• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

ZMO Law

  • About Us
  • Attorneys
    • ZMO Law Team
    • Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma
    • Tess Cohen
    • Shane Finn
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Appeals
    • Civil Rights
    • Healthcare Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Federal Crimes
    • Victims Rights
  • In The News
  • ZMO Law Blog
  • Contact

Jun 19 2016 Child Pornography, Civil Rights Advocacy, Crime and Technology, First Amendment, Prisoners' Rights, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, What's New, White Collar Crime

Can you get a life sentence for making child pornography?

By Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma

Finding a possibility that the sentencing judge had a “clearly erroneous understanding of the facts,” the Second Circuit Court of Appeals last week sent back a sixty-year child pornography sentence for another look by the district court. In United States v. Brown, the defendant had pled guilty to three counts of producing and two counts of possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The trial court sentenced him to sixty years: effectively a life sentence.

In sending the case back to the sentencing court, Judge Rosemary Pooler noted the difference between producing child pornography and other, more serious crimes such as torture and murder.  As the Supreme Court has said, there is a categorical difference between defendants who “kill, intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken” and those who harm others without causing or intending death. “This is because life is over for the victim of the murderer, but for the victim of even a very serious non-homicide crime, life is not over and normally is not beyond repair. Although an offense like robbery or rape is a serious crime deserving serious punishment, those crimes differ from homicide crimes in a moral sense.”

The circuit court also reasoned that an effective life sentence for a non-homicide offender could “frustrate the goal of marginal deterrence.” Prison sentences should, the court reasoned, be imposed as a way to deter individuals from re-committing the same crime.  In fact, defendants in child porn cases are generally less likely to re-offend as they get older. Finally, because the defendant would be subject to a lifetime term of supervised release and be required to register as a sex offender, there is an even lesser chance of him re-offending. The case was sent back to the district court for re-sentencing.

Primary Sidebar

Topics

  • Child Pornography
  • Civil Rights Advocacy
  • Crime and Technology
  • First Amendment
  • News
  • Prisoners' Rights
  • Sentencing
  • Sex Crimes
  • What's New
  • White Collar Crime

Search

Recent Entries

  • Welcoming attorney Shane Finn to ZMO Law April 28, 2025
  • Is Matt Gaetz a sex trafficker? November 20, 2024
  • Victory in the Fourth Department September 28, 2024

CONTACT US NOW

NEW YORK: 212-685-0999
24 HOUR: 515-966-5291

Name(Required)
Previous Rule of Construction: If a Statute is Ambiguous, the Sex Offender Loses
Next Sixth Circuit: Okay to Consider Jury’s Belief that Child Pornography Sentence Too Harsh

Footer

ZMO Law PLLC

We serve the following localities: New York City including New York County, Bronx County, Kings County, and Queens County; and Westchester County.

Learn More

Practice Areas
  • Sex Crimes
  • Federal Crimes
  • Civil Rights
  • Health Care Crimes
Contact Us

ZMO Law PLLC
353 Lexington Avenue, Suite 900
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 685-0999

  • linkedin
  • facebook-alt
  • x
  • Criminal Court Process
  • Glossary of Legal Terms
  • NYS Statement of Client’s Rights
  • Criminal Investigation
  • Servicios en Español
  • Reviews
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Copyright © 2025 · ZMO Law PLLC | Sitemap