A sad sentencing

              

**Trigger Warning: Talking about Sex Crimes**

Today was pretty similar to last Friday in terms of what I did. I went through applications for the group award of the Marshal’s Service for the entire nation. Groups ranged from task forces, to fugitive hunting groups, to groups that protected individuals like the Secretary of Education. My favorite group was a fugitive squad that worked in Washington (state), Oregon, and Alaska. Their main focus was on locating fugitive sex offenders. In the past year they’ve arrested around seven hundred fugitive sex offenders, with about thirty percent of them having committed crimes against children.

                In addition to reading applications, I also watched an interesting sentencing. The criminal was found to have four hundred and three child pornography videos on his computer. Although this may not seem like a lot, in court child porn is counted in photos not videos. So four hundred and three videos equals over thirty thousand images. Some of the videos were of toddlers and infants. (That means additional time added to the recommended sentence.) Since the pedophile was a first time offender the recommended sentence was twelve and a half years to fifteen and a half years, with a mandatory five year minimum.

                I was absolutely disgusted when the defense attorney stood up and began arguing that the defendant should receive the minimum. She even said that she, “was saddened that there was a minimum because the defendant shouldn’t have to spend that much time in jail.” I am fine with that argument when it applies to marijuana dealers (which is when you usually hear this argument). Because dealing marijuana doesn’t harm anyone; it is a victimless crime with a high minimum. But guess what? Watching child porn, no not child porn, toddler porn hurts innocent children. The attorney’s arguments for the defendant were that he had a rough childhood (schizophrenic mother and absent father) and that he has Aspergers. The attorney said that because of his illness he would have a, “harder time in prison.” The judge literally laughed when she said that, and then said that, “most people, especially pedophiles have a hard time in prison.”

                Then the prosecution presented their arguments. The first one was that the defendant wasn’t actually diagnosed with Aspergers. That argument was shut down pretty quickly when the defense produced the diagnosis report from a psychiatrist from when the defendant was five. The prosecution’s next argument was that the defendant should get the recommended sentence since he is a menace to society. First in the obvious way that he buys child porn, which makes a market for it, which means children have to be raped. But second, when the defendant confessed to his crime, in his statement, he said how he once “touched” a seven year-old on the hand and got off to it later. The prosecution argued this was him escalating from the internet to real life.

                The judge decided that because the defendant had Aspergers, he would have a harder time in prison, so he gave the defendant the minimum five years.

                I’ve known for a long time that the criminal justice system has some flaws but I am honestly blown away by its failure today.