SCOTUS Nominee Explains Why Child Pornographers Deserve Lighter Sentences
Is clown world now in full swing? Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was recently nominated by White House occupant Joe Biden for the position of the Supreme Court of the United States, defended giving sentences for child pornographers that were significantly lower than the federal guidelines.
Why did she do that? One may ask.
According to Jackson, fully charging a child pornographer for their crimes would be too harsh during present times given their ability to store so much illicit material on a modern technology we call computers. In other words, the number of images an average defendant possessed would be too many. It seems that Jackson considers child pornography stored on a computer to be a lesser crime compared to that donned in say, a physical photograph or magazine.
“As you said, the guideline was based originally on a statutory scheme and directives, specific directives by Congress, at a time in which more serious child pornography offenders were based on the volume, on the number of photographs that they received in the mail. And that made total sense before, when we didn’t have the internet, when we didn’t have distribution,” Jackson said.
“But the way that the guideline is now structured is leading to extreme disparities in the system because it’s so easy for people to get volumes of this material now, by computers. So it’s not doing the work of differentiating who is more a serious offender in the way that it used to. So the commission has taken that into account, and perhaps even more importantly courts are adjusting their sentences in order to account for the changed circumstances,” she went on.
The explosive allegations were previously publicly brought to light by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley in a hearing earlier this week. Numerous cases involving Judge Jackson were discussed, including one in which she gave a prolific child pornographer only 3 months in prison after federal guidelines recommended a minimum of 97 months.
3 thoughts on “SCOTUS Nominee Explains Why Child Pornographers Deserve Lighter Sentences”
What’s wrong with her thinking?
Was the pervert disseminating the material or using it only for his personal pleasure. It he was disseminating the material, this judge(?) and any other judge(?) that would not punish the pervert to the full extent of the law is guilty of malfeasance of office. If, on the other hand, the sick pervert was using the material solely for personal pleasure and this was his first indictment, then a 5 year probation conditioned by psychiatric treatment for at minimum of two years with the patient responsible for the cost of the treatment would seem appropriate. Personally, it seems that going after the end user, whether pornography or drugs is not the proper approach. While I do believe in the right of free speech, I do not consider pornography in any form to be free speech. Yet, even Disney and Michelle Obama produced and endorsed pornographic dancing by pre-puberty girls. But, I guess if it is socially acceptable to murder an innocent infant in the womb, pornography and video violence are only child’s play. As a society, we are doomed if we continue with the direction the justice system has been headed.
IS THIS WOMAN NUTS?? Pornography AND PEDOPHILIA is “O.K. ?”Maybe” BESTIALITY” is next. HOW LEFT CAN “THE LEFT” GO? Let’s “go” to “CATHOLIC” Pelosi to EXPLAIN THIS!