By Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma
“Amy,” the victim of child pornography who sought restitution in the Paroline case decided by the Supreme Court today made a statement through her lawyers that was picked up by the Washington Post. Not surprisingly, she was disappointed in the ruling, suggesting that it would force her and others abused in the production of child pornography to wait a long time for compensation, and force them back to the courts over and over again. “It’s crazy,” she wrote, “that people keep committing this crime year after year and now victims like me have to keep reliving it year after year.”
At the same time, Justice Kennedy wrote that he was trying to achieve a just result that would spread responsibility where it belongs, a compromise between strict “but-for” causation and joint-and-several liability: “Of course the victim should someday collect restitution for all her child-pornography losses, but it makes sense to spread payment among a larger number of offenders in amounts more closely in proportion to their respective causal roles and their own circumstances so that more are made aware, through the concrete mechanism of restitution, of the impact of child-pornography possession on victims.”