About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

63 UCLA L. Rev. 1 (2016)

handle is hein.journals/uclalr63 and id is 1 raw text is: Navigating Paroline's Wake Isra Bhatty 4 ABSTRACT Over the last six years, courts have struggled with the challenge of calculating criminal restitution in child pornography cases. At the heart of this struggle has been the statute mandating restitution, 18 U.S.C. § 2259, which requires courts to simultaneously grant restitution for the full amount of a victim's losses and limit this award to those losses proximately caused by the defendant. Faced with navigating this ambiguity in the context of child pornography, when a single defendant may be one of thousands of fellow distributors and possessors harming the victim, courts have awarded restitution in a wide range of amounts, from tens to millions of dollars, using inconsistent methodology or none at all. the Supreme Court's decision in Paroline v. United States tried to provide the courts relief by clarifying the meaning of § 2259 and offering practical guidance on how to calculate restitution. But the Court's attempt at making § 2259 workable has failed. In the first empirical analysis of the child pornography restitution issue, this Article uses sentencing data from thousands of cases to show that, even in Paroline's wake, the restitution system fails to achieve its compensatory, punitive, and victim-affirming purposes. Most of today's victims continue to receive no restitution at all. Moreover, most courts deciding to award restitution continue to order defendants to pay low-level amounts that are neither calibrated to offense-specific characteristics nor informed by any consistent methodology. As a result, the system causes a number of secondary harms to victims who choose to request restitution, while offering no support to the majority of victims who decline to do so. the system is therefore ripe for legislative overhaul, but Congress's current proposal to amend § 2259 does little to make it any more practical for courts, fair to defendants, or therapeutic for victims. Drawing on its empirical findings, this Article suggests replacing the current system with a victim reimbursement fund that would better achieve the purposes of restitution. 'the fund would reimburse victims regardless of their participation in the justice system and would derive its contributions from defendants using reasonable, evidence-based baseline amounts and enhancement criteria that meaningfully distinguish between modern child pornography offenses. AUTHOR J.D. received from Yale Law School, 2012; Ph.D. received from University of Oxford, 2014; Supreme Court Fellow at the United States Sentencing Commission, 2014-15.The views expressed herein do not reflect those of the Court or the Sentencing Commission. I would like to thank Matthew Axtell, Ian Ayres, John Fitzgerald, Kim Hunt, Zachary Kaufman, Brent Newton, Nicholas Parrillo, Robert Post, Judge Patti Saris, Steve Vance, and Derek Webb for their helpful comments and suggestions. thanks also to Tiffany Kinchen, Christine Kitchens, Glenn Schmidt, and Lou Reedt for assisting with the dataset. And thank you to the UCLA Law Review editing team for their excellent suggestions. 63 UCLA L. REV. 2 (2015)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most