Sorry but that is not true concerning federal law as written there is no repeat no difference in a 17 year old what to be porn star video and an infant being rape video in the law.
Differences in the content of child pornography are most definitely incorporated into the federal sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2--there are sentencing enhancements for number of images, images of children under the age of 12, images that contain violent or sadistic content, etc.
That's why two people sentenced for possession of child pornography in federal court might receive quite different sentences in terms of length. Each of them might have quite different sentencing enhancements attached to their charges, depending on the content possessed.
So, you are simply wrong when you say there are no differences, based on image content factors, that affect the way child pornography cases are adjudicated and sentenced. A person who posseesses sexually explicit images of 17 year olds will not
receive the same sort of sentence as someone who possesses images of infants, or images of a child of any age that contains violent or sadistic content.
And, no matter how many times you are told you are wrong, you continue to repeat the same inaccurate drivel. Either you have no regard for the truth, or you are too impaired to understand the complexity of these laws.
In the hearings held by the U.S. Sentencing Commission within the past week, additional sentencing enhancements have been proposed, including some for image content, such as images of infants and toddlers, or images that include bestiality.
The Commission should consider whether § 2G2.2’s existing specific offense characteristics should be revised and consolidated to
bring them in line with today’s reality, and whether new specific offense characteristics should be added to better differentiate among offenders based on their offense severity and risk to children.
There are several characteristics that could be taken into account in a revised guideline.
The Commission could add a provision that addresses the harm caused by distribution such as that by P2P technologies.
The Commission could also consider adding specific offense characteristics for image severity that address images of bestiality as well as images of infants and toddlers. As for the enhancement for the quantity of images, the image table might be revised to reflect the plain reality that offenders today can amass collections, not of hundreds of images, but tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of images.
The Commission could consider adding new specific offense characteristics to better differentiate among offenders, such as by accounting for offenders who communicate with one another and in so doing, facilitate and encourage the sexual abuse of children and production of more child pornography, as well as for offenders who create and administer the forums where such communication is taking place.
The Commission could also consider a specific offense characteristic that addresses the length of time the offender has committed the offense to distinguish those offenders who have gotten away with their crime for years from those who may have just begun committing these crimes.
The Commission could also consider recognizing variations in the sophistication of the criminal conduct to appropriately address the more technologically sophisticated offenders who might use multiple internet technologies to collect child pornography, or who might use sophisticated measures to avoid being detected by law enforcement, or who are members of a group dedicated to child sexual exploitation.
By considering these types of changes, the Commission could improve § 2G2.2’s ability to meaningfully differentiate among offenders based on the severity of their offense conduct and the risk they pose to children.
So there is definitely already an effort to differentiate between offenders, and they are clearly attempting to refine that differentation even more.
You should read the entire statement which can be found at the above link, it is both interesting and informative in terms of DOJ thinking on this issue and what they are trying to combat.