Josh hawley's misleading attack on judge jackson's sentencing of offenders who committed child porn child porn
— Senator josh hawley (r-missouri), in beginning of a long thread on twitter, march 16
"Possession and disclosure of child pornography is the most serious crime, because it is represented by the sale of images of real sexual assaults on children and which these child victims have left far behind will be available online forever.”
- Judge ketanji brown jackson in ruling denying compassionate medical release to jeremy sears, convicted sex offender, june 16. , 2020
Judge ketanji brown jackson, president biden's supreme court nominee, begins senate opinion hearings next week. As a stab, senator josh hawley (r-missouri) tweeted a 17-part thread claiming that jackson had a "habit" to make excuses for nefarious behavior. Hawley, a member of the senate judiciary committee, has indicated that he plans to question jackson at length on the subject.
But hawley's picture is selective and lacks meaningful context. He suggests that jackson has fallen out of the judicial mainstream by sentencing defendants for child pornography. However, he ignores a lengthy debate in the judiciary about whether the required minimums are particularly high. As a member of the u.S. Sentencing commission tasked with reducing the disparity in sentencing, jackson has been directly involved in this debate. Hawley selectively cites testimonies, ussc materials, and various court cases to support his position. Let's take a look at the zodiac technique.
Taking jackson's remarks out of context
Hawley noticed moments of the ussc hearings shown in the screenshots when jackson repeated what the witnesses said , suggesting that this was her own thought.
In one tweet, he asked: “judge jackson said that some people who have child porn are involved in this either for the collection or for people who are loners and gain status in their participation in the community.” What kind of community will be in front of you? A community of child exploiters?”
Actually, jackson was just asking a follow-up question to a witness who was talking about an online community: -besides, ms. Mccarthy, in your experience, this category of non-sex offenders, involved in child pornography is very small? Because the fixtures were broken down on your slide: non-sexually motivated. And it also seemed very intriguing to me, because i assumed that even those who were involved in such activities were sexually motivated. So, people who demonstrate as a result or for recruitment, or students who are called loners and gain status in their participation in the community, however, categories of persons who do not have sexual motivation, how many are we talking about?
In another tweet, hawley stated, "judge jackson opined that there might be a type of 'less serious offender who has committed child pornography'" that is not sexually motivated, but rather "challenge or use of technology." A less serious offender who committed child pornography?”
Here she set the topic in response to testimony that seemed unexpected to her: who may not be pedophiles, who may not necessarily be interested in child pornography, but have other motives in terms of using technology and being in a group, and the user knows there are probably many reasons why people do this. And so i'm wondering if you can pay attention to what to eat - what could be a less significant offender who committed child pornography, who will lead himself in this way, as a group experience, because his motivation is a problem, or take technology? They are quite advanced in terms of technology, but this money is not necessarily too interested in the part of child pornography?»
(The witness replied that someday such citizens become more tribal and more substantial offenders.)
We asked questions to hawley's office, and risk tweeted and issued a press release even before the representatives of humanity had completed the fact check. He denied taking her comments out of context.
"Judge jackson's words are printed directly here, and the porn actresses speak for themselves," he said. On them, she does so with approval and indicates that the witness has changed his mind about the perpetrators of child pornography.” Hawley writes at one point or another: "as a member of the u.S. Sentencing commission, judge jackson advocated a sweeping change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography."
What is missing here is food that the ussc is bipartisan - no more than four members of the seven-member ussc come from the 1st party - and that the councils that hawley criticizes were unanimous. One of the members who signed the report was dabney l. Friedrich, later nominated in 2017 by president donald trump to serve as a federal district judge. Hawley was not in the senate at the time, but various republicans supported her candidacy.
Furthermore, while ussc recommended lowering the minimum two crimes bordering on child pornography, its use did not recommend eliminating the statutory minimum in full.
“All offenses involving child pornography, including the mere possession of child pornography, are extremely serious, as such projections lead to permanent harm to the victims and confirm and normalize the sexual exploitation of children— the message says. However, it states that the department of justice, defense attorneys, and judges have raised concerns about the current set of sentencing rules. And sexual danger. , Needs to be updated in order to reflect recent changes in the usual behavior of offenders associated with the development of computer and technology, and it is too severe for most offenders,” the report says. Eventually, the report said, prosecutors and courts played with the system by looking for ways to limit sentencing, such as by charging someone solely with possession even when they committed other related crimes. This is because there was no required minimum for content and a five-year minimum for receiving, transporting and transmitting.
A 2010 survey found that 71% of judges said the mandatory minimums for reviewing images were too high . High. Moreover, in 2010, only 40 percent of those convicted of non-production—fans who use existing images but do not produce them—were given terms that met the rules.
As a result, the commission proposed changes to the minimums for non-productive offenses, but not for people who do child pornography. It also recommended that penalties be equalized for storage and making available, delivery and disclosure.
“However, there are many https://dirtycunts.com/category/sweeth_pupi views among the commission as to whether the offenses in question [delivery and recording] should be subject to a statutory mandatory minimum fine, and if so, how exactly any mandatory minimum fine should be,” the report says. "However, the commission unanimously believes that if congress decides to equalize penalties for storage with penalties for importation and retain the statutory mandatory minimum fine, this statutory minimum should be less than a few years."
<> in 2013, the doj national coordinator for preventing and combating child exploitation, an expert in the child pornography division, wrote to ussc calling the report “an important step in revisiting sentencing guidelines. While disagreeing with the report's large findings, especially on the risk of recidivism, the letter reads that the justice department is "in line with the commission's finding that advances in technology and the evolution of the child pornography 'market' have resulted in a significant landscape change that is no longer adequately presented in existing sentencing guidelines. … The current guidelines may at times underestimate, moreover, exaggerate the seriousness of the offender's behavior and the consequences he presents."
Thus, at a minimum, congress did not respond to the recommendations. In 2021, ussc released a follow-up report, again recommending changes.
In his press release, hawley dismissed the idea that the aid was a bipartisan recommendation. "Judge jackson has recommended that the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for child pornography be lifted," he said. “It's right there in the report. As for the other members of the commission who supported this bad recommendation, they should probably not even exist in the supreme court.”
Distorting the reputation of a judge
In a lengthy section of the twitter thread, hawley compared the various suggestions made by jackson to recommended guidelines. A 2021 ussc report notes that in the current situation, only 30 percent of perpetrators of non-manufactured child porn have received punishments below the norm. Within this range annually,” the report says.
Thus, jackson does not fundamentally contradict the opinions of other judges. “Less than 30% of all non-manufacturing events are sentenced under the guidelines, due to the fact that basically every] federal judge understands that the electro-guidelines are too harsh,” tweeted rachel barkow, a former usc member. “So kbj does what most federal courts do.”
Moreover, hawley does not contain what the us probation officers would recommend in such cases. In the pre-sentencing report, the probation officer recommends sentencing options that are based on federal sentencing rules.
Here is an examination of each of hawley's case-by-case claims with responses from a white house official. .
A case in which jackson met the criteria of the norm
Hawley: "in united states v. Savage, a sex offender was crowned guilty of traveling to illegal sexual activities, and among other things admitted to transporting child pornography. The manual recommends 46-57 months. Judge jackson gave him 37.”
Answer: these did not turn into rules for the defendant. They ranged from 37 to 46 months, meaning that jackson sentenced the defendant to the recommended probation of 36 months.
[Update: gop judiciary committee aide pointed to the sentencing memo and business plea agreements, which stated that the estimated time frame was 46-57 months. The white house official noted that currently, page 2 of the plea agreement expressly states that the parties intended to retain the right to challenge the applicability of an improvement that would result in such guidelines at the time of sentencing. Jackson ruled against the improvement (computer-related). This reduced the recommended period to 37-46 months.]
Instances in which jackson met or exceeded the probation recommendation
Hawley states v. Stewart, the perpetrator possessed thousands of child pornography images and hoped to cross state lines to rape a 9-year-old girl. The guidelines called for a sentence of 97 to 121 months. Judge jackson sentenced the perpetrator to a total of 57 months."
Answer: jackson imposed a sentence in excess of the recommended probation of 42 months.
Hawley: "u.S. Vs. Cooper, where the perpetrator had more than 600 photos and videos, and many of them were located in an optimal blog, the guidelines provided for a punishment of 151 to 188 months. Judge jackson settled on 80 months, the minimum possible sentence allowed by law.”
Answer: the government and probation have recommended sentences well below the guidelines in this regard. The government recommended 72 months, probation recommended 60 months, and the defense recommended 60 days. Jackson handed down the sentence based on a recommendation of 40 months' probation.
Hawley: "in the case of us v. Chazin, the perpetrator had 48 child pornography videos that he had access to over the course of several years . . The manual recommends 78-97 months. Judge jackson gave him 28."
Answer: jackson handed down the sentence in accordance with the recommendation of 28 months' probation.
Hawley: "in the us v. Downes , the perpetrator posted several images on an anonymous instant notification app, including an image of a child under the age of five. The manual recommends 70-87 months. Judge jackson sentenced him to the lowest term allowed by law, 60 months.”
Answer: jackson imposed a sentence in accordance with the recommendation of 50 months probation.
Instances where jackson was not recommended for probation
Hawley: “in united states v. Hawkins, the sex offender had several images of child pornography. He was 18 years old. Sentencing guidelines provided for sentences of up to 10 years. Judge jackson sentenced the offender to just 3 months in prison. Four months.”
Answer: the government and the probation service have recommended sentences that are markedly lower than those prescribed in this area. The government recommended 24 months, probation 18 months, and the defense only one day.
Hawley: “in the united states vs. Sears game, the sex offender distributed over 102 child porn videos. He also sent obscene photos of his 10-year-old daughter. The guidelines recommended 97-121 months in prison. Judge jackson gave him 71 months.”
Answer: the government and probation recommended a sentence within the prescribed range (97 to 121 months). Her sentence was higher than what the defense lawyer wanted.
In other words, in only 2 of the seven cases cited by hawley, jackson delivered a sentence that was below the recommendation of the probation officer.
Furthermore, as stated in the quote at the very beginning of the fact check, jackson later refused to provide sears with compensation for medical reasons. ”, Wrote jackson, in her opinion. "On top of that, sears also provided photographs of his prepubescent woman in relation to an undercover officer" and "sent similar photographs of a friend's prepubescent child." Jackson said that in the photographs, "both children were clothed" or that no charges were brought by the government in connection with the acts. “But in what way the court has previously explained, it is clear that these two young girls were the victims as sears was the adult in their room who deliberately sexualized them by recording them without their knowledge and sharing images of them with predators,” jackson wrote.</>
In his press release, hawley said: "set aside the maximum rules, judge jackson went below the maximum, minimum and food resource required by the government in every single case for which our managers can pick records, in addition to two. In such a couple of cases, the law required her to pass the sentence recommended by the government.”
The pinocchio test
We understand that twitter does not always allow for nuance, but hawley also misses important context in its own topic. He uses snippets of quotes, pretends that the bipartisan recommendation is jackson alone, and ends by ignoring a variety of reasons, such as a probationary recommendation and outdated rules that could lead to a reduced sentence. In his zeal and he also ignores the lengthy debate in the legal community about everything, whether the current guidelines are appropriate.