in united states versus savage the prosecutor asked for 49 months. you imposed 37. that was a 24% reduction. and in united states versus stewart the prosecutor asked for 97 months. you imposed 57. that was a 41% reduction. every single case, 100% of them when prosecutors came before you with child pornography cases you sentenced the defenders to substantially below not just the guidelines, which are way higher, but what the prosecutor asked for on average of these cases 47.2% less. now, you said you made sure the voice of the children was heard. do you believe in a case like united states versus hawkins where the prosecutor asked for 24 months and you sentenced the offender to only 3 months, do you believe the voice of the children is heard when 100% of
that was an 88% reduction. in united states versus savage, the prosecutor asked for 49 months. you imposed 37. that was a 24% reduction. the united states versus stewart, the prosecutor asked for 97 months. you imposed 57. that was a 41% reduction. every single case, 100% of them when prosecutors came before you with child pornography cases, you sentenced the defenders to substantially below, not just the guidelines which are way higher, but what the prosecutor asked for on average of these cases 47.2% less. now you said you made sure the voice of the children was heard. do you believe in a case like united states versus hawkins where the prosecutor asked for 24 months and you sentence the offender to three months? do you believe the voice of the
respondents under the rules for these kinds of filings. people can debate how accusatory she was or wasn t. there was no sentence that says george bush and donald rumsfeld are war criminals. is torture a war crime, which i think the late john mccain would have agreed to that. reporter: certainly. on&on jackson s sentencing record in child important cases. let s listen. reporter: the united states versus savage, the prosecutor asked that you imposed 37. that was a 24% reduction. you imposed 57. that was a 41% reduction. okay. tell us about this one. reporter: number one, there are key numbers that senator cruz did not have on his handy chart. he did not list what sentences
0 stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review and yours is entitled prevention versus punishment: towards a principled distinction in the restraint of released sex offenders. and in it you argue, and i quote, a recent spate of legislation purports to regulate released sex offenders by requiring them to register with local law enforcement officials, notify community members of their presence, undergo dna testing and submit to civil commitment for an indefinite term. at many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who have already been sanctioned for their crimes. under existing doctrine the constitutionality of sex offender statutes depends upon their characterization as essentially preventative rather than punitive. and what you go on to explain is if they
0 activism and advocacy as it concerns sexual predators that stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review prevention versus punishment toward a principled distinction in the restraint in it you argue and i quote a recent spate of legislation reports to release sex offenders by requiring them to notify local law enforcement and submit to civil commitment for indefinite term. many say it violates the rights of individuals that have been sanctioned for their crimes. the contusionalty of sex offender statutes depends on their characterization as essentially preventsive rather than punitive. you explain if they re viewed an punitive, they re unconstitutional. if they re preventative, they are not. throughout the course of your note, you argue they should be viewed as punitive and therefore unconstitutional. indeed in the second to last page you go through each of those for ca