Sixth Circuit rejects constitutional attacks on 10-year mandatory minimum for kiddie cruising
On July 7, 8, 13, and 24, 2008, [Nathan] Hughes exchanged online communications with someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl. In reality, his online companion was not a child, but rather an undercover detective. In their last exchange, Hughes proposed meeting at a local park in Louisville, Kentucky for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse and/or oral sex. When Hughes arrived at the park, officers recognized him from online photos and the description of his vehicle. He was arrested by the Louisville Metro Police Crimes Against Children Unit, and indicted on the charge of attempting to persuade, induce, or entice a 14-year-old girl to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The statute carries a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
Nathan Hughes was sentenced to prison for the mandatory minimum term of ten years after pleading guilty to attempting to entice a minor to engage in a criminal sexual act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, Hughes argues that his mandatory minimum sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is grossly disproportionate to his crime, and that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees because similarly situated defendants charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) are not subject to a mandatory minimum. Because these arguments are without merit, we affirm the district court’s sentence.
Notably, the Hughes opinion does not discuss how old the defendant is or whether he presents a threat to society beyond his misguided interest in hooking up with underage girls. Based on the nature of his constitutional claims (and the panel’s decision to issue a published opinion), I suspect the defendant in this case is relatively sympathetic but for his illegal interest in “jailbait” and his stupid decision to pursue this interest.
But the Sixth Circuit is on solid ground when it rules that existing constitutional jurisprudence presents no barriers to Congress’s decision to “reward” stupid losers like Nathan Hughes with a minimum of a decade in the federal pen. What I worry about, however, is whether stupid losers like Nathan Hughes may end up a bigger threat to society after he serves this mandatory minimum prison term. If there was good reason to believe that this 10-year mandatory minimum generally deters this kind of on-line kiddie cruising, I would not worry too much about the fate and future of Nathan Hughes. But I have yet to see any firm data on this important front.
UPDATE: Kudos to all commentors on a really interesting dialogue in the comments to this post.