This is highly unusual! I've been watching these for months & have never seen this before. He also admitted to sexual contact with a victim. I wonder why he got time served when the mandatory sentence is 5 years with a maximum of 20?
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10156892511445244&id=187104770243
Edit: Name is listed as Christopher J. Sullivan, age 20 Original post said name was not published when it was. I missed it.
The current statutory range of imprisonment for possession is zero to ten years of
imprisonment if an offender possessed child pornography depicting a minor 12 years of age or
older who was not then prepubescent and zero to 20 years of imprisonment if an offender
possessed child pornography depicting a prepubescent minor or a minor under 12 years of age
His admission to criminal sexual contact should have gotten him more than time served. And because he admitted to many more instances of this conduct, I find it HIGHLY unusual he would only get 16 months. And according to the original press release, it says he is subject to a minimum mandatory of 5 years. The images were of children 7-12 years old. He admitted to sexual contact with one boy.
All in all, from watching these cases go through the Justice Department, this is the first one I have seen where the sentence has been this light.
If he admitted sexual contact with one boy assuming he is under age, why wouldn't they consider it rape or molestation to? Something is very wrong with the system if this is the case.
view the rest of the comments →
PubMaster ago
This is highly unusual! I've been watching these for months & have never seen this before. He also admitted to sexual contact with a victim. I wonder why he got time served when the mandatory sentence is 5 years with a maximum of 20? https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10156892511445244&id=187104770243 Edit: Name is listed as Christopher J. Sullivan, age 20 Original post said name was not published when it was. I missed it.
Are_we__sure ago
His name is listed in the linked document. Is that different from the report you mention?
Edit: it appears to me that the possible sentence is zero to 20 years. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Chapter_02.pdf
PubMaster ago
His admission to criminal sexual contact should have gotten him more than time served. And because he admitted to many more instances of this conduct, I find it HIGHLY unusual he would only get 16 months. And according to the original press release, it says he is subject to a minimum mandatory of 5 years. The images were of children 7-12 years old. He admitted to sexual contact with one boy.
All in all, from watching these cases go through the Justice Department, this is the first one I have seen where the sentence has been this light.
Gothamgirl ago
If he admitted sexual contact with one boy assuming he is under age, why wouldn't they consider it rape or molestation to? Something is very wrong with the system if this is the case.