UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

1 UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSIONTHE HISTORY OF THE CHILD pornography GUIDELINES THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSIONW illiam K. Sessions IIIC hairRuben CastilloVice ChairWilliam B. Carr, ChairRicardo H. HinojosaCommissionerBeryl A. HowellCommissionerDabney L. FriedrichCommissionerJonathan J. Wroblewski Ex OfficioIsaac Fulwood, OfficioUnited STATES SENTENCING CommissionOne Columbus Circle, Suite 2-500 Washington, DC October 2009 Table of Contents ..1A. SENTENCING Reform Act Review and Child pornography SENTENCING Statutes and SENTENCING Guidelines Related to ChildPornography of Child pornography Legislation and the Child Child pornography Statutes in the Pre-Guidelines Child pornography Guidelines at 1988 Guideline 1990 Guideline Changes.

2 135. 1991 Guideline Changes: Part I .. Guideline Changes: Part Guideline Guideline Guideline Guideline Guideline report provides a history of the child pornography guidelines. The child pornography guidelineshave existed since their initial promulgation in 1987, and they have been substantively amended ninetimes. These revisions were prompted by, among other things, statutory changes, the UNITED StatesSentencing COMMISSION s independent analysis, and public comment. This report is the first step inan ongoing examination of the child pornography guidelines. The UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION ( COMMISSION ) was created by Congress to establish SENTENCING policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system thatimplement the SENTENCING Reform Act of 1984 ( SRA ), including the purposes of sentencing1enumerated at 18 3553(a)(2).

3 In establishing such policies and practices, principally2through the promulgation of federal SENTENCING guidelines and policy statements, theCommission s efforts are guided by the substantive and procedural requirements of the SRAand other congressional SENTENCING legislation. The SRA directs that the COMMISSION periodically shall review and revise, in consideration of comments and data coming to itsattention, the guidelines. To this end, the COMMISSION has established a review of the child3pornography guidelines as a policy priority for the guidelines amendment cycle ending May 1,2010. This report is the first step in the COMMISSION s work on this has been particularly active over the last decade creating new offenses,increasing penalties, and issuing directives to the COMMISSION regarding child pornographyoffenses.

4 Indeed, in 2008, the 110th Congress passed three new laws amending childpornography statutes and creating a new offense for creating child pornography through SENTENCING Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98 473, Chapter II, 212(a), 98 Stat. 1837 (1984) ( SRA ).1 18 3553(a)(2) provides that the purposes of SENTENCING are 2(A)to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide justpunishment for the offense; (B)to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;(C)to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and(D)to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or othercorrectional treatment in the most effective manner.

5 18 3553(a). 28 994(o).3 The COMMISSION will conduct a [r]eview of child pornography offenses, and possible promulgation of guideline4amendments and/or a report to Congress as a result of such review. It is anticipated that any such report wouldinclude (A) a review of the incidence of, and reasons for, departures and variances from the guideline sentence; (B) acompilation of studies on, and analysis of, recidivism by child pornography offenders; and (C) recommendations toCongress on any statutory changes that may be appropriate. Notice of Final Priorities, 74 Fed. Reg 46,478-03 (Sept. 9, 2009).1 UNITED STATES SENTENCING Commissionadapting or modifying a depiction of a child.

6 Prompted by congressional action, and on its5own initiative, the COMMISSION has reviewed and substantively revised the child pornographyguidelines nine times. This report describes the nine revisions made to the possession andtrafficking in child pornography guidelines and the guidelines relation to the requirementsimposed on the COMMISSION by related legislation and the SRA. 6A. SENTENCING Reform Act RequirementsThe SRA was motivated by a desire on the part of Congress to establish a rationalsentencing system to provide for certainty, uniformity, and proportionality in criminalsentencing. The intent of Congress was to eliminate an unjustifiably wide range of sentences[imposed on] offenders with similar histories, convicted of similar crimes, committed undersimilar circumstances, and to recognize differences between offenses.

7 In the SRA, Congress78also stated that in many cases, current sentences do not accurately reflect the seriousness ofthe offense. 9 The SRA sets forth several substantive requirements that have guided theCommission s actions in the area of child pornography offenses, as with all federal offenses. Inprefatory language to statutory provisions outlining the COMMISSION s duties, Congress directsthe COMMISSION to act consistent with all pertinent provisions of any Federal statute. 10 Under the SRA, the COMMISSION is required to consider the same factors that a sentencingcourt is required to consider under 18 3553(a). For example, the guidelines are to11 Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2008, Pub.

8 L. 401, 122 Stat. 4229 (2008) ( PROTECT Our Children Act ); Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Actof 2008, Pub. L. No. 110 400, 122 Stat. 4224 (2008) ( KIDS Act ); Effective Child pornography Prosecution Act of2007, Pub. L. No. 110 358, 122 Stat. 4001 (2008) ( Effective Child pornography Prosecution Act ). This paper does not discuss two technical, non-substantive amendments to See USSG App. C, amendment6575 (Nov. 1, 1997), amendment 617 (Nov. 1, 2001). S. Rep. No. 98 225, at 38 (1983).7 Id. at 45-46. One goal was to ensure that sentences available for different crimes reflected the seriousness of these8crimes because [s]entences that are disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense create a disrespect for the law.

9 Sentences that are too severe create unnecessary tensions among inmates and add to disciplinary problems in theprisons. Id. 28 994(m). 9 28 994(a) (as amended by 401 of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of10 Children Today Act, Pub. L. No. 108 21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003) ( PROTECT Act )). 18 3553(a) provides that in imposing a sentence the court shall consider 11(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;(2) the need for the sentence imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just2 The History of the Child pornography Guidelinestake into account, to the degree relevant, certain characteristics of the offense, including thenature and degree of the harm caused by the offense, the community view of the gravity ofthe offense, the public concern generated by the offense, the deterrent effect a particularsentence may have on the COMMISSION of the offense by others, and the current incidence ofthe offense in the community and in the Nation as a whole.

10 Such characteristics are used by12the COMMISSION to establish the relative seriousness of the offense as compared to otheroffenses and to maintain proportionality throughout the guidelines. The SRA further instructed the COMMISSION to use past SENTENCING practices as astarting point for creating the guidelines, and the COMMISSION continues to use them in its13proportionality analyses. However, the COMMISSION is not bound by past practices. The SRAstates that [t]he COMMISSION shall not be bound by such average sentences, and shallindependently develop a SENTENCING range that is consistent with the purposes of sentencingdescribed in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, UNITED STATES Code.