Supreme Court to decide case on harm by porn

Pittsburgh Post Gazette

But the attorney for Amy says that the phrase "proximate result" should only apply to the last subsection for "any other losses," because the phrase does not appear in any other part of the list of losses in the statute.

"The goal of restitution is not about the defendant," said one of Amy's attorneys, James Marsh, during a lower court hearing on Paroline. "It is about [making] the victim whole, restoring the victim to the place she would have been if the crime had not occurred, and clearly the defendant engaged in this crime, and the crime of conviction is possession, and that is what we are here about."

Attorneys for Amy have argued that she is not seeking to double-dip -- or collect more than she has asserted as her losses.

Once she has collected the $3.4 million she has asked for, Amy would stop filing for restitution, they have said.

The attorneys argue that the restitution would be "joint and several" among all defendants, meaning that each defendant is responsible for the full amount until Amy is made whole.

Find more information online here.

Filed Under Child Pornography News Paroline Restitution 

No Replies to "Supreme Court to decide case on harm by porn"


    Leave a Reply