Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing — child pornography

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 5, 2013//

Sentencing — child pornography

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 5, 2013//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — child pornography

Where the defendant possessed over 190,000 images of child pornography, including images depicting the sexual molestation of infants, an above-guideline sentence of 216 months was not unreasonable.

“We are convinced that the district court appropriately exercised its discretion by selecting an above-guidelines sentence for Stinefast. In deciding to impose a term of incarceration more than five years greater than the top of Stinefast’s guidelines range, the district court considered a number of section 3553(a) factors and concluded that they warranted a more severe sentence in this case. With respect to Stinefast’s personal characteristics, the court focused on Stinefast’s massive collection of child pornography and reasoned that his insatiable demand for such materials likely contributed to the production of other images involving the sexual exploitation of children. The court also cited the particularly disturbing quality of Stinefast’s collection, including images of infants being sexually abused, as favoring a higher sentence. In addition, the court also noted Stinefast’s criminal history, particularly his previous convictions for causing children to expose their genitals, as aggravating factors. Moreover, the court relied heavily on the need for specific deterrence in imposing a higher sentence for Stinefast. In discussing this issue, the court found that Stinefast had shown his incorrigibility by viewing and distributing child pornography even after serving jail time and completing sex offender treatment in connection with his prior convictions. In summary, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that these certain considerations unique to Stinefast warranted an above-guidelines sentence in his case.”

Affirmed.

12-2435 U.S. v. Stinefast

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, St. Eve, J., Williams, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests