![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/files\/2021\/08\/Claudia-Image.png\")
<\/p>\nBy: Claudia L\u00e9onor\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/p>\n
In an increasingly technological society punctuated by health and human catastrophe, prohibitions on an individual\u2019s use of the internet must be carefully considered.[1]<\/a> While society\u2019s best interests are best served by deterring recidivism and protecting minor children, there is something equally pertinent about the need to rehabilitate and reintegrate child sex offenders into society.[2]<\/a> Federal supervised release, therefore, presents a unique conundrum within the legal regulatory regime: at what point does protecting the public eclipse individual rights?<\/p>\n Federal supervised release was created with the passage of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. It empowered judges to impose various sentences in pursuit of deterrence and rehabilitation of criminals.[3]<\/a> Supervised release was one such sentence. The primary goal of supervised release, according to its legislative architects,[4]<\/a> was to ease an individual\u2019s transition and eventual re-integration into the community following the service of a prison term.[5]<\/a> Judges exercise broad discretion and authority when defining the terms of supervised release: they evaluate the individual\u2019s offense level, criminal background, and propensity for rehabilitation to determine their post-imprisonment conditions.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n Restrictions on internet usage have emerged as a rather ubiquitous condition of supervised release for child sex offenders.[7]<\/a> Courts have justified internet bans, alleging that the bans deter recidivism and that the \u201cegregious quality of child pornography validates the propriety of a total ban.\u201d[8]<\/a> But, as the years of the pandemic have elucidated, technology has become increasingly vital to survival.[9]<\/a> In the face of a deteriorating public health crisis, internet-based tools and platforms forge an opportunity to put safety first.[10]<\/a> The internet is the means through which people monitor virus proliferation, locate virus testing centers, and obtain remote employment.[11]<\/a> Given the importance of the internet during the pandemic, restriction on internet access\u2014irrespective of criminal status\u2014should be carefully considered, if not avoided altogether.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> United States v. Eaglin<\/em>, 913 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir. 2019).<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Emily Brant, Comment, Sentencing \u201cCybersex Offenders\u201d: Individual Offenders Require Individualized Conditions When Courts Restrict Their Computer Use and Internet Access, 58 Cath. U. L. Rev. 779 n.190 (2009); see also Eaglin<\/em>, 913 F.3d at 91 (\u201cAlthough internet access through smart phones and other devices undeniably offers the potential for wrongdoing, to consign an individual virtually without access to the internet is to exile that individual from society.\u201d).<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3551(b) (Westlaw through Pub. L. No. 117-36 (excluding Pub. L. No. 116-283)); J.C. Oleson, Blowing Out All the Candles: A Few Thoughts on the Twenty-Fifth Birthday of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 45 U. Rich. L. Rev. 693, 699-700 (2011).<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> See generally<\/em> 136 Cong. Rec. S 8997 (1990) (statement of Sen. Biden) (acknowledging that the \u201cclear message\u201d of the Sentencing Reform Act was to ensure that \u201cwhen tough measures [we]re required to deal with crime . . . the [judiciary would] not hesitate to embrace them\u201d).<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 124, reprinted in 1984 U.S.S.C.A.N. 3182, 3307.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Jacob Hutt, Article, Offline: Challenging Internet and Social Media Bans for Individuals on Supervision for Sex Offenses, 43 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 663, 666 (2019); Laura Tatelman, Give Me Internet or Give Me Death: Analyzing the Constitutionality of Internet Restrictions as a Condition of Supervised Release for Child Pornography Offenders, 20 Cardozo J. L. & Gender 431, 434 (2014); see also<\/em> 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3583(d) (requiring that \u201cspecial\u201d conditions of supervised release must be: (1) \u201creasonably related\u201d to the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the statutory goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation; and must (2) provide a \u201cdeprivation of liberty\u201d that is no greater than necessary).<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> See <\/em>Stephen E. Vance, Fed. Judicial Ctr., Supervising Cybercrime Offenders Through Computer-Related Conditions: A Guide for Judges 1 (Oct. 2015), https:\/\/www.fjc.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2015\/Supervising%20Cybercrime%20Offenders.pdf<\/a> (\u201cOver the past fifteen years, federal district judges have increasingly imposed special conditions of supervised release and probation restricting computer and Internet use in an effort to protect the public from cybercrime, including child pornography offenses.\u201d).<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> See<\/em> Jane Adele Regina, Comment, Access Denied: Imposing Statutory Penalties on Sex Offenders Who Violate Restricted Internet Access as a Condition of Probation, 4 Seton Hall Circuit Rev. 187, 196 (2007); see also<\/em> United States v. Rearden<\/em>, 349 F.3d 608, 620 (9th Cir. 2003).<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Nicola Lucchi, Internet Content Governance and Human Rights, 16 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 809, 813 (2014) (\u201cTechnological developments in communication have brought revolutionary opportunities and changes to how people obtain, proves, and exchange information . . . [With]in this framework, one of the contemporary and emerging challenges for the legal and regulatory regime is shaping a modern interpretation of freedom of thought and expression.\u201d); see also<\/em> Ryan Shandler, The pandemic shows we depend on the Internet. So is Internet access a human right?, Washington Post (July 13, 2020), https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/2020\/07\/13\/pandemic-shows-we-depend-internet-so-is-internet-access-human-right\/<\/a> (noting that the pandemic accelerated \u201cthe process of social digitization\u201d).<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Catherine J.K. Sandoval, et al., Legal Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Put Health, Safety and Equity First, 61 Santa Clara L. Rev. 367, 455 (2021).<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> See<\/em> Johanna Gunawan, et al., The COVID-19 Pandemic and The Technology Trust Gap, 51 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1505, 1506 & 1508 (2021); Laurie N. Stempler, Point and Click to Protect Public Health: Taking Charge of Information Dissemination Over The Internet During a Public Health Emergency, 73 Brook. L. Rev. 1591(2008); c.f.<\/em> Yoachi Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom 2 (2006) (affirming that technological advancements have innovated the ways in which \u201cwe make and exchange information, knowledge, and culture\u201d).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By: Claudia L\u00e9onor\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 In an increasingly technological society punctuated by health and human catastrophe, prohibitions on an individual\u2019s use of the internet must be carefully considered.[1] While society\u2019s best interests are best served by deterring recidivism and protecting minor children, there is something equally pertinent about the need to rehabilitate and reintegrate child … Continue reading Re-imagining Federal Supervised Release For Child Sex Offenders Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5233,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5233"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1046"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1046\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1049,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1046\/revisions\/1049"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/pilr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}