Why? Crimes against government agents are prosecuted far more severely than crimes against the common man. If you rob a post office at gunpoint, it's a federal felony, with more extreme punishments than if you rob a corner store at gunpoint. The law singles out government employees as being more important than the common man in terms of protection.
You've answered your own question. The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens. In the case of holding up a post office at gunpoint, it's not applying the law differently because the law is different.
FWIW, my understanding is that messing with the post in general is a federal crime. It has nothing to do with the government employee being more 'important' than the common man; that's just an unintended side effect.
> The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens.
We know. We think that the law is wrong.
Note that DAs tend to give their fellow govt employees, especially police, a pass, so in practice the law is easier on govt employees. It's a trifecta of tribal, lobbying by govt employees, and "one hand washes the other".
> It has nothing to do with the government employee being more 'important' than the common man; that's just an unintended side effect.
Actually, it's quite intended. Look into the history of how those laws came about. They were lobbied for by govt employees.
And then there's the fact that DAs tend to go hard whenever a fellow govt employee is a victim. It's the same trifecta.
