that already exist within the global community? Should there be controls in place to ensure that
fund distributions are being used for victim restoration or will it be paid to victims and their
families without any conditions on how it is used? How can the international community ensure
that the funds distributed are used for the benefit of the victim? If trusts are created for victims to
ensure that the funds are used for their benefit, who would administer the trusts and oversee their
integrity? How could an international fund avoid fostering “jackpot” mentality that might further
incentivize the exploitation of vulnerable children? Would an international fund encourage and
reward a victim mentality? Are there ways to create a fund that would foster and value victims’
resiliency and help them to view themselves as survivors? Is a “survivor mentality” possible in
light of the continued victimization that is characteristic of child pornography in the digital age?
These are just a few of the questions that should be considered as the United States and other
States Parties to the Optional Protocol find ways to fulfill their legal obligations under Article 9 to
support the full restoration of victims of child pornography in the digital age.
VII. CONCLUSION
Child pornography is rapidly spreading across the globe because of the rise of the Internet
and other technologies. These technologies have compounded the harm caused to victims. No
longer can a victim achieve full and lasting recovery after the initial sexual abuse ends. Today’s
victims now face the possibility that they will be continually revictimized around the world as
child pornography perpetrators view and distribute the sex abuse images of the original crimes.
Victim restoration is as important as ever, but has become far more complex in an age of
digitalization and increased globalization.
Although the United States provided leadership in creating a legal framework
domestically and internationally to help combat child pornography and provide restoration to
victims, the current framework is failing victims on a near-universal basis by not ensuring the
recovery of victims. As all nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Paroline, child
pornography victims are entitled to restitution to support their restoration.467 The challenge is
determining how, when, and in what amount. None of the current legal resources—the mandatory
restitution statute, civil remedies, crime victim funds, or government benefits—provides child
pornography victims with reliable access to resources that effectively support their full recovery
and reintegration. It is time for the United States to adopt and implement effective legislation that
supports the recovery of both domestic and foreign victims of child pornography and to ensure
that they have meaningful access to the support and resources they need to fully recover from
their abuse and exploitation.
;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;
