"For at least one year and possibly longer, the defendant, in the privacy of his small condominium, used a single computer to download child pornography," Golla wrote. "He never chatted with anyone on the Internet regarding the images he possessed, never used the material to entice a child, nor did he produce, distribute, or trade any of the images. Mr. Ilgen has never had inappropriate contact with a child."

Several judges are balking at the long guidelines:

Federal judges from Hawaii, New York and Oklahoma have made similar gripes to the commission.

"It is too often the case that a defendant appears to be a social misfit looking at dirty pictures in the privacy of his own home without any real prospect of touching or otherwise acting out as to any person," U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron of Oklahoma City said in her testimony to the commission. "As foul as child p*rnography is, I am unpersuaded by the suggestion that a direct link has been proven between viewing child p*rn and molesting children."

It wasn't always this way:

In 1995, federal defendants convicted of possessing child pornography were sentenced to an average of 15 months in prison, Ilgen's attorney wrote in court documents. By 2007, first-time child-pornography offenders were receiving 102 months in federal prison.

As for who the guidelines are impacting:

"We do not see producers (of child p*rn) or the parents who sell their children or the stepfathers who attack them," Kane told the commission in October. "What we see are the men on dialysis confined to a wheelchair who spends all of his time confined already and no economic analysis of what it would cost to keep this man in prison."

Kane testified there is no empirical research referenced in the sentencing schemes to indicate whether long prison sentences will stop defendants from re-offending or help them overcome their compulsions by the time they get out of prison.

Treatment is a better alternative. As the father of one defendant sentenced to ten years says:

"I think the thing we really have to do is figure out why. What is different about him that drives him to that? What personality traits? What is the issue here?" Bernie Mrugala said. "To put somebody in jail for 10 years may not be enough if we do not get to the crux of the matter.

"We need the power of the courts to be on our side to help maintain and control the problem to the point where this kid can be beneficial to society."

Here is Judge Kane's opinion (pdf) in the Randy Rausch case sentencing a defendant awaiting a kidney transplant to probation rather than prison. The statute prohibiting the activity is here. A Justice Dept. memo on it is here. The sentencing guideline is here.