Bill Overview
Title: PROTECT Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill alters federal sentencing for individuals who commit certain child pornography offenses. It generally requires judges to impose a sentence that is not less than the minimum period specified in the sentencing guideline range. The bill also increases certain criminal penalties for possession of child pornography.
Sponsors: Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
Target Audience
Population: People directly involved or affected by the child pornography offenses targeted by the bill
Estimated Size: 20000
- The PROTECT Act of 2022 pertains to federal sentencing laws for child pornography offenses, affecting mostly individuals involved directly in these criminal activities.
- The primary group impacted are individuals convicted or potentially committing child pornography offenses, as they face stricter sentencing guidelines and harsher penalties.
- There is a secondary impact on the legal and judicial systems which will enforce these stricter guidelines and penalties.
- Wider impacts may extend to society at large, as harsher penalties may deter offenders, potentially reducing the prevalence of these crimes.
- Families of offenders and victims might feel the emotional and social repercussions of the bill's enforcement.
- Victims of child pornography could indirectly benefit from the deterrence and retribution emphasis of the legislation.
Reasoning
- The primary target group impacted by this policy is quite specific—those involved in child pornography offenses or activities related to it. However, the effects of the policy extend to the legal system, families of offenders, and the broader societal perspective regarding child protection.
- It's crucial to understand that the policy's budget constraints might limit how the judicial system can implement changes, considering the costs associated with longer incarcerations and the reinforcements of law enforcement tasks.
- While a small segment of the population is directly affected, the societal impact through potential deterrence and reduced prevalence of offenses could indirectly benefit a wider audience.
- To simulate a realistic distribution of people, we include individuals not impacted to see the policy's broader societal implications.
- Given the high cost of incarceration and legal proceedings, even a stringent policy must be efficiently managed within the budget.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have paid my dues to society and am working to better myself.
- This policy would have given me a harsher sentence, which I think isn't fair to people seeking reform.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Child Protection Advocate (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe stricter penalties deter potential offenders and aid victims by ensuring justice is served.
- The policy might discourage these heinous acts from happening as frequently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Defense Attorney (Dallas, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These laws are crucial but must be balanced with fairness in sentencing.
- Mandatory minimums risk pressuring the judicial system into unfair sentencing practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Judge (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It removes a degree of judicial discretion which can be necessary in sentencing.
- However, it can provide more safety to potential victims by ensuring perpetrators face justice swiftly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it's commendable to protect victims, there should be checks for potential overreach affecting individual freedoms.
- Privacy rights and justice should go hand-in-hand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our kids need protection; any steps taken to increase their safety are vital.
- The PROTECT Act is a step forward in ensuring justice for those harmed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Law Enforcement Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need a legislative backbone to support our actions on the ground.
- This policy empowers us to protect more children effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Private Investigator (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Higher penalties could fixate the system, reducing flexibility.
- Our goal should be to find and rehabilitate offenders too, not just punish.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Public Defender (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Raising sentencing guidelines could disproportionately affect underprivileged groups.
- The policy needs to account for socioeconomic factors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Journalist (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to monitor how resources are allocated to ensure this doesn't cause judicial backlogs.
- Long-term studies will reveal the true impact of these changes on child protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $20500000, High: $31500000)
Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $33000000)
Year 5: $29000000 (Low: $22500000, High: $35500000)
Year 10: $32000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost factor is the increased expense due to longer prison sentences for offenders, requiring more funding for the federal corrections system.
- Training and implementation costs for the judiciary and related legal personnel are expected during the initial years after enactment.
- Potential deterrent effects might contribute to reduced crime rates, having a subtle positive impact on local economies.
- Long-term savings through reduced human and economic costs associated with offenses and associated legal proceedings.