From United States v. Reeves, decided today by the Second Circuit:
This appeal requires us to consider the validity of a condition of supervised release [following a prison term for possessing child pornography] that obligated Reeves, upon entry into a “significant romantic relationship,” to notify the United States Probation Department and to inform the other party to the relationship of his conviction. We conclude that the condition is unduly vague and not “reasonably necessary” to achieve the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)….We easily conclude that people of common intelligence (or, for that matter, of high intelligence) would find it impossible to agree on the proper application of a release condition triggered by entry into a “significant romantic relationship.” What makes a relationship “romantic,” let alone “significant” in its romantic depth, can be the subject of endless debate that varies across generations, regions, and genders. For some, it would involve the exchange of gifts such as flowers or chocolates; for others, it would depend on acts of physical intimacy; and for still others, all of these elements could be present yet the relationship, without a promise of exclusivity, would not be “significant.” The history of romance is replete with precisely these blurred lines and misunderstandings. See, e.g., Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The Marriage of Figaro (1786); Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (Thomas Egerton, 1814); When Harry Met Sally (Columbia Pictures 1989); He’s Just Not That Into You (Flower Films 2009).
Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer….
In addition to being too vague to be enforceable, we are not persuaded that the special condition is “reasonably related” to the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as required by § 3583(d)…. We have no doubt that in the appropriate circumstance a court, on the recommendation of the Probation Department, could require a defendant to notify third-parties of risks arising from the defendant’s criminal record, personal history, or characteristics. But the history and characteristics of Reeves’s offense do not indicate that he poses a risk to those with whom he would have “a significant romantic relationship.” Reeves has two children from two separate relationships and there are no allegations of domestic violence or abuse in any of these relationships. He possessed but did not create or distribute child pornography, and his psychological evaluation noted that he “does not present with predatory tendencies toward children and test results suggest that he is not sexually attracted to children per se.” Nothing in the record suggests that he has been a threat to a romantic partner. In short, on these facts, we are hard-pressed to see how the notification requirement is reasonably necessary to protect someone with whom Reeves might choose to associate. Nor is it at all apparent that such a notification requirement will promote his rehabilitation. To the contrary, the requirement would almost certainly adversely affect, and could very well prematurely end, any intimate relationship he might develop, placing him at a greater risk of social isolation and thus impair, rather than enhance, his rehabilitation.
Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.
Crunchy Frog says:
Sadly enough, I know women for whom a conviction for anything, including CP, is a major plus.
Of course, they also wonder why they are having so much trouble finding stable relationships…
January 7, 2010, 6:50 pmDaniel Charlies says:
Take, for example, that Peter Orszag.
Which lady is he in a significant relationship with? The wife w/whom he has two kids? The one he knocked up where he’s serving just as the baby daddy? Or the celeb newscaster that he’s now traded up into and engaged with?
Heck, if the educated classes can’t get these baby-making hetero relationships straight, what are the odds the rest of the population will figure out the rules we’re playing by today either?
Thanks for posting this, and have a nice day everyone!
January 7, 2010, 7:04 pmyankee says:
Oh the horrors! Next thing the courts will have to decide what a reasonable person would have done, or whether something is closely related to an important government interest, or whether something substantially limits a major life activity, or whether a punishment is cruel and unusual, or whether a state government has acted with all deliberate speed, or whether someone has exercised undue influence over someone else’s decision to alter their will, or whether somebody’s acted in restraint of trade.
Fortunately for our legal system, there’s never been any significant disagreement about any of those issues. They’ve certainly never been the “subject of endless debate.”
January 7, 2010, 7:27 pmParalegal Los Angeles says:
The older I get the more I prefer insignificant relationships, and to keep them significantly private.
As materialism fades by inherent entropy, the realm of the intellect and spirit become significantly more rewarding.
Therefore to me, everyone is my insignificant other.
January 7, 2010, 8:06 pmgeorge weiss says:
yankee wins the thread.
i still agree with the court though. there are vague rules because they have to be vague-and vague rules that are unnecessarily vague. i think that’s the dirty little secret with vagueness doctrine.
January 7, 2010, 8:22 pmGuy says:
Though we usually don’t like vague rules like that to be the source of criminal liability, do we? (at least outside the white-collar context)
January 7, 2010, 8:48 pmRyan Waxx says:
Yankee’s right!
Government is THE PERFECT entity to make judgment calls on significant romantic relationships! I mean, why ask Dear Abby when you can ask Justice Thomas?
January 7, 2010, 9:21 pmChris Travers says:
Also as the crime becomes more severe the level of vagueness tolerated becomes less in some ways (and greater in others, unfortunately).
Many common law tort principles are necessarily vague. Felony laws shouldn’t be.
January 7, 2010, 9:39 pmTarik says:
It’s interesting how sometimes even the two individuals involved in the relationship differ on the degree of “significance” the courtship holds.
Any thoughts on the court’s choice of motion picture citations?
January 7, 2010, 9:48 pmDave N. says:
Yes, Judge Barrington Parker is obviously channeling Judge Alex Kozinski.
January 7, 2010, 11:21 pmLarryA says:
Wouldn’t it be neat if that became a guiding legal principle, and laws could be challenged because they weren’t “reasonably necessary” and didn’t “promote rehabilitation?”
I’ve got a little list…
January 8, 2010, 12:39 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
….sigh..you had me at “significant”….
January 8, 2010, 8:41 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
I don’t understand the underlying offense. He was convicted of possession of CP, but it wasn’t for financial reasons (no creation or distribution) and it wasn’t for sexual gratificaton?
January 8, 2010, 9:07 amLymis says:
They didn’t say it wasn’t for sexual gratification – they said that he wasn’t sexually attracted to children per se.
As I understand the law, it doesn’t particularly matter what the reason for it is, possession is illegal. It doesn’t matter if he likes the interplay of light and shadow or the juxtaposition of shape and mass. It’s illegal to have those pictures.
His motivations for having them then, do, however, appear to validly matter going forward. He’d still be guilty again if he got more similar pictures (for whatever reason), but the court is wondering why he should be required to tell a future partner about his past.
Assuming people are not legally required to tell future partners about other kinds of former convictions, it seems a reasonable question.
Anyone know if people are required by law to tell future romantic partners that they had a domestic assault conviction in their past?
January 8, 2010, 9:46 amShelbyC says:
Where does it say it wasn’t for sexual gratification. It sounds like they were investigating him for an unrelated crime, and went through his porn collection and found some with some subjects that were under 18.
January 8, 2010, 9:57 amLarryA says:
Couple of years back I had a woman call and ask about giving her husband a CHL class. He was into firearms and she thought it would make a good birthday present. I did up a nice certificate and sent it to her.
After his birthday she called back. He really really appreciated her thoughtfulness and the trouble she had gone to and would really really really like to take the class, but there was this little incident he had sort of forgot to mention that made him ineligible for a license.
I refunded the class fee. Didn’t want to get in the middle of that.
The truth shall set you free.
January 8, 2010, 11:18 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
It doesn’t explicitly say that; I inferred it from the court’s finding that “test results suggest that he is not sexually attracted to children per se.” (Maybe the words “per se” are doing a lot of work in that statement, though.)
January 8, 2010, 12:23 pmkarrde says:
WRT the “Significant” part, I am reminded of this.
I wonder if this would be considered part of the definition of “Significant”…
January 8, 2010, 12:38 pmVisitor Again says:
yankee totally misses the point of the vagueness doctrine, and his examples are not in point in the least. Sure, the courts apply the vague standards he mentions all the time. But the vagueness doctrine instead looks at what the public at large and juries, law enforcement officers and prosecutors confront, either in complying with the law or in deciding whether it has been violated. The vagueness doctrine is not directed at courts concocting standards to be applied by judges. Its purpose is to ensure that the public has reasonable notice of what the law requires and that the standards of the law are sufficiently definite so that those who enforce the law will not do so arbitrarily or dicriminatorily.
January 8, 2010, 3:48 pmShelbyC says:
Well, AFAIK one can be convicted of CP for images of a 17 yo, no? It sounds like he maybe had some images of normal porn where the producers didn’t bother to check ID, because someone who isn’t attracted to children per se would presumably be pretty sure not to possess images of obvious children, for both legal and non-legal reasons.
January 8, 2010, 3:55 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Could be in theory, but that’s (if you read the full decision) apparently not what happened; why would someone need “therapy” if that were the situation?
Yes, that’s why I’m puzzled.
January 8, 2010, 4:26 pmmethodact says:
No harm no foul rings for more rationally than strict liability.
January 8, 2010, 4:27 pmShelbyC says:
I was kinda basing my reading on the full decision, but I didn’t get the same take on the “therapy” angle that you did. You don’t think they’d send someone to therapy for the type of conviction I’m describing? I thought they pretty much sent all SO’s to therapy.
January 8, 2010, 4:32 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Seems sort of stupid — what sort of “therapy” would be needed? — but maybe you’re right; I’ve seen cases of people ordered to undergo “drug treatment” for using non-addictive drugs, so why not?
January 8, 2010, 6:57 pmLarryA says:
Sometimes the desire is for the image, not the reality.
My wife collects stuff with penguins. She has no desire to go to Antarctica.
January 9, 2010, 11:34 amDavid Nieporent says:
Does she want to have sex with them?
January 9, 2010, 5:45 pmReal telemarketing leads says:
can you do thi for me, telemarketing leads for you, [url= http://telemarketingleads.tumblr.com/ ]telemarketing leads for you[/url], 315,
April 22, 2010, 1:08 am