In what a federal judge termed “the sensible cooperation of prosecutor, defense, experts and the court to save rather than destroy an adolescent” charged with a federal crime involving child pornography, a young man was sentenced to straight probation rather than prison.

Senior United States District Judge Jack B. Weinstein’s May 1 sentencing order considered “and rejected” a prison term for the now 22-year-old man, noting that probation was the optimal outcome in his case and that it provided him the best chance to succeed in therapy, at school and on the job and as a “law-abiding member of society.”

The case outcome and the judge’s written rationale have been lauded by a number of commentators, with the matter also evidencing how diligent defense representation can help bring about sentencing mitigation that both greatly reduces a potential penalty and optimally promotes the best interests of an accused party.

The original charge against the defendant was distribution of child pornography. Conviction on that charge came with a statutory mandatory term of imprisonment for a five-year minimum period of incarceration. Prosecutors subsequently amended the charge to simple possession, which removed the obligatory prison term.

In his memorandum, Judge Weinstein stated that long prison terms for “non-acting-out” adolescents … have been strongly attacked as unsound.” The defendant in the case before Weinstein admitted to possessing pornographic images from the Internet, but he was subsequently deemed by therapists as being treatable and in fact completed a therapy program. There was also no evidence indicating that he ever intended to produce or distribute pornographic material.

Judge Weinstein found the defendant to be “no current or future risk to any child or adult” and stated that a probationary term was in the best interests of all concerned.

Source: United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, “Sentencing Memorandum, Hearing and Order, “Judge Jack B. Weinstein, May 1, 2013