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.