Case Highlights Problems for Child-Porn Victims Seeking Restitution

Texas Lawyer

Marsh says proximate cause should not matter in determining whether Amy receives restitution.

"We think that the standard is harm. It's not cause," Marsh says. "If the victim was harmed by the criminal defendant's conduct, then she is entitled to restitution under this statute."

The stipulation that Amy did not know who Paroline is or that he possessed her images is a "red herring" in the case, Marsh says.

"It's clear that the victim knows that unlimited numbers of unknown individuals are engaging in this illegal activity. And that knowledge need not be particularized for the victim to be harmed," Marsh says. "I could send her lists of names of individuals, but they are all doing the same thing."

Marsh argues that Amy should be allowed to appeal the trial court's decision because she is the beneficiary of a restitution claim.

Find more information online here.

Filed Under  Child Pornography  News  Paroline  Restitution 

No Replies to "Case Highlights Problems for Child-Porn Victims Seeking Restitution"