Portage man's child porn case could set legal precedent

[Cubby]

HAMMOND | The criminal case against admitted child pornography collector Mark Ontiveros, of Portage, could set precedent that might influence a nationwide legal debate on whether offenders can be asked to pay heavy restitution orders to the children depicted in their porn collections.

Ontiveros' lawyer, Bryan Truitt, denies his client directly caused enough harm to justify the more than $193,310.86 prosecutors want Ontiveros ordered to pay "Vicky," a girl who was sexually abused on camera by her father. Ontiveros' porn collection included at least one image of "Vicky."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jill Trumbull-Harris wrote in court filings that a ruling on the restitution request would be the first on such a matter in the federal Northern District of Indiana. A ruling on restitution by Ontiveros from Hammond-based federal Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen would not establish binding precedent for other judges to follow. But higher up the hierarchy of legal precedent, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges could issue a ruling that would apply to similar cases in their federal jurisdiction, which covers Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. Truitt said the 7th Circuit has yet to rule on restitution in a case such as his client's.


More at link:

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/l...e15dc0898.html

[Missizzy]

I'm finding vastly differing results in these cases nationwide. There's got to be a consensus on this. Judges need some guidelines:

http://www.wptv.com/content/news/stl...Q.cspx?rss=762

"A federal district judge denied the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to make an Indian River County man pay about $3.5 million in financial damages to two young women in child pornography images he found on the Internet, according to court files."

and


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/...ying_victims_5

"Now the 20-year-old woman [ETA, "Amy"] is taking aim at anyone who would view those images and asking for restitution in hundreds of criminal cases around the country.

Her requests and those filed by other victims of child pornography are forcing federal judges nationwide to grapple with tough legal questions: Is someone who possesses an abusive image responsible for the harm suffered by a particular child? And how much should that person have to pay?"

[lizzybeth]

Snipped "Is someone who possesses an abusive image responsible for the harm suffered by a particular child?"

My answer is "yes". Every time that child's abuse is viewed they are being violated and abused once again.

[Cubby]

Originally Posted by lizzybeth

Snipped "Is someone who possesses an abusive image responsible for the harm suffered by a particular child?"

My answer is "yes". Every time that child's abuse is viewed they are being violated and abused once again.

Exactly! Perhaps financial damages might be a bit of a deterent. I don't know whether it will or not, but I fully agree viewing the pictures violates and abuses the victims again and again.

[Evan's Mom]

Oh man, I hope this happens.
It's so bad what happened to that little girl.
Years ago, I was told all you had to do was type in the name "Vickie" or "Vicky" in the video search box of almost any peer to peer website(ie, Limewire) and her very graphic videos would pop up.

[Missizzy]

I find a correlation with the "burning of CDs" issue. Yes, it's against the law but an overwhelming number of people do it (FWIW, you do it and you're one of my kids, you deal with me and it's not going to be pretty....artists deserve their royalties and it's the law!!). The record label attorneys have been successful in prosecuting a handful of cases which we've all read about. My guess is that they know they can't go after everyone but they want to get their point across.

I think this is the way the child porn financial settlements are going to play out. They'll nail a few guys--hopefully wealthy men or women--but leave the rest alone. What good is a 3 million dollar settlement if a destitute guy is sitting in prison? Go after the ones who can actually be dinged financially. JMO


ETA: Ask any of my kids how many "essays" they've been asked to write about the legality of burning CDs. Excellent teachable moment about copyrights and the law and supporting our hometown music store. Even the ones with multiple challenges can tell you the law on this pesky issue. I guess I need to expand the lesson and include the viewing of any pornography that could possibly be the depiction of a child.

[jnTexas]

Sad thing is they most likely will never see a dime even if the perp is ordered to pay.

[Texas Mist]

Pedophiles could be sued more for downloading pics

Nick Berry Reporting
kmoxnews@kmox.com

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Jefferson City Bureau) -- The Missouri Senate unanimously agreed to up the damages against pedophiles for downloading nude pictures of children on the Internet.

There were no votes Thursday against a bill allowing victims 14 and under to sue people who download naked images of them.

Republican Senator Matt Bartle from Jackson County made the cutoff age 14 because he said this bill is designed to catch pedophiles, not statutory rapists.

Under current law, a victim can sue for a $50,000 minimum.

"What this would do is create a $150,000 floor of actual damages on those cases." said Bartle.

According to the Massachusetts Senate website, under current federal law, downloading songs has a penalty three times higher than downloading child pornography.

http://www.kmox.com/pages/6448703.ph...tentId=5649255

Looks like Missouri lawmakers are trying to make a difference.

I never understood either how record & movie companies could demand - and be awarded - outrageously high $$ damages, but the same doesn't exist for CP victims....well, I *do* understand that there's a lotta $$ behind getting their laws in place so they can do this -- but, IMO $3K per illegally downloaded song is outrageous compared to the damage done for a lifetime to CP vics.