categorically from the crack cocaine guidelines based on a policy disagreement with guidelines but about a policy disagreement with the child should we extend the same license  of these guidelines and these cuts with respect to child pornography guidelines they're not based on the usual empirical review that the sentencing commission usually does these i mean the and the guidelines with respect to child pornography as i understand it at least one of our court appellate courts said really resulted from a continuing attention from congress and continuing amendments and that's how the range was amended and increased after two thousand and three so i mean if he were being sentenced under the later guidelines he would have gotten forty one i mean it would have been a forty one to fifty one range how did that amendment happen wasn't that mainly congress rather as a result of that the commission amended the guidelines in several ways taking into account the fact that there was a new statutory mandatory minimum and braised offense levels correspondingly four for the relate afoot i mean there was a move afoot to change the crack cocaine guidelines mean and judges would talk constantly about how unfair it was is there any move afoot to alter the use the current guidelines based upon a such as the one judge thompson believes is appropriate i e these people need treatment jail probably isn't the right place for them etc etc i want to talk about three views of the guidelines because i think there's a set of there are a set of district court judges who are and while they they appreciate the judges might want to have discretion in many areas this is one set of guidelines where they really do not do not like the fact that judges are departing downwards and there is no movement afoot for instance as that congressional  we should not be held captive by what congress the result in the same clothes wasn't as definitive at all with respect to crack cocaine they didn't say to the commission this is what we want you to do and that was one of the problems that this main court had kimb question with another one are you arguing that it's unreasonable for the trial judge in this case case involving child pornography to implement a philosophical difference whereas it is not unreasonable in the crack cocaine case there are there are two ways there are two answers to that one is there there is no law the supreme court has not found that a court can undertak to the extent the court had undertaken an individual as finding then that is possible and then to the extent the court does undertake such a philosophical disagreement that is subject to close for view and it is a there is no i mean i was on the golf channel and i stand out there was no indication the guy off in any way had abused or been acted inappropriately with any school trial that he ever what was really on his computer until they started looking at the hard rock no he admitted that there were pictures of children mines on the computer he was wrong as to the number here running by several hundred i mean that's why there are only three hundred together but the real difference here in that god went to jail for four months and here the court determined absolutely no jail sentence isn't that a striking factor here where the sentencing commission says jail is appropriate and indeed thirty to thirty seven months and when he is given probation how do you how can you argue with that is always an actually what part of the judge's reasoning with respect to the sentence constituted meaningful consideration of what would at least at first blush appear to be an unwarranted sentencing disparit right so it seems to me that her decision wasn't based upon his acceptance of responsibility was based upon whether he should go to jail and she notes he sought psychological help he's been in therapy his psychologist has written a report saying he's benefiting he's going along in a constructive way and so we won't be in jail to someone like that which seems to be totally antithetical to what the guidelines are saying with respect to jail i cannot see the benefit of imposing a jail term yes and yes congress says that's what you're supposed to do well but because i was in the district court and there are a lot of times i didn't think of jail term is going to be beneficial  have to address that and talk about why this isn't problematic and why this does not promote disrespect for the last specially in this situation which you had fifty defendants who were pulled up in this whole scam and most of them got thirty months twenty thirty months is the average doesn't just have to address that now but honestly i think judge thompson you're on is rest of the prosecutor sentencing guidelines mr glaspie gave us her ideas of the parameters that we should what is your position to support a district judges policy disagreement what should the district judge set  good record about was the likes are so you're saying law abiding other than this you are saying it's simply facts about individual defendant that should support the policy this is now i judge thompson is perhaps ahead of the which is important as with the as is the substantive component and that is procedurally specially under the circumstances where there's a parent disparity doesn't the trial judge have to specifically address rationale for finding that real children are harmed that more images come on the market the more that people that children who are in these pictures feel that their images of this crime never goes away as it's always out there being