REASON: The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act Is Signed Into Law
On Friday, President Trump signed into law the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 (AVAA). The Act will help victims of what are frequently referred to as “child pornography” crimes obtain full restitution.The Act helps to resolve a thorny legal issue about how to provide restitution to victims — an issue that was addressed in a 2014 case I argued before the U.S. Supreme Court with co-counsel James Marsh, Paroline v. United States.
Since the Paroline ruling, federal trial courts across the country have struggled to operationalize the Supreme Court’s command to “order restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process” — and for good reason. If (as seems quite likely) Amy is victimized by tens of thousands of viewers of her images, it may be next-to-impossible to assign some specific causal role to any particular defendant.
From a practical point of view, with regard to restitution litigation the most salient feature of the new law will be the $3,000 fixed minimum amount. This minimum ensures that child pornography victims will not receive a token aware from any particular defendant.
FAC COMMENTARY:
So the ACT (a copy of which can be seen here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2152/text) sets a minimum amount of restitution a CP offender must pay ($3000) so that the restitution cannot be said to be negligible, but it also caps the amount a victim can collect to be the aggregate of the full amount of the victim’s losses.
It further caps amounts based on the culpability of the Defendant in the crime.
(1) not more than $17,000 on any person convicted of an offense under section 2252(a)(4) or 2252A(a)(5);
(2) not more than $35,000 on any person convicted of any other offense for trafficking in child pornography; and
(3) not more than $50,000 on any person convicted of a child pornography production offense.
The ACT is not something new. it merely sets a minimum amount (and maximum).
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So can they collect 17,000 dollars from each of the “tens of thousands of viewers” and make millions of dollars over their unfortunate role in the child porn images?
I would think that they would want to forget the abuse and move on with a healthy and productive lifestyle like other victims of crime…
They are capped at their actual damages.
How much is that? How is it calculated? Can’t it be 10 million dollars if a judge agrees?
Unfortunately, “actual damages” are very subjective. Projected future “lost income” can be easily inflated by false aspirations such as “Hans could have been an astronaut had he not been exploited.” This could lead to payouts in the $100Ks to a single victim, since the cap on the reserve fund is $10M. You can bet Uncle Sam will be skimming the interest off that cap.
Along the lines of what Roger said, as long as there’s profit in exploitation, there will be a market for it.
As I stated, the lifelong income of an exceptional person will be in the 10’s of millions, if a judge so claims, so the cap could be the same. So a victim could receive 10’s of millions of dollars for their abuse, which is ridiculous. To take advantage and make a fortune from unfortunate abuse, instead of overcoming and becoming a true and productive member of society, as other victims of crime aspire is despicable…
Question: How much do their lawyers get paid?
Answer: Millions
i wonder what portion of the $$$ the police, cities, courts keep
Will those who host CP on the internet be required to pay as well? If they didn’t allow these sites and make all kinds of excuses as to why they can’t shut them down, no one would be able to view them online.
This is far from perfect. But it starts to address the problem identified in Paroline, where the justices were all over the place— three of them dissented saying nothing in the law allowed for any restitution for victims, while one suggested that $1,000,000 restitution from each viewer could be justified.
Now at least there are likely to be fewer court disputes over restitution.
I’m sure some will say this law is a great thing for vicitms just as others say it’s horrible because it fixes a cap on victim restitution. Either way, it’s a prime example of the political problem of damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t. My belief after reading it as a layman is this law is just more “feel good” legislation that really does nothing more that justify governmental positions.
A very noble intention,but, playing the devil’s advocate, knowing how savvy some teenagers can be these days, I would not be surprised to see a few cases where scams can be created to falsely accuse and make a few thousand bucks.
Dear Doug and Beautiful Ware,
You make a scary but good point. So does Bea, given that our federal government is the global leader in possession and distribution of CP.