NS lehnt Gerichtsurteil ab, mit dem Mindeststrafen für Kinderpornografie abgeschafft werden

They use the ruling itself as an anger point and not the fact that judges are ruling this because they are against mandatory minimums at all. It takes away judiciary discretion on sentencing and they really have no basis for anything other than feelings, as every discussion on the matter has shown.

These headlines are generally made to rage bait and nowhere does our media try to actually give valid information on the why of it all because rage gets clicks

>He added that mandatory minimum sentences send a message “that exploiting children is among the most serious crimes, and will be treated that way.”

I find this line of reasoning to be quite strange. It’s a crime so bad that it’s „among the most serious,“ and yet the mandatory minimum is a one single year prison sentence.

I agree with the court that these, and most, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional because they will inevitably sentence people who shouldn’t be in prison to a year of prison — as the ruling makes quite clear in their hypothetical.

But let’s take a moment to consider the claimed proportionality about this being the most serious crime so certain people charged under the statute deserve at least *a year* in prison. Where are all the criminals who choose to commit crimes based on the duration of the mandatory minimum? Which child pornographer thinks to themselves, „well, they threw that 18 year old who shared a sex tape of him having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend to his high-school football team in prison for a year so just think of what they’ll do to me?!“ Ah, you often hear the saying that socialism would be perfect if people would behave the way the central planner wanted them to. This is that exact logic applied to the people who commit crimes. Socialism as criminal justice policy. Surely, the central planner will succeed *this time* as those criminals behave the way the central planner wishes they would. Who needs to examine the actual behaviour of anyone who actually commits any criminal act? Ye be of little faith in the almighty and all-knowing central planner.

We have had mandatory minimums on this statute for well over 10 years and it doesn’t seem to have affected the decision making of current or would be producers, distributors or consumers of depictions of child sex abuse. But it would have a remarkable effect on this inevitable 18 year old — surely the message the legislature is intending to send to that hypothetical 18 year old is not the same message they are intending to send to someone who watches, distributes and or produces videos of children being sexually abused by adults.

But, the mandatory minimum sees these two circumstances and behaviors as morally equivalent and both of them equally deserving of *at least* a year in prison. Perhaps we should think more about the real effects on people who can be and are charged under these statutes and less about sending messages that appear to never reach their intended audience.