Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP) OFFENDERS: BEST PRACTICES FOR ASSESSMENT AND TESTIMONY BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP) OFFENDERS: BEST PRACTICES FOR ASSESSMENT AND TESTIMONY BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP)"— Presentation transcript:

1 INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP) OFFENDERS: BEST PRACTICES FOR ASSESSMENT AND TESTIMONY BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE 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

2 WE WHO LABOR HERE SEEK ONLY THE TRUTH 2

3 YOU REALLY WANT THE TRUTH??? 3

4 INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP): THE PROBLEM THE PROBLEM 4

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 …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

10 …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

11 …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

12 DISORDER IN THE COURT 12

13 EARLY TYPOLOGIES 13

14 TYPOLOGY OF IMAGES TAYLOR, HOLLAND, & QUAYLE (1992) 1) INDICATIVE (NON-EROTIC/NON-SEXUALIZED) 2) NUDIST 3) EROTICA 4) POSING 5) EROTIC POSING 6) EXPLICIT EROTIC POSING 7) EXPLICIT SEXUAL ACTIVITY 8) ASSAULT 9) GROSS ASSAULT (PENETRATION BY ADULT) 10) SADISTIC/BESTIALITY 14

15 TYPOLOGY OF OFFENDER KRONE (2004) 1) BROWSER 2) PRIVATE FANTASY 3) TRAWLER 4) NON-SECURE COLLECTOR 5) SECURE COLLECTOR 6) GROOMER 7) PHYSICAL ABUSER 8) PRODUCER 9) DISTRIBUTOR 15

16 TYPOLOGY OF OFFENDER BEECH, ELLIOTT, BIRGDEN, & FINDLATER (2008) 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

17 TYPOLOGY OF INTERNET OFFENDERS ELLIOTT & BEECH (2009) 1) PERIODICALLY PRURIENT 2) FANTASY ONLY 3) DIRECT VICTIMIZATION OFFENDERS 4) COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OFFENDER 17

18 I GOT AN IDEA… LETS ASK THE OFFENDER WHY THEY DID IT 18

19 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 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 ONES OWN ABUSE/PROBLEMS 6) A MANIFESTATION OF ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES OF THE INTERNET 19

20 EXPLANATIONS FOR CP ACCESS (FREI, ERENAY, DITTMAN, & GRAF - 2005) 51% OF SAMPLE REPORTED CURIOSTY AS MOTIVE FOR VIEWING CP 20

21 EXPLANATIONS FOR CP ACCESS SETO, REEVES, & JUNG (2010) ExplanationPolice SampleClinical Sample Admit CP Possession86%91% Admit Deliberate Access80%65% Admit Sexual Interest in CP/Children46%38% Claim Indiscriminate Sexual Interest6%3% Claim Non-Pedophilic Sexual Motivation22%9% Claim Pornography Addiction10%29% Claim Internet Addiction8%12% Claim Substitute for Contact Offending6% Claim Collecting Hobby6% Claim Curiosity40%27% Claim Accidental Access40%32% Claim Lack of Recall16%3% No Explanation Provided22%3% 21

22 22

23 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE 23

24 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

25 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE CP ARRESTS DOUBLED IN US 2000 - 2006 (WOLAK ET AL. – 2011) 2000 - 2006 (WOLAK ET AL. – 2011) 2,062% INCREASE IN CP INVESTIGATION 1996 - 2007 (FBI – 2011) 25

26 SUSPECTS REFERRED TO US ATTORNEYS WITH SEX OFFENSE (adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007) 19942006Percent Growth Lead ChargeNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent Total774100%3,661100%2,887100% Child Pornography16921.82,53969.42,37082.1 Sex Abuse56873.460116.4331.1 Sex Transport374.852114.248416.8 26

27 FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS – CHILD SEX OFFENDERS (adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007) 27

28 USA CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES (Adapted from Jones & Finkelhor– 2007; per 10,000) 28

29 NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS SENTENCED TO PRISON - 1994 to 2006 (adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007) 29

30 MEDIAN PRISON SENTENCE IMPOSED IN MONTHS – 1994 to 2006 (adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007) 30

31 DISORDER IN THE COURT 31

32 IMPACT OF PORNOGRAPHY ON THE OFFENDER 32

33 I WAS JUST LOOKING… WHATS THE BIG DEAL? ITS NOT LIKE I EVER TOUCHED A KID. 33

34 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

35 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

36 THE EMPIRICAL RESULTS DESPITE INCREASING AVAILABILITY OF PORNOGRAPHY, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT PORNOGRAPHY IS RELATED TO INCREASED SEXUAL VIOLENCE (KUTCHINSKY – 1991) 36

37 USA RAPE VS ASSAULT – 1940 TO 1985 (adapted from Kutchinsky - 2007; per 100,000) 37

38 USA CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES (Adapted from Jones & Finkelhor– 2007; per 10,000) 38

39 DIAMOND & UCHIYAMA (1999) BETWEEN 1972 AND 1995 INCIDENTS OF RAPE DECREASED BY 68% IN JAPAN DURING A TIME WHEN PORNOGRAPHY BECAME INCREASINGLY AVAILABLE. 39

40 SEX CRIMES - CZECH REPUBLIC (adapted from Diamond, Jozifkova, & Weiss - 2011) 40

41 DAMATO (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

42 ODDONE-PAOLUCCI, GENIUS, & VIOLATO (2000) EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY INCREASES RISK FOR: EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY INCREASES RISK FOR: DEVELOPING SEXUALLY DEVIANT TENDENCIES DEVELOPING SEXUALLY DEVIANT TENDENCIES EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTIES IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTIES IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS ACCEPTING RAPE MYTHS ACCEPTING RAPE MYTHS COMMITTING SEXUAL OFFENSES COMMITTING SEXUAL OFFENSES 42

43 KINGSTON, FEDOROFF, FIRESTONE, CURRY, & BRADFORD (2008) 43 USE OF VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY ADDED SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF RECIDIVISM FOR CONTACT CHILD SOS. USE OF VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY ADDED SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF RECIDIVISM FOR CONTACT CHILD SOS. FREQUENCY OF PORNOGRAPHY USE WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE BUT WAS SIGNIFICANT FOR VIOLENT RECIDIVISM. 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). INTERACTION EFFECTS WERE FOUND WITH RISK LEVEL (STATIC - 99) & TYPE, FREQUENCY OF PORN USE (HIGH RISK – GREATER EFFECT).

44 SETO, MARIC, & BARBAREE (2001) 44 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

45 DISORDER IN THE COURT 45

46 CP OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS 46

47 DEMOGRAPHICS OF CP OFFENDERS (see * at end of reference for included studies) CP OFFENDERS ARE PREDOMINANTLY: CP OFFENDERS ARE PREDOMINANTLY: MALE (98.7% - 100%) MALE (98.7% - 100%) CAUCASIAN (88.9% - 100%) CAUCASIAN (88.9% - 100%) OLDER (most samples 40 yrs. or older) OLDER (most samples 40 yrs. or older) MORE EDUCATED (75% - 92% high school grads) MORE EDUCATED (75% - 92% high school grads) EMPLOYED (61% - 97%) EMPLOYED (61% - 97%) OF A HIGHER SES (58 - 62% earn $20K – $80K) OF A HIGHER SES (58 - 62% earn $20K – $80K) NO CRIMINAL HISTORY (69% - 80%) NO CRIMINAL HISTORY (69% - 80%) SINGLE/UNMARRIED (47% - 71%) SINGLE/UNMARRIED (47% - 71%) HX SEX/PHYS. ABUSE (20% - 21% / 15% - 24%) HX SEX/PHYS. ABUSE (20% - 21% / 15% - 24%) NO HX OF MENTAL ILLNESS (75% - 89%) NO HX OF MENTAL ILLNESS (75% - 89%) 47

48 CONTACT VS. NONCONTACT OFFENDERS MCCARTHY (2010) VARIABLENoncontactContact Masturbate to CP***51%91% Download to External Medium*44%76% Traded CP36%53% Paid for CP29%36% Concealed CP28%41% Organized CP20%25% Posted CP5%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

49 CONTACT VS. NONCONTACT OFFENDERS MCCARTHY (2010) VARIABLENoncontactContact Number CP Images7822674 Number CP Video Clips43206 Number CP Images & CP Video Clips8563399 Number AP Images51398630 Number AP Video Clips15965 Number AP Images & AP Video Clips53509798 Ratio of CP to AP Possession*0.41670.6275 Time Spent Viewing CP (hrs/wk)10 Time Spent Viewing AP (hrs/wk)712 Time Spent Viewing CP & AP (hrs/wk)1824 49

50 PRIOR CRIMES 50

51 INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS WITH PRIOR CONTACT OFFENSES StudyPercentSampleNotes Wood et al. (2009)0%N = 72Fed. Internet Prob. (charges) Osborn et al. (2010)0%N = 73Convicted of CP (convictions) Endrass et al. (2009)1%N = 231Charged with CP (convictions) Webb et al. (2007)4%N = 90Sample of Arrestees (charges) Niveau (2009)5%N = 30Sample of Arrestees (charges) Laulik et at. (2007)6.7%N = 30Prob. O/P Tx Sample (convictions) Sullivan (2007)9%N = 206Charged with CP (convictions) Faust et al. (2009)9.4%N = 870(conviction) Wolak et al. (2005)11%N = 1,713Sample of Arrestees (records) Elliott et al. (2009)11%N = 494O/P Tx Sample (convictions) Seto et al. (2010)12%N = 34O/P Tx Sample (charges) Seto et al. (2011)12.2%N = 4,697On-line offender (formal record) Wollert et al. (2009)14%N = 72Fed. Internet Prob. (conviction) 51

52 INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS WITH PRIOR CONTACT OFFENSES StudyPercentSampleNotes McCarthy (2010)14%N=107O/P Tx Sample (conviction) Heimbach (2002)14.4%N = 90Arrestees (self report) Eke, Seto, & Williams (2011) 18%N=253Convicted Offenders (charge/conviction; 101 contact) McCarthy (2010)20%N=107O/P Tx Sample (poly/self report) Wood et al. (2009)21%N = 72Fed. Internet Prob. (self report) Seto & Eke (2005)24%N= 201Convicted (charge/conviction) Seto et al. (2006)43%N = 100O/P Tx Sample (charges) Buschman (2007)44%N = 43O/P TX Sample (post polygraph) Seto et al. (2011)55.1%N = 4,697On-line offender (self report) Bourke et al. (2009)85%N=155Fed. Prison Tx Sample (self rpt) 52

53 BOURKE & HERNANDEZ (2009) OF 155 INTERNET CP OFFENDERS IN A FEDERAL PRISON TREATMENT PROGRAM: PRE-TREATMENT: 26% HAD PRIOR SEX CONTACT OFFENSE PRE-TREATMENT: 26% HAD PRIOR SEX CONTACT OFFENSE HALF HAD PRIOR CONVICTIONS HALF HAD PRIOR CONVICTIONS AVERAGE OF 1.88 KNOWN VICTIMS PER OFFENDER AVERAGE OF 1.88 KNOWN VICTIMS PER OFFENDER POST-TREATMENT: 85% ADMITTED PRIOR SEX CONTACT POST-TREATMENT: 85% ADMITTED PRIOR SEX CONTACT AVERAGE OF 13.56 VICTIMS PER OFFENDER AVERAGE OF 13.56 VICTIMS PER OFFENDER OF 24 DENIERS, 9 POLYGRAPHED & ONLY 2 PASSED SUGGESTING LESS THAN 2% HAD NO CONTACT VICTIMS OF 24 DENIERS, 9 POLYGRAPHED & ONLY 2 PASSED SUGGESTING LESS THAN 2% HAD NO CONTACT VICTIMS 53

54 54

55 ASSESSED VARIABLES 55

56 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

57 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

58 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

59 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

60 LAULIK, ALLAM, & SHERIDAN (2007) ON THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT INVENTORY (PAI) CP OFFENDERS SCORED LOWER ON SCALES ASSESSING: - MANIA - AGGRESSION - TREATMENT REJECTION - DOMINANCE - WARMTH 60

61 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 SEXUAL SELF REGULATION THAN CONTACT OFFENDERS. OFFENDERS. - CONTACT OFFENDERS HAD MORE PROBLEMS WITH ATTITUDES TOWARD SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CO- ATTITUDES TOWARD SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CO- OPERATION WITH SUPERVISION. OPERATION WITH SUPERVISION. 61

62 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 1 ST FEW MONTHS - SCORE HIGHER ON SEXUAL AROUSAL FUNCTION & MORE LIKELY HAVE CHILD SEX INTEREST & MORE LIKELY HAVE CHILD SEX INTEREST - THOSE THAT DID NOT HAD LOWER SCORES ON AROUSAL FUNCTION AROUSAL FUNCTION 62

63 WOOD, SETO, FLYNN, WILSON- COTTON, & 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

64 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

65 PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES BABCHISHIN ET. AL (2011) COMPARED TO OFF-LINE OFFENDERS ON- LINE 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

66 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

67 MARSHALL ET AL. (2012) CP OFFENDERS SCORED HIGHER THAN CONTACT OFFENDERS ON MEASURES OF: - LONELINESS - OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE TENDENCIES BUT NOT: - SOCIAL ANXIETY 67

68 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

69 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

70 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

71 ELLIOTT ET AL. (2013) CONTACT OFFENDERS SCORE LOWER ON: - INTERNAL REACTIVITY INDEX: FANTASY (GREATER ABILITY TO RELATE TO FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) 71

72 APPLICATION OF CURRENT RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS 72

73 BARNETT ET AL. (2010) RISK MATRIX 2000 PREDICTED CONTACT RECIDIVISM FOR CP OFFENDERS. CP OFFENDERS SCORED LOWER THAN OTHER TYPES OF SEX OFFENDERS. 73

74 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

75 OSBORN, ELLIOTT, MIDDLETON, BEECH (2010) Risk LevelStatic-99RM2000RM2000R Low0053 Moderate Low1N/A ModerateN/A5316 Moderate High56N/A High10164 Very HighN/A40 75

76 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

77 DISORDER IN THE COURTS 77

78 FOLLOW UP STUDIES 78

79 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

80 RECIDIVISM STUDIES FAUST, RENAUD, & BICKART (2009) RECIDIVISM STUDIES FAUST, RENAUD, & BICKART (2009) 5.7% REOFFENDED WITH A SEXUAL OFFENSE (non-production CP, other non-contact, or contact sexual offense) 80

81 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

82 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

83 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

84 RECIDIVISM STUDIES EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011) CP ONLY OFFENDER (N = 228) CP ONLY OFFENDER (N = 228) ANY REOFFENSE = 15.4% ANY REOFFENSE = 15.4% RELEASE FAILURE = 10.5% RELEASE FAILURE = 10.5% VIOLENT (INCLUDING SEX) = 2.6 % VIOLENT (INCLUDING SEX) = 2.6 % CONTACT SEX = 1.3% CONTACT SEX = 1.3% NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 5.3% NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 5.3% CP = 4.4% CP = 4.4% 84

85 RECIDIVISM STUDIES EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011) CP & OTHER NON-VIOLENT (N = 107) CP & OTHER NON-VIOLENT (N = 107) ANY REOFFENSE = 40.2% ANY REOFFENSE = 40.2% RELEASE FAILURE = 30.8% RELEASE FAILURE = 30.8% VIOLENT/SEX = 5.6% VIOLENT/SEX = 5.6% CONTACT SEX = 1.9% CONTACT SEX = 1.9% NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 10.3% NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 10.3% CP = 8.4% CP = 8.4% 85

86 RECIDIVISM STUDIES EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011) CP & OTHER VIOLENT (N = 163) CP & OTHER VIOLENT (N = 163) ANY REOFFENSE = 50.5% ANY REOFFENSE = 50.5% RELEASE FAILURE = 35.4% RELEASE FAILURE = 35.4% VIOLENT/SEX = 12.1% VIOLENT/SEX = 12.1% CONTACT SEX = 8.7% CONTACT SEX = 8.7% NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 11.2% NONCONTACT SEX/CP = 11.2% CP = 8.7% CP = 8.7% 86

87 RECIDIVISM STUDIES EKE, SETO, & WILLIAMS (2011) 24% OF CP OFFENDERS HAD AT LEAST 1 VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL RELEASE 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) 54% FOR BEING AROUND CHILDREN OR USING COMPUTERS/INTERNET TO CONTACT CHILDREN (11% OF TOTAL SAMPLE) 35% CHARGED WITH NEW SEXUAL OFFENSE 35% CHARGED WITH NEW SEXUAL OFFENSE (6% OF TOTAL SAMPLE) 87

88 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

89 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

90 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) (OBSCENITY OR COMMERCIAL SEX, I. E., PROSTITUTION) 90

91 91

92 RISK FACTORS 92

93 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

94 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

95 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

96 CONTACT RECIDIVISM (SETO & EKE 2008) CRIMINAL HISTORY SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS SELF-REPORTED SEXUAL INTEREST IN CHILDREN 96

97 CONTACT RECIDIVISM SETO (2009) OFFENDER AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE (NEGATIVE) ANY JUVENILE CRIMINAL RECORD PRIOR DRUG USE PROBLEMS ADMITS HEBEPHILIC INTERESTS 97

98 CONTACT RECIDIVISM (FAUST ET AL. 2009) LOW EDUCATION PRIOR TREATMENT FOR SEX OFFENDING SINGLE POSSESSING SEXUAL MATERIAL DEPICTING 13 – 15 YEAR AGE RANGE 98

99 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

100 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

101 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

102 DISORDER IN THE COURT 102

103 FISCAL IMPACT OF CP OFFENDER SENTENCING 103

104 Average Cost of Florida Sentencing Alternatives Florida Department of Corrections Website (2009-2010) PrisonCommunity Supervision with EM Community Supervision w/o EM Daily$53.34Daily$ 14.05Daily$ 5.11 Monthly$ 1,622.43Monthly$ 427.35Monthly$ 155.43 Annually$19,469.10Annually$ 5,128.25Annually$ 1,865.15 104

105 Cost Analysis of Federal Sentencing Alternatives Administrative Office of US Courts – 5/6/08 Federal Prison Facilities Community Correction Centers Supervision Daily$68.28Daily$ 62.66Daily$ 9.92 Monthly$ 2,076.83Monthly$ 1,905.92Monthly$ 301.80 Annually$24,922.00Annually$ 22,871.00Annually$ 3,621.64 105

106 PARTING THOUGHTS FROM THE RESEARCHERS 106

107 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). 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

108 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

109 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

110 IF YOU THINK YOUR CASE IS A DISASTER….. 110

111 111

112 ...DONT WORRY WELL SHOW YOU HOW TO AVERT DISASTER 112

113 ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT SORTING OUT MYTH FROM TRUTH… (OR LOW RISK FROM HIGH RISK) 113

114 COMMON MYTHS THE CONTENT OF CP IS RELATED TO THE DANGEROUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER 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 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 FREE DOWNLOADING ADDS TO THE DEMAND FOR CP TREATMENT DOES NOT WORK TREATMENT DOES NOT WORK 114

115 COMMON MYTHS ALL CP VIEWERS HAVE HISTORIES OF PRIOR UNREPORTED HANDS ON OFFENSES ALL CP VIEWERS HAVE HISTORIES OF PRIOR UNREPORTED HANDS ON OFFENSES VIEWING CP IS A GATEWAY OFFENSE TO CHILD MOLESTING VIEWING CP IS A GATEWAY OFFENSE TO CHILD MOLESTING THE VOLUME OF CP IS RELATED TO THE DANGEROUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER THE VOLUME OF CP IS RELATED TO THE DANGEROUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER 115

116 RISK ASSESSMENT NO CURRENTLY VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS NO CURRENTLY VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS USE FOLLOW UP STUDY RESEARCH USE FOLLOW UP STUDY RESEARCH RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOW UP RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOW UP FIRST META-ANALYSIS FIRST META-ANALYSIS ADDRESS UNSUPPORTED MYTHS CONCERNING INTERNET CP VIEWERS ADDRESS UNSUPPORTED MYTHS CONCERNING INTERNET CP VIEWERS 116

117 TO ADDRESS THE MYTHS UTILIZE MEASURES OF SEXUAL INTEREST (AASI) OR AROUSAL (PPG) FOR CORROBORATING SELF REPORT 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) RULE OUT PRIOR HANDS ON OFFENSES AND OTHER RELATED BEHAVIORS WITH POLYGRAPH(S) VIEWING INDIVIDUALS COLLECTION OF IMAGES VIEWING INDIVIDUALS COLLECTION OF IMAGES 117

118 THE REFERRAL THE REFERRAL GIVE THEM A TEASER… LET ME GUESS, MIDDLE AGED WHITE, GUY NEVER IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW BEFORE… 118

119 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

120 ASK FOR ALL DISCOVERY INVESTIGATION SUMMARY INVESTIGATION SUMMARY CHAT LOGS (IF ANY) CHAT LOGS (IF ANY) STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT AUDIO IS BEST AUDIO IS BEST PRETRIAL SERVICES REPORT / PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT PRETRIAL SERVICES REPORT / PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT 120

121 ASK FOR ALL DISCOVERY MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS REPORT(S) OF COMPUTER FORENSIC ANALYSIS REPORT(S) OF COMPUTER FORENSIC ANALYSIS DATE PATH/FILE CREATED DATE PATH/FILE CREATED DATE LAST ACCESSED DATE LAST ACCESSED CRIMINAL HISTORY CRIMINAL HISTORY 121

122 WHY IS AUDIO OF INTERVIEW IMPERATIVE? – BECAUSE THIS: 122

123 BECOMES THIS: 123

124 COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION 124

125 RECORD REVIEW START / END DATES OF INVESTIGATION START / END DATES OF INVESTIGATION HOW ACCESSED / HOW DETECTED HOW ACCESSED / HOW DETECTED REVIEW CHAT LOGS FOR CONTENT – DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REVIEW CHAT LOGS FOR CONTENT – DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS LISTEN CAREFULLY TO AUDIO FOR WHAT QUESTION DEFENDANT IS ANSWERING (CHILD DOES NOT = PREPUBESCENT) LISTEN CAREFULLY TO AUDIO FOR WHAT QUESTION DEFENDANT IS ANSWERING (CHILD DOES NOT = PREPUBESCENT) 125

126 RECORD REVIEW REVIEW COMPUTER FORENSICS FOR CREATE DATES TO ESTABLISH TIME FRAMES FOR DURATION / DIAGNOSIS REVIEW COMPUTER FORENSICS FOR CREATE DATES TO ESTABLISH TIME FRAMES FOR DURATION / DIAGNOSIS PRIOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT PRIOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FOR WHAT FOR WHAT ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY SEXUAL, VIOLENT, NON-VIOLENT SEXUAL, VIOLENT, NON-VIOLENT 126

127 CLINICAL INTERVIEW INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY USE INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY USE DURATION OF ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD DURATION OF ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD PERCENT OF ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD PERCENT OF ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD TIME SPENT VIEW ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD TIME SPENT VIEW ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD TIME SPENT MASTURBATE ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD TIME SPENT MASTURBATE ADULT VS. TEEN VS. CHILD MALE VS. FEMALE CONTENT MALE VS. FEMALE CONTENT IMPACT ON WORK/FAMILY/RELATIONSHIPS IMPACT ON WORK/FAMILY/RELATIONSHIPS 127

128 CLINICAL INTERVIEW HOW WAS CP ACCESSED HOW WAS CP ACCESSED PAY VS. NON-PAY SITES PAY VS. NON-PAY SITES PEER-TO-PEER SOFTWARE PEER-TO-PEER SOFTWARE EVER CHANGE DEFAULT SETTINGS EVER CHANGE DEFAULT SETTINGS E-MAIL E-MAIL CHAT ROOMS CHAT ROOMS SEARCH TERMS USED (INTENT) SEARCH TERMS USED (INTENT) PTHC / PTSC / LOLITA / R@YGOLD / XX YO… VS. TEEN / GIRLS / BABES PTHC / PTSC / LOLITA / R@YGOLD / XX YO… VS. TEEN / GIRLS / BABES 128

129 CLINICAL INTERVIEW DELETE ANY GENRE DELETE ANY GENRE STORAGE SYSTEM STORAGE SYSTEM FOLDERS FOLDERS SUBFOLDERS SUBFOLDERS HOW LABELED HOW LABELED VIRUS PROTECTION SOFTWARE VIRUS PROTECTION SOFTWARE TYPE TYPE EVER CHANGE DEFAULT SETTINGS EVER CHANGE DEFAULT SETTINGS USE OF SUBSTANCES WHEN ON-LINE USE OF SUBSTANCES WHEN ON-LINE 129

130 CLINICAL INTERVIEW SEXUAL HISTORY SEXUAL HISTORY ANY OTHER ARRESTS/CHARGES/CONVICTIONS ANY OTHER ARRESTS/CHARGES/CONVICTIONS WHEN LEARN ABOUT SEX WHEN LEARN ABOUT SEX PORNOGRAPHY USE PORNOGRAPHY USE 1 ST SEXUAL EXPERIENCES 1 ST SEXUAL EXPERIENCES UNUSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIORS (PARAPHILIAS) UNUSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIORS (PARAPHILIAS) SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION EXPERIENCES SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION EXPERIENCES SEXUAL PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS SEXUAL PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS VICTIM EMPATHY VICTIM EMPATHY INSIGHT INTO BEHAVIORS (WHY DID I DO IT?) INSIGHT INTO BEHAVIORS (WHY DID I DO IT?) 130

131 CLINICAL INTERVIEW SOCIAL HISTORY SOCIAL HISTORY NONSEXUAL CRIMINAL HISTORY NONSEXUAL CRIMINAL HISTORY CHILD/JUVENILE BEHAVIORAL HISTORY CHILD/JUVENILE BEHAVIORAL HISTORY SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL HEALTH GENERAL MENTAL HEALTH GENERAL MENTAL HEALTH SEX OFFENDER SPECIFIC TREATMENT SEX OFFENDER SPECIFIC TREATMENT EDUCATION EDUCATION WORK (INCLUDING MILITARY) WORK (INCLUDING MILITARY) FAMILY FAMILY SIGNIFICANT ROMANTIC / SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS SIGNIFICANT ROMANTIC / SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS MEDICAL MEDICAL 131

132 OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF SEXUAL INTEREST ASSESSMENT OF SEXUAL INTEREST VRT VS. PPG VRT VS. PPG CONFIRM/DISCONFIRM PEDOPHILIA CONFIRM/DISCONFIRM PEDOPHILIA ASSESS COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS ASSESS COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT MMPI / MCMI / PAI MMPI / MCMI / PAI PSYCHOPATHY PSYCHOPATHY HARE PCL-R HARE PCL-R 132

133 REVIEW OF EVIDENCE ALWAYS ASK TO SEE ADULT IMAGES ALWAYS ASK TO SEE ADULT IMAGES ASK FOR UNALLOCATED FILES ASK FOR UNALLOCATED FILES LOOK FOR THEMES LOOK FOR THEMES AGE AGE GENDER GENDER SEXUAL ACTIVITY/BEHAVIORS SEXUAL ACTIVITY/BEHAVIORS CREATE DATES / LAST ACCESS DATES CREATE DATES / LAST ACCESS DATES CONFIRMATION OF SELF REPORT CONFIRMATION OF SELF REPORT 133

134 134

135 COLLATERAL INTERVIEWS THOSE WHO HAVE OBSERVED DEFENDANT AROUND CHILDREN THOSE WHO HAVE OBSERVED DEFENDANT AROUND CHILDREN TREATMENT PROVIDERS TREATMENT PROVIDERS RESPONSE TO TREATMENT RESPONSE TO TREATMENT INSIGHT INSIGHT RELAPSE PREVENTION RELAPSE PREVENTION MAINTENANCE POLYGRAPHS MAINTENANCE POLYGRAPHS 135

136 ASSESSMENT REFERRALS POLYGRAPHS: POLYGRAPHS: PRIOR HANDS ON SEX OFFENSES PRIOR HANDS ON SEX OFFENSES MASTURBATION TO CP IMAGES MASTURBATION TO CP IMAGES PRODUCING CP PRODUCING CP SOLICITING CHILDREN VIA THE INTERNET SOLICITING CHILDREN VIA THE INTERNET SEXUAL BEHAVIORS / CP SINCE INVESTIGATION BEGAN SEXUAL BEHAVIORS / CP SINCE INVESTIGATION BEGAN 136

137 ASSESSMENT REFERRALS FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF COMPUTER: FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF COMPUTER: UNALLOCATED SPACE (DELETED FILES) UNALLOCATED SPACE (DELETED FILES) RATIO OF ADULT TO TEEN TO CHILD FILES RATIO OF ADULT TO TEEN TO CHILD FILES WAS FILE EVER OPENED WAS FILE EVER OPENED PARTIAL DOWNLOADS PARTIAL DOWNLOADS KEY WORD SEARCH ENTRIES KEY WORD SEARCH ENTRIES LOG OF WEBSITES VISITED LOG OF WEBSITES VISITED 137

138 DIAGNOSTIC DECISIONS PEDOPHILIA PEDOPHILIA OTHER PARAPHILIA OTHER PARAPHILIA ADJUSTMENT D/O ADJUSTMENT D/O DEPRESSION DEPRESSION BIPOLAR BIPOLAR OCD OCD SCHIZOID/AVOIDANT SCHIZOID/AVOIDANT AUTISM/ASPERGERS AUTISM/ASPERGERS LOW SELF ESTEEM LOW SELF ESTEEM SOCIAL SKILL DEFICIT SOCIAL SKILL DEFICIT UNRESOLVED CHILDHOOD SEX TRAUMA UNRESOLVED CHILDHOOD SEX TRAUMA CURIOSITY CURIOSITY STUPIDITY STUPIDITY 138

139 RISK ASSESSMENT NO CURRENTLY VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS NO CURRENTLY VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS LIMITED FOLLOW UP STUDIES LIMITED FOLLOW UP STUDIES RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOW UP RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOW UP FIRST META-ANALYSIS FIRST META-ANALYSIS CONSISTENT RECIDIVISM DATA CONSISTENT RECIDIVISM DATA CONTACT = 1.3% - 8.7% CONTACT = 1.3% - 8.7% NONCONTACT = 5.3 – 11.2% NONCONTACT = 5.3 – 11.2% CHILD PORNOGRAPHY = 3.4% - 8.7 % CHILD PORNOGRAPHY = 3.4% - 8.7 % 139

140 RISK ASSESSMENT MITIGATING VARIABLES ANTISOCIAL ORIENTATION ANTISOCIAL ORIENTATION GENERAL SELF-MANAGEMENT GENERAL SELF-MANAGEMENT SEXUAL SELF-MANAGEMENT SEXUAL SELF-MANAGEMENT SUBSTANCE USE AT TIME OF OFFENSE SUBSTANCE USE AT TIME OF OFFENSE TREATMENT TREATMENT SOCIAL/COMMUNITY SUPPORTS SOCIAL/COMMUNITY SUPPORTS SUPERVISION HISTORY SUPERVISION HISTORY 140

141 RISK ASSESSMENT RISK FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION RISK FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION 24% (Any Type) (Williams et al. – 2011) 24% (Any Type) (Williams et al. – 2011) 12% (presence child/comp) (Williams et al. – 2011) 12% (presence child/comp) (Williams et al. – 2011) 4% CP vs 29% Contact (Webb et al. – 2007) 4% CP vs 29% Contact (Webb et al. – 2007) Miss Supv. Sessions = 0% CP vs. 8% 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) Miss Tx Sessions = 0% CP vs. 13% Contact (Webb et al. – 2007) Tx Drop Out = 4% CP vs. 18% Contact Tx Drop Out = 4% CP vs. 18% Contact (Webb et al. – 2007) (Webb et al. – 2007) 141

142 TESTIMONY: KEY ISSUES 142

143 KNOW YOUR STUFF 143

144 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) (OSBORN ET AL. – 2010) 144

145 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

146 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) (OSBORN ET AL. – 2010) 146

147 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) (BURGESS ET AL. – 2012) 147

148 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

149 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

150 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

151 BATTLING WITH BUTNER FOUR POINT ARGUMENT 3) THIS IS NOT A RECIDIVISM STUDY. - CITE RECIDIVISM STUDIES (SEE ABOVE LITERATURE REVIEW) 151

152 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

153 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

154 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

155 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

156 PEDOPHILIA DIAGNOSIS THE DIAGNOSIS DOES NOT DETERMINE THE COURSE OF THE DISORDER THE DIAGNOSIS DOES NOT DETERMINE THE COURSE OF THE DISORDER THIS IS WHY RISK ASSESSMENT IS IMPORTANT THIS IS WHY RISK ASSESSMENT IS IMPORTANT CANCER SURVIVOR ANALOGY CANCER SURVIVOR ANALOGY FEMALE BETTER THAN MALE TYPE FEMALE BETTER THAN MALE TYPE TREATABLE TREATABLE AROUSAL RECONDITIONING AROUSAL RECONDITIONING SSRIs IF DEPRESSION SSRIs IF DEPRESSION 156

157 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

158 CASE EXAMPLES

159 CASE 1 – J. G. 59 YEAR OLD 59 YEAR OLD PUERTO RICAN PUERTO RICAN MALE MALE HETEROSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL I – RECEIPT; II – POSSESSION I – RECEIPT; II – POSSESSION 5 YRS.; OVER 3,500 FILES (ONSITE PREVIEW) 5 YRS.; OVER 3,500 FILES (ONSITE PREVIEW) ARES – 90% AP, 5% TP, 5% CP ARES – 90% AP, 5% TP, 5% CP MASTURBATION = 90% AP, 7% TP, 3% CP MASTURBATION = 90% AP, 7% TP, 3% CP TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTOR NO RELATIONSHIPS/FRIENDSHIPS NO RELATIONSHIPS/FRIENDSHIPS 159

160 CASE 1 – J. G. 160

161 CASE 1 – J. G. 161

162 CASE 1 – J. G. 162

163 CASE 1 – J. G. 163

164 CASE 1 – J. G. 164

165 CASE 1 – J. G. 165 POLYGRAPH – PENDING POLYGRAPH – PENDING EVIDENCE REVIEW - PENDING EVIDENCE REVIEW - PENDING DX = ?? (R/O PEDOPHILIA) DX = ?? (R/O PEDOPHILIA) GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS. GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS.

166 CASE 1 – J. G. 166 SENTENCE PENDING

167 CASE 2 – J. E. 60 YEAR OLD 60 YEAR OLD Caucasian Caucasian MALE MALE HETEROSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL I – Promoting sexual performance of child; II – XL - POSSESSION I – Promoting sexual performance of child; II – XL - POSSESSION 7 YRS.; 515 FILES (almost all videos) 7 YRS.; 515 FILES (almost all videos) ARES – 25% AP, 25% TP, 50% CP ARES – 25% AP, 25% TP, 50% CP MASTURBATION = 12.5% AP, 12.% TP, 75% CP MASTURBATION = 12.5% AP, 12.% TP, 75% CP Retired police officer Retired police officer 167

168 CASE 2 – J. E. 168

169 CASE 2 – J. E. 169

170 CASE 2 – J. E. 170

171 CASE 2 – J. E. 171

172 CASE 2 – J. E. 172 POLYGRAPH – NON-DECEPTIVE POLYGRAPH – NON-DECEPTIVE EVIDENCE REVIEW – FEMALE (75% PREPUBESCENT EVIDENCE REVIEW – FEMALE (75% PREPUBESCENT DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO FEMALES, NON- EXCLUSIVE TYPE DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO FEMALES, NON- EXCLUSIVE TYPE PLED OPEN TO THE COURT WITH A STIPULATED CAP OF 40 YRS PLED OPEN TO THE COURT WITH A STIPULATED CAP OF 40 YRS

173 CASE 2 – J. E. 173 SENTENCED TO

174 CASE 3 – A. K. 34 YEAR OLD 34 YEAR OLD WHITE WHITE MALE MALE HOMOSEXUAL HOMOSEXUAL I – DISTRIBUTION; II – POSSESSION I – DISTRIBUTION; II – POSSESSION LATE 11 – 6/12; 721 VIDEO & 5,346 IMAGE LATE 11 – 6/12; 721 VIDEO & 5,346 IMAGE GIGATRIBE – 0% AP, 50% TP, 50% CP GIGATRIBE – 0% AP, 50% TP, 50% CP MASTURBATION = 50% AP, 50% TP, 0% CP MASTURBATION = 50% AP, 50% TP, 0% CP PARTNER HAS TEEN CHILDREN PARTNER HAS TEEN CHILDREN FORMER MILITARY FORMER MILITARY 174

175 CASE 3 – A. K. 175

176 CASE 3 – A. K. 176

177 CASE 3 – A. K. 177

178 CASE 3 – A. K. 178

179 CASE 3 – A. K. 179 POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION NO EVIDENCE REVIEW (SCHEDULING ISSUE) NO EVIDENCE REVIEW (SCHEDULING ISSUE) DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO MALES DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO MALES GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS. GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS.

180 CASE 3 – A. K. 180 SENTENCED TO

181 CASE 4 – W. B. 49 YEAR OLD 49 YEAR OLD WHITE WHITE MALE MALE HETEROSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL I – RECEIPT; II – POSSESSION I – RECEIPT; II – POSSESSION 05 / 08 TO 12/12; 340 VIDEOS & 1,447 IMAGE 05 / 08 TO 12/12; 340 VIDEOS & 1,447 IMAGE E-MULE – 58% AP, 40% TP, 2% CP E-MULE – 58% AP, 40% TP, 2% CP MASTURBATION = 60% AP, 40% TP, 0% CP MASTURBATION = 60% AP, 40% TP, 0% CP DIVORCED, TWO CHILDREN DIVORCED, TWO CHILDREN FORMER MILITARY FORMER MILITARY 181

182 CASE 4 – W. B. 182

183 CASE 4 – W. B. 183

184 CASE 4 – W. B. 184

185 CASE 4 – W. B. 185

186 CASE 4 – W. B. 186 NO POLYGRAPH NO POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE REVIEW - LOTS TEEN EROTICA EVIDENCE REVIEW - LOTS TEEN EROTICA FORENSIC REVIEW OF COMPUTER FORENSIC REVIEW OF COMPUTER LOTS OF ADULT PORN LOTS OF ADULT PORN DX = RULE OUT PEDOPHILIA DX = RULE OUT PEDOPHILIA REFERRED FOR TREATMENT REFERRED FOR TREATMENT GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS. GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. – 181 MOS.

187 CASE 4 – W. B. 187 sentenced to

188 CASE 5 – J. M. 33 YEAR OLD 33 YEAR OLD WHITE WHITE MALE MALE HOMOSEXUAL; PREFER BOTTOM TO BLACK HOMOSEXUAL; PREFER BOTTOM TO BLACK MALES MALES I – DISTRIBUTION; II – POSSESSESSION I – DISTRIBUTION; II – POSSESSESSION BEGIN IN TEENS; 3,469 FILES BEGIN IN TEENS; 3,469 FILES GIGATRIBE – 65% AP, 10% TP, 25% CP GIGATRIBE – 65% AP, 10% TP, 25% CP MASTURBATION = NO PARTICULAR FOCUS MASTURBATION = NO PARTICULAR FOCUS IN RELATIONSHIP IN RELATIONSHIP 188

189 CASE 5 – J. M. 189

190 CASE 5 – J. M. 190

191 CASE 5 – J. M. 191

192 CASE 5 – J. M. 192

193 CASE 5 – J. M. 193

194 CASE 5 – J. M. 194 POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION EVIDENCE REVIEW – LARGEST EVIDENCE REVIEW – LARGEST COLLECTION OF BLACK MALE CP COLLECTION OF BLACK MALE CP DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO MALES DX = PEDOPHILIA, SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO MALES GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. - 181 MOS. GUIDELINES = 151 MOS. - 181 MOS.

195 CASE 5 – J. M. 195 SENTENCED TO

196 CASE 6 – J. C. 36 YEAR OLD 36 YEAR OLD WHITE WHITE MALE MALE HETEROSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL I – POSSESSION I – POSSESSION 1 MONTH IN 12/12; 13 VIDEOS & 5 IMAGE 1 MONTH IN 12/12; 13 VIDEOS & 5 IMAGE LIMEWIRE – 60% AP, 39% TP, 1% CP LIMEWIRE – 60% AP, 39% TP, 1% CP MASTURBATION = 80% AP, 20% TP, 0% CP MASTURBATION = 80% AP, 20% TP, 0% CP NEVER MARRIED, NO RELATIONSHIPS, DEPENDENT ON FAMILY FOR BASIC NEEDS NEVER MARRIED, NO RELATIONSHIPS, DEPENDENT ON FAMILY FOR BASIC NEEDS 196

197 CASE 6 – J. C. 197

198 CASE 6 – J. C. 198

199 CASE 6 – J. C. 199

200 CASE 6 – J. C. 200

201 CASE 6 – J. C. 201

202 CASE 6 – J. C. 202 POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION EVIDENCE REVIEW – VERY FEW FILES, MOSTLY TEEN TO LATE TEEN, SOME PARTIAL OR DISTORTED FILES EVIDENCE REVIEW – VERY FEW FILES, MOSTLY TEEN TO LATE TEEN, SOME PARTIAL OR DISTORTED FILES FORENSIC REVIEW OF COMPUTER FORENSIC REVIEW OF COMPUTER NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF OPENED NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF OPENED

203 CASE 6 – J. C. 203 DX = DYSTHMIC DISORDER & R/O DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER VS. SOCIAL AVOIDANCE DISORDER VS. PANIC DISORDER W/ AGORAPHOBIA VS. PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER 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 NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVAL. REFERRED TO CARD – AUTISM SPECTRUM D/O REFERRED TO CARD – AUTISM SPECTRUM D/O GUIDELINES = MAXIMUM 10 YRS. GUIDELINES = MAXIMUM 10 YRS.

204 CASE 6 – J. C. 204 SENTENCED TO

205 CASE 7 – R. C. 40 YEAR OLD 40 YEAR OLD WHITE WHITE MALE MALE HETEROSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL I – USE COMPUTER TO ENTICE MINOR FOR SEX I – USE COMPUTER TO ENTICE MINOR FOR SEX CHAT LOGS – DISCUSS SNEAKER WORSHIP, MAKING PREPUBESCENT FEMALE HIS SEX SLAVE OVER 47 DAY TIME FRAME CHAT LOGS – DISCUSS SNEAKER WORSHIP, MAKING PREPUBESCENT FEMALE HIS SEX SLAVE OVER 47 DAY TIME FRAME NO CP NO CP NEVER MARRIED, NO CHILDREN NEVER MARRIED, NO CHILDREN LIVES WITH FATHER LIVES WITH FATHER 205

206 CASE 7 – R. C. 206

207 CASE 7 – R. C. 207

208 CASE 7 – R. C. 208

209 CASE 7 – R. C. 209

210 CASE 7 – R. C. 210

211 CASE 7 – R. C. 211

212 CASE 7 – R. C. 212 RISK 5% FOR NEW SEX OFFENSE IN 5 YRS. RISK 5% FOR NEW SEX OFFENSE IN 5 YRS. POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION POLYGRAPH – NO DECEPTION DX NOT ABLE TO CONCLUDE PEDOPHILIA DX NOT ABLE TO CONCLUDE PEDOPHILIA GUIDELINES = 168 MOS. – 196 MOS. GUIDELINES = 168 MOS. – 196 MOS.

213 CASE 7 – R. C. 213 SENTENCED TO

214 PREVENTION CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS A SERIOUS CRIME WITH REAL VICTIMS – WHAT CAN YOU DO TO STOP THE CYCLE OF SEXUAL ABUSE? 214

215 215

216 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: star_ei@bellsouth.net 216

217 CONTACT Gilbert Schaffnit, Esq. 719 NE First Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Tel. (352) 378-6593 Fax (352) 374-4998 E-mail: gaslaw@gmail.com gaslaw@gmail.com Web: www.gilschaffnit.com www.gilschaffnit.com 217

218 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, 183- 191. 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 26 th annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA. 218

219 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 Childrens Charity. Retrieved from http://www.make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/Child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf. 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. DAmato, 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. 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

220 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

221 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. http://www.biomedcentral.com/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 28 th 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. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/innocent 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. 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

222 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Updated%20Trends%20in%20Child%20Maltreatment%202007.pdf 222

223 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/%7B4F8B4249-7BEE- 4F57-B9ED-993479D9196D%7Dtandi279.pdf. http://aic.gov.au/documents/4/F/8/%7B4F8B4249-7BEE- 4F57-B9ED-993479D9196D%7Dtandi279.pdfhttp://aic.gov.au/documents/4/F/8/%7B4F8B4249-7BEE- 4F57-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. http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf 223

224 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. 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., OBrien, 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

225 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.* http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf 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. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&Pa geId=2064 http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&Pa geId=2064 225

226 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. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&Pa geId=2136 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. http://ccoso.org/library%20articles/Meta-analysis.pdf 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

227 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. 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 http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and_Reports/Sex_ Offense_Topics/201212_Federal_Child_Pornography_Offenses/index.cfm 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 28 th 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: 10.1037/0021- 843X.115.3.610. 227

228 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 27 th 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

229 REFERENCES Sher, J. & Carey, B. (2007, July 19). Debate on child pornographys link to molesting. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html. 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/$file/Profilingupdate3.pdf.* http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/Profilingupdate3.pdf/$file/Profilingupdate3.pdf Surjadi, B., Bullens, R., Van Horn, J., & Bogaerts, S. (2010). Internet offending: Sexual and non- sexual 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/2- 6-04.htnl. http://www.topten 229

230 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. 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, 449- 465. 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.* http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf 230

231 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. 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 28 th 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 28 th 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. 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. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2003/09/11/42084/no-excuse-for-child-porn.html 231


Download ppt "INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP) OFFENDERS: BEST PRACTICES FOR ASSESSMENT AND TESTIMONY BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google