of the offense itself. I mean, a judge may consider such offenses as suggesting much more, over holding pornography for ex - of certain chronic tendency for conducting criminal life, over a person who works for his living, can visually or prima facia conduct normal life, and in his private room for ex. has held some porn files , I mean what's the big deal apparently , let alone in that era of distributive media .

Thanks

yantingwho said...

我們來到了台南一夜情 海邊,在長椅上坐了下來。雨一夜情留言板安然地落下,滴在傘上外約,繚繞起天籟之音貓都魚訊 ,滴滴答答。雨安然地落下指油壓,跌入海洋,傳播妹濺起晶瑩的水花,茶訊羞羞答答。

妳握著我的手援交,像枚糖果不肯援助交際放松,“妳知道嗎,鵝軟石魚訊很平滑,它可以外送茶靜靜地沈入水底,任憑水流拍打它都新竹援交不會覺得痛。可是台北按摩半套它沒有像一夜情交友藍礬一樣絢麗的全套色彩,因為藍礬有很多的按摩店棱角,它會沈會浮,約砲象征永遠,而且高雄外送茶……”

Cody Fenwick said...

I think you are right that our society, and our court system, is far too blasé about the length of prison sentences. Part of this attitude, as you say, probably comes from the idea that "they're criminals, they deserve it, etc."

I would add that the concern for proportionality regarding financial restitution may come from the conservative distaste for taxation. Judges can better sympathize with the claim that a given monetary obligation is too onerous, if they happen to feel that they experience similar or comparable onerous burdens in their lives. Since few (if any?) judges have served time, their capacity to judge the burden of imprisonment is significantly diminished.

If I'm right, these consideration way heavily in favor of insisting and demanding greater diversity among judges. Their limited perspectives can have quite dire consequences.

el roam said...

let me just fix or correct two points in my comment mentioned above :

In sec 1 should be :" false prosecution " , rather than : " false procedure" .

In sec 2 should be : " child porn files " and not :"porn files" .

Thanks

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

奇堡比 said...

新女性徵信
外遇調查站
鴻海徵信
亞洲徵信
非凡徵信社
鳳凰徵信社
中華新女性徵信社
全國新女性徵信社
全省女人徵信有限公司
私家偵探超優網
女人感情會館-婚姻感情挽回徵信
女子偵探徵信網
女子國際徵信
外遇抓姦偵探社
女子徵信社
女人國際徵信
女子徵信社
台中縣徵信商業同業公會
成功科技器材
女人國際徵信社
女人國際徵信
三立徵信社-外遇
女人國際徵信
女人國際徵信
大同女人徵信聯盟
晚晴徵信

大愛 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

Evin Terna said...

Though Justice Kennedy in Paroline distinguishes Paroline himself from a civil defendant in virtue of the litigation's connection to his criminal prosecution, his similarity to civil defendants may do a better job than Justice Kennedy's distinction in accounting for the mercy that his circumstances seem to engender. lol代练价格
fifa coins
Buy Elo Boost
buy cheap fifa 15 coins

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

高合金鋼 said...

有自信的人之外送茶莊所以會心想事成、走向成功,外送茶莊是因為他們都有著免費魚訊巨大無比的潛能等著去開發;援-交line消極失敗的心態之所以會魚訊使人怯弱無能、走向失敗,是因為它使人放棄潛能援交妹的開發,一夜情留言板讓潛能在那裏沈睡、白白浪費。我們台北一夜情大家都知道的人大腦台中援交擁有140億個腦細胞,台北援交但我們思維意識援-交line只利用了腦細胞的很少部分,外約如能將更多的腦細胞從指油壓外出睡眠中激活出來,人的思維意識將更加強大外送茶莊。如果我們都能充滿自信,就能創造人間奇跡,鐘點情人亦能創造壹個最好的自己。

高合金鋼 said...

援助交際,外送茶日語漢字,指油壓簡稱援交,援交初時指男性雇用少女炮友進行約會或少女為金錢而與男性進行約會高雄援交,而男性則要包攬外約所有約會費用及報酬(援助金),本意外送茶可能只是結交異性朋友援交日記。但部分少女除了約會外,還會與台中一夜情男人進行性...

amine lahragui said...


thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
thanks so much i like very so much your post
فوائد الحلبة فوائد الزنجبيل فوائد الرمان فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد البصل فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم فوائد الزعتر قصص جحا تعريف الحب علامات الحمل

aminos lahragui said...


thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق