Do you agree ? And why? The possession of child phonography has been on the rise in terms of federal conviction in the United States in the recent decade (Loftis, 2017). Congress passed the Protect Act of 2003 which raised the sentencing terms of supervised release to a minimum of 5 years (Loftis, 2003). Offenders who are convicted of child pornography should be sentenced to prison time, and not be allowed probation. This type of offense is sick, and puts children's safety who are already vulnerable at risk. This offense needs to be served in the correctional system. If these offenders are released immediately back into society on probation they haven't learned the seriousness of their actions and have access to the internet to get ahold of more pornography. It is only reasonable to add supervised release after the completion of the conviction sentence to ensure that the offender's do not engage in this behavior once they are released. If an offender was sentenced to probation, or once they begin supervised release there must be restrictions that are imposed on these individuals to ensure the safety of the society. Some restrictions that must be imposed will be the area the individual resides will not be within a certain amount of distance from a school zone, they are to participate in treatment and any missed sessions will result in the violation of their release conditions, and have their cell phone and home internet under strict monitoring. These restrictions will ensure that the offender does not violate conditions of their release and monitor them from possessing any additional child pornography. References Loftis, D. (2017). Supervised Release Sentences of Child Pornography Offenders in U.S. District Courts: An Examination of Disparity. University of Missouri, St. Louis.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The statement argues that offenders convicted of child pornography should be sentenced to prison tim... View the full answer