Sexual Exploitation And Other

Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuses of Children under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 – 2260A

This paper will explore the sexual exploitation, more specifically, child pornography. The basis for these kinds of claims is Title, 18 United States Code, Section 2251-2260A, also known as 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 – 2260A. This paper will be divided into four parts. The first part of this paper will discuss the history of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 – 2260A, the second will include the components of § 2251 – 2260A, more specifically § 2251 because it deal with more of child pornography, the third part will discuss the effect child sexual exploitation has and how people react, and the last part will include a federal circuit opinion case.

Brief History of § 2251

The history related to 18 U.S.C. § 2251 dates as far back to the late 1980’s. Where the 18 U.S.C § 2251 was first recognized in New York v. Ferber. The court had recognized a category that fell on the outside of the First Amendment, which was child pornography (Hessick. C. B., 2014). The issue was because of the freedoms to have child pronography was not defined under the First Amendment and the courts failed to define child pornography under any of the speech categories (Hessick. C. B., 2014). It was then the government had to define the conduct where they had to define the works of visual sexual conduct by children below a specific age (Child Pornography., n.d.).

The 18 U.S.C § 2251 was also recognized in Osborne v. Ohio. To prevent child exploitation the state made a criminal law against anyone possessing or viewing child pornography even if it was in the privacy of the person (Child Pornography., n.d.).

The 18 U.S.C § 2251 also was recognized in United States v. Williams. The courts prohibited anyone knowing or purposefully “advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting any material”(Child Pornography., n.d.) that would have someone believe that the material presented was child pornography or looked like an obscene image of a minor. (Child Pornography., n.d.)

Elements of § 2251 Claims

In this section this paper will discuss the four elements to § 2251 cause of action. In order for someone to fall under § 2251, there must be four different elements. Each of these four elements are apart of what makes this statute. Someone can commit a crime involving sexual exploitation of a child, more specifically child pornography, and these four elements help cover what makes the perpetrator guilty or not guilty.

Element one is someone “who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished”(18 U.S. Code § 2251 – Sexual exploitation of children, n.d.). This involves more with visual depictions and them being transported around the states and territoies.

Element two is “any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor who knowingly permits such minor to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct shall be punished”(18 U.S. Code § 2251 – Sexual exploitation of children, n.d.).

Element three includes “any person who…employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct outside of the United States…for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished”(18 U.S. Code § 2251 – Sexual exploitation of children, n.d.) This involving more with the coercion action of being purposefully and exploiting visual images around the world.

Lastly, element four involves anyone who knowingly makes, publishes, or offers to receive, purchase, exchange, display or give any visual depiction that involves a minor participating in any sexual conduct shall be punished (18 U.S. Code § 2251 – Sexual exploitation of children, n.d.).

Effects of Child Pornography

Over the years the media has broadcasted people of criminal acts of child sexual exploitation (Hamilton M., April, 2012). It has taken a world wide effect of people being and teaching their kids to be afraid to “stranger danger” and to not talk to people online because of how people can pull minors into the trap and exploit them sexually.

There is strict rule and punishment on viewing child pornography and it is taught throughout the states. It teaches everyone to have the perspective of judging all sexual images of children as wrong and immoral (Hamilton M., April, 2012). There can be many issues that arise within people’s owns life such as young couples in high school sharing these intimate pictures, but by law it is still child pornography if they do not meet the age requirement.

The internet plays the biggest role in child pornography. It is the easiest place for people who commit these acts to share and distribute child pornography and they do it knowingly. They sexually exploit kids for their own benefit and needs. That is why most adults do not let kids surf the internet alone or have child locks on it because predators who sexually exploit children are all around and can pop up anywhere. The internet gives people anonymity and that does not help the prevention of child pornography.

Case Illustration

United States v. Encarnación-Ruiz, 787 F.3d 581 (1st Circ. 2015)

The case that is going to be discussed below is an example of child pornography case and defense under the 18 U.S.C § 2251. There will be discussion of the defense that went along with the charge of child pornography and if the defense was successful or not. It will also apply the elements of 18 U.S.C § 2251. This explanation will be a brief summary of the facts and decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Facts

Roberto Encarnación-Ruiz was charged with aiding and abetting child pornography. He was also charged with having connections with a pornagraphic film with a minor, a 14 year old girl, and another man in 2010. Encarnación argues that he did not know the real age of the minors and he was mistaken about it. He entered his argument with the mistaken of the victim’s age as a defense (787 F.3d 583).

Sentencing

The government had to prove that Encarnación knew the victim was a minor and that it fell under the 18 U.S. Code § 2251. Encarnación earlier had made a plea agreement so the government also had to see if his argument was able to be valid in this case. His argument had made sense to the courts and because you must knowingly know the age of the victim to become an aider and abetter their main issue turned into whether or not this can count from the initial waiver and fails to argue in the district court (787 F.3d 586). Conclusion

In the end, Encarnación had pleaded guilty with the defense later of the mistaken of the age of the victim. The defense became unavailable once the plea was given and it went past the district courts because the defense came after. Encarnación received the minimum jail time under the statutes sentence.im pleading guilty was a principle not an aider and abetter (787 F.3d 609). Conclusion

Section 2251, child pornography has been made to propose a clear definition and elements of it. Child pornography has top fall within that a child was sexually exploited or abused in the creation of the child pornagraphic images (Hessick. C. B., 2014). The First Amendment did not help protect the charges of child pornography in the beginning, so the courts had to find its way to define the issues of it and create rules to where it can be punished and the wrongdoings of it can be caught. Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation under the 18 U.S.C § 2251. There is defenses for it such as not knowingly exploiting the children and knowing their ages. In the end this paper discussed the 18 U.S.C § 2251 where the brief history was said, elements of the statute, effects, and lastly all implied into the federal circuit opinion case.

References

Child Pornography. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/child-pornography

Hessick. C. B. (Fall, 2014). The limits of child pornography. Indiana law journal, 89, 1437. Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=analytical-materials&id=urn:contentItem:5CC3-NTD0-00CW-G0XR-00000-00&context=1516831.

Hamilton M. (April, 2012). The child pornography crusade and Its net-widening effect. Cardozo Law Review, 33, 1679. Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=analytical-materials&id=urn:contentItem:55H0-GK70-00CT-S02W-00000-00&context=1516831.

United States v. Encarnación-Ruiz, 787 F.3d 581 (1st Circ. 2015)

18 U.S. Code § 2251 – Sexual exploitation of children. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2251