Quantcast

Comments about ‘Jay Evensen: Child porn victims can't get justice’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 1 2014 5:46 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
pleblian
salt lake city, utah

It is amazing that someone could write so many words about a subject without actually addressing the substance of it.

Cassell was arguing that EVERY person caught with her photos should be jointly and severally liable for the 3.4 million. Thus, if a millionaire was the first caught, the whole fine would be paid, and the next person caught would pay zero to her. Since the people who will see her photos will continue to an unknown amount, it is impossible to allocate a portion to each.

Thus, the Supreme Court did the only reasonable thing it could. It told Cassel he is crazy, that every criminal should only pay a portion which is realistically related to the harm caused (perpetuating her rape and paying $6,000 v. having it on your computer to view once for potentially $3.4 million). Cassel's argument was one of academic sophistication, but practically useless.

How is it the entire article failed to analyze this issue with any meaningful depth?

cjb
Bountiful, UT

The uncle should be punished for using this innocent little girl to create child pornography. No question.

The Supreme Court however was right in saying the guy who only viewed (didnt make) the pictures or even meet this girl should should have to pay her 3.4 million. If she deserves 3.4 million for someone viewing her picture what does a bike rider deserve from a drunk driver when he is hit and has to spend the rest of his life getting around in a wheel chair and having a nurse or family member change their diapers? 1 trillion dollars?

I read this story in the news before it went to the Supreme Court. My impression of this woman when I read this article is that she is a worse perpetrator than the guy who she sued and just as bad of one as her uncle. Her discomfort because of her abuse doesn't even come close to what she imposed on the guy she sued.

Wonder
Provo, UT

@plebian -- Yes, but the millionaire could sue each of the other creeps who had her picture to get reimbursed. The question is, WHO should have to go through the trouble of repeatedly suing people, the innocent child who was molested or the creeps who contributed to her suffering by buying pictures of it. I have no problem with the creep being the person who goes through all the trouble.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re Wonder

The problem with what you say is the punishment here doesn't even come close to fitting the crime. $3.4 million for looking at a picture?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments