New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
In 1997 and 1998, an eight-year-old girl known as “Amy” was sexually abused and raped repeatedly by her uncle. Amy’s uncle received a custodial term of 10 years, and was ordered to pay $6,325.00 in restitution. The assaults were photographed, and the photos were placed on the Internet and spread around the world. Nobody really knows who photographed the assaults or placed them on the Internet, and it is impossible to know how many people viewed them or shared them with others. When Amy was older, she learned that thousands of people were viewing these images, and said that it made her feel that the abuse was re-occurring and would never end.
A federal statute requires defendants in child porn cases to pay the full amount of restitution to victims such as Amy. On its face, the statute arguably requires each defendant to make full payment notwithstanding the portion of harm they actually caused. Amy eventually retained an attorney who computed the full amount of restitution due her at $3.4 million. Her attorney began serving restitution demands for $3.4 million on child porn defendants everywhere, regardless of how many pictures of Amy were implicated in their respective cases, or whether they were convicted of simple possession, as opposed to distribution.
Doyle Randall Paroline of Texas subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, and received a two-year term and ten years of supervised release. Two of the 300 images discovered on his computer hard drive were of Amy. As a result, Amy’s attorney served him with a demand for $3.4 million in restitution. Paroline’s attorney argued recently before the US Supreme Court that his client, who was convicted of possession, as opposed to production and/or distribution, should not have to pay that much because it was out of all proportion to any harm Amy sustained from his conduct. Amy’s attorney argued that the statute literally requires full payment from each defendant.
