Federal sentencing guidelines for some child pornography offenses are "seriously flawed and is accordingly entitled to little respect," said U.S. District Judge Lynn S. Adelman.
Adelman's came in a 16-page memorandum ...
[Thank God for that apostrophe.]
Phinney's attorney, Dennis Coffey, had argued that the guidelines "had been the subject of much criticism by scholars and judges because it is not based on any empirical data or institutional analysis."
Adelman wrote that ... "the district judge may not presume that the guideline sence is the correct one."
Adelman outlined a history of sentencing guideline'r application to child pornography.
Adelman wrote that ... penalties had been lesses for child pornography crimes.
Congress increased the penalty guidelines in 1995 and 2003 despite the sentencing commissions objections, Adelman said.
"Not only is this guideline not based on commission study or expertise, it is directily contrary to the commission's original studied approach ..." Adelman wrote.
"Accordingly, I condluded that the range under the 2008 guideline was worthy of little respect or deference."
Phinney was in his office at a company he co-owned when the hurman resources director saw him looking at images of naked boys or men on his computer.
The othe owner contacted the FBI.
A search of the computer found 28 sexually explicit images of children, two identified by through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Adleman said ...
he also took into account ...
Adelman noted that the 10 years of post-prsion supervision ...