Legal Periodical: Getting What They Are Owed: Restitution Fees for Victims of Child Pornography

Jennifer Rothman, Getting What They Are Owed: Restitution Fees for Victims of Child Pornography, 17 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 333 (2011)

(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)

This Note will demonstrate why courts should follow the Freeman Court’s approach and expand restitution liability to possessors of child pornography. Such an expansion would send a necessary message that possession of child pornography is not a victimless crime, and would hold possessors of child pornography accountable for the separate and distinct harm that they cause child victims. Adopting this approach of ordering each defendant to pay the full amount of the victim’s losses, rather than setting a base amount for restitution, would assure that victims are fairly and adequately compensated for their actual harm. Part I of this Note will examine the harm caused by possession of child pornography and will discuss the cases and statutes that have recognized this harm. Part II will look at traditional case law regarding victim compensation where the defendant was involved in producing the pornographic images, as well as more recent cases where restitution liability has been expanded to child pornography possession. It will also analyze the existing statutes under which the courts have compensated victims. Part III will explain legislative responses that can be taken on both the state and federal levels to ensure that victims of child pornography are appropriately compensated by those who download and possess their images, and will respond to countervailing considerations concerning an expansion of restitution. This Note will conclude that the expansion of restitution liability to child pornography possession cases falls within the statutory confines of the Mandatory Restitution section and that courts should impose restitution liability on possessors of child pornography.