Legal Commentary

My local news is reporting that a man who was just convicted of 10 counts of possessing child pornography is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 100 years imprisonment.  Here in Arizona, the legislature classifies possession of child pornography as "sexual exploitation of a minor," which means that it is subject to the same criminal penalties as sexually assaulting a child.

I don't think it problematic for states to criminalize the possession of child pornography --- after all, the production of child pornography involves the sexual exploitation of a child --- but I do think that modern sentences for possession of child pornography have become wildly disproportionate.  Mark Hansen's 2009 ABA Magazine article on harsh federal sentences for child pornography makes this point effectively.  I've just written an article pointing out that the modern trend of increasingly harsh sentences for possessing child pornography appears to be a product of public actors equating or conflating the possession of child pornography with child sex abuse.  Odd legislative features of various child pornography prohibitions --- such as Arizona's requirement that each image possessed be treated as a separate count, and that each count is punishable by a 10 year mandatory term that must run consecutive for each count --- have led to a number of situations where those who possess child pornography are serving longer sentences than those who sexually assault children.

Obviously, possessors of child pornography are not exactly a politically favored group.  But because states are talking about cutting correctional budgets and releasing violent inmates from prison to deal with current economic woes, I wonder whether more people (besides me) will start saying that spending so much money to impose life sentences (or near life sentences) for possession of child pornography is poor sentencing policy.