Proposed New U.S. Law governing restitution to victims

[Neighbor]

Congress Proposes to Fix Restitution for Child Pornography Victims
Posted: 07/25/2014 5:27 pm EDT Updated: 07/25/2014 5:59 pm EDT

Faced with a draconian decision by the United States Supreme Court in late April which all but eliminated meaningful restitution for child pornography victims, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spearheaded a comprehensive legislative fix (S. 2301) which addresses the concerns outlined by the Court in United States v. Paroline.

The Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act of 2014 was introduced exactly two weeks after the Supreme Court's decision.

Just six weeks later, U.S. Representative Matt Cartwright (D-PA-17), along with co-leads Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AK-4), Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA-1), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA-27), and Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA-4) introduced the bipartisan House companion bill (H.R. 4981) with the support of 69 House colleagues.

Over 100 Members of Congress from both parties are co-sponsoring the Amy and Vicky Act. National advocacy groups like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Crime Victim Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women are also supporting this bill.

Here's how this novel new law will allow victims of child pornography to receive meaningful and timely compensation.

About the Act

A longstanding federal statute which was passed as part of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 (18 U.S.C. §2259) requires that a defendant in a federal child sexual exploitation case must pay restitution for "the full amount of the victim's losses." This works fine for crimes in which a defendant directly causes specific harm to a victim, but child pornography crimes are different. A child pornography victim is harmed by the initial child pornography production-which includes child sex abuse-and then by the distribution, transportation, and possession of the resulting child sex abuse images and videos.

The Supreme Court has recognized that victims are harmed by the ongoing "trade" and "the continuing traffic" in child sex abuse images. "In a sense," the Court said, "every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim's abuse." This is why child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately on the Internet, that abuse never ends.

Each step in the child pornography process—production, distribution, transportation, and possession—increases the harm to victims while making it more difficult to identify those responsible. The vulnerable victims of this crime, who were sexually abused and exploited as children, are especially in need of compensation to help put their lives back together.

"Amy" and "Vicky" are the victims in two of the most widely-distributed child pornography series in the world. On April 23, 2014, in Paroline v. United States, which reviewed Amy's case, the Supreme Court found that the existing restitution statute is ill-suited for cases like theirs because it requires proving the impossible: how one person's possession of particular images concretely harms an individual victim. This standard unnecessarily places the burden on victims to forever pursue defendants across the country while recovering next to nothing.

The Amy and Vicky Act responds to Paroline and does three things that addresses the unique nature of these crimes.

First, it considers the total lifetime harm to victims from the initial sexual grooming to the last possessor.

Second, it requires meaningful and timely restitution.

Third, it allows defendants who have contributed to the same victim's harm to spread the restitution cost among themselves.

Those who continue a victim's abuse should not be able to hide in the crowd; there can be no safety in numbers. Victims should not have to prove the impossible. The Amy and Vicky Act creates a practical process, based on the unique kind of harms from child pornography, that both puts the burden on defendants where it belongs and provides meaningful and timely restitution for victims.

Highlights

    A victim's losses include medical services, therapy, rehabilitation, transportation, child care, and lost income. Restitution does not include pain and suffering, emotional damages, or punitive damages.

    If a victim was harmed by a single defendant, that defendant must pay full restitution for the victim's losses.

    If a victim was harmed by multiple individuals, including those not yet identified, a judge can impose restitution on an individual defendant in two ways depending on the circumstances of the case:
        the defendant must pay "the full amount of the victim's losses" OR
        at least $250,000 for production, $150,000 for distribution, or $25,000 for possession.

    Federal law already provides a mechanism for creating a fair and balanced payment schedule according to each defendant's ability to pay.

    Multiple defendants who have harmed the same victim and who are liable for the "full amount" are jointly and severally liable and may sue each other for contribution to equalize their restitution obligation.

The Congressional findings are clear and unequivocal: "The unlawful collective conduct of every individual who reproduces, distributes, or possesses the images of a victim's childhood sexual abuse plays a part in sustaining and aggravating the harms to that individual victim. Multiple actors independently commit intentional crimes that combine to produce an indivisible injury to a victim."

Congress is expected to vote on the Act this fall.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-r-marsh/congress-proposes-to-fix-_b_5619206.html (tor safe, ensure scripts disabled)

[on the rocks]

They really used "Amy" and "Vicky", huh?  In the name of the law?  That's the only part about this that I like.

the Supreme Court found that the existing restitution statute is ill-suited for cases like theirs because it requires proving the impossible: how one person's possession of particular images concretely harms an individual victim.

There's a reason it is impossible.  Because it doesn't exist.

If a victim was harmed by multiple individuals, including those not yet identified, a judge can impose restitution on an individual defendant in two ways depending on the circumstances of the case:
        the defendant must pay "the full amount of the victim's losses" OR
        at least $250,000 for production, $150,000 for distribution, or $25,000 for possession.

Those numbers are minimums.  Per person.
Ho. Lee. Shit.

Since there is no way this will not become law in the United States, it is time to begin your planning to exploit it to help the poor little ones.
"Hey sweetheart, how would you like to be rich when you grow up?  Yeah, you do.  Well I've got a surefire way to get you a steady income without any work at all.  The first part is going to be a little icky, but remember, you'll be set for life!"

Step 1: Find a less-fortunate American child you want to help.

Step 2: Produce child pornography with the child.  And make it as good as you can; lots of cumshots; get it in at least one hole; get a second child and work the homo angle.  The higher the quality, the better the plan will work.

Step 3: Distribute the child pornography as widely and as freely as you can.  The better the content the more people will want to share it, which is good.

Step 4: Get the hell out of there!

Step 5: Disclose the name of the child in the pornography.  Or better yet, leave obvious clues in the child pornography itself, like a school shirt or local newspaper.

Step 6: Victimhood culture to the rescue!  "It's not your fault sweetie; he was a bad, bad man..."

Step 7: Lawyer up.  This man did stuff to you and put it on the internet.  People are touching themselves to your image every single day.  You've been emotionally scarred forever.  You need restitution.  Tell the lawyer to use Amy & Vicky's Law to get you money.

Step 8: Cash the checks.

Step 9 (bonus step): Write a book and cry on talk shows for even more money!

Now get out there and start giving America's children the future they deserve.


That was fun.  In reality, we all know who is actually going to get rich from A&V's Law.  The lawyers.

[ministraw]

What utter bullshit. " This standard unnecessarily places the burden on victims to forever pursue defendants across the country while recovering next to nothing." HAHAHAHA. Right, so how about they stop chasing down defendants? Then where it says not making them do the impossible. They didn't even try to make it sound logical. Why is it impossible then? You are just going to use loaded emotional words, talk about how it is impossible to state how it harms them, and then not even try to articulate an argument to back yourself up?

I don't see how these possible money charges give appropriate restitution to victims. How is giving them raw cash going to "help them heal"? All victims would be doing is pursuing knowledge of wherewhowhen people viewed their images and making money off their porn. Pursuing the knowledge seems a bit easier to prove harmful than somehow being harmed whenever someone views the image.

Does this apply to anyone under 18? Including males? This would be so interesting to see. Callous teenage girls and boys could take pictures themselves with an automatic camera, load it to the web, say some man in a black ninja suit broke in and bribed them and used their personal computer, and then get $ from the people viewing their images.

I wish I had thought of giving out my pics and then suing the viewers before I was of age! They may not need to pretend a man broke in. In places that don't charge teenagers for self distributing (I think it has happened in one state. Girl offed herself.), teenagers and pre teens alike could begin doing this. When criticism comes down on the teenagers, they could point to the pre-teens and remind people that they are doing it too, yet those who would view it are seen as taking advantage of a child! And after all, teenagers can't be held responsible for their actions either. The law says so. Ka-ching.

Now would they let teenagers, even males, get rich off of suing the viewers of their child pornography in order to be consistent, or try to create lines between the ages?

[Interloper]

Okay, what about this...

With the assistance of a fellow pedophile, make a child pornography video with yourself in the starring role.  At some point in the video and in front of the child, have the cameraman point a gun at your head and tell you that if you do not perform you will die.  All the video to leak and be distributed all over the world.  Come forward with your sad plight at having to participate in such a devastating and horrific experience.  Then begin to sue offenders caught with your video as a victim of child pornography yourself!!

[on the rocks]

Okay, what about this...

With the assistance of a fellow pedophile, make a child pornography video with yourself in the starring role.  At some point in the video and in front of the child, have the cameraman point a gun at your head and tell you that if you do not perform you will die.  All the video to leak and be distributed all over the world.  Come forward with your sad plight at having to participate in such a devastating and horrific experience.  Then begin to sue offenders caught with your video as a victim of child pornography yourself!!

"But Mr. OTR, you ejaculated at least seven times in these videos.  Are you sure this was against your will?"


I have heard of similar things where a gunman holding hostages forces one of them to do sexual things to a woman at gunpoint.
Maybe you could really sell the victimhood by having the accomplice smack you in the face with his dick or something.

[lensman]

the Supreme Court found that the existing restitution statute is ill-suited for cases like theirs because it requires proving the impossible: how one person's possession of particular images concretely harms an individual victim.

That is one of the most stupidly revealing sentences I've read for a while. If it's impossible to even show that harm was done by an action how can that lead them to want to treat that action as if it were invariably and inevitably harmful?

Maybe they may say something like : 'it's like burning fossil fuels - you can't say that this particular amazonian tree died because of that trip you did in your 4x4 from LA to New York - but that fact doesn't exonerate you from a generalised contribution to damage to the environment that trip caused'. But in this case there will be some correllation between the 'number and distance of 4x4 trips made' and 'generalised environmental damage'. Can there be said to be the same correllation between 'number of views of a particular CP video' and 'harm done to the then-child depicted'?

They're tying themselves in knots in order to maintain laws and ideas that don't correspond with reality. They're like the religious fundamentalist and their comical attempts to disprove evolution and prove that everything in the bible/koran is literally true - if the reality doesn't correspond to their blind faith then it's reality that must change and not their faith.

[Luftëtari]

Absolutely insane.

[Gaki]

Although I was thinking this before I read OTR's lovely sarcasm, but really, is this not something that can easily be used to scam?  Will there be checks-and-balances to ensure that the intent was not to make money? 

I think we all remember back to 11, 12 or 13 when we could easily hatch schemes to make loads of money blackmailing certain people we did not like.  I can imagine many even more technology-savvy children using this opportunity to essentially get legal restitution for willingly exposing themselves - in essence legally sanctioned professional child pornography, in spirit rather than in the letter of the law.

On a side issue, I notice that the very unusally named Orrin Hatch is a Mormon.  He has a history of law and sights set on the US Supreme Court.  All of these lead to dubious reasons for him introducing this legislation ...  A knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court giving a bit of 'common sense' to a poorly thought out law...  there is in no way whatsoever any sort of benefit to the 'victim' through this.

As ministraw mentions, throwing money without stipulation at the victim does nothing to help these adults who may-or-may-not-have gone through some trauma early in their lives.  It is pure politics and vote-grabbing

o.0

[ministraw]

Okay, what about this...

With the assistance of a fellow pedophile, make a child pornography video with yourself in the starring role.  At some point in the video and in front of the child, have the cameraman point a gun at your head and tell you that if you do not perform you will die.  All the video to leak and be distributed all over the world.  Come forward with your sad plight at having to participate in such a devastating and horrific experience.  Then begin to sue offenders caught with your video as a victim of child pornography yourself!!

Oh yeah, I wonder if the law specifies that the victim in the child pornography needs to be a minor to get restitution under the statue?

[Interloper]

Okay, what about this...

With the assistance of a fellow pedophile, make a child pornography video with yourself in the starring role.  At some point in the video and in front of the child, have the cameraman point a gun at your head and tell you that if you do not perform you will die.  All the video to leak and be distributed all over the world.  Come forward with your sad plight at having to participate in such a devastating and horrific experience.  Then begin to sue offenders caught with your video as a victim of child pornography yourself!!

Oh yeah, I wonder if the law specifies that the victim in the child pornography needs to be a minor to get restitution under the statue?

That's what I am saying.  To my knowledge the only stipulation is that you are a victim and not t he perpetrator. 

[cuzmon25]

Okay, what about this...

With the assistance of a fellow pedophile, make a child pornography video with yourself in the starring role.  At some point in the video and in front of the child, have the cameraman point a gun at your head and tell you that if you do not perform you will die.  All the video to leak and be distributed all over the world.  Come forward with your sad plight at having to participate in such a devastating and horrific experience.  Then begin to sue offenders caught with your video as a victim of child pornography yourself!!

BRILLIANT!  I laughed my butt of after reading this.  The antis would be beside themselves.  On one hand they want to persecute (No I mean persecute and not prosecute) you as the big bad abuser but then they understand that you are a victim also so their little ant heads would start to explode and melt down.  I like it.

As far as the law goes, it is crap and I hope it is just election year posturing by some idiots and dies in committee like most things.

[cuzmon25]

Although I was thinking this before I read OTR's lovely sarcasm, but really, is this not something that can easily be used to scam?  Will there be checks-and-balances to ensure that the intent was not to make money? 

I think we all remember back to 11, 12 or 13 when we could easily hatch schemes to make loads of money blackmailing certain people we did not like.  I can imagine many even more technology-savvy children using this opportunity to essentially get legal restitution for willingly exposing themselves - in essence legally sanctioned professional child pornography, in spirit rather than in the letter of the law.

On a side issue, I notice that the very unusally named Orrin Hatch is a Mormon.  He has a history of law and sights set on the US Supreme Court.  All of these lead to dubious reasons for him introducing this legislation ...  A knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court giving a bit of 'common sense' to a poorly thought out law...  there is in no way whatsoever any sort of benefit to the 'victim' through this.

As ministraw mentions, throwing money without stipulation at the victim does nothing to help these adults who may-or-may-not-have gone through some trauma early in their lives.  It is pure politics and vote-grabbing

o.0

I have been the victim of sexual harrasment scams before by women that just wanted to get paid so this is almost a predicted outcome.  Each time the "victim" says I di something to them and the company pays out to settle the claim.  I have not lost my job because of it as I had witnesses each time (and one time I was out sick on the day the incident happend) but the company paid off anyway.  I can really see this becoming another way young girls with out a shred of morals can make loads of cash.  "Hey, if it ruins some poor schlubs day (or life), oh well as he had it comming" will be the thought proccess.

[Neighbor]

the Supreme Court found that the existing restitution statute is ill-suited for cases like theirs because it requires proving the impossible: how one person's possession of particular images concretely harms an individual victim.

That is one of the most stupidly revealing sentences I've read for a while. If it's impossible to even show that harm was done by an action how can that lead them to want to treat that action as if it were invariably and inevitably harmful?

Maybe they may say something like : 'it's like burning fossil fuels - you can't say that this particular amazonian tree died because of that trip you did in your 4x4 from LA to New York - but that fact doesn't exonerate you from a generalised contribution to damage to the environment that trip caused'. But in this case there will be some correllation between the 'number and distance of 4x4 trips made' and 'generalised environmental damage'. Can there be said to be the same correllation between 'number of views of a particular CP video' and 'harm done to the then-child depicted'?

They're tying themselves in knots in order to maintain laws and ideas that don't correspond with reality. They're like the religious fundamentalist and their comical attempts to disprove evolution and prove that everything in the bible/koran is literally true - if the reality doesn't correspond to their blind faith then it's reality that must change and not their faith.

IIRC, someone tried to challenge the Canadian child pornography section of the Criminal Code, based on the claim that there is no evidence backing-up the law; in other words, the claim was that Parliament passed a law based on presumed harms, as opposed to actual, proven harms, and that therefore, the law should be ruled invalid.

I believe the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can make the laws as it sees fit, even in the absence of evidence, and threw the case out.

Neighbor