The Star-Ledger reports the appeals panel found the sentence to be “unreasonable” and said the judge “failed to offer a sufficient justification” for going so far below the federally recommended sentence. It is also reported that this is the second sentence involving child pornography, by this judge, to be overturned.

The judge reportedly gave this explanation for the sentence: “The kind of psychological problem in persons who are drawn to this kind of material it seems to me is not going to be deterred by a jail term for an Internet porno observer. There is no suggestion the public otherwise is threatened by his conduct.” The judge is also reported as noting that she saw the defendant as ‘a generally law-abiding citizen’ and that he had looked for ‘psychological help after his arrest.’

The Star-Ledger quotes the appeals court decision as saying: “By imposing a sentence far below the range suggested… the District Court did not adequately take account of ‘the seriousness the offense,’ the need to ‘promote respect for the law,’ the need to ‘provide just punishment,’ or the considered view of Congress as reflected in the Sentencing guidelines.”