Turley Testifies Before House Committee On Restitution For Child Pornography

unnamed-1This morning I will be testifying in the House of Representatives before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary. The hearing is entitled “Child Exploitation Restitution Following the Paroline Decision and addresses a long-standing controversy over the limits on restitution in such cases. My testimony is below.

I previously criticized the restitution approach that led to the decision in Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 188 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2014). See, also, John Schwartz, Child Pornography, and an Issue of Restitution, New York Times, Feb. 2, 2010; Karen Duffin, New Frontiers In The Child Porn Law, National Public Radio, Jan. 24, 2014.

This is a very difficult subject both legally and emotionally to address in any forum. However, the Court ruling allows Congress to correct what was an ill-conceived approach on restitution in my view. My views are laid out below.

The hearing starts at 10:00 am in the Rayburn House Office Building.

The witness list for today’s hearing is:

Ms. Jill E. Steinberg
National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction
U.S. Department of Justice

The Honorable Paul G. Cassell
Professor of Criminal Law
University of Utah College of Law

Mr. Jonathan Turley
Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School

Mr. Grier Weeks
Executive Director
National Association to Protect Children

Here is my testimony:

32 thoughts on “Turley Testifies Before House Committee On Restitution For Child Pornography”

  1. First, artFay, best laugh I’ve had in days! There will be a lot more since the story is out!

    What Bill has Congress passed that didn’t end up in chaos and confusion? I tried to read ACA. It is impossible! It will refer to a current law (not shown) and change a sentence. Sometimes a word. No wonder nobody read it!

    Inga, nobody really wants to get rid of any kind of pornography. The fines are revenue!

    I suspect in the early 1800’s, especially in small towns, anyone sexually abusing a child was found dead by multiple holes in his body. Everybody was stunned. A burial and life went on.

  2. Kernes is a Commie, that’s for sure. But, he does have knowledge worth reading. But, I understand one being turned off by his pit bull partisanship.

  3. Mark Kernes did a very nice recap of JT’s testimony. I agree entirely with the headline and the testimony as I read it the current bill would create unworkable system for making kid porn possessors pay

    Until this: Now let’s see if the current Republican-controlled Congress can see the logic in Turley’s position

    Why ruin a perfectly good discussion of the issue with this type of biased partisan snark in what should certainly be a non partisan issue…..child pornography? It makes me less likely to want to link to Mr. Kernes again.

  4. Trooper, Some people who blast the Catholic priests are Catholic bashing. Most are not. Stop being an errand boy for the hierarchy.

  5. I think all of you miss the target. You go out to a prison and hang out with hang out with these guys. You have to see the forest for the trees but you will. This is a deep problem.

    1. Dave

      I didn’t miss a thing. There are ambiguities in this particular crime which behooves it to go to the lower courts in the States. Where it belongs.

  6. Darren Smith

    Thanks for making so I didn’t have to open the PDF file again

    This is what I saw

    “Rather than react defensively to the Supreme Court decision, I believe it would be wise of Congress to listen not just to the concerns of these justices but to the dozens of lower court judges who have to deal with the criminal cases in this area,” Turley concluded his testimony. “Much of the prior system can be retained while a better system can be developed for possessors. The result would be a more equitable and stable system for victim compensation. It would sharply reduce litigation and, in my view, offer victims faster and greater compensation on average.”

    Meaning it’s gonna be up to the lower courts.

  7. Some Pedophiles are sacrosanct. I will no longer bash them on the blog here. I will direct my dog bites to male Protestant Pedophiles. I will call them PPs. The only difference between a Catholic Pedophile PP and a Protestant PP is religion. I don’t want to bash religion. No religion would stick up for a PP. No Cat O Lic Basher would get into Heaven when their time came if a PP was sitting in for Saint Peter at the Holy Gates. This problem needs some money from someone who is computer savvy. Perhaps Bill Gates could donate a billion to devise a computer NSA program which will purview each human’s computer and direct the NSA to the PPs. I am sure that no religion would oppose this. But for those of you who have a son who is an alter boy for some church, be careful— and think about it.
    The next topic on the blog should be castration without representation.

  8. DBQ,

    I disagree with JT on this and I explained why. We sue in court for emotional damages (pain and suffering) all the time. This is not considered an unusual course of action. If a verdict is found to be excessive, it can be reduced by the court. Each and every person who downloads a video of a child being harmed has caused pain and suffering to the person who is/was abused. They should be fined accordingly.

    It isn’t a matter of catching one person but not another. Each and every person who downloads this crime is causing pain and suffering to the victim. Therefore, each person is responsible for causing that pain and suffering and owes restitution in full to the victim.

Comments are closed.