Opinion ID: 203035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Constitutes Sadistic Conduct

Text: We review the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. The Guidelines do not specify what constitutes sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4). Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines sadism as the infliction of pain upon a love object as a means of obtaining sexual release, the satisfaction of outwardly directed destructive impulses as a source of libidinal gratification, a delight in physical or mental cruelty, or excessive cruelty. It follows that an image's portrayal of sadistic conduct includes portrayal of conduct a viewer would likely think is causing pain to a depicted young child. See, e.g., United States v. Myers, 355 F.3d 1040, 1043 (7th Cir.2004). Exhibit 3A portrays a young boy with an expression of pain and disgust who is being anally penetrated by the penis of a much older man. The relative sizes of the man's penis and the small boy, in addition to the boy's expression, all suggest the likelihood of ongoing pain. We agree with the many circuits which have found that images depicting the sexual penetration of young and prepubescent children by adult males represent conduct sufficiently likely to involve pain such as to support a finding that it is inherently sadistic or similarly violent under the terms of section 2G2.2(b)(4). See United States v. Belflower, 390 F.3d 560, 562 (8th Cir.2004) (per curiam); Myers, 355 F.3d at 1043; United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132, 1143 (10th Cir.2003); United States v. Caro, 309 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (11th Cir.2002); United States v. Lyckman, 235 F.3d 234, 238 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Delmarle, 99 F.3d 80, 83 (2d Cir.1996). [3] Hoey argues that the image depicts a man about to penetrate, but not yet penetrating, the child, so the image necessarily cannot be of sadism. The record does not support the argument; more importantly, as a matter of law, the proposition is wrong. First, the district court found that the image depicted a young boy, prepubescent, being . . . penetrated by the sexual organ of a much older man, a finding of fact that we can only overturn if clearly erroneous, which it is not. Second, even if the image depicted only the moment and not the consummation of actual penetration, the conduct is sadistic. Here an image of attempted sexual penetration combined with this young child's pained expression is sufficient to establish that the picture is intended to give the viewer pleasure based on the child's actual or anticipated pain. Finally, Hoey argues that these pictures do not depict the gratuitous infliction of pain above and beyond that of child pornography. This argument fails to acknowledge that pictures of naked children alone can constitute child pornography if they involve a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v), (8). A four-level increase is warranted when a young child has been subjected to the additional pain of penetration or similarly violent conduct. See Myers, 355 F.3d at 1044; Lyckman, 235 F.3d at 240.