KBJ Insists Some Child Porn Offenders Aren’t Pedophiles — Her Own Expert Witnesses Beg to Differ – Opinion

Is it possible to imagine a safer America if more lawyers and judges spent their time creating a fair legal system rather than trying to find loopholes and justifying the sentences of felons. Mine, too.

The latter is the case with Biden’s controversial Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who continues to argue that not all child pornography offenders are pedophiles and therefore, “deserve” lesser sentences — with no required minimums. There is one problem. Expert witnesses from her own company disagree.

Just the News (JTN), Jackson differed from her experts witnesses on the definitions of pedophilia she used to be Vice-Chair for the U.S. According to transcripts of hearings, the Sentencing Commission.

Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week blistered Jackson over multiple issues, including her fondness for handing out lenient sentences to child sex offenders, which she attempted to justify by claiming she was only “doing what law students do” — a reference to an essay she wrote which was critical of the treatment of sex offenders, while a student at Harvard Law School.

Let’s review a few of those sentences, per an article I wrote earlier this month. These are real-life essays, not legal school essays. Many of them have shattered real people’s lives.

The case of United States v. HawkinsThe sex offenders had many images of child porn. He had a sex offender age over 18 years. He was over 18. Judge Jackson sent the offender to 3 months imprisonment. Three months.

 United States v. StewartThis criminal was able to access thousands of images of child sex and also had the ambition to use his connections to other states to abuse a 9 year-old girl. Guidelines required a sentence of between 97 to 121 months. Jackson sentenced him to 57 months.

 United States v. CooperGuidelines called for sentences of between 151 to 188 months. Judge Jackson settled for 60 months. It was the minimum sentence permitted by law.

 United States v. DownsThe perp sent multiple photos to an anonymous instant messaging platform, one of which included an image of a child younger than 5. Guidelines suggested a range of 70 to 87 months. He was sentenced to the lowest possible term of imprisonment by Judge Jackson, which is 60 months

 United States v. SearsHe distributed more than 100 child porn videos. Lewd photos of his 10-year-old girl were also sent. Guidelines suggested a sentence of 97 to 121 months imprisonment. Judge Jackson awarded him 71 month.

JTN reported that Jackson, at a February 2012 Sentencing Commission hearing clashed over this issue with James Fottrell and Gerald Grand. Fottrell is an expert U.S. Justice Department in child exploitation. Dr. Gene Abel founded Abel Screening which works to find pedophiles.

Translated: A left-wing activist judicial activist with no knowledge of a topic vs. three experts in the field. Sounds legit. As with COVID and science, the left’s narrative wins every time.

Jackson is quoted in the hearing transcript as telling the panel.

It was surprising to me to hear some of the testimony regarding the motivations for offenders. There are many reasons why someone might get involved in child pornography.

It makes a huge difference. WhyAre there any children pornographic activities?

What difference does an offender’s motivation or degree of “interest” have on the trauma of their victims and their families? Jackson’s argument is simply advanced rationalization for the purpose of arriving at a pre-desired objective. The panel was asked by Jackson:

I’m wondering whether you could say that there is a — that there could be a less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level because their motivation is the challenge, or to use the technology? They’re very sophisticated technologically, but they aren’t necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it?

It is unfortunate that we spend so much time on mental gymnastics and so little empathy for our most innocent victims.

In response, Fottrell said he believed it was “difficult” to say child sex offenders with “only one” illegal encounter are “not dangerous,” according to the transcript. According to Fottrell, child porn is also available online to offenders. Many of these pedophiles can make them more dangerous.

Jackson then asked Grant an absurd leading question which blew up in her face.

Which factors are you looking at in order to determine whether this person is truly serious or not?

Grant responded that he has not seen “any distinct area that’s going to put that person to the next level” as an offender, and that the number of files downloaded didn’t matter, either.

Abel went bottom line: “Persistent sexual interest over time equals pedophiles.”

After being sufficiently discredited, Jackson again opened her mouth — just to change feet:

In my mistaken assumption that child pornography criminals are pedophiles, I was wrong. So I’m trying to understand this category of non-pedophiles who obtain child pornography. Is that the true definition of nonsexually-motivated offenders?

Abel responded: “I think you ought to keep your previous definition, quite frankly.”

Game, set, match. But here we are.

The highest court of the country will soon be occupied by a left-leaning judicial activist who is obsessed with child porn offences being forgiven. A pandering president nominated the nominee, whose main criteria were skin color and gender. The nomination was proudly supported by members of the Democrat Party.

About Post Author

Follow Us