The Supreme Court handed down Paroline v. United States (PDF) today, a question on how to calculate damages for a viewing of illegal images when the total number of guilty parties is unknown.
The facts of the case involve a young woman pseudonymed "Amy" who is suing for damages against those who viewed images of her molestation. The original crime was carried about by her uncle over a decade ago. The uncle was prosecuted and paid restitution relating to that act ($6k, a tiny fraction of the award against Mr. Paroline,) which is entirely separate from the case today.
In the case before the court, the victim seeks damages against those caught with images of her, per 18 U.S.C. §2259 (Part of the Violence Against Women Act.) One person, Doyle Paroline, was found in possession of the images and assessed the entire damages "Amy" claimed to have suffered. The appeals have basically been about whether he should pay part of the damages, the whole amount, or nothing at all.
The court majority finds that the lower courts should attempt to figure out some split of the total amount which Paroline should have to pay. The 3 person dissent states that the law is so poorly written as to make that impossible, and would throw out the reward entirely and attempt to convince Congress to fix it. Lastly, Sotomayor, in a separate dissent, essentially takes Amy's position, if in a rather strange way:
First, the injuries caused by child pornography possessors are impossible to apportion in any practical sense.
...basically saying that Paroline should pay all of it, partially refunded by payments of additional "conspirators" caught as years go by.
I personally sympathize with Robert's dissent, and think that papering over a broken law merely guarantees additional hours (probably days and weeks) of court time will be spent trying to figure out how to apply a poorly-written law. Chances are, this law will end up back in front of the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.