correct. how can they know what cases are coming down the pipe? it is all after the fact. we still have a bunch of cases to be adjudicated. again, that creates the problem. the judges can only decide based on what s before them at the time they have the case. usually, people sue once they have a sense of the scope of the damages. you put your finger on another complexity here. how long are these pictures out here? sadly, the internet is forever. the one line i threw in there, there is hardly any sympathy for people like that. does that play in with the nine justices, the kind of persons they are dealing with. they deal with criminal cases all the time, murderers, child pornography possessers, creators. they are used to dealing with bad people. even bad people have to have the rule of law applied to them. that s what this case is about. it is also worth pointing out that amy has already received
over $1 million in damages from various other people involved in this case. so i don t know if that should play in there or not. for anybody who thinks, well, gee, amy, you got urdu. let s also note that amy is now considered to be the most viewed victim of child pornography now in the world. her images have now gone so viral that there is no victim out there believed to be more viewed than amy. amys amy was raped bichy her uncle. it is so disgusting. jeff toobin, joining us live. a 14-year-old boy was executed 70 years ago in south carolina. we don t do it anymore. this young boy was convicted of killing two white girls after the jury deliberated for ten minutes. a death penalty, ten-minute deliberation. today, this boy s family is fighting in court to clear his name. do they stand a chance?
appeals court. parline says he only had two pictures of amy, only two. it is unfair to stick him with the whole tab of that settlement or that award. ultimately, since there are 3,000 other cases involving pedophiles with pictures of amy, he has a bit of an argument. there is not much sympathy for him or anyone else in that regard. for starters, how is it that this one man with two pictures ended up stuck with such a big tab of $3.4 million? in 1994, congress passed a law that said victims of child pornography, the people, usually women but not always women, girls, boys, who are portrayed, are allowed to get restitution from the people who committed the crime of possessing this, restitution. how do you define what
caught with dirty pictures of a child have to pay that child as a consequence of his crime? the natural answer is, of course. what if several men are caught with the same pictures of the same victim, how about thousands of men all oogling the same girl named amy as her uncle rapes her on camera? should they all have to pay her as part of their punishment? how much? equal amounts and should it be up to amy to chase down each and every one of the twisted abusers to collect the damages. amy s case is real. this morning, it was heard by the supreme court of the united states. the justices have to decide whether a texas man named doyle porerline should pay the entirety of a $3.4 million damage settlement that amy claimed and was awarded by an