State may boost penalties for ‘revenge porn’

The Connecticut State Capitol building in Hartford. The Connecticut State Capitol building in Hartford. Photo: Carol Kaliff / Carol Kaliff Photo: Carol Kaliff / Carol Kaliff Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close State may boost penalties for ‘revenge porn’ 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

Sending non-consensual intimate images, often referred to as “revenge porn,” is currently a misdemeanor in Connecticut, but legislators and advocates are working to make it a felony, to heighten penalties and deter people from the increasingly common crime.

House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, said a constituent who was a victim of voyeurism and dissemination of non-consensual images reached out to her about the issue, calling it “a very traumatic experience.”

“We view that domestic violence offenders use a series of strategies to try to threaten and harass and intimidate their partners,” said Karen Jarmoc, President and CEO of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “More and more often, as technology use progresses and becomes more the norm, we are finding victims are really grappling with these types of circumstances,where there are threats to publicly release photos or conversations.” It has become more common over the last decade, she said.

“We, as policy makers, have to make sure that we take this in our hands and show, by making policy, by making law, that this is as serious as it is,” Klarides told the Judiciary Committee on Friday.

The woman who spoke to Klarides, who decided not to testify because of the traumatic experience, believes the penalty should be higher, she said. Victims pursuing cases under the law have to continuously show the invasive images to police and in court, which “has caused a lot of emotional distress, as you can imagine, for a lot of people,” she said.

As a class A misdemeanor, perpetrators who share intimate photos without consent can be sentenced to up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000. As a class D felony, that would increase to a maximum of five years and $5,000. Under the bill proposed, “unlawful dissemination of an intimate image to a person by any means” would remain a misdemeanor, but sharing the image to “more than one person” online, by internet or by phone would become a felony.

An identical bill passed the Senate almost unanimously last session, but died on the calendar in the House.

“The prevalence and invasiveness of non-consensual pornography has grown and expanded from unauthorized sharing of intimate images (“revenge porn”) to the criminal enterprise of sextortion,” the Division of Criminal Justice said in written testimony they submitted to the committee. Those “have horrific effects on the victim.”

Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Lou Luba said that in studies of offenders, more than half said they would not have committed the crime if they knew it was a felony offense, a slightly higher percentage than those who said they would be deterred by a misdemeanor charge.

The Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity and Opportunity is also in favor of the bill, Executive Director Steven Hernández said in written testimony.

Victims “suffer from negative health outcomes,” Hernández said. “The exploitation of nude images and videos can lead to emotional distress, physical and mental trauma, harassment, stalking, relocation, unemployment, physical partner violence and suicide.”

Judiciary Committee co-chair Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, who voted for last year’s iteration of the bill, said he understands the significance of the issue, but has a “natural inclination against increasing penalties,” especially when it is “likely to have many people who are very young wrapped up in it.”

“I don’t think that’s really what we’re intending to do,” he said, adding that racial disparities are “always a concern” when increasing penalties. He said he anticipates discussing what consequences might be for young people, as they move forward on the bill.

The Department of Criminal Justice in its testimony said there are “sufficient safeguards” to “prevent the disproportionate punishment of adolescent and young adult offenders.” The division pointed to closed proceedings and confidential records in juvenile court, accelerated rehabilitation for offenders older than 18, which can result in dismissing charges and expunging the offense.

Questions have also been raised about whether images collected as evidence by law enforcement are subject to public disclosure.

Bridgeport Assistant City Attorney Dina Scalo said in written testimony that the Freedom of Information Act “has also been utilized as a tool to gain access to these otherwise highly sensitive and private materials.” She said it is “beyond comprehension” that someone could be arrested for sharing an intimate image, and a city then be required to release it in response to a Freedom of Information Request, and asked that the bill be amended to explicitly prevent their disclosure.

Liz.teitz@hearstmediact.com