Why do they need to know? I can understand some of them wanting to know, but I hardly think it is a ‘healthy choice’ for their mental state. I don’t see how it can do anything but further their feelings of victimization.
Now of course if you add, ‘every time we tell you, you get 3.4 million dollars’, well, who wouldn’t want to know.
Explain to me how notifying them is good. What good does it do for the victim?
Nothing in the article seems to indicate there isn’t a cap. Marsh either believes there is a cap or has set a cap for some other reason. If there is not a cap I would argue there should be one.
Greater minds then me with experience and actual numbers on the direct cost to the victims for treatment to the conditions that arise are welcome to set that cap where appropriate. Someone claimed 3.5 million seemed high. It could very well be but I’m not in a position to determine that.
To date Amy has received less then 100,000 in restitution. That number is nowhere near the amounts people are claiming she has or will receive. If she was filling a Scrouge McDuck style vault with cash I’d be standing on the other side of the issue.
I believe that victims of child porn are further victimized by its distribution. Being victimized in that way entitles them to restitution.
If one can convince me distribution of child porn does not further victimize anyone, it opens other avenues of debate. If there is no further victimization why should it be illegal.
Did you even read the law in question?
Very much non-lawyer here and I am confused.
Is the point of restitution to deter future offenses (beyond the illegality of the act itself), or to compensate the victim for harm done?
I was under the impression that it was the latter.
If so, then the total amount does matter as you are attempting to put a monetary value on her pain and suffering. Always a difficult task but clearly there is a number. Her pain and suffering is not worth an infinite amount or even everything else in the world (which an unlimited amount of money could buy), and it is not worth nothing. It is worth some finite total amount. A quick google shows awards running from under $2 million to a bit under $4 million.
And different individuals had varying degrees of responsibility for her having experienced that pain and suffering, yes?
By far the bulk of the responsibility falls on the perpetrator and a lesser share on those, in aggregate, who create the market for the product, also in aggregate - meaning that the harm to her did not mostly occur because someone subsequently bought a specific image of her, but because there are are those interested in that class of image, and that demand caused as nearly as much harm to a consumer of someone whose images were not widely distributed as it did to an individual whose images had ten million downloads.
I would argue that all child porn victims as a class are entitled to fraction of some total justifiable restitution from each and every possessor of CP as a class but that the specific harm to the individual victim caused by possession of specific images of that individual are not significantly greater than to any other CP victim.
(Yes, I would grant that there is some marginal increase in harm from the knowledge that more perverts are viewing and “pleasuring themselves” while viewing your assault, but the marginal harm per additional viewer is very small compared to the harm of the initial assault itself. And caused by the markets very existence … again in aggregate.)
I believe victims can opt out if they so choose.
It’s purely my own opinion, backed by no studies whatsoever (at least that I know of). But I don’t see how rehashing a painful past memory over and over again serves any useful purpose.
And I prefer to let the victim decide for themselves, so I support the recouping of restitution.
Read what DSeid said in post 64. That’s the argument I was trying to make, eloquently put.
I’m cynical enough about human nature, and 3.5 million dollars is enough money, that I find it extremely likely that if the system is set up that way, someone, be it a greedy 15-year-old or a 20-year-old who was victimized 8 years earlier, is going to abuse the system.
I can’t follow the logic here. If someone decides to abuse the system there is already clear laws that can be used to prosecute those offenders.
Only if it’s known who did the uploading.
Precisely. Suppose you’re an unscrupulous person who was victimized back when you were a child. You have an incentive to anonymously upload the pictures/videos of your younger self to as many child porn websites as possible., assuming that the monetary rewards would be worth more than the additional victimization of yet more people seeing those images.
Presumably the cops would then bust the people who ran the websites, and the customers, but it’s not at all hard for you to do your uploading in such a way that they’ll never be able to track down where the uploads came from in the first place.
Taking a step back from the specifics of the situation, I just think that setting up a system where there’s a huge financial incentive for people to victimize themselves is a bad idea. Imagine if there was a law stating that after a traffic accident involving certain types of hand injury, the guilty party would have to pay restitution that was set at $500,000 per finger lost, period, with no way to verify that the loss of fingers really related to the initial accident. Obviously that’s a kind of contrived example, but if there’s a system where people have a financial incentive to cut off their own fingers…
I don’t see how the finger thing relates. Even if a victim was uploading images of her own victmization, they are still images of the original victimization, not a self imposed one.
I also don’t see a problem with a hypothetical victim (as unlikely as I think this would be) stinging pedos for money by uploading her own images. No one could get stung unless they committed a criminal act, so what’s the harm?
It’s as hard as it is to track down the servers and downloads.
I cannot take this hypothetical seriously in the least. It’s like some kind of law school hypothetical born from a fevered imagination to explain a dislike for victim’s recovery of damages. I find it completely unrealistic to believe that enough victims of child molestation would risk long prison sentences to chase the off chance on getting a judgment from someone who is likely judgment proof in the first place to deny recovery to those victims who really deserve it.
I still can’t follow this hypothetical. Should we not allow banks to collect restitution because it would be easy for a teller to pocket a 100 bucks during a robbery?
The people collecting and distributing child pornography are further victimizing people. Those people have a right to collect restitution relating to those crimes.
People in this thread seem to be arguing those victims should have less rights to collect restitution because:
A. They aren’t actually being victimized.
B. Simple knowledge of these crimes could be harmful to the victims.
C. Victims could break the law and abuse the system.
These are all terrible arguments in my opinion to deny victims their rights.
I’d just like to point out that this particular hypothetical has already happened.
Traci Lords, with her mother’s help,procured a fake ID and started making porn at age 15. When she turned 18, somebody (I believe Lords herself) tipped off the FBI that she was underage. All her previous body of work became “child porn”, and had to be pulled off the shelf and destroyed, clearing the market for, and providing a huge amount of free publicity for, her first and only “legal” film Traci, I Love You.
Various people in the adult video business spent millions of dollars defending themselves, and some did jail time.
Is everyone OK with the idea that Traci Lords should benefit from her own perfidy?
Yep.
No, it hasn’t.
But you have uncovered one of the greatest evil geniuses of our time: Traci Lords. Finally, these 20+ years later, her evil trap of gaining restitution from people who watched her movies will finally be sprung!!! Those poor people who accidentally downloaded and watched her films (not knowing, of course, that she was underaged) will be forced at judicial gunpoint to hand over their hard earned money, money they need to feed their poor children, to the maniacal super-genius Traci Lords. She’ll soon be rubbing her hands together with evil glee while she becomes a multi-millionaire from the sweat of the brow of poor, ignorant porn watchers. Then comes the sharks with effin lasers on their heads. MWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Or, as boytyperanma, pointed out, we could quit making up fanciful hypotheticals to try and show that, since it is possible to envision, however bizarrely, that victims could break the law and abuse the system, we should deny restitution to all victims.
My sympathy is not with people who are caught with child porn (well, assuming they actually sought out child porn and knew it was child porn, yada yada yada). The main point I was trying to make is what DSeid said in post 64. If some people were victimized by child pornographers and some other people view child porn, I have no problem punishing the second group and providing some amount of compensation to the first group. But doing it based on #views and #downloads provides a massive inequality of justice/recompense, and one that is potentially awfully easily to manipulate.
If “Jane” was repeatedly videotaped being raped at the age of 8 with various foreign objects until she suffered severe internal wounds; and “Jill” was surreptitiously videotaped at the age of 15 having consensual sex with her boyfriend; and then Jill’s video ends up being viewed by tens of thousands of people whereas Jane’s doesn’t; does it make sense for Jill to receive millions of dollars of damages whereas Jane doesn’t?
Im trying to think of how this could work without putting yourself at legal risk too.
If you take a picture of yourself underage and distribute it, you can be charged yourself. If someone else does it, they can be charged. It has to get to the appropriate websites for any kind of real ‘spread’ to get enough ‘victims’ for a pool to sue, which will also have many other illegal shots on it, so the idea of a hapless victim seems unlikely.
Dunno about lasers with sharks but it does seem like a reach.
Otara
“does it make sense for Jill to receive millions of dollars of damages whereas Jane doesn’t?”
Thats no different from being run over by a millionare vs someone who’s bankrupt though.
It doesnt help Jane any to deny Jill compensation. And the amount of compensation due from each person would take into account the nature of the acts Id think? You still have to do all the court cases after all.
Otara