by JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN

In 2007, a jury found Daniel Sheldon guilty of two child pornography offenses. Little about Sheldon was sympathetic. In his twenties and married, Sheldon spent long hours downloading and viewing pictures and videos showing minor girls, some prepubescent, engaging in sex with adults. Some videos showed bondage, others masochism. Sheldon had also engaged in cybersex with individuals who purported to be young girls.

What punishment should follow such a crime? If society punishes in order to stand with victims and impose justified retribution, what amount of deserts is just? No easy calculus exists. Because I was unsure that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines accurately mirror community punishment beliefs, I asked each of the Sheldon jurors—who were a cross-section of the community and who actually heard the case, saw the terrible images and videos, and met the defendant—to recommend anonymously what punishment Sheldon should receive. I put their responses away without examining them. Months later, I sentenced Sheldon within the Guidelines range, but near the high end. Surprise came upon learning that my sentence was almost five times higher than the average of the jurors’ sentence recommendations.

Click here to read more.