Judge violates sentencing guidelines on child porn conviction — and orders FBI to cat-sit
posted at 7:59 am on April 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Federal sentencing guidelines continue to serve as controversial flashpoints between the judiciary and the two elective branches of government. They came in reaction to popular demand to keep recidivists in prison as well as to eliminate what some saw as biased sentencing based on social and economic status. Judges dislike them because they reduce their ability to tailor sentencing to a much broader set of circumstances than the guidelines take into account.
However, a judgment yesterday in St. Paul shows why people demanded the guidelines in the first place:
Chief U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum surprised a courtroom full of federal agents, prosecutors and public defenders Tuesday when he sentenced a man who collected child pornography to less than half the recommended time behind bars.
He also ordered Assistant U.S. Attorney William Otteson to find someone to take care of the St. Paul man’s pet cat, “Mike.”
Rosenbaum has no love for child pornographers. Last May, he sentenced a 53-year-old Burnsville man to 750 years in prison for taking lascivious photographs of two young relatives and three of their friends and posting them to the Internet.
But he gave Frederick Kennedy-Hippchen, 63, just four years for collecting similar pictures.
That’s less than half of what sentencing guidelines recommend for the charges on which Kennedy-Hippchen was convicted. The judge, however, dismissed the guidelines out of hand. Why did Rosenbaum angrily deviate from the guidelines? Because Kennedy-Hippchen loved his pets, only had a dial-up connection, and Rosenbaum was “reasonably comfortable he will not re-offend”.
Reasonably comfortable, eh? Is that a new legal standard that overrides sentencing guidelines?
I’m not kidding about the pets, either. Concerned that the defendant would commit suicide, Rosenbaum ordered him into immediate custody. Kennedy-Hippchen told the judge he couldn’t go to prison that day because of his cat and goldfish. Rosenbaum had a solution for that, too:
Rosenbaum asked Otteson if he could assure the court that the government could take care of the pets. After checking with FBI agents, Otteson said he could not, as he knew of nothing authorizing the FBI to do that.
“Oh yes you can,” Rosenbaum boomed. “You can take that on an emergency basis to the 8th Circuit [Court of Appeals] if you like,” he said. “Somebody’s got to take care of the animals!”
Someone has to investigate crimes and protect the nation from terrorists, too, and it won’t be Kitty-Cat and Goldie the goldfish. Isn’t it more appropriate to have the defendant’s attorney make those arrangements than assigning federal protection to the pets of a convicted sex offender? If Rosenbaum thinks that pet-sitting is the highest priority for federal agents, it explains why he decided to let Kennedy-Hippchen off with a light sentence for being inept at LimeWire, the file sharing service that the defendant tearfully denied knowing was a file-sharing service while he got child porn from other people’s computers.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The post modern judge is centered on sensitivity, and not the old fashioned wisdom model. If a dirty bomber has a three legged dog at home that needs to be fed………….
If the USA enforced the laws that are already on the books properly, why would we need the huge expense of law makers and two parties that legislate and refuse to work together? How else would these losers that are incapable of making a good living in the private sector be able to live high on the hog?
Hening on April 16, 2008 at 8:08 AM
The People’s Republic of Minnesota never fails to amaze.
Mr. Bingley on April 16, 2008 at 8:14 AM
I think sending people to jail for possessing certain pictures is a pretty backwards practice.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just a closet liberal.
Yoshi on April 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Is ignoring sentencing guidelines against the law? If so, didn’t the judge commit a crime? Or are they only “guidelines”?
rhombus on April 16, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Who appointed this guy?
And perhaps the creep should have thought about the consequences of breaking the law… including the fact that a fish could be flushed and a cat brought to the Humane Society…. or worse.
Guidelines are just that. They are not a suicide pact. Under normal circumstances I prefer that a judge be able to deviate from them. A judge should have to find a substantial reason for the deviation and put it on the record (and it should be “appealable” too). A gut feeling doesn’t sound to me to be enough to allow for a deviation.
But what do I know. I’m just a peasant tax payer.
darkpixel on April 16, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Then you also don’t have a problem with the acts that were arranged to produce child porn pictures? Or did they just appear by magic?
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Kennedy-Hippchen?
Why didn’t the judge order Ms. Hippchen to take care of the cat?
slp on April 16, 2008 at 8:49 AM
It seems to me like the difference in sentencing is probably from the fact that one person made the pictures himself, while the other just collected them. I think the lesser sentence was called for as obviously, while both are wrong and sick, they are two different crimes.
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 8:52 AM
If this moron judge is referring to the child pornographers, I whole-heartedly agree.
If he is referring to the guy’s cats, the FBI should certainly comply.
You can never run out of enough targets for FBI target practice.
pilamaye on April 16, 2008 at 9:01 AM
You don’t have any kids, do you?
Kowboy on April 16, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Something is missing from this story, and that isn’t a reflection on you Ed, but this makes no sense! How do you go from 750 years to 4 and take care of the pets? Was it a flimsy case, did the FBI screw up? It just makes no sense!
Pam on April 16, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I’m almost convinced that these Judges look at child porn themselves. That’s why they can’t find it within themselves to sentence these evil people to harsh sentences. This isn’t an ideological difference. This is a sexual deviancy difference. These Judges don’t think child porn is that bad because either they enjoy it or, as I suspect, they enjoy it.
Remember that ACLU president who fought against putting filters on public library computers so that child porn couldn’t be accessed? And then remember he got caught with child porn?
Oh how I’d love to look at the computers of these judges. I wouldn’t be least bit surprised to find a folder labeled “Lovely Lolitas.” And don’t get me started on the soft-on-pedophiles Judges.
coffee260 on April 16, 2008 at 9:38 AM
I’m inclined to agree. It’s like the difference between the dealer who has a storage garage full of blocks of weed and the burnout who has an ounce with him.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM
The FBI can haz cheezburger?
Frozen Tex on April 16, 2008 at 9:44 AM
One other point, though: Even a year in prison, on a child porn charge? That’s pretty much a rape sentence, and probably a death sentence.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 9:44 AM
You seem pretty familiar with the terminology. I want to see what’s on your computer.
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 9:45 AM
And how many rights should we give up in the name of your children?
I agree with punishing Child Molestors, but “protecting children” has been the excuse for more destruction of our constitutional rights than any others.
Please protect your children w/o turning our country into a Police State. K, tks.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 9:59 AM
In the good old days, judges interpreted the laws. In today’s “enlightened” system, judges break, make, enforce, & interpret laws.
jgapinoy on April 16, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Congress shall pass no law infringing upon JayHaw’s right to exploit children sexually for his own perverted amusement.
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Sounds to me like he’s in favor of child porn distribution without being in favor of it’s manufacture. Or maybe he is in favor of child molestation. Just so we don’t have a police state created by putting perverts in jail,…that’s the most important thing.:)
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM
This is what bothers me about discussion of sex-related offenses, particularly ones involving children. People can’t pose an argument that doesn’t involve INCREASING punishment without being accused of being a child molestor or child porn dealer or child rapist. Less emotion, more logic, and quit letting your passions move you to make incredibly slanderous and insulting accusations against others.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Bill Scrunty said,
Be my guest. But I must say, Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Care to open up your hard drive to prying eyes?
I find those who defend this practice are the same people who think they are good people and who deserve a little indulgence. You wouldn’t think yourself a good person would you, Bill Scrunty?
coffee260 on April 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Logic tells me you can’t have child porn without molestation during production. The fact that “protecting the children” has been used as a talking point for other unrelated political issues, doesn’t change that. JayHaw’s comment indicated he felt that punishment for child porn violations was creating a police state. Whatever his motives, one can certainly draw the conclusion he isn’t opposed to the porn industry. You can put any name on it you want.
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I didn’t defend the practice, I just made a comment about your knowledge of the insider jargon of the child porn industry. I’m not sure if I’m a “good” person or not, but I console myself with the fact that at least I don’t collect child porn.
If the penalty for any sex related offense was immediate death, wouldn’t that provide a greater deterrence against these types of things? Logically speaking that is. Isn’t it in fact misplaced emotions these judges have for the offenders rather than the victims that are the reasons for these weak sentences?
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I predict the fellow who got 750 years to file an immediate appeal alleging unequal protection under the law.
I R A Darth Aggie on April 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Is that a typo, or are you against all porn?
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 10:57 AM
In this case, no, it would not be a greater deterrent. You get 10 years in federal lockup for a kiddy porn/kiddy rape charge, and you’ll wish for death. I’m sure more than a few would kill themselves as soon as they made bail. Ed’s discussed the state of prisons earlier, and for these kinds of crimes, death is a reprieve.
I’m not defending the above justification the judge used, I’m merely tired of people discussing these real, serious issues by labeling their opponents kiddy rapists in order to win an argument. It’s disgusting, appalling, and shows a serious lack of objectivity. When 18 year old guys are labeled sex offenders for sleeping with their 17 year old girlfriend, we’ve got a serious perspective problem on sex in this country. After we put things back in their proper scope, maybe we won’t have judges making such stupid decisions.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I would, but then everyone would see my huge collection of BBW videos. Way too embarassing.
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM
This thread fast on track to winning the (non-religious) hyperbole award for the week.
Reaps on April 16, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Hey everybody let’s have a witch hunt!
Bill C on April 16, 2008 at 11:19 AM
That’s the liberal standard for everything: you have to obey the statutes unless you don’t feel like it.
logis on April 16, 2008 at 11:27 AM
The judge should take care of the animals.
Johan Klaus on April 16, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Take the little fuzzball down to the pound. They’ll “take care” of it.
mojo on April 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM
It sounds like 750 years was for creating porn (i.e., directly victimizing children in person), and the 4 years was for simple possession of pictures not produced by one’s self. If that’s the case, it would be like the difference between full-blown drug trafficking with intent to distribute and simple possession for personal use. That’s not to apologize for either offense, but clearly one is much more severe than the other.
Blacklake on April 16, 2008 at 11:53 AM
The fact is, this story is based on a logical fallacy. It tries to persuade the reader that the judge was too lenient in the setencing of the second man to four years when he sentenced the first man to 750 years. At first that would seem unfair, except the two men committed two different crimes. The first man made child porn, the second man simply possessed it. It purposely misleads the readers to fire them up. It obviously worked.
The real argument about this case is whether possession should hold as much of a penalty as production. In my opinion it should not. Is there not a much harsher penalty for the people who produce/sell drugs than for the possessors?
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Got nothing to do with with what I’m against. It has to do with your comment that serious commentary is negated by personal attacks on those who advocate distribution of material which plays some part in many sexual crimes. Jay Haw’s rant indicated he equates penalizing child porn distributors with an attempt to create a police state. I think it is fair to assume he prefers child porn to restriction of the freedom to allow it’s use.
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Again, slander. You are making the assertion that he has an affinity for child porn, and that is insulting. Corral your emotions on the topic if they take you to this level. Oh, and…
Absolutely wrong. If you are against pornography in all its forms, then it’s fair to say that your position on this topic is differently based than the average person here. If you want to play by the rules of “That must mean you like/want”, then do so. Don’t play double standards.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
You’re misunderstanding a capella’s statement and falsely accusing him of slander. He’s not saying that jay haw personally partakes in child pornography, he’s saying that jay haw is ok with the fact that child porn exists so that none of his rights are infringed upon. What other conclusion can you draw from a statement like this:
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Just curious but are you as opposed to giving up our constitutional rights to “protect us from terrorism” as you are to giving them up to “protect the children?”
Bill Scrunty on April 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Man, I love judges like this. I’d love to be there and say, “You know what, your Honor? We’re gonna get your a$$ reversed so fast it’ll make your head spin. Because I’m a lawyer and everyone in my law office is a lawyer and probably half the people in this courtroom are lawyers.”
Unfortunately, the reality doesn’t always live up to the dream.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I didn’t slander anyone. It is simply that Jay Haw indicates he prefers the existence and distribution of child porn to the restriction of the freedom to do that. I’m not a bit emotional about it. You already admitted you didn’t understand what he meant. You shouldn’t get upset because I did understand him.
I didn’t know how the average HA poster felt about child porn. Are you telling me they are all in favor of it? Don’t try to slide off into the general porn argument. It isn’t relevant. Jay Haw’s comment was aimed specifically at restricting freedoms to “protect the children.” Child porn is the issue here.
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I thought I was the only one who felt that way.
I’ve always contended, the reason some judges give light or no sentences to child molestors is because they molest or want to themselves.
But that’s just me.
SuperManGreenLantern on April 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM
He was asking you if you were sliding off into the general porn argument, because:
There’s no ‘child porn’ in your statement…just ‘porn.’
James on April 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Ah, I see why he’s all emotional. Let me amend that to “child porn” Thank you. Didn’t mean to interfere with America’s favorite pastime..
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
You referred, earlier, specifically to the porn industry, not the child porn industry.
Hence, if you were making your argument, one could reasonably speculate that your grievance is with pornography itself, and not the subject of that porn.
This is the crux of my point. It’s pointless to try to discuss this with a large part of the populace because they hear “child”, “underage”, or any other synonym of the two and they immediately let their emotions take over rather than discuss the topic rationally, leading to accusations, smearing, and eventually breakdown of any coherent conversation.
I’ve lost my taste for George Carlin, but I think he nailed it when he said America has a child fetish.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I’m not emotional. If I were, I’d be accusing others of being in favor of child porn. Savvy yet?
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Key point here…
IS it hard core Porn? showing sex acts with kids?
Or is it Naked pictures of kids, which are also considered Porn?
And does the law make any distinction?
I’ve done internet content searches of a LOT of sites working for various companies… and there is a LOT of material out there, especialy from other countries, which is not well labeled.
It could be hard core… it could be soft… it could be kids… when you click on a site you really have no way of telling.
Problem is that it stays in your cache, and can be recovered. Even DELETING a downloaded picture does not really get rid of it… and it can be recovered.
Romeo13 on April 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Strawman. Jay Haw indicated concern that many of our freedoms were being eroded using the excuse of “protecting the children”. In this particular case, child porn was the issue. I concluded that given a choice between the two, he would rather have porn, including that involving children, go unregulated. The fact he was referring to child porn was implicit in his rant about “protecting the children.” And, I’ve never looked at George Carlin as a role model.
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Public policy on this issue has been schizophrenic in a lot of ways, mainly because it has been rhetorically hung on the hook of “harms children” when much of the prosecuted behavior has little direct link to such harm.
Clearly, someone who would involve children in pornographic situations is directly harming them. But, while skin-crawlingly pervy, it’s hard to see what someone with such pictures on a hard drive is doing to harm the kids involved. Encouragement of the original felons? Providing financial assistance to the original felons? This leads to odd quirks — does an Eyewitness News report encourage bank robberies by virtue of distributing images for profit? Would a financial backer who never had possession of the images be more or less liable for financial support than a purchaser of a single copy?
More mainstream porn has been fighting the “does porn increase bad behavior” debate for years, and I haven’t seen anything definitive there either way.
Finally, when you add in photoshops and CGI, you end up in a looking-glass world where penalties, based on “harming children” don’t involve any actual children.
It seems to me that there can be many good reasons for a public policy penalizing possession or distribution of child porn, but the reasoning underlying such policies is suspect when based on a knee-jerk “harming children” argument.
cthulhu on April 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
It’s an interesting question. Certainly if they’re paying for the material they’re encouraging its creation, but I don’t know if people actually pay for internet porn of this or any other variety (I know legal porn is available for sale on the internet, but there’s also vast amounts of free content). I suppose there are other ways you could encourage the production–like trading for it, or even just asking for it.
But if it were to turn out that a possessor was in no conceivable way creating demand, and wasn’t distributing material himself, I suppose the argument then would be that there’s a psychological slippery slope–that those who possess such pornography will eventually degenerate to the stage where they’ll directly harm children themselves. But I don’t know if there’s any evidence for that argument, any more than there’s evidence that people interested in any kind of fetishistic porn (like simulated rape or S&M porn, both of which are out there) would ever personally want to actually engage in the activities depicted.
I guess when it comes to certain dangers society just doesn’t want to take its chances. Which in this case is certainly understandable.
Blacklake on April 16, 2008 at 4:33 PM
I was born in MN, but I never knew the state was a haven of liberal idiots until after I left the state for a 9 yrs stint in the Navy.
Boy was I surprised…
The rot is deep and highly resistant to common fugicides… time to pull the DDT out of mothballs and spray until the state is dripping wet…
TheCulturalist on April 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM
The article doesn’t say whether the pictures were of people just under legal age, or people who were truly children. It doesn’t say whether they had been edited to make the subject look younger. There are too many ‘it doesn’t say’ points to make a good judgement.
If you are looking for moral culpability you can reasonably argue that a picture of a 17-year-old and a picture of a 9-year-old are the same. But if you are looking at the pathology and the likelyhood of another offense after release, the reports I’ve read are that they are very different cases.
Without more information, I can’t condemn the judge for anything. Even the requirement to take care of the animals is a humane footnote, not a real part of the sentence.
njcommuter on April 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM
this is a sleazy thread grown men have the right to look at pictures of naked children how is that right? i do not really want an answer i know the answer
lexa on April 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM
What other reasons could there be for a public policy penalizing possession or distribution, if not to protect children? It creates demand, just as does the use of illegal drugs. In order for supply to meet demand, children must be exploited. Consumers drive the wheel in both cases but they don’t like to think of themselves as being responsible for the problem. This isn’t an issue of someone being able to be offensive just because it is their right. I can easily ignore the free speech offerings that offend me. Sexual exploitation of children isn’t ignored quite as easily.
a capella on April 16, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Ah. More typical reasoned, logical debate.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 8:45 PM
I don’t get how you’re figuring that supply creates demand. The US Congress creates gazillions of pounds of BS each session, and I don’t see anyone saying “thank you sir, may I have another?”
And, just to make this really clear — how would photoshopped or CGI’d “child porn” involve sexual exploitation of actual, real children rather than “children” as a concept?
Just to throw some further gasoline on the discussion, what if the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the activities were filmed were lower than the age of consent in the US jurisdiction where the film was viewed? Note here that the age of consent in — oh, let’s pick on Spain — is 13. Under the laws of the locality, “children” weren’t exploited. How, then, can it be justified to say that “harming children” is the reason for the law in the US?
Let’s make it really fun — let’s say that the film was made of Spanish 14-year-olds, subtitled in Chinese and sold on the mainland to 3 million interested Chinese consumers. What additional harm to these non-children would be done by one US pervert picking up the DVD on a business trip and hauling it to Omaha?
Same conclusion: It seems to me that there can be many good reasons for a public policy penalizing possession or distribution of child porn, but the reasoning underlying such policies is suspect when based on a knee-jerk “harming children” argument.
cthulhu on April 17, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Amen. It’s just as disgusting an inexcusable a tactic as when the looney left labels (or “merely” insinuates) their opponents “racists”.
“Racist! Racist!”
Thanks for staying on this one, MadisonConservative.
RD on April 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Er, “It’s just as disgusting and inexcusable a tactic…”
RD on April 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM
P.S. I’m not above impugning someone’s motives (as anyone who visits my legacy site could certainly attest), but IMHO it’s only appropriate do so on the motives of those directly involved in the case at hand (such as the judge, the suspect, and so on), not those debating the subject with you.
RD on April 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM