« "Corrections costs must reflect fiscal realities; State must make bold reforms to system" | Main | "Texas death row inmate pulls out eye, eats it" »
January 9, 2009
Notable long child porn sentence upheld by split Sixth Circuit
The circuits have already issued a number of notable sentence decisions today, but the one that struck me as most blog-worthy is the Sixth Circuit's affirmance of a within-guideline child porn sentence in US v. Paull, No. 07-3482 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009) (available here). This first paragraph of the dissent by Judge Merritt in Paull spotlights some (of many) reasons why the decision is notable (and likely worthy of a serious cert petition):
As a recent October 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal article by Amir Efrati points out, our federal legal system has lost its bearings on the subject of computer-based child pornography. Our “social revulsion” against these “misfits” downloading these images is perhaps somewhat more rational than the thousands of witchcraft trials and burnings conducted in Europe and here from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries, but it borders on the same thing. In 2008 alone the Department of Justice has brought 2,200 cases like this one in the federal courts. Some trial and appellate judges are sending these mentally ill defendants like Paull to federal prison for very long sentences. But the 17-1/2 year sentence for Paull may be the longest yet. He is a 65-year-old, psychologically disabled, former minister with Type 1 diabetes with many complications. How could this sentence be “not greater than necessary” to punish this crime?
Some related recent federal child porn prosecution and sentencing posts:
January 9, 2009 at 12:54 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2010536c126ff970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notable long child porn sentence upheld by split Sixth Circuit:
Comments
"How could this sentence be “not greater than necessary” to punish this crime?"
Ends justify the means. A child's genitalia is the most important thing in the universe. There is no sacrifice that is too great. 17 1/2 years just shows our compassion as a rational society. We should have killed him.
Posted by: Daniel | Jan 9, 2009 1:14:24 PM
"A child's genitalia is the most important thing in the universe. There is no sacrifice that is too great."
Once again, shock value confused with erudition.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 9, 2009 1:45:44 PM
I'll wait until I can read the entire decision to form an opinion on it, but judging just from the contents of this post, this seems like a great vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to review when a within Guideline sentence can be substantively unreasonable.
Posted by: DEJ | Jan 9, 2009 2:06:19 PM
federalist. Sardonic. adj. characterized by bitter or scornful derision; mocking; cynical; sneering
But I bet you don't like Swift either. Go eat some babies.
Posted by: Daniel | Jan 9, 2009 2:29:04 PM
thanks for the information ...!!!
Posted by: James | Jan 9, 2009 2:51:12 PM
Daniel, your comment will never be mistaken for the genius of Swift.
Posted by: | Jan 9, 2009 3:11:54 PM
"A child's genitalia is the most important thing in the universe."
I'd never let you come within 1000 yards of my children.
Posted by: BruceM | Jan 13, 2009 8:07:11 AM
I had never considered that incarcerating a man was the equivalent of burning a woman to death.
Posted by: thebewilderness | Jan 14, 2009 12:53:02 AM
