Top 10 Jobs for Getting Away with Crimes

Federal judges don't have a ton of leeway with regards to the sentences they can choose to impose. Not only are there the Sentencing Guidelines which offer specific recommendations based on some relatively heavy math, but sentences are also appealable.

So here's one example from a few days ago:

Dane Schrank visited the dark web and downloaded “nearly 1,000 images of babies and toddlers being forcibly, violently, and sadistically penetrated.” After a government investigation identified Schrank, he confessed and pled guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).

The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of 97 to 120 months in prison. Yet the district court imposed a noncustodial sentence of just 12 months’ home confinement. The government appealed, and we vacated the sentence because it was substantively unreasonable. It both “ignored or minimized the severity of the offense” and “failed to account for general deterrence.”

Yet on remand, the district court imposed the same sentence. The district judge criticized our court for “second-guess[ing]” her sentence and said that she refused to impose a sentence that “does not make sense.” R. 47, Page ID 249, 271. But the district judge didn’t stop there. She also found time to criticize the “sophistication of the judges on the Sixth Circuit when it comes to computers” and said that Schrank’s misconduct—accessing the dark web over the course of five days and downloading nearly 1,000 images of children being raped—was “much less exaggerated” than “the Sixth Circuit judges realize.” Id. at 250. She concluded by noting, “maybe the Sixth Circuit will reverse me again.” Id. at 271.

We now do just that. Because Schrank’s sentence remains substantively unreasonable, we vacate it and remand for resentencing. And given the district judge’s conduct, we order that the case be reassigned on remand.

10 years in prison for looking at child pornography strikes me as completely absurd. The court in this case makes tenuous arguments about how demand drives supply (it doesn't make sense that child pornography production is motivated by profit given the significant and obvious difficulties of monetization), and how children are revictimized each time depictions of their assault are shared, etc. but none come close to "THEREFORE, 10 years in prison is adequate". You can murder and rape people and get less prison time.

Schrank is now most likely going to be sentenced to 10 years in prison, and once released he will be forced to register as a sex offender. The entire system seems driven by vindictiveness rather than any earnest attempt at rehabilitation. I've written about this before.

But one thing I realized when reading about this case is that plenty of people paid by the government did the same thing that Schrank did. Detectives had to look at child porn, so did the prosecutors, and so did the judges. To be clear, I am not saying that people in law enforcement are motivated by the prospect of looking at child pornography consequence-free. But is there a rebuttal to the fact that if your goal is to be able to enjoy child pornography without facing any consequences, that a career in law enforcement would be the best pathway towards doing exactly that?

This is not as outlandish as it may seem. One of the most ridiculous teen sexting cases happened a few years ago in Manassas VA:

Trey Sims, of Prince William County, Virginia, was 17 when he was arrested in 2014 for sending sexually explicit photographs and videos of himself to his 15-year-old girlfriend.

During the investigation of the case, a detective obtained a warrant to detain the boy, then demanded he masturbate while being filmed.

As described in the ruling written by U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, the detective hoped to get photos of Sims’ erect penis to compare with evidence gathered from the girlfriend’s cellphone.

After Sims failed to achieve an erection, the detective threatened to take the boy to a local hospital where he would be injected with “erection-producing drugs” if he did not comply, the ruling says.

When Sims continued to be unable to achieve an erection, the detective took a photo of the boy’s flaccid penis. According to published reports, the detective later secured a second warrant to photograph the boy, but it was never executed.

The detective in question had been a police officer for 14 years. About a year after this whole erect penis search warrant story blew up, he himself was under investigation for actually molesting two 13 year old boys he was coaching. The detective shot himself when police swarmed his house.

Again, I want to make it clear that I am not in any way trying to imply that members of law enforcement are secret pedophiles. What I'm trying to grapple with is how our society is structured in ways where these release valves are available for those unfortunate enough to have a diabolical hunger, and savvy enough to take advantage of it.

Another example is from Hawaii. In 2014, the law on the books explicitly allowed undercover cops to have sex with prostitutes. Lawmakers eventually changed that law, but not after some ungodly pushback from the law enforcement community.

I suppose my point isn't that profound. It's hard to imagine a better outlet for homicidal impulses than joining a career which would celebrate you for indulging exactly that. There is a common thread between these career choices in that they work for the government and are also empowered with a great deal of trust to not abuse their positions of power. How do you make sure that child porn detectives don't masturbate to evidence? How do you ensure that SEAL team members don't shoot civilians for sport? You literally cannot supervise them the entire time, so the best you can hope for is a sufficiently robust structure of accountability. Whatever you manage to build up will necessarily be fragile given the constraints you're operating under, and it's especially easy to lose trust in the entire apparatus.