Our legal system has a strange bent to it.
Some statutes defy logic and court interpretations sometimes even make them stranger. Whether criminal or civil law, decisions and verdicts are often baffling to the ordinary citizen.
Take Wednesday's decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that threw out a $3.4 million award given to a victim of child pornography. According to The Washington Post, the court ruled that a possessor of the pornography should only pay damages "proximate to the harm" that he caused.
So, if a victim claims $3.4 million in direct damages from the child pornography and 4 million people have watched the video, each one of the perverts would only be liable for under $1.
At least that's the court's logic. We would prefer to see all voyeuristic molesters lose everything they have.
Let's face it - there would not be a child pornography industry if there were no audience. The only way to get rid of the audience is to punish them so harshly that their perversion is suppressed - and children are saved.
In this case, the victim ("Amy Unknown") was raped by an uncle when she was 8 and 9 years old. The rapes were recorded and she found out when she was 17 that they were available online.
All nine Supreme Court justices said that the law written by Congress providing compensation for victims was badly flawed. Four of the justices reached the conclusion that "Amy" was owed nothing by the defendant because she couldn't prove how much of her damages were directly tied to his possession of the porn.
One can only conclude that "Amy" was molested again - by a Congress that can't write understandable laws and a court system that is blind to common sense and compassion.
* Editorials reflect the opinion of the publisher.