Transcript INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY: Issues in Risk Assessment and

INTERNET
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP)
OFFENDERS:
BEST PRACTICES FOR
ASSESSMENT AND TESTIMONY
BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL
LITERATURE
Eric A. Imhof, Psy.D.
MiATSA 2013 Conference
May 30, 2013
“WE WHO LABOR
HERE SEEK ONLY
THE TRUTH”
2
YOU REALLY WANT THE
TRUTH???
3
INTERNET CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY (CP):
THE PROBLEM
4
INTERNET CP: A PROBLEM
OF AVAILABILITY
1500% INCREASE IN CP ON INTERNET
BETWEEN 1997 & 2005 (NCMEC – 2005b)
1,000,000 CP IMAGES ON INTERNET
(WYRE – 2001)
200 NEW IMAGES EVERY DAY (WYRE – 2001)
345% INCREASE IN SITES HAVING CP DURING
6 MONTH PERIOD IN 2001 (WYRE – 2003)
5
INTERNET CP: A PROBLEM
OF AVAILABILITY
100,000 SITES OFFERING ILLEGAL CP
(ROPELATO – 2004)
116,000 DAILY GUENTELLA SEARCHES
FOR “CHILD PORNOGRAPHY”
(ROPELATO – 2004)
6
INTERNET CP: A PROBLEM
OF FINANCIAL GAIN
ESTIMATED ALL PORNOGRAPHY GENERATES
$4,000,000,000 ANNUALLY
(CARTER ET AL. – 1987)
ESTIMATED CP GENERATES BETWEEN
$200,000,000 & $1,000,000,000 ANNUALLY
(GROVE ET AL. – 2002)
ESTIMATED CP GENERATES $3,000,000,000
ANNUALLY (TOP TEN REVIEWS – 2004)
7
THE GOOD NEWS
BY 2001 NO WEBSITES CONTAINING CP
COULD BE LOCATED (BAGLEY – 2003)
UNIFORM SOURCE LOCATORS (URL) GO FROM
10,656 TO 1,316 (IWF – 2009)
42% - NORTH AMERICA
41% - EUROPE (INCLUDING RUSSIA)
17% - ASIA
<1% - SOUTH AMERICA & AUSTRALIA
8
…AND THE BAD NEWS
COMMERCIAL DOMAINS DECREASED BUT
NON-COMMERCIAL DOMAINS INCREASED
(IWF – 2007 & 2008)
…WHILE THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN
MORE SEVERE IMAGES SUGGESTING
INCREASED DEMAND
(IWF – 2007 & 2008)
9
…AND THE BAD NEWS
MUCH OF THE INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY
IS FREE (TAYLOR & QUAYLE – 2003)
INCREASE IN USE OF PEER-TO-NETWORKS
4% IN 2000 TO 33% IN 2006
(WOLAK ET AL. – 2011)
10
…AND THE BAD NEWS
BETWEEN 2000 & 2006
INCREASE IN YOUNGER (18-25) ARRESTEES
INCREASE IN NUMBER OF IMAGES AND VIDEOS
IN COLLECTIONS
INCREASE IN IMAGES OF CHILDREN YOUNGER
THAN 12 (BUT NOT LEVEL OF VIOLENCE)
INCREASE IN DISTRIBUTORS OF CP
(WOLAK ET AL. – 2011)
11
DISORDER IN THE COURT
12
EARLY TYPOLOGIES
13
TYPOLOGY OF IMAGES
TAYLOR, HOLLAND, & QUAYLE (1992)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
INDICATIVE (NON-EROTIC/NON-SEXUALIZED)
NUDIST
EROTICA
POSING
EROTIC POSING
EXPLICIT EROTIC POSING
EXPLICIT SEXUAL ACTIVITY
ASSAULT
GROSS ASSAULT (PENETRATION BY ADULT)
SADISTIC/BESTIALITY
14
TYPOLOGY OF OFFENDER
KRONE (2004)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
BROWSER
PRIVATE FANTASY
TRAWLER
NON-SECURE COLLECTOR
SECURE COLLECTOR
GROOMER
PHYSICAL ABUSER
PRODUCER
DISTRIBUTOR
15
TYPOLOGY OF OFFENDER
BEECH, ELLIOTT, BIRGDEN, & FINDLATER
(2008)
1) FUEL EXISTING OR DEVELOPING
INTEREST
2) CONTACT OFFENDER USING CP AS
LARGER PATTERN OF OFFENDING
3) IMPULSIVE & CURIOUS INDIVIDUALS
4) DEAL IN CP FOR FINANCIAL GAIN
16
TYPOLOGY OF INTERNET
OFFENDERS
ELLIOTT & BEECH (2009)
1) PERIODICALLY PRURIENT
2) FANTASY ONLY
3) DIRECT VICTIMIZATION OFFENDERS
4) COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OFFENDER
17
I GOT AN IDEA…
LET’S ASK THE
OFFENDER WHY THEY
DID IT
18
EXPLANATIONS FOR CP ACCESS
QUAYLE & TAYLOR (2002)
1) SEXUAL AROUSAL - IMAGES AS EITHER A SUBSTITUTE
OR STIMULUS FOR CONTACT SEXUAL OFFENDING
2) SOURCE OF PLEASURE BY COLLECTING A COMPLETE
SERIES OF IMAGES
3) TO ENABLE ON-LINE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH
LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUALS
4) REPLACEMENT FOR ABSENT OR UNSATISFYING
RELATIONSHIPS IN REAL WORLD
5) THERAPY FOR EXPLORING & DEALING WITH ONE’S
OWN ABUSE/PROBLEMS
6) A MANIFESTATION OF ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES OF THE
INTERNET
19
EXPLANATIONS FOR CP ACCESS
(FREI, ERENAY, DITTMAN, & GRAF - 2005)
51% OF SAMPLE REPORTED CURIOSTY
AS MOTIVE FOR VIEWING CP
20
EXPLANATIONS FOR CP ACCESS
SETO, REEVES, & JUNG (2010)
Explanation
Police Sample
Clinical Sample
Admit CP Possession
86%
91%
Admit Deliberate Access
80%
65%
Admit Sexual Interest in CP/Children
46%
38%
Claim Indiscriminate Sexual Interest
6%
3%
Claim Non-Pedophilic Sexual Motivation
22%
9%
Claim Pornography Addiction
10%
29%
Claim Internet Addiction
8%
12%
Claim Substitute for Contact Offending
6%
6%
Claim Collecting Hobby
6%
6%
Claim Curiosity
40%
27%
Claim Accidental Access
40%
32%
Claim Lack of Recall
16%
3%
No Explanation Provided
22%
3%
21
22
THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSE
23
LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSE
ONLY TWO STATES PROHIBITED CP IN
1977 (DOREN - 2007)
491% INCREASE IN CYBER TIP LINE CALLS
BETWEEN 2001 & 2004 (NCMEC – 2005A)
CP ARRESTS DOUBLED IN THE US
2001 - 2006 (SETO – 2009)
24
LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSE
CP ARRESTS DOUBLED IN US
2000 - 2006 (WOLAK ET AL. – 2011)
2,062% INCREASE IN CP INVESTIGATION
1996 - 2007 (FBI – 2011)
25
SUSPECTS REFERRED TO US ATTORNEYS
WITH SEX OFFENSE
(adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007)
1994
Lead Charge
2006
Percent Growth
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total
774
100%
3,661
100%
2,887
100%
Child Pornography
169
21.8
2,539
69.4
2,370
82.1
Sex Abuse
568
73.4
601
16.4
33
1.1
Sex Transport
37
4.8
521
14.2
484
16.8
26
FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS – CHILD SEX OFFENDERS
(adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007)
27
USA CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
(Adapted from Jones & Finkelhor– 2007; per 10,000)
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
28
NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS SENTENCED
TO PRISON - 1994 to 2006
(adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007)
29
MEDIAN PRISON SENTENCE IMPOSED
IN MONTHS – 1994 to 2006
(adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007)
30
DISORDER IN THE COURT
31
IMPACT OF
PORNOGRAPHY
ON THE OFFENDER
32
“I WAS JUST LOOKING… WHATS THE
BIG DEAL? IT’S NOT LIKE I EVER
TOUCHED A KID.”
33
EARLY CONCLUSIONS
(MYTHS)
VIEWING CP WILL PROGRESS TO CONTACT
OFFENDING (CARR – 2004 & KIM – 2004)
CP POSSESSORS CREATE A DEMAND FOR
NEW CP (CARR – 2004)
SIZE OF COLLECTION = DEGREE OF
INVOLVEMENT IN COLLECTING & WITH
THE CHILD MOLESTOR COMMUNITY
(TAYLOR & QUAYLE – 2003)
34
EARLY CONCLUSIONS (MYTHS)
ORGANIZATION OF COLLECTION = TIME
SPENT OFF-LINE WITH CP & TRADING CP
(TAYLOR & QUAYLE – 2003)
CP MAY REDUCE CHILD MOLESTATION BY
ALLOWING PEDOPHILES TO FUFILL
DEVAINT NEEDS ON A FANTASY LEVEL
AND NOT ACT OUT ON URGES
(LAZAROVA – 2004)
35
THE EMPIRICAL RESULTS
DESPITE INCREASING AVAILABILITY OF
PORNOGRAPHY, IT CANNOT BE
CONCLUDED THAT PORNOGRAPHY IS
RELATED TO INCREASED SEXUAL
VIOLENCE
(KUTCHINSKY – 1991)
36
USA RAPE VS ASSAULT – 1940 TO 1985
(adapted from Kutchinsky - 2007; per 100,000)
37
USA CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
(Adapted from Jones & Finkelhor– 2007; per 10,000)
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
38
DIAMOND & UCHIYAMA (1999)
BETWEEN 1972 AND 1995 INCIDENTS OF
RAPE DECREASED BY 68% IN JAPAN
DURING A TIME WHEN PORNOGRAPHY
BECAME INCREASINGLY AVAILABLE.
39
SEX CRIMES - CZECH REPUBLIC
(adapted from Diamond, Jozifkova, & Weiss - 2011)
2500
2000
1500
Rape
1000
Child Sex Abuse
Lesser Sex Crimes
500
0
40
D’AMATO (2006)
PORN UP, RAPE DOWN
85% REDUCTION IN SEXUAL VIOLENCE BETWEEN
1973 AND 2003
53% INCREASE IN RAPE FOR FOUR STATES
WITH LOWEST INTERNET ACCESS
27% DECREASE IN RAPE FOR FOUR STATES
WITH HIGHEST INTERNET ACCESS
41
ODDONE-PAOLUCCI, GENIUS, &
VIOLATO (2000)

EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY INCREASES RISK
FOR:


DEVELOPING SEXUALLY DEVIANT
TENDENCIES
EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTIES IN INTIMATE
RELATIONSHIPS

ACCEPTING RAPE MYTHS

COMMITTING SEXUAL OFFENSES
42
KINGSTON, FEDOROFF, FIRESTONE,
CURRY, & BRADFORD (2008)



USE OF VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY ADDED
SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF
RECIDIVISM FOR CONTACT CHILD SO’S.
FREQUENCY OF PORNOGRAPHY USE WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANT FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE BUT
WAS SIGNIFICANT FOR VIOLENT RECIDIVISM.
INTERACTION EFFECTS WERE FOUND WITH
RISK LEVEL (STATIC - 99) & TYPE, FREQUENCY
OF PORN USE (HIGH RISK – GREATER EFFECT).
43
SETO, MARIC, & BARBAREE
(2001)
“THERE IS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR A DIRECT
CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN PORNOGRAPHY
USE AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION” (P. 46)
THOSE PREDISPOSED TO SEXUALLY
OFFEND WERE MOST LIKELY TO SHOW
AN EFFECT OF PORNOGRAPHY USE
44
DISORDER IN THE COURT
45
CP OFFENDER
CHARACTERISTICS
46
DEMOGRAPHICS OF CP OFFENDERS
(see * at end of reference for included studies)

CP OFFENDERS ARE PREDOMINANTLY:
 MALE (98.7% - 100%)
 CAUCASIAN (88.9% - 100%)
 OLDER (most samples 40 yrs. or older)
 MORE EDUCATED (75% - 92% high school grads)
 EMPLOYED (61% - 97%)
 OF A HIGHER SES (58 - 62% earn $20K – $80K)
 NO CRIMINAL HISTORY (69% - 80%)
 SINGLE/UNMARRIED (47% - 71%)
 HX SEX/PHYS. ABUSE (20% - 21% / 15% - 24%)
 NO HX OF MENTAL ILLNESS (75% - 89%)
47
CONTACT VS. NONCONTACT OFFENDERS
MCCARTHY (2010)
VARIABLE
Noncontact
Contact
Masturbate to CP***
51%
91%
Download to External Medium*
44%
76%
Traded CP
36%
53%
Paid for CP
29%
36%
Concealed CP
28%
41%
Organized CP
20%
25%
Posted CP
5%
9%
Use of Child Modeling Images*
24%
53%
Use of Erotic Stories*
21%
52%
Chat with Minor***
28%
74%
Sent CP to Minor***
0%
28%
Sent AP to Minor*
5%
22%
Attempt to Meet Minor*
16%
35%
Communicate with Others Online***
11%
50%
Communicate with Others in Person**
3%
28%
48
CONTACT VS. NONCONTACT OFFENDERS
MCCARTHY (2010)
VARIABLE
Noncontact
Contact
Number CP Images
782
2674
Number CP Video Clips
43
206
Number CP Images & CP Video Clips
856
3399
51398
630
159
65
Number AP Images & AP Video Clips
53509
798
Ratio of CP to AP Possession*
0.4167
0.6275
Time Spent Viewing CP (hrs/wk)
10
10
Time Spent Viewing AP (hrs/wk)
7
12
Time Spent Viewing CP & AP (hrs/wk)
18
24
Number AP Images
Number AP Video Clips
49
PRIOR CRIMES
50
INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS
WITH PRIOR CONTACT OFFENSES
Study
Percent
Sample
Notes
Wood et al. (2009)
0%
N = 72
Fed. Internet Prob. (charges)
Osborn et al. (2010)
0%
N = 73
Convicted of CP (convictions)
Endrass et al. (2009)
1%
N = 231
Charged with CP (convictions)
Webb et al. (2007)
4%
N = 90
Sample of Arrestees (charges)
Niveau (2009)
5%
N = 30
Sample of Arrestees (charges)
6.7%
N = 30
Prob. O/P Tx Sample (convictions)
9%
N = 206
Charged with CP (convictions)
Faust et al. (2009)
9.4%
N = 870
(conviction)
Wolak et al. (2005)
11%
N = 1,713
Sample of Arrestees (records)
Elliott et al. (2009)
11%
N = 494
O/P Tx Sample (convictions)
Seto et al. (2010)
12%
N = 34
O/P Tx Sample (charges)
Seto et al. (2011)
12.2%
N = 4,697
On-line offender (formal record)
N = 72
Fed. Internet Prob. (conviction)
Laulik et at. (2007)
Sullivan (2007)
Wollert et al. (2009)
14%
51
INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS
WITH PRIOR CONTACT OFFENSES
Study
Percent
Sample
Notes
McCarthy (2010)
14%
N=107
O/P Tx Sample (conviction)
Heimbach (2002)
14.4%
N = 90
Arrestees (self report)
Eke, Seto, & Williams
(2011)
18%
N=253
Convicted Offenders
(charge/conviction; 101 contact)
McCarthy (2010)
20%
N=107
O/P Tx Sample (poly/self report)
Wood et al. (2009)
21%
N = 72
Fed. Internet Prob. (self report)
Seto & Eke (2005)
24%
N= 201
Convicted (charge/conviction)
Seto et al. (2006)
43%
N = 100
O/P Tx Sample (charges)
Buschman (2007)
44%
N = 43
O/P TX Sample (post polygraph)
Seto et al. (2011)
55.1%
N = 4,697
On-line offender (self report)
N=155
Fed. Prison Tx Sample (self rpt)
Bourke et al. (2009)
85%
52
BOURKE & HERNANDEZ (2009)
OF 155 INTERNET CP OFFENDERS IN A FEDERAL PRISON
TREATMENT PROGRAM:

PRE-TREATMENT: 26% HAD PRIOR SEX CONTACT
OFFENSE



HALF HAD PRIOR CONVICTIONS
AVERAGE OF 1.88 KNOWN VICTIMS PER OFFENDER
POST-TREATMENT: 85% ADMITTED PRIOR SEX
CONTACT


AVERAGE OF 13.56 VICTIMS PER OFFENDER
OF 24 DENIERS, 9 POLYGRAPHED & ONLY 2 “PASSED”
SUGGESTING LESS THAN 2% HAD NO CONTACT VICTIMS
53
54
ASSESSED VARIABLES
55
SETO, CANTOR, & BLANCHARD (2006)
CP OFFENDERS PRODUCED SIGNIFICANTLY
GREATER AROUSAL (AS MEASURED BY
PPG) TO CHILD IMAGES THAN PURELY
CONTACT OFFENDERS.
CP OFFENDERS WITH CONTACT OFFENSES
DID NOT PRODUCE SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AROUSAL THAN
THOSE WITHOUT.
56
SETO, CANTOR, & BLANCHARD (2006)
61% OF CP OFFENDERS MET DIAGNOSTIC
CRITERIA FOR PEDOPHILIA.
35% OF CHILD CONTACT OFFENDERS MET
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR PEDOPHILIA.
(USING PPG PEDOPHILIC INDEX > 0.25)
57
WEBB, CRAISSATI, & KEEN (2007)
ANALYSIS OF INTERNET VS CONTACT
CHILD OFFENDERS REVEALED:
- NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ON THE RISK
MATRIX 2000.
- INTERNET CP OFFENDERS HAD LOWER
PSYCHOPATHY SCORES ON PCL:SV THAN
CONTACT OFFENDERS.
58
LAULIK, ALLAM, & SHERIDAN
(2007)
ON THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
INVENTORY (PAI) CP OFFENDERS
SCORED HIGHER ON SCALES ASSESSING:
-
DEPRESSION
SCHIZOPHRENIA
BORDERLINE FEATURES
ANTISOCIAL FEATURES
SUICIDAL IDEATION
STRESS
59
LAULIK, ALLAM, & SHERIDAN
(2007)
ON THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
INVENTORY (PAI) CP OFFENDERS
SCORED LOWER ON SCALES ASSESSING:
-
MANIA
AGGRESSION
TREATMENT REJECTION
DOMINANCE
WARMTH
60
WEBB, CRAISSATI, & KEEN (2007)
- INTERNET CP OFFENDERS SCORED LOWER ON THE
STABLE 2000 THAN CONTACT OFFENDERS BUT NOT ON
THE ACUTE 2000.
- INTERNET OFFENDERS HAD MORE PROBLEMS WITH
“SEXUAL SELF REGULATION” THAN CONTACT
OFFENDERS.
- CONTACT OFFENDERS HAD MORE PROBLEMS WITH
“ATTITUDES TOWARD SEXUAL ASSAULT” AND “COOPERATION WITH SUPERVISION.”
61
SURJADI, BULLENS, VAN HORN, &
BOGAERTS (2007)
- USING INTERNET OFFENDER – FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE (IO-FQ)
FOUND:
- INTERNET OFFENDERS SCORED:
- HIGHER ON THE AVOIDANT FUNCTION
- LOWER ON EXCLUSIVE & PARAPHILIC FUNCTION
- THOSE WHO MASTURBATE TO IMAGES IN 1ST FEW MONTHS
- SCORE HIGHER ON SEXUAL AROUSAL FUNCTION
& MORE LIKELY HAVE CHILD SEX INTEREST
- THOSE THAT DID NOT HAD LOWER SCORES ON
AROUSAL FUNCTION
62
WOOD, SETO, FLYNN, WILSONCOTTON, & DEDMON (2009)
-
COMPARING CP, TRAVELER, & CONTACT OFFENDERS
ON THE STABLE-2007:
-
-
INTERNET CP OFFENDERS HAD
- MORE PROBLEMS WITH SEXUAL SELF
REGULATION
- MORE DEVIANT SEXUAL INTERESTS
NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS:
- EMOTIONAL IDENTIFICATION WITH CHILD
- COMPLIANCE WITH SUPERVISION
63
NIVEAU (2009)
- 14% HAD CLUSTER A PERSONALITY DISORDERS
- 14% HAD CLUSTER B PERSONALITY DISORDERS
- 58% HAD CLUSTER C PERSONALITY DISORDERS
-
36% DEPENDENT TYPE
17% AVOIDANT TYPE
6% OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE TYPE
55.6% SCORED AS HAVING COMPULSIVE
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR ON THE INTERNET
ADDICTION SCALE
64
PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES
BABCHISHIN ET. AL (2011)
COMPARED TO OFF-LINE OFFENDERS ONLINE OFFENDERS HAD:
- MORE VICTIM EMPATHY
-
MORE SEXUAL DEVIANCY
LESS COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS
LESS EMOTIONAL ID WITH CHILDREN
LESS IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT BUT NOT
SIGNIFICANT
- NO DIFFERENCES ON SELF-ESTEEM OR LONELINESS
65
NEUTZE ET AL. (2011)
FOUND MORE SIMILARITIES THAN
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTACT AND
CP OFFENDERS ON A NUMBER OF
PSYCHIOLOGICAL VARIABLES AND
DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS.
CP OFFENDERS SCORED LOWER ON
OFFENSE SUPPORTIVE COGNITIONS ON
THE BUMBY MOLEST SCALE THAN
CONTACT OFFENDERS.
66
MARSHALL ET AL. (2012)
CP OFFENDERS SCORED HIGHER THAN
CONTACT OFFENDERS ON MEASURES OF:
- LONELINESS
- OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE TENDENCIES
BUT NOT:
- SOCIAL ANXIETY
67
MAGALETTA ET AL. (2012)
ON PAI CP OFFENDERS SCORES COMPARED
TO NORMALS:
-
DEP (HIGHER)
MAN (LOWER)
BOR (HIGHER)
AGG (LOWER)
STR (HIGHER)
RXR (LOWER)
DOM (LOWER)
68
MAGALETTA ET AL. (2012)
ON PAI CP OFFENDERS SCORES COMPARED
TO CONTACT OFFENDERS
-
PAR (LOWER)
ANT (LOWER)
ALC (LOWER)
DRG (LOWER)
AGG (LOWER)
NON (LOWER)
DOM (LOWER)
69
ELLIOTT ET AL. (2013)
CONTACT OFFENDERS SCORE HIGHER ON:
-
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
SELF DECEPTIVE ENHANCEMENT
VICTIM EMPATHY DISTORTIONS
CHILDREN & SEX: COGNITIVE DISTORTION
CHILDREN & SEX: EMOTIONAL CONGRUENCE
OVER ASSERTIVENESS
LOCUS OF CONTROL (EXTERNAL)
BARRATT IMPULSIVITY SCALE – II:
COGNITIVE
70
ELLIOTT ET AL. (2013)
CONTACT OFFENDERS SCORE LOWER ON:
- INTERNAL REACTIVITY INDEX: FANTASY
(GREATER ABILITY TO RELATE TO FICTIONAL CHARACTERS)
71
APPLICATION OF
CURRENT RISK
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
72
BARNETT ET AL. (2010)
RISK MATRIX 2000 PREDICTED CONTACT
RECIDIVISM FOR CP OFFENDERS.
CP OFFENDERS SCORED LOWER THAN
OTHER TYPES OF SEX OFFENDERS.
73
BARNETT ET AL. (2010)
OFFENDERS IN THE “VERY HIGH”
CATEGORY OF RM-2000s (STEP 1 ONLY)
SHOWED RELATIVELY HIGHER RATES OF
SEXUAL RECIDIVISM (UNSPECIFIED AS
TO CONTACT/NON-CONTACT).
FEW DIFFERENCES IN LOWER RISK
CATEGORIES
74
OSBORN, ELLIOTT,
MIDDLETON, BEECH (2010)
Risk Level
Static-99
RM2000
RM2000R
Low
0
0
53
Moderate Low
1
N/A
N/A
Moderate
N/A
53
16
Moderate High
56
N/A
N/A
High
10
16
4
Very High
N/A
4
0
75
WAKELING ET AL. (2011)
OFFENDERS IN THE “VERY HIGH”
CATEGORY OF RM-2000 (A MODIFIED
VERSION) SHOWED HIGHER RATES OF
SEXUAL RECIDIVISM
PREDOMINANTLY INTERNET FOR
INTERNET OFFENDERS & MIXED FOR
GENERALIST OFFENDERS
FEW DIFFERENCES IN LOWER RISK
CATEGORIES
76
DISORDER IN THE COURTS
77
FOLLOW UP STUDIES
78
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
WEBB, CRAISSATI, & KEEN (2007)
0% OF CP INTERNET OFFENDERS COMMITTED A
CONTACT SEX OFFENSE
4% OF CP INTERNET OFFENDERS VIOLATED SUPERVISED
RELEASE COMPARED TO 29% OF CONTACT OFFENDERS
0% OF CP INTERNET OFFENDERS MISSED SUPERVISION
OR TREATMENT SESSIONS COMPARED TO 8% OF
CONTACT OFFENDERS MISSING SUPERVISION AND
13% MISSING TREATMENT SESSIONS
4% OF CP INTERNET OFFENDERS DROPPED OUT OF
TREATMENT COMPARED TO 18% OF CONTACT
OFFENDERS
79
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
FAUST, RENAUD, & BICKART (2009)
5.7% REOFFENDED WITH A SEXUAL
OFFENSE
(non-production CP, other non-contact, or
contact sexual offense)
80
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
WOLLERT, WAGGONER, & SMITH (2009)
0% REOFFENDED WITH A CONTACT
OFFENSE AGAINST A CHILD
1% REOFFENDED WITH CP POSSESSION
1% REOFFENDED WITH A NON-CONTACT
OFFENSE
81
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
0.8% - CONTACT OFFENSE AGAINST A
CHILD (ENDRASS ET AL. – 2009)
3.9% - REOFFENDED WITH AN ILLEGAL
PORN OFFENSE (ENDRASS ET AL. – 2009)
1.4% - UNSPECIFED SEXUAL OFFENSE AT 2
YRS (BARNETT ET AL. – 2010)
0% REOFFENDED (OSBORN ET AL. – 2010)
82
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)
11.1% OF CP OFFENDERS REOFFENDED WITH
A SEXUAL OFFENSE
5.2% OF TOTAL SAMPLE BY COMMISSION OF
CONTACT OR NON-CONTACT OFFENSE
5.9% OF TOTAL SAMPLE COMMITTED A NEW
CP POSSESSION OFFENSE
83
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)

CP ONLY OFFENDER (N = 228)






ANY REOFFENSE = 15.4%
RELEASE FAILURE = 10.5%
VIOLENT (INCLUDING SEX) = 2.6 %
CONTACT SEX = 1.3%
NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 5.3%
CP = 4.4%
84
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)

CP & OTHER NON-VIOLENT (N = 107)






ANY REOFFENSE = 40.2%
RELEASE FAILURE = 30.8%
VIOLENT/SEX = 5.6%
CONTACT SEX = 1.9%
NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 10.3%
CP = 8.4%
85
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)

CP & OTHER VIOLENT (N = 163)






ANY REOFFENSE = 50.5%
RELEASE FAILURE = 35.4%
VIOLENT/SEX = 12.1%
CONTACT SEX = 8.7%
NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 11.2%
CP = 8.7%
86
RECIDIVISM STUDIES
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)

24% OF CP OFFENDERS HAD AT LEAST 1
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL RELEASE

54% FOR BEING AROUND CHILDREN OR
USING COMPUTERS/INTERNET TO CONTACT
CHILDREN (11% OF TOTAL SAMPLE)

35% CHARGED WITH NEW SEXUAL OFFENSE
(6% OF TOTAL SAMPLE)
87
WAKELING, HOWARD, &
BARNETT (2011)
2.1% SEXUALLY REOFFENDED AT 1 YR.
(NOT SPECIFIED AS TO TYPE OF
OFFENSE)
3.1% SEXUAL REOFFENDED AT 2 YRS.
(NOT SPECIFIED AS TO TYPE OF
OFFENSE)
- 74% internet offenses
- 19% non-internet offenses
- 6% both
88
RECIDIVISM META-ANALYSIS
SETO, HANSON, BABCHISHIN (2011)
4.6 % OF ONLINE OFFENDERS COMMITTED
A NEW SEXUAL OFFENSE FOR TOTAL
SAMPLE.
2.0 % OF ONLINE OFFENDERS COMMITTED
A NEW CONTACT OFFENSE.
3.4% OF ONLINE OFFENDERS COMMITTED
A NEW CP OFFENSE.
89
US SENTENCING COMMISSION
SARIS ET AL. (2013)
7.4 % OF ONLINE OFFENDERS WERE
ARRESTED OR CONVICTED OF A NEW
SEXUAL OFFENSE
3.6 % FOR CONTACT OFFENSE
2.3% FOR CP OFFENSE
1.5% FOR NON-CONTACT OFFENSE
(OBSCENITY OR COMMERCIAL SEX, I. E., PROSTITUTION)
90
91
RISK FACTORS
92
FAIL PROB./RISKY SEX BX.
WEBB, CRAISSATI, & KEEN (2007)
STABLE-2000 PREDICTED:
- PROBATION FAILURES
- “RISKY SEXUAL BEHAVIORS”
-
NEW ALLEGATIONS OF CP
NEW ALLEGATIONS OF CONTACT OFFENDING
INCREASED USE OF THE INTERNET
ACCESSING ADULT PORNOGRAPHY
93
FAIL CONDITIONAL RELEASE
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)
AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE (NEGATIVE)
ANY PRIOR OFFENSE
ANY CONDITIONAL RELEASE FAILURE
PRIOR NON-VIOLENT HISTORY
ANY PRIOR VIOLENT HISTORY
NUMBER PRIOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENSES
NUMBER PRIOR VIOLENT OFFENSES
NUMBER PRIOR CONTACT SEX OFFENSES
94
CP RECIDIVISM
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)
AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE (NEGATIVE)
ANY PRIOR OFFENSE
ANY CONDITIONAL RELEASE FAILURE
PRIOR NON-VIOLENT HISTORY
ANY PRIOR VIOLENT HISTORY
NUMBER PRIOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENSES
NUMBER PRIOR VIOLENT OFFENSES
95
CONTACT RECIDIVISM
(SETO & EKE 2008)
CRIMINAL HISTORY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS
SELF-REPORTED SEXUAL INTEREST IN
CHILDREN
96
CONTACT RECIDIVISM
SETO (2009)
OFFENDER AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE
(NEGATIVE)
ANY JUVENILE CRIMINAL RECORD
PRIOR DRUG USE PROBLEMS
ADMITS HEBEPHILIC INTERESTS
97
CONTACT RECIDIVISM
(FAUST ET AL. 2009)
LOW EDUCATION
PRIOR TREATMENT FOR SEX OFFENDING
SINGLE
POSSESSING SEXUAL MATERIAL
DEPICTING 13 – 15 YEAR AGE RANGE
98
CONTACT RECIDIVISM
EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011)
AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE (NEGATIVE)
AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE: 24 OR YOUNGER
ANY PRIOR OFFENSE
ANY PRIOR VIOLENT HISTORY
NUMBER PRIOR VIOLENT OFFENSES
NUMBER OF PRIOR CONTACT SEX OFFENSE
99
CONTACT SEX RECIDIVISM
LEE ET AL. (2012)
CONTACT OFFENDERS SCORE HIGH ON
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND LOW ON
INTERNET PREOCCUPATION
INTERNET OFFENDERS SCORE HIGH ON
INTERNET PREOCCUPATION AND LOW
ON ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
100
POTENTIAL CONTACT
RECIDIVISM (SETO 2009)
NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HOUSE (P=.057)
OFFENDER LIVE ALONE (P=.072)
HAD SPECIFIC INFO. ABOUT KIDS (P=.088)
CP UNORGANIZED (P=.077)
101
DISORDER IN THE COURT
102
FISCAL IMPACT OF CP
OFFENDER
SENTENCING
103
Average Cost of Florida
Sentencing Alternatives
Florida Department of Corrections Website (2009-2010)
Prison
Daily
Community
Supervision with EM
$53.34
Daily
Monthly
$ 1,622.43
Monthly
Annually
$19,469.10
Annually
Community
Supervision w/o EM
$ 14.05 Daily
$ 427.35 Monthly
$ 5,128.25 Annually
$ 5.11
$ 155.43
$ 1,865.15
104
Cost Analysis of Federal
Sentencing Alternatives
Administrative Office of US Courts – 5/6/08
Federal Prison
Facilities
Daily
$68.28
Community
Correction Centers
Daily
$ 62.66 Daily
Supervision
Monthly
$ 2,076.83
Monthly
$ 1,905.92 Monthly
Annually
$24,922.00
Annually
$ 22,871.00 Annually
$ 9.92
$ 301.80
$ 3,621.64
105
PARTING THOUGHTS
FROM THE
RESEARCHERS
106
SETO & HANSON (2011)
“OUR INITIAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THE
ENACTMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNET
SEXUAL CRIME LAWS HAVE CAPTURED
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD ENGAGED IN SIMILAR
BEHAVIOR PRE-INTERNET… HOWEVER, [THESE
LAWS] HAVE ALSO CAPTURED RELATIVELY
LOW RISK INDIVIDUALS… IT REMAINS AN
OPEN QUESTION AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD
ASSESS, TREAT, AND MANAGE ALL ONLINE
OFFENDERS AS WE WOULD OTHER
OFFENDERS.” (P. 5).
107
SETO ET AL. (2010)
“…ALTHOUGH SEXUAL INTEREST IN
CHILDREN IS IMPORTANT, THIS DOES
NOT RULE OUT OTHER EXPLANATIONS
FOR ACCESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY…
IT MAY ALSO BE THE CASE THAT
OFFENDERS WITH DIFFERENT MOTIVES
ALSO DIFFER IN THE RISK THEY POSE OF
FUTURE OFFENDING….” (P. 178)
108
SETO ET AL. (2011)
“…ONLINE OFFENDERS, COMPARED TO
CONTACT SEXUAL OFFENDERS, MAY
HAVE GREATER ABILITY TO INHIBIT
ACTING ON THEIR DEVIANT SEXUAL
INTERESTS.” (P.4)
“…ONLINE OFFENDERS RARELY GO ON TO
COMMIT DETECTED CONTACT SEXUAL
OFFENSES.” (P. 136)
109
IF YOU THINK YOUR CASE IS A
DISASTER…..
110
111
...DON’T WORRY
WE’LL SHOW YOU HOW TO
AVERT DISASTER
112
ASSESSMENT
SORTING OUT MYTH
FROM TRUTH…
(OR LOW RISK FROM HIGH RISK)
113
COMMON MYTHS




THE CONTENT OF CP IS RELATED TO THE
DANGEROUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER
IF THE OFFENDER HAS TALKED ABOUT
COMMITTING A CONTACT OFFENSE, HE
MUST HAVE COMMITTED A PRIOR
CONTACT OFFENSE
FREE DOWNLOADING ADDS TO THE
DEMAND FOR CP
TREATMENT DOES NOT WORK
114
COMMON MYTHS



ALL CP VIEWERS HAVE HISTORIES OF
PRIOR UNREPORTED HANDS ON
OFFENSES
VIEWING CP IS A GATEWAY OFFENSE TO
CHILD MOLESTING
THE VOLUME OF CP IS RELATED TO THE
DANGEROUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER
115
RISK ASSESSMENT


NO CURRENTLY VALIDATED RISK
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
USE FOLLOW UP STUDY RESEARCH



RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOW UP
FIRST META-ANALYSIS
ADDRESS UNSUPPORTED MYTHS
CONCERNING INTERNET CP VIEWERS
116
TO ADDRESS THE MYTHS



UTILIZE MEASURES OF SEXUAL
INTEREST (AASI) OR AROUSAL (PPG) FOR
CORROBORATING SELF REPORT
“RULE OUT” PRIOR HANDS ON OFFENSES
AND OTHER RELATED BEHAVIORS WITH
POLYGRAPH(S)
VIEWING INDIVIDUAL’S COLLECTION OF
IMAGES
117
THE REFERRAL
GIVE THEM A TEASER…
“LET ME GUESS, MIDDLE AGED
WHITE, GUY NEVER IN
TROUBLE WITH THE LAW
BEFORE…”
118
REFERRAL QUESTIONS
IS THE CLIENT A CP VIEWER ONLY?
IS HE ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN?
WHAT IS HIS LEVEL OF ANTISOCIALITY?
WHAT IS HIS RISK?
IS HE AMENABLE FOR TX/SUPERVISION?
119
ASK FOR ALL DISCOVERY
 INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY
 CHAT LOGS (IF ANY)
 STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT

AUDIO IS BEST
 PRETRIAL
SERVICES REPORT /
PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION
REPORT
120
ASK FOR ALL DISCOVERY
 MENTAL
HEALTH RECORDS
 REPORT(S) OF COMPUTER
FORENSIC ANALYSIS
 DATE PATH/FILE CREATED
 DATE LAST ACCESSED
 CRIMINAL HISTORY
121
WHY IS AUDIO OF INTERVIEW
IMPERATIVE? – BECAUSE THIS:
122
BECOMES THIS:
123
COMPREHENSIVE
EVALUATION
124
RECORD REVIEW

START / END DATES OF INVESTIGATION

HOW ACCESSED / HOW DETECTED


REVIEW CHAT LOGS FOR CONTENT – DO
NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS
LISTEN CAREFULLY TO AUDIO FOR WHAT
QUESTION DEFENDANT IS ANSWERING
(“CHILD” DOES NOT = “PREPUBESCENT”)
125
RECORD REVIEW


REVIEW COMPUTER FORENSICS FOR
CREATE DATES TO ESTABLISH TIME
FRAMES FOR DURATION / DIAGNOSIS
PRIOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT


FOR WHAT
ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY

SEXUAL, VIOLENT, NON-VIOLENT
126
CLINICAL INTERVIEW

INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY USE





DURATION OF ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD
PERCENT OF ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD
TIME SPENT VIEW ADULT VS. TEEN VS.
CHILD
TIME SPENT MASTURBATE ADULT VS. TEEN
VS. CHILD
MALE VS. FEMALE CONTENT

IMPACT ON WORK/FAMILY/RELATIONSHIPS
127
CLINICAL INTERVIEW

HOW WAS CP ACCESSED


PAY VS. NON-PAY SITES
PEER-TO-PEER SOFTWARE




EVER CHANGE DEFAULT SETTINGS
E-MAIL
CHAT ROOMS
SEARCH TERMS USED (INTENT)

PTHC / PTSC / LOLITA / R@YGOLD / XX YO… VS.
TEEN / GIRLS / BABES
128
CLINICAL INTERVIEW


DELETE ANY GENRE
STORAGE SYSTEM
 FOLDERS
 SUBFOLDERS
 HOW

LABELED
VIRUS PROTECTION SOFTWARE
 TYPE
 EVER

CHANGE DEFAULT SETTINGS
USE OF SUBSTANCES WHEN ON-LINE
129
CLINICAL INTERVIEW

SEXUAL HISTORY









ANY OTHER ARRESTS/CHARGES/CONVICTIONS
WHEN LEARN ABOUT SEX
PORNOGRAPHY USE
1ST SEXUAL EXPERIENCES
UNUSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIORS (PARAPHILIAS)
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION EXPERIENCES
SEXUAL PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS
VICTIM EMPATHY
INSIGHT INTO BEHAVIORS (WHY DID I DO IT?)
130
CLINICAL INTERVIEW

SOCIAL HISTORY




NONSEXUAL CRIMINAL HISTORY
CHILD/JUVENILE BEHAVIORAL HISTORY
SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY
MENTAL HEALTH







GENERAL MENTAL HEALTH
“SEX OFFENDER SPECIFIC” TREATMENT
EDUCATION
WORK (INCLUDING MILITARY)
FAMILY
SIGNIFICANT ROMANTIC / SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
MEDICAL
131
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT OF SEXUAL INTEREST

VRT VS. PPG
CONFIRM/DISCONFIRM PEDOPHILIA
 ASSESS COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS


PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT


MMPI / MCMI / PAI
PSYCHOPATHY

HARE PCL-R
132
REVIEW OF EVIDENCE



ALWAYS ASK TO SEE ADULT IMAGES
ASK FOR UNALLOCATED FILES
LOOK FOR THEMES





AGE
GENDER
SEXUAL ACTIVITY/BEHAVIORS
CREATE DATES / LAST ACCESS DATES
CONFIRMATION OF SELF REPORT
133
134
COLLATERAL INTERVIEWS


THOSE WHO HAVE OBSERVED
DEFENDANT AROUND CHILDREN
TREATMENT PROVIDERS




RESPONSE TO TREATMENT
INSIGHT
RELAPSE PREVENTION
MAINTENANCE POLYGRAPHS
135
ASSESSMENT REFERRALS

POLYGRAPHS:





PRIOR HANDS ON SEX OFFENSES
MASTURBATION TO CP IMAGES
PRODUCING CP
SOLICITING CHILDREN VIA THE INTERNET
SEXUAL BEHAVIORS / CP SINCE
INVESTIGATION BEGAN
136
ASSESSMENT REFERRALS

FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF COMPUTER:

UNALLOCATED SPACE (DELETED FILES)

RATIO OF ADULT TO TEEN TO CHILD FILES

WAS FILE EVER OPENED

PARTIAL DOWNLOADS

KEY WORD SEARCH ENTRIES

LOG OF WEBSITES VISITED
137
DIAGNOSTIC DECISIONS








PEDOPHILIA
OTHER PARAPHILIA
ADJUSTMENT D/O
DEPRESSION
BIPOLAR
OCD
SCHIZOID/AVOIDANT
AUTISM/ASPERGER’S





LOW SELF ESTEEM
SOCIAL SKILL DEFICIT
UNRESOLVED
CHILDHOOD SEX
TRAUMA
CURIOSITY
STUPIDITY
138
RISK ASSESSMENT


NO CURRENTLY VALIDATED RISK
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
LIMITED FOLLOW UP STUDIES



RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOW UP
FIRST META-ANALYSIS
CONSISTENT RECIDIVISM DATA



CONTACT = 1.3% - 8.7%
NONCONTACT = 5.3 – 11.2%
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY = 3.4% - 8.7 %
139
RISK ASSESSMENT
MITIGATING VARIABLES







ANTISOCIAL ORIENTATION
GENERAL SELF-MANAGEMENT
SEXUAL SELF-MANAGEMENT
SUBSTANCE USE AT TIME OF OFFENSE
TREATMENT
SOCIAL/COMMUNITY SUPPORTS
SUPERVISION HISTORY
140
RISK ASSESSMENT

RISK FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION

24% (Any Type) (Williams et al. – 2011)





12% (presence child/comp) (Williams et al. – 2011)
4% CP vs 29% Contact (Webb et al. – 2007)
Miss Supv. Sessions = 0% CP vs. 8% Contact
(Webb et al. – 2007)
Miss Tx Sessions = 0% CP vs. 13% Contact
(Webb et al. – 2007)
Tx Drop Out = 4% CP vs. 18% Contact
(Webb et al. – 2007) 141
TESTIMONY:
KEY ISSUES
142
KNOW YOUR STUFF
143
NUMBER OF IMAGES
OF 14 OFFENDERS WHO HAD OVER 1,000
CP IMAGES; 12 (OR 86%) WERE
ASSESSED AS LOW RISK
(OSBORN ET AL. – 2010)
144
SEVERITY OF IMAGES
92% OF CP OFFENDERS POSSESSED
IMAGES DEPICTING GENITALS OR
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ACTIVITY
(WOLAK ET AL. – 2003)
80% DEPICTED PENETRATION OF A MINOR
OR SEXUAL ACTIVITY BETWEEN A MINOR
AND ADULT (WOLAK ET AL. – 2003)
145
SEVERITY OF IMAGES
NONE OF THE OFFENDERS FOUND IN
POSSESSION OF LEVEL 5 CP IMAGES
WERE FOUND TO BE HIGH RISK WHILE
1/4 OF MEDIUM & 1/3 OF LOW RISK
OFFENDERS POSSESSED THESE IMAGES
(OSBORN ET AL. – 2010)
146
SEVERITY OF IMAGES
MOST FREQUENTLY FOUND IMAGES:
42.2% HAD IMAGES OF PENETRATION BY
ADULT
30.4% HAD IMAGES OF 3 – 12 YEAR OLDS
25.5% HAD IMAGES OF CHILD BONDAGE
(BURGESS ET AL. – 2012)
147
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
1) THE STUDY HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE
2000 AND WAS SUBMITTED FOR
PUBLICATION IN 2007.
IT WAS WITHDRAWN BY BOP DUE TO
CONCERNS THE RESULTS MIGHT BE
MISINTERPRETED (SHER & CARY, 2007).
AND IF YOU ARE REALLY BOLD…
148
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V.
MICHAEL PAUL JOHNSON (2008) THE
IOWA SUPREME COURT SITES:
-
-
METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS
UNPUBLISHED QUESTIONNAIRE
RELIANCE ON POLYGRAPH RESULTS
SUBJECT SELECTION WAS NOT RANDOM
FINALLY PUBLISHED IN 2009.
149
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
2) IN RELATION TO OTHER STUDIES
EXAMINING PRIOR OFFENSES, THIS
STUDY “…WAS AN OUTLIER IN THE
OVERALL SET OF SAMPLES…” (SETO ET
AL. IN PRESS).
(SEE ABOVE LITERATURE REVIEW)
150
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
3) THIS IS NOT A RECIDIVISM STUDY.
- CITE RECIDIVISM STUDIES
(SEE ABOVE LITERATURE REVIEW)
151
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
4) HERNANDEZ HAS CRITICIZED THE USE
OF HIS STUDY TO SUGGEST ALL CP
OFFENDERS HAVE ENGAGED IN
CONTACT SEXUAL OFFENSES
(SEE NEXT SLIDES - HERNANDEZ, 2009)
152
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
“SOME INDIVIDUALS HAVE MISUSED THE
RESULTS OF HERNANDEZ (2000) AND
BOURKE AND HERNANDEZ (2009) TO
FUEL THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
MAJORITY OF CP OFFENDERS ARE
INDEED CONTACT SEXUAL OFFENDERS
AND, THEREFORE, DANGEROUS
PREDATORS. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT
SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE.”
153
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
“THE INCIDENCE OF CONTACT SEXUAL
CRIMES AMONG CP OFFENDERS, AS WE
REPORTED IN OUR STUDIES, IS
IMPORTANT AND WORTHY OF
CONSIDERABLE EMPIRICAL
EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A
CONCLUSIVE FINDING THAT CAN BE
GENERALIZED TO ALL CP OFFENDERS.”
154
BATTLING WITH BUTNER
FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
“NOTWITHSTANDING, SOME INDIVIDUALS
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE TEMPTED
TO RELY ON A BIASED INTERPRETATION
OF OUR STUDY (I.E., TO PROVE THAT
THE MAJORITY OF CP OFFENDERS ARE
CHILD MOLESTERS).”
155
PEDOPHILIA DIAGNOSIS

THE DIAGNOSIS DOES NOT DETERMINE
THE COURSE OF THE DISORDER

THIS IS WHY RISK ASSESSMENT IS
IMPORTANT

CANCER SURVIVOR ANALOGY

FEMALE BETTER THAN MALE TYPE

TREATABLE
AROUSAL RECONDITIONING
 SSRIs IF DEPRESSION

156
TREATMENT WORKS
37% REDUCTION IN RISK FOR TREATED SAMPLES
(LOSEL & SCHMUCKER – 2005)
3.2% OF TRADITIONAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SUBJECTS RECIDIVATED (COMPARED TO A BASE RATE
* OF 9%, A 64% LOWER RECIDIVISM RATE)
(WILSON ET AL. – 2007)
13.13% OF STRUCTURED MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SUBJECTS RECIDIVATED (COMPARED TO A BASE RATE*
OF 26%, A 64% LOWER RECIDIVISM RATE)
(WILSON ET AL. – 2007)
157
CASE EXAMPLES
CASE 1 – J. G.










59 YEAR OLD
PUERTO RICAN
MALE
HETEROSEXUAL
I – RECEIPT; II – POSSESSION
5 YRS.; OVER 3,500 FILES (ONSITE PREVIEW)
ARES – 90% AP, 5% TP, 5% CP
MASTURBATION = 90% AP, 7% TP, 3% CP
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTOR
NO RELATIONSHIPS/FRIENDSHIPS
159
CASE 1 – J. G.
160
CASE 1 – J. G.
161
CASE 1 – J. G.
162
CASE 1 – J. G.
163
CASE 1 – J. G.
164
CASE 1 – J. G.

POLYGRAPH – PENDING

EVIDENCE REVIEW - PENDING

DX = ?? (R/O PEDOPHILIA)

GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS.
165
CASE 1 – J. G.
SENTENCE PENDING
166
CASE 2 – J. E.









60 YEAR OLD
Caucasian
MALE
HETEROSEXUAL
I – Promoting sexual performance of child; II –
XL - POSSESSION
7 YRS.; 515 FILES (almost all videos)
ARES – 25% AP, 25% TP, 50% CP
MASTURBATION = 12.5% AP, 12.% TP, 75% CP
Retired police officer
167
CASE 2 – J. E.
168
CASE 2 – J. E.
169
CASE 2 – J. E.
170
CASE 2 – J. E.
171
CASE 2 – J. E.




POLYGRAPH – NON-DECEPTIVE
EVIDENCE REVIEW – FEMALE (75%
PREPUBESCENT
DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY
ATTRACTED TO FEMALES, NONEXCLUSIVE TYPE
PLED OPEN TO THE COURT WITH A
STIPULATED CAP OF 40 YRS
172
CASE 2 – J. E.
SENTENCED TO
173
CASE 3 – A. K.










34 YEAR OLD
WHITE
MALE
HOMOSEXUAL
I – DISTRIBUTION; II – POSSESSION
LATE ‘11 – 6/12; 721 VIDEO & 5,346 IMAGE
GIGATRIBE – 0% AP, 50% TP, 50% CP
MASTURBATION = 50% AP, 50% TP, 0% CP
PARTNER HAS TEEN CHILDREN
FORMER MILITARY
174
CASE 3 – A. K.
175
CASE 3 – A. K.
176
CASE 3 – A. K.
177
CASE 3 – A. K.
178
CASE 3 – A. K.




POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION
NO EVIDENCE REVIEW (SCHEDULING
ISSUE)
DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY
ATTRACTED TO MALES
GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS.
179
CASE 3 – A. K.
SENTENCED TO
180
CASE 4 – W. B.










49 YEAR OLD
WHITE
MALE
HETEROSEXUAL
I – RECEIPT; II – POSSESSION
‘05 / ‘08 TO 12/12; 340 VIDEOS & 1,447 IMAGE
E-MULE – 58% AP, 40% TP, 2% CP
MASTURBATION = 60% AP, 40% TP, 0% CP
DIVORCED, TWO CHILDREN
FORMER MILITARY
181
CASE 4 – W. B.
182
CASE 4 – W. B.
183
CASE 4 – W. B.
184
CASE 4 – W. B.
185
CASE 4 – W. B.

NO POLYGRAPH

EVIDENCE REVIEW - LOTS TEEN EROTICA

FORENSIC REVIEW OF COMPUTER

LOTS OF ADULT PORN

DX = RULE OUT PEDOPHILIA

REFERRED FOR TREATMENT

GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS.
186
CASE 4 – W. B.
sentenced to
187
CASE 5 – J. M.









33 YEAR OLD
WHITE
MALE
HOMOSEXUAL; PREFER BOTTOM TO BLACK
MALES
I – DISTRIBUTION; II – POSSESSESSION
BEGIN IN TEENS; 3,469 FILES
GIGATRIBE – 65% AP, 10% TP, 25% CP
MASTURBATION = NO PARTICULAR FOCUS
IN RELATIONSHIP
188
CASE 5 – J. M.
189
CASE 5 – J. M.
190
CASE 5 – J. M.
191
CASE 5 – J. M.
192
CASE 5 – J. M.
193
CASE 5 – J. M.




POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION
EVIDENCE REVIEW – LARGEST
COLLECTION OF BLACK MALE CP
DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY
ATTRACTED TO MALES
GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. - 181 MOS.
194
CASE 5 – J. M.
SENTENCED TO
195
CASE 6 – J. C.









36 YEAR OLD
WHITE
MALE
HETEROSEXUAL
I – POSSESSION
1 MONTH IN 12/12; 13 VIDEOS & 5 IMAGE
LIMEWIRE – 60% AP, 39% TP, 1% CP
MASTURBATION = 80% AP, 20% TP, 0% CP
NEVER MARRIED, NO RELATIONSHIPS,
DEPENDENT ON FAMILY FOR BASIC NEEDS
196
CASE 6 – J. C.
197
CASE 6 – J. C.
198
CASE 6 – J. C.
199
CASE 6 – J. C.
200
CASE 6 – J. C.
201
CASE 6 – J. C.



POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION
EVIDENCE REVIEW – VERY FEW FILES,
MOSTLY TEEN TO LATE TEEN, SOME
PARTIAL OR DISTORTED FILES
FORENSIC REVIEW OF COMPUTER

NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF OPENED
202
CASE 6 – J. C.

DX = DYSTHMIC DISORDER & R/O
DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER VS.
SOCIAL AVOIDANCE DISORDER VS. PANIC
DISORDER W/ AGORAPHOBIA VS. PERVASIVE
DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER
DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

REFERRED NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVAL.

REFERRED TO CARD – AUTISM SPECTRUM D/O

GUIDELINES = MAXIMUM 10 YRS.
203
CASE 6 – J. C.
SENTENCED TO
204
CASE 7 – R. C.









40 YEAR OLD
WHITE
MALE
HETEROSEXUAL
I – USE COMPUTER TO ENTICE MINOR FOR SEX
CHAT LOGS – DISCUSS SNEAKER WORSHIP,
MAKING PREPUBESCENT FEMALE HIS SEX
SLAVE OVER 47 DAY TIME FRAME
NO CP
NEVER MARRIED, NO CHILDREN
LIVES WITH FATHER
205
CASE 7 – R. C.
206
CASE 7 – R. C.
207
CASE 7 – R. C.
208
CASE 7 – R. C.
209
CASE 7 – R. C.
210
CASE 7 – R. C.
211
CASE 7 – R. C.

RISK 5% FOR NEW SEX OFFENSE IN 5
YRS.

POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION

DX NOT ABLE TO CONCLUDE PEDOPHILIA

GUIDELINES = 168 MOS. – 196 MOS.
212
CASE 7 – R. C.
SENTENCED TO
213
PREVENTION
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS A
SERIOUS CRIME WITH
REAL VICTIMS – WHAT CAN
YOU DO TO STOP THE
CYCLE OF SEXUAL ABUSE?
214
215
CONTACT
Eric A. Imhof, Psy.D.
Specialized Treatment and Assessment
Resources, P. A.
P. O. Box 267458
Weston, FL. 33326
Tel. (954) 646-6141
Fax (954) 249-3107
E-mail: [email protected]
216
CONTACT
Gilbert Schaffnit, Esq.
719 NE First Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
Tel. (352) 378-6593
Fax (352) 374-4998
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.gilschaffnit.com
217
REFERENCES
Babchishin, K., Hanson, K., & Herman, C. (2011). The Characteristics of online sex offenders: A
meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 92-123. DOI:
10.1177/1079063210370708.*
Bagely, C. (2003). Diminishing incidence of internet child pornographic images. Psychological
Reports, 93, 305-306.
Barnett, G. , Wakeling, H., & Howard, P. (2010). An examination of the predictive validity of the Risk
Matrix 2000 in England and Wales. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22,
443-470. doi: 10.1177/1079063210384274.
Beech, A., Elliott, I., Birgden, A., & Findlater, D. (2008). The internet and child sexual offending: A
criminological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior.13, 216-228. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.007.
Bourke, M. L. & Hernandez, A. E. (2009) The ‘Butner study’ redux: A report of the incidence of
hands-on child victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 183191. doi: 10.1007/s10896-008-9219-y
Buschman, J. (2007, November). The position of child pornography in sex offending, first Dutch
polygraph findings. Poster presented at the 26th annual conference of the Association for the
Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA.
218
REFERENCES
Burgess, A. W., Carretta, C. M., & Burgess, A. G. (2012). Patterns of federal internet offenders: A
pilot study. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 8, 112-121. doi: 10.1111/j/1939-3938.2011.01132.x.
Carr, J. (2004). Child abuse, child pornography, and the internet. The Children’s Charity. Retrieved
from http://www.make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/Child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf.
Carter, D., Prentky, R., Knight, R., Vanderveer, P., & Boucher, R. (1987). Use of pornography in the
criminal and developmental histories of sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2,
196-211. doi: 10.1177/088626087002002005.
D’Amato, A. (2006). Porn up, rape down. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series.
Retrieved from Northwestern University School of Law:
http://www.anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf.
Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., & Weiss, P. (2011). Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2011, 1037-1043.
Diamond, M. & Uchiyama, A. (1999). Pornography, Rape, and Sex Crimes in Japan. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 1-22.
219
REFERENCES
Doren, D. (May 2007). Adult sexual offender recidivism risk assessment, Presentation to the Florida
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Annual Meeting and Conference. Tampa, FL
Eke, A. & Seto, M. (May 2008). Examining the criminal history and recidivism of registered child
pornography offenders, Presentation to the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
Annual Meeting and Conference. Atlanta, GA
Eke, A., Seto, M., & Williams, J. (2011). Examining the criminal history and future offending of child
pornography offenders: An extended prospective follow-up study. Law and Human Behavior, 35,
466-478. doi: 10/107/s10979-010-9252-2.
Elliott, I. & Beech, A. (2009). Understanding online child pornography use: Applying sexual offense
theory to internet offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 180-193. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2009.03.002.
Elliott, I., Beech, A., & Mandeville-Norden, R. (2013). The psychological profiles of internet, contact,
and mixed internet/contact sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
25, 3-30. doi: 10.1177/10790632124394426.
Elliott, I., Beech, A., Mandeville-Norden, R., & Hayes, E. (2009). Psychological profiles of internet
sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 76 - 92. doi:
10.1177/1079063208326929.
220
REFERENCES
Endrass, J., Urbaniok, F., Hammermeister, L. C., Benz, C., Elbert, T., Laubacher, A., & Rossegger, A.
(2009). The consumption of internet child pornography and violent sex offending. BMC
Psychiatry, 9, 1-7. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/43. Accessed May
19, 2010. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X/9/43.
Faust, E., Renaud, C., & Bickart, W. (2009, October). Predicators of re-offense among a sample of
federally convicted child pornography offenders. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference
for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Dallas, TX.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). Online Child Pornography/Child Sexual Exploitation
Investigations. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/innocent-images-1.
Frei, A, Erenay, N., Dittman, V., & Graf, M. (2005). Paedophilia on the internet – a study of 33
convicted offenders in the Canton of Lucerne. Swiss Medical Weekly, 135, 488-494.*
Grove, R. & Zerega, B. (2004). The Lolita problem. Red Herring. Retrieved from
http://redherring.com/Home/pages/print/?bid=01da5eba-e1ff-44a6-b6b1-698bdecb8b.
Heimbach, M. J. (2002, May) internet child pornography, Congressional Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Committee on the Judiciary United
States House of Representatives.
221
REFERENCES
Hernandez, A. E. (2009). Psychological and Behavioral Characteristics of Child Pornography Offenders
in Treatment. Paper presented at the Global Symposium: Examining the Relationship between
Online and Offline Offenses and Preventing the Sexual Exploitation of Children, Chapel Hill, NC.
Internet Watch Foundation (2007). Annual and Charity Report. Retrieved from
http://www.iwf.org.uk/accountability/annual-reports.
Internet Watch Foundation (2008). Annual and Charity Report. Retrieved from
http://www.iwf.org.uk/accountability/annual-reports.
Internet Watch Foundation (2009). Annual and Charity Report. Retrieved from
http://www.iwf.org.uk/accountability/annual-reports.
Internet Watch Foundation (2010). Annual and Charity Report. Retrieved from
http://www.iwf.org.uk/accountability/annual-reports.
Jones, L. & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Updated trends in child maltreatment, 2007. Crimes Against
Children Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Updated%20Trends%20in%20Child%20Maltreatment%202007.pdf
222
REFERENCES
Kim, C. (2004). From fantasy to reality: the link between viewing child pornography and molesting
children. Child Sexual Exploitation Program: Update, 1, 1-2. Retrieved from National District
Attorneys Association website: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Update_gr_vol1_no3.pdf .
Kingston, D., Fedoroff, P., Firestone, P., Curry, S., & Bradford, J. (2008). Pornography use and sexual
aggression: the impact of frequency and type of pornography use on recidivism among sexual
offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 1 – 11. doi: 10.1002/ab.20250.
Krone, T. (2004). Typology of online child pornography offending. Trends and Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice, 279, 1-6. Available at http://aic.gov.au/documents/4/F/8/%7B4F8B4249-7BEE4F57-B9ED-993479D9196D%7Dtandi279.pdf.
Kutchinsky, B. (1991). Pornography and rape: Theory and practice? International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 14, 47-64.
Lanning, K. (1992). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (Third Edition). National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. Arlington, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Lanning, K. (2010). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (Fifth Edition). National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children. Arlington, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Retrieved
from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf.
223
REFERENCES
Laulik, S., Allam, J., & Sheridan, L. (2007). An Investigation into maladaptive personality functioning
in internet sex offenders. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 13, 523-535.
doi:10.1080/10683160701340577.*
Lazarova, D. (2009, February). Child porn consumers safe from prosecution in the Czech Republic.
Czech Radio 7, Radio Prague. Retrieved from http://www.radiocz/en/article/88189.
Lee, A., Nien-Chen, L., Lamade, R., Schuler, A., & Prentky, R. (2012). Predicting hands-on child
sexual offenses among possessors of internet child pornography. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 18, 644-672. doi: 10.1037/a0027517.
Losel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005). The Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Offenders: A
Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.
Magaletta, P., Faust, E., Bickart, W., & McLearen, A. (2012). Exploring clinical and personality
characteristics of adult male internet only child pornography offenders. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1177/0306624X12465271.
Marshall, L., O’Brien, M., Marshall, W., Booth, B., & Davis, A. (2012). Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
social phobia, and loneliness in incarcerated internet child pornography offenders. Sexual
Addiction & Compulsivity, 19, 41-52. doi: 10.1080/10720162.2012.665291.
224
REFERENCES
McCarthy, J. (2010). Internet sexual activity: A comparison between contact and non-contact child
pornography offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 181-195. doi:
10.1808/13552601003760006.*
Mitchell, K., Jones, L., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2011). Internet –facilitated commercial exploitation
of children: findings from a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies in the
United States. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 43-71. doi:
10.1177/107906321037437.*
Motivans, M. & Kyckelhahn, T.: Federal Prosecution of Child Sex Exploitation Offenders, 2006,
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 1 – 8, December 2007. Available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2009.*
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2005a). Reports of Child Pornography to the
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Continue to Rise. Retrieved from the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children website
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&Pa
geId=2064.
225
REFERENCES
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2005b). Child Porn among fastest growing
internet businesses. Retrieved from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
website
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&Pa
geId=2136.
Neutze, J., Seto, M., Schaefer, G., Mundt, I., & Beier, K. (2011). Predictors of child pornography
offenses and child sexual abuse in a community sample of pedophiles and hebephilies. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 212-242. doi: 10.1177/1079063210382043.*
Niveau, G. (2010). Cyber-pedocrimininality: Characteristics of a sample of child pornography
offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 570-575. doi 10.1016.j.chiabu.2010.01.11*
Oddone-Paolucci, E., Genuis, M., & Violato, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of the published research on
the effects of pornography. In C. Violato, E. Oddone-Paolucci, & M. Genuis (Eds.). The Changing
Family and Child Development. (pp. 48-59). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Chapter
retrieved from: http://ccoso.org/library%20articles/Meta-analysis.pdf. Accessed September 26,
2009.
Osborn, J., Elliott, I., Middleton, D., Beech, A. (2010). The use of actuarial risk assessment measures
with UK internet child pornography offenders. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace
Research, 2, 16-24. doi: 10.5042.jacpr.210.0333*
226
REFERENCES
Qualyle, E., & Taylor, M. (2002). Paedophiles, pornography, and the internet: Assessment issues.
British Journal of Social Work , 32, 863-875.
Ropelato, J. (2004, December). Internet pornography statistics. Top Ten Reviews. Retrieved from
http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statisitics.html.
Saris, P., Carr, W., Jackson, K., Hinojosa, R., Howell, B., Friedrich, D., Wrolewski, J., & Fulwood, I.
(2013). Federal child pornography offenses. Washington, DC: United States Sentencing
Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and_Reports/Sex_
Offense_Topics/201212_Federal_Child_Pornography_Offenses/index.cfm
Seto, M. (2009). Assessing the Risk Posed by Child Pornography Offenders. Paper presented at the
G8 Global Symposium, Chapel Hill, NC.
Seto, M. (2009). A picture is worth a thousand words: What do we know about child pornography
offenders? Presentation at the 28th Annual Conference for the Association for the Treatment of
Sexual Abusers, Dallas, TX.
Seto, M., Cantor, J., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic
indicator or pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 610 – 615. doi: 10.1037/0021843X.115.3.610.
227
REFERENCES
Seto, M. & Eke, A. (2005). The Criminal Histories and Later Offending of Child Pornography
Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 201-210. doi:
10.1007/s11194-005-4605-y.
Seto, M. & Eke (2008, October). Predicting New Offenses Committed by Child Pornography
Offenders. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Conference for the Association for the Treatment
of Sexual Abusers, Atlanta, GA.
Seto, M. & Hanson, R. K. (2011). Introduction to special issue on internet-facilitated sexual offending.
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 3-6. doi: 10.1177/1079063211399295.
Seto, M., Hanson, K., & Babchishin, K. (2011). Contact sexual offending by men with online sexual
offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 124-145. doi:
10.1177/1079063210369013.
Seto, M., Maric, A., & Barbaree, H. (2001). The role of pornography in the etiology of sexual
aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 35-53.
Seto, M., Reeves, L., & Jung, S. (2010). Explanations given by child pornography offenders for their
crimes. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 169-180. doi: 10.1080/13552600903572396.
228
REFERENCES
Sher, J. & Carey, B. (2007, July 19). Debate on child pornography’s link to molesting. The New York
Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html.
Sullivan, C. (2007). Internet Traders of Child Pornography: Profiling Research - Update. Auckland,
New Zealand: Department of Internal Affairs. Retrieved from:
http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/Profilingupdate3.pdf/$file/Profilingupdate3.pdf.*
Surjadi, B., Bullens, R., Van Horn, J., & Bogaerts, S. (2010). Internet offending: Sexual and nonsexual functions within a Dutch sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 47-58. doi:
10.1080/13552600903470054.*
Taylor, M., Holland, G., & Quayle, E. (2001). Typology of paedophile picture collections. The Police
Journal, 74, 97-107.
Taylor, M. & Quayle, E. (2003). Child pornography: An internet crime. London, England: Taylor &
Francis.
Top Ten Reviews (2004). Press Release. Author. Retrieved from http://www.topten reviews.com/26-04.htnl.
229
REFERENCES
United States of America v. Michael Paul Johnson Sentencing Memorandum Opinion and Order, No.
4:07-cr-00127 (S.D., Iowa Central, December 3, 2008. Retrieved from:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/files/johnson-cp-sentencing-decision.pdf.
Wakeling, H., Howard, P., & Barnett, G. , (2011). Comparing the validity of the FM2000 scales and
OGRS3 for predicting recidivism by internet sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 23, 146-168. doi: 10.1177/1079063210375974
Webb, L., Craissati, J., & Keen, S. (2007). Characteristics of Internet Child Pornography Offenders: A
Comparison with Child Molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 449465. doi: 10.1007/s11194-007-9063-2. *
Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F., Picheca, J. & Nunes, K. L. (2007). Community-Based Sexual Offender
Maintenance Treatment Programming: Correctional Services Of Canada Report No. R-188.
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D. , & Mitchell, K. (2005) Child–Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet
Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study. Arlington, VA: National
Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Retrieved from
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf.*
230
REFERENCES
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D. , & Mitchell, K. (2011). Child pornography possessors: Tends in offender and
case characteristics. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 22-41.
doi:10.11.77/1079063210372143.*
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of
Law Enforcement. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Retrieved from
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf.
Wollert, R., Waggoner, J., & Smith, J. (2009, October). Child Pornographer Offenders Do Not Have
Florid Offense Histories and Are Unlikely to Recidivate. Poster presented at the 28th Annual
Conference for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers: Dallas, TX.
Wood, J., Seto, M., Flynn, S., Wilson-Cotton, S., & Dedmon, P. (2009, October). Is it “Just” Pictures ?
The Use of the Polygraph with Internet Offenders Who Deny Abusive Sexual Contact. Poster
presented at the 28th Annual Conference for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers: Dallas, TX.*
Wyre, R. (2001). Cause & effect. Community Care. Retrieved from
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2001/03/15/30218/Cause-amp-effect.html.
Wyre, R. (2003) No excuse for child porn. Community Care. Retrieved from
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2003/09/11/42084/no-excuse-for-child-porn.html.
231