A delicate subject

Opinion: May 13, 2011 at 12:00a.m.

How do you make a sexual abuse victim whole?

And who should have to do it?

Some answers ultimately might come through “Amy,” a woman whose pseudonym is attached to lawsuits all over the country involving child pornography convictions.

Courts including the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans have approached victim restitution issues in the litigation primarily as an exercise in statutory interpretation.

But the philosophical questions entwined with the legal ones are so complicated, it’s hard to know what the right responses are.

There seems to be agreement that “Amy” was sexually abused by an uncle when she should have been enjoying being a little girl. Her tale is repeated in numerous court documents, including her own victim impact statements and a report on her psychological condition.

According to the legal record, photos of her torment are included in what’s called the Misty series of child pornography.

Porn viewers in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Maine and elsewhere have acquired varying numbers of “Amy” photos online. Now an adult, she’s seeking restitution in hundreds of cases where child pornography defendants have her picture in their collections.

Criminal restitution

An order from U.S. District Court in Tyler, Texas, notes that “Amy’s” lawyer “has identified some 650 defendants in some 30 judicial districts who are potentially liable for criminal restitution.”

Technically, the federal government is seeking restitution for her. That’s how it works under a federal law that requires judges doing the sentencing in child porn cases to also order payment to identifiable victims.

Victims are entitled to the “full amount” of their losses, including medical and psychiatric care, therapy, lost income and attorney fees. Through her lawyer, “Amy” is seeking $3.4 million, which includes $2.9 million in lost wages and earning capacity, plus $513,000 for future treatment and counseling.

Aggressively seeking restitution from people who’ve only viewed child porn but haven’t produced or distributed it is a tactic that Warren Richey, writing in The Christian Science Monitor, credited to Amy’s lawyer, James Marsh of White Plains, N.Y.

The strategy has split the federal courts, so the litigation will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2009, judges in Florida ordered restitution of $3.3 million and $3.7 million for “Amy” in separate cases, but a judge in Maine said there wasn’t proof the defendant caused the losses she claimed.

In December 2009, a judge in Tyler ruled against restitution in the case of Doyle Randall Paroline of Brownsboro, Texas. He had two images of “Amy” among 150 to 300 items of child porn and was sentenced to two years in prison, with 10 years of supervised release.

But in March, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit overturned that finding and sent the case back to determine how much Paroline owes Amy.

The courts are grappling with whether each and every defendant caught with photos of “Amy” — or any other victim — can be ordered to pay her total amount or whether each is responsible only for the harm he actually caused.

But there’s the conundrum: What is harm and how do you prove who caused it?

In harm’s way

Someone like “Amy” could be harmed each time another voyeur sees her picture. But she wouldn’t know without the government notifying her lawyer about new prosecutions.

A victim shouldn’t have to go after every individual defendant to collect for all her losses. But does the punishment fit the crime when a single defendant with a few of the victim’s images is held responsible for all her damages? And what good is a huge restitution order that most defendants can’t pay?

When this litigation does get to the Supreme Court, the justices might well decide what the wording of the restitution statute means. But they won’t have solutions for ending depravity or repairing lives torn apart by sexual abuse.

Linda P. Campbell is a columnist and editorial writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.