Federal judge demands federal prosecutors to address restitution issues in child porn cases

A helpful reader alerted me to this local story reporting on a notable and important twist in the developing debate over whether children pictured in child porn can get awards of restitution from those who download these pictures.  The story is headlined, "Federal judge asks prosecutors to put a price on child porn," and here is how it starts:

She goes by the name of "Amy," and the photos her uncle took of her a decade ago -- when she was 8 or 9 years old -- are among the most widely circulated series of child pornography images in the United States.

Now her fight for damages from those who possess or distribute those photos is emerging as a big issue in federal courtrooms across the country. Including here.  The question is: How much can one offender possessing any of the millions of images circulating on the Internet be expected to pay to any of the thousands of victims worldwide? Amy is seeking a total of more than $3.3 million.

On Monday, Judge Patrick Schiltz in U.S. District Court in St. Paul issued an order demanding to know why restitution was not even requested by the U.S. attorney's office in the case of a Minnesota man who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.  Schiltz said Congress has made it clear that restitution for child porn victims must be considered.

A request for restitution for a victim in a case here -- probably Amy -- was included in the pre-sentence report for Brandon Anthony Buchanan. Yet, in Buchanan's case, as well as in a number of other local child porn cases, Schiltz said that the U.S. attorney's office has been mute on the issue of restitution.

"The Court will no longer accept silence," Schiltz said in his order filed Monday. He said the U.S. attorney must submit a memorandum by Jan. 29 explaining why the victim is not entitled to restitution.  Schiltz said he could not talk about the case because it is ongoing. Neither can the U.S. attorney's office, said a spokeswoman.

When asked about the issue of restitution in child pornography cases, First Assistant U.S. Attorney John Marti said: "This is an emerging issue and one we are looking at very closely. We will seek restitution in those cases where we believe it is appropriate and authorized by law."

Some related recent federal child porn prosecution and sentencing posts:

• "Prosecutors seek nearly $200k for child porn victim"
• Effective new opinion discussing restitution in federal child porn possession cases
• Another thoughtful and notable district court opinion on restitution in child porn sentencing
• The latest (beneficial?) litigation front in child porn downloading battles
• Federal judge imposes large restitution punishment for downloading child porn
• Second Circuit blesses future medical expense restitution in child porn sentencing
• Federal sentence for receiving child porn includes forfeiture of home
• Strong sentencing opinion noting disparities in federal child porn downloading cases
• Yet another notable written opinion in a federal child porn downloading case
• More examples of sentencing uncertainty surrounding federal child porn cases

UPDATE:  I see that Paul Cassell over at Volokh is here discussing Judge Schiltz's order, and provide this link.  Paul has this take on the debates concerning restitutions for the victims of child porn:

The issue of restitution in child pornography cases is an interesting and important one that seems destined to ultimately go to the U.S. Supreme Court.  My own view is that Congress drafted a very broad restitution statute designed to give the maximum possible recovery to victims of child pornography.  Moreover, if any doubt existed about how to interpret this remedial statute, it should be resolved in favor of the innocent victims of these offenses rather than the criminals who continue to cause injury by illegally possessing the pictures in question.