References in periodicals archive ?
most defensible reason for increasing child pornography sentences.
criminalized the possession of virtual child pornography in the Child
of child pornography are--at least in some cases--garnering longer
Is the simple possession of child pornography a crime?
Is the distribution of child pornography via computer systems and the Internet a crime?
Are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) required to report suspected child pornography to law enforcement?
Over the past few years, several writers have explored the role of restitution in the non-contact child pornography context, but most have limited their analyses to the issue of proximate cause and a discussion of which legal mechanism is the most appropriate vehicle through which to compensate child pornography victims.
In an effort to fill this gap, this Article reexamines the role of restitution in child pornography cases and argues that allowing damages to become interchangeable with restitution encourages restitution to become a vehicle for retribution, personal vindication, and revenge rather than reparation.
Revealing a restitution revolution that has fundamentally changed restitution's structure and purpose, Part I looks closely at the requests made for restitution in non-contact child pornography cases, analyzing and critiquing how courts have considered this issue over the past several years.
The first child pornography case came before the Supreme Court in 1982 in New York v.
13) The crime of possession of child pornography was validated by the Supreme Court in 1990 in the case of Osborne v.
In the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA), Congress extended the government's reach.