Last Friday, a judge sentenced Seth Mull to 72 years to life in prison. The CSE Institute first reported on Mull’s case over a year ago. Mull was found guiltylast December of thirty counts, including: indecent assault using forcible compulsion, multiple counts of strangulation, terroristic threats with intent to terrorize another, rape using forcible compulsion, sexual assault, trafficking in individuals, and more.
According to WFMZ, Mull was originally supposed to be sentenced in March, but his sentencing was delayed due to the judge’s concerns about sentencing guidelines in the judge’s pre-sentencing investigation. These concerns arose as Mull was recently charged with promoting prostitution, a charge which could not be factored into his sentencing, but could be considered in relation to his propensity to re-offend.
According to The Morning Call, this charge came after Mull allegedly used a prison-issued tablet to continue grooming and exploiting a woman inside a Northampton County Jail. Mull used the tablet to encourage the woman to market herself online. The woman stated that, “there was a constant pressure from him to ‘get things going,’ to start the sex webcams for money.” Mull also allegedly demanded that she sign a “sex slave contract” and send it to him.
The CSE Institute applauds the persistent efforts of law enforcement and the judicial system to pursue justice for the women who were victims of this violent sexual predator. We are pleased that Mull is being held appropriately accountable for his horrific crimes. Also, we applaud Northampton county’s acknowledgement of the many coercive tactics employed by Mull as trafficking, and most recently as promoting prostitution, which is a pimping charge.
However, the CSE Institute is alarmed that despite being imprisoned, Mull was provided with a tool that aided his continued exploitation of women. We hope that Northampton County and other prison systems will learn from this situation when considering whether to provide criminals with a violent predatory history with electronic devices.
All views expressed herein are personal to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law or Villanova University.