Possessing Child Pornography Could Be Expensive.

As a component of 1994’s Violence Against Women Act [18 U.S.C. § 2259], Congress requires district courts to award restitution for certain federal criminal offenses, including child pornography possession. A man pleaded guilty to possessing between 150 and 300 images of child pornography, which included two that depicted the sexual exploitation of a young girl who is now a woman and goes by the pseudonym “Amy.” Amy sought restitution of nearly $3 million from the man under § 2259. The federal appellate courts are split on whether § 2259 limits restitution to those losses proximately caused by the defendant’s offense. The United States Supreme Court held: “[W]here it is impossible to trace a particular amount of those losses to the individual defendant by recourse to a more traditional causal inquiry, a court applying § 2259 should order restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses. The amount would not be severe in a case like this, given the nature of the causal connection between the conduct of a possessor like [the man who possessed Amy’s images] and the entirety of the victim’s general losses from the trade in her images, which are the product of the acts of thousands of offenders. It would not, however, be a token or nominal amount. The required restitution would be a reasonable and circumscribed award imposed in recognition of the indisputable role of the offender in the causal process underlying the victim’s losses and suited to the relative size of that causal role. This would serve the twin goals of helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all her child pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the fact that child pornography crimes, even simple possession, affect real victims.” (Paroline v. U.S. (U.S. Sup. Ct.; April 23, 2014)134 S.Ct. 1710, [188 L.Ed.2d 714].)