Recently in Child Trafficking and Exploitation Category

Broadcast today on The Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU in Washington, DC:

Traditionally, courts have punished those convicted of possessing child pornography with heavy jail time. But in a growing trend, victims are demanding that offenders pay restitution too. The approach is generating debate about how far courts can go in punishing people who are caught with pornography, but aren't the direct perpetrators of the crime.

Listen to the re-broadcast here.

In two separate stories today, the Los Angeles Times and ABCNews.com consider the issue of restitution for victims of child pornography and contribute new information to the debate (which still to me doesn't seem like much of a debate):

From the LATimes:

The issue of criminal restitution in child pornography possession cases emerged last February in Connecticut when a federal judge said he would order a man convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography to pay about $200,000 to Amy. The judge said it was the first criminal case in which someone convicted of possessing illegal images — but not creating them — would be required to pay restitution.

Since then, requests for restitution have picked up as more victims are identified — and as a couple of victims, including Amy, have hired attorneys, said Meg Garvin, executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute in Portland, Ore.

Hundreds of requests have been filed nationwide, most of them by Amy's attorney, James Marsh of New York. Marsh said that as recently as five years ago, restitution would have been impossible because victims wouldn't have known when someone was caught with an image of them. The Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004 set up a system for notifying the victims. Now, Marsh gets several notices a day on behalf of Amy.

Marie Failinger, a Hamline Law School professor, said allowing restitution in criminal cases is important because many victims don't have the resources to pursue civil cases. She predicted it would take three to five years for courts to figure out a consistent way to handle requests for criminal restitution.

Meanwhile, victims' advocates see criminal restitution as one more tool for fighting child porn.

"The people who engage in this stuff need to be held accountable, even if they are not the person who is raping the child," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "People who are distributing this stuff, people who are downloading this stuff — when they do that, there's a victim, and there's a real harm."

From ABCNews.com:

Not every jurisdiction agrees with the heavy court-ordered payments for those who view such images. Some judges have said restitution goes too far in punishing pedophiles whose only crime is to view photos, but Amy's lawyer, James Marsh, disagrees, saying the brutality in the "secret society" of child pornography requires tough measures.

"This is not 13-year-olds in bras or sexting or 17-year-old girls gone wild -- these are kids who are raped," said Marsh, a New York City lawyer.

"In one notorious set of images, the father used to put a studded collar around his 6-year-old and wrote on her in what looked like blood, 'I am Daddy's little girl, rape me.' He locked her in a dog cage," he told ABCNews.com.

Marsh is now seeking restitution in 350 cases that involve photos of Amy, through automated filings to the United States attorneys handling the cases.

In 1995, Marsh helped update a federal law that gives victims the right to sue anyone who produces, distributes or possess their child sex abuse images. It now provides statutory damages of $150,000 for each violation of federal child pornography provisions and was incorporated into the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and signed by President Bush 2006.

"There is a misunderstanding of the crime, that it's photos of girls in bathing suits running around the sprinkler," said Marsh. "And people think pictures are not a big deal, it's just another greedy lawyer coming to cash in. But they don't understand the true nature of these criminal syndicates or the experience of the victim. For me, it's a no-brainer."

To read both of these excellent stories, visit the LA Times and ABCNews.com.

From Wednesday's New York Times:

When Amy was a little girl, her uncle made her famous in the worst way: as a star in the netherworld of child pornography. Photographs and videos known as “the Misty series” depicting her abuse have circulated on the Internet for more than 10 years, and often turn up in the collections of those arrested for possession of illegal images.

Now, with the help of an inventive lawyer, the young woman known as Amy — her real name has been withheld in court to prevent harassment — is fighting back.

Read the complete story here.

Look who's back! Was it adoption for love? Child trafficking via surrogacy? Or something else? The bizarre case of birdman Stephen Melinger is back in the news, this time in a New York Times article on the perils and pitfalls of surrogacy. Do check out this story in the Times, but just remember from Melinger to womb outsourcing, snowflake adoptions and sperm donor introductions for lesbians, this blog gave you the scoop first.

For those of you who believe in the power of rehabilitation, or that age conquers the irresistible impulse to exploit and abuse children, or for the liberal horde who expressed indignant outrage at the prospect of the death penalty for child sex abusers, this one's for you:

According to the Huffington Post, Theodore Sypnier, a 100-year-old child molester who will soon be released from prison, has an "unrepentant heart" and continues to deny that he ever harmed any children.

New York's oldest registered sex offender is scheduled to move by week's end out of a Buffalo halfway house for released inmates and into a place of his own, after completing his latest term in state prison for molesting little girls.

The judge who sentenced him said at the time that she expected him to die behind bars.

But 10 years after his last arrest, as Sypnier prepared to shed the closely monitored lifestyle of the halfway house, its director warned that the spry and active Sypnier has not changed from the manipulator who used his grandfatherly charm to snare and rape victims as young as 4.

"Whether he's 100 or 101 or 105, the same person that was committing these crimes 10, 25, 30 years ago still exists today and has an unrepentant heart," said the Rev. Terry King, director of Grace House, which has twice taken Sypnier in from prison. "He is someone that we as parents, as members of the community, any community, really need to fear."

Six months after marking his 100th birthday in the Groveland Correctional Facility - becoming the first New York inmate to reach the milestone while incarcerated - the retired telephone company worker now says he wants to get to know the youngest members of a family that has disowned him.

Being grandfatherly was how the 5-foot-5, 150-pound Sypnier found his victims, authorities say. After his most recent arrest at age 90 on charges of raping and sodomizing a 4-year-old girl and her 7-year-old sister, his neighbors in the suburb of Tonawanda recalled what appeared to be a kindly Sypnier offering rides to adults, handing out money to children so they could buy candy, and baby-sitting.

The victimized sisters called him "Grandpa," their mother said at the time, adding that it "was a total shock" when police showed her sexually explicit pictures of her girls found in Sypnier's apartment.

Sypnier's convictions date to 1987, when he was given three years' probation for sex abuse. He spent a year in prison for sexually abusing a minor in 1994. His neighbors in Tonawanda never knew of Sypnier's background because he was convicted before the adoption of laws requiring sex offenders to register with police.

But Sypnier says he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice, despite twice pleading guilty in the case involving the sisters.

"Those children crawled into bed with me because they were frightened, but there was never any sexual hanky-panky," Sypnier told the Buffalo News.

Sypnier initially pleaded guilty in 2000 to two counts of rape, 15 counts of sodomy and endangering the welfare of a child for molesting the Tonawanda girls, as well as three in Buffalo. An appeals court threw out the conviction in 2002 after Sypnier claimed he was confused at the time, leading to another plea the following year to a lesser charge.

In sentencing Sypnier to as many as 10 years in prison, state Supreme Court Justice Penny Wolfgang told him she expected he would spend the rest of his life behind bars.

"The sheer notion of him wandering the streets unattended or unsupervised is a scary proposition," King said.

On Monday, a federal district judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a memorandum opinion and order denying restitution to a now 20-year-old woman known as "Amy" in the case of a defendant who downloaded and possessed her images.

The Court’s decision is a serious set-back for victims of child pornography like Amy in their effort to obtain just and timely restitution for the ongoing crimes perpetrated against them. How can we, as a country, justify awarding tens of thousands of dollars in damages to record companies for downloading a single song, while criminals who exploit children pay nothing?

For over 30 years, Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized that victims of child pornography experience significant life-long harm by individuals like the defendant in this case who trade and possess images of their rape, abuse and humiliation.

It is now up to Congress, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court to decide this issue in the interest of children like Amy and the American people who have little tolerance for these crimes and the abuse and exploitation of our nation’s young people.

For coverage of this case see the Tyler Morning Telegraph

Further background can be found here.

Last spring there was a great deal of controversy about Oscar winning film director Roman Polanski's long running attempt to escape justice for his 1977 rape of a 13 year old girl. Back in February, Salon.com published an excellent review of the case and a recently released documentary film about the case. On Saturday, Polanski was jailed in Switzerland on an international warrant as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival.

An international tug-of-war over the 76-year-old director escalated today as France and Poland urged Switzerland to free him on bail and pressed U.S. officials all the way up to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the case.

Authorities in Los Angeles consider Polanski a "convicted felon and fugitive." The director pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. He was sent to prison for 42 days but then the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain. On the day of his sentencing in 1978, aware the judge would sentence him to more prison time, Polanski fled to France.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he hoped Polanski could be quickly freed by the Swiss, calling the apprehension a "bit sinister." He and his Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and called Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey about the case.

"(Polanski was) thrown to the lions," said French Pedophile Minister Frederic Mitterrand. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

Polanski seems most likely to spend several months in detention, unless he agrees to forgo any challenge to his extradition to the United States. Under a 1990 accord between Switzerland and the U.S., Washington has 60 days to submit a formal request for his transfer.

The Swiss Justice Ministry insisted Sunday that politics played no role in its arrest order for Polanski, who lives in France but has spent much time at a chalet in the luxury Swiss resort of Gstaad. The court theoretically could confine Polanski to his Gstaad chalet, but up to now there has never been a case of house arrest in such a situation.

The U.S. has had an outstanding warrant on Polanski since 1978, but the Swiss said American authorities have sought the arrest of the director around the world only since 2005.

His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

A native of France who was taken to Poland by his parents, Polanski escaped Krakow's Jewish ghetto as a child during World War II and lived off the charity of strangers. His mother died at the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp.

The arrest prompted angry criticism from fellow filmmakers and actors across Europe.

"It seems inadmissible ... that an international cultural evening, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by police to apprehend him," says a petition circulating in France and signed by artists including Costa Gavras, Stefen Frears and Monica Bellucci.

Oscar-winning director Andrzej Wajda and other Polish filmmakers also appealed for Polanski's immediate release.

"(He has) atoned for the sins of his young years," Jacek Bromski, head of the Polish Filmmakers Association, told The AP. "He has paid for it by not being able to enter the U.S. and in his professional life he has paid for it by not being able to make films in Hollywood."

More on tihs story:

LA prosecutors: Polanski efforts go back decades

Polanski arrest draws cheers and jeers in Europe

France rallies to Polanski's defence while Hollywood watches

Legislators call for DA's removal after OK pedophile gets 1 year in jail in plea deal for raping a 4 year old girl Link

Editorial "seldom is there a reason not to impose maximum penalties on [child] predators" who scar victims forever Link

Arlington county bar director / lawyer caught in child sex sting disbarred by DC COA & will serve 1 year in prison Link

Unlike the Harvard Law School Berkman Center cyber white wash from earlier this year, a recent American Academy of Pediatrics scientific study found that a history of childhood abuse and a provocative online identity increase the risk of Internet exploitation for girls.

The the study's objective was to determine the risk factors for Internet-initiated victimization of female adolescents. The researchers found that abused girls were significantly more likely to have experienced online sexual advances and to have met someone offline. Having been abused and choosing a provocative avatar were significantly and independently associated with online sexual advances, which were, in turn, associated with offline encounters.

Unlike the Berkman Center's politically charged report, which was $pon$ored by industry heavyweights like AOL, LindenLab, and MySpace, the AAP professionals "indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose." This alone should give the Pediatric's study the credibility that Harvard Law School so sorely and blatantly lacks.

An interesting article about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [FCPA] made me think about international adoption agencies and their criminal liability under this federal law. According to the article FCPA, which was enacted in 1977, prohibits bribery of foreign officials. The authors offer this sage advice:

In this climate of increased enforcement, it is imperative that firms doing business in foreign markets, both currently and in the future, become familiar with the FCPA. Both the anti-bribery and books-and-records provisions present significant issues for any company doing business abroad.

In general terms, the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions prohibit companies and individuals from making payments -- or offering or promising to pay money or anything of value -- to any foreign official with the purpose of inducing the recipient to misuse his official position by directing business to or maintaining business with the payor. The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA apply to . . . any citizen, national or resident of the United States; any entity organized under the laws of any state or U.S. territory; U.S. persons who commit acts of bribery outside of the U.S.; . . . and U.S. and foreign agents of any of these persons or entities.

Hmmmmm. This law sounds like it was MADE for the international adoption oligarchy and, in a serious note of caution for all would-be adoptive parents, those unwittingly caught in its grasp. Let's read on:

To create FCPA liability, the purpose of the payment or promise in question must have been to induce a foreign official to misuse his position. Significantly, however, the FCPA does not require the payment to actually succeed in its purpose. Companies and individuals that violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions are subject to impositions of fines and orders for forfeiture of assets derived from the corrupt activity.

In addition to fines and asset forfeitures, an individual convicted for violation of the anti-bribery provisions may be sentenced to prison term of up to five years.

Now that should wake you up! One international adoption agency distributed this memo entitled "Gifts for Russia" in which they clearly state (as if anyone was wondering): "These are gifts, not bribes. Gifts are part of the Russian way of doing business. With the gifts, you are recognizing the status of the people you are dealing with, and showing your appreciation for the assistance that they are giving you."

Appreciation for the assistance that they are giving you. Solid words, but sound legal advice?

Just remember, as World Child, Inc. warned clients in their agency-parent Memo of Understanding, "your American dollars are very much in demand!" "We suggest you bring a variety of bills, including approximately twenty bills each of $1s, $5s, $10s, $20s, and $50s. The rest can be $100 dollar bills. Bills that are over ten years old, are very wrinkled, or are torn or written upon, will not be acceptable." Acceptable to who?

According to the article:

Although it is clear that the FCPA prohibits bribing foreign officials or their representatives, some less obvious activities may constitute violations of the FCPA as well. Any company doing business abroad should be aware of the following examples of possible violations of the FCPA, particularly in view of the recent increase in enforcement:

• Excessive gift giving or entertaining foreign officials or their representatives.
  
• Allowing foreign officials or their staff to use company facilities for any purpose other than to demonstrate, promote or explain the services that the company provides.
  
• Employing a consultant or agent that has connections to a foreign government or agency, for the purpose of influencing that government's or agency's decisions.
  
• Passing money through an agent or consultant to a foreign official to obtain business or secure an advantage, including consulting or management contracts, or securing certain action on legislation, regulations, or other government activity.

Now I'm sure readers will let me know whether they've heard of anything even remotely similar to these (ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES) in the routine conduct of the business of international adoption. I suggest that if anything you've read here reminds you of anything you've personally experienced, witnessed or directed, call a lawyer, call the FBI, and post a comment.

And I thought corrupting international adoption with money was bad. Now we've got to worry about criminal liability for BRIBES?

Before you get too unsettled, just remember the timeless words of FOA (friend of adoption) Debbie Spivack, writing on the Focus on Adoption listserve in defense of Jeanne Smith's Reaching Out Thru International Adoption agency which placed Russian girl Masha Allen with a pedophile adoptor: "fees are for services to ensure the integrity of the process and keep corruption away." Thank goodness! That'll make a stunning defense to felony criminal charges. With Spivack as your expert witness, even the most vile international adoption agency should be able to beat this rap.

And with all this in mind, the Foreign CORRUPT Practices Act need not worry anyone, least of all internationally adopting parents with crisp one hundred dollar bills stuffed in their suitcases.