State courts evaluate sexually violent predator status for convicted child pornographers

In two recent cases, state appellate courts in Pennsylvania and Texas have analyzed the application of sexually violent predator (SVP) status to convicted child pornographers. The result of the status varies by state but can include mandatory lifetime registration and civil commitment if it is determined that the defendant is "likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence" due to a "behavior abnormality." Nearly half of states and the federal government have SVP laws.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania concluded in Commonwealth v. Goshow, No. 3206 EDA 2012 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2013), that the defendant's viewing of child pornography resulted in the "continuous exploitation and victimization of the children depicted therein." Trial testimony argued that the defendant was "likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses" in the future because his pedophilia was "a chronic lifetime condition." The defendant had attempted to argue that there was no actual victim.

In Goshow, a dissenting opinion argued:

Here, there is no indication that Appellant directed any act at another person, but that he, in solitude, downloaded, viewed, and masturbated to images of child pornography. Therefore, he did not direct any act at another person. Although the children depicted in the pornography were victims in the production and distribution aspects of an insidious industry, the legal conclusion of the trial court that Appellant victimized the children is not sustainable in light of the statutory definition that requires acts directed at another, or the record established in this case.

In In Re Commitment of Chapman, No. 09-11-00561-CV (Tex. Ct. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals of Texas considered eight issues on appeal arguing that the defendant was wrongfully classified as an SVP. The defendant, convicted for multiple child pornography related crimes and involuntarily committed under the SVP statute, made arguments including improper admission of evidence, bias, insufficiency of evidence, and that the SVP statute was unconstitutional. The court disagreed on all issues and affirmed the defendant's civil commitment.