Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Eric A. Imhof, Psy.D. MiATSA 2013 Conference May 30, 2013

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Eric A. Imhof, Psy.D. MiATSA 2013 Conference May 30, 2013"— Presentation transcript:

1 Eric A. Imhof, Psy.D. MiATSA 2013 Conference May 30, 2013
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”
POSTED ABOVE THE BENCH EVERY COURTROOM IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SOMETIMES I THINK I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO READS THEM. HERE IS WHAT I SAY TO THAT…

3 YOU REALLY WANT THE TRUTH???

4 INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CP): THE PROBLEM

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)

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)

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) ESTIMATED REVENUES GENERATED BY CP A BIG CHUNK!

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

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) SEVERE IMAGES = PENETRATION OF CHILD BY ADULT SADISM PENETRATION BY/OF ANIMAL

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) OFFENDERS MOVING TO PEER-TO-PEER FOR SAFETY?? 2000 N = 1,713 ESTIMATED CP ARRESTS 2006 N = 3,672 ESTIMATED CP ARRESTS

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) 2000 N = 1,713 ESTIMATED CP ARRESTS 2006 N = 3,672 ESTIMATED CP ARRESTS

12 DISORDER IN THE COURT

13 EARLY TYPOLOGIES

14 TYPOLOGY OF IMAGES TAYLOR, HOLLAND, & QUAYLE (1992)
INDICATIVE (NON-EROTIC/NON-SEXUALIZED) NUDIST EROTICA POSING EROTIC POSING EXPLICIT EROTIC POSING EXPLICIT SEXUAL ACTIVITY ASSAULT GROSS ASSAULT (PENETRATION BY ADULT) SADISTIC/BESTIALITY EACH LEVEL BEING MORE TRAUMATIC TO THE CHILD

15 TYPOLOGY OF OFFENDER KRONE (2004)
BROWSER PRIVATE FANTASY TRAWLER NON-SECURE COLLECTOR SECURE COLLECTOR GROOMER PHYSICAL ABUSER PRODUCER DISTRIBUTOR 1) RESPONSE TO SPAM/ACCIDENTAL HIT (NO NETWORKING/NO SECURITY) 2) KNOWINGLY CREATE ONLINE TEXT OR IMAGES FOR PRIVATE USE (NO NETWORKING/NO SECURITY) 3) ACTIVELY SEEKING USING AVAILABLE BROWSERS (LOW NETWORKING/NO SECURITY) 4) ACTIVELY SEEKING VIA PEER-TO-PEER (HIGH NETWORKING/LOW SECURITY) 5) ACTIVELY SEEK VIA SECURE PEER-TO-PEER (HIGH NETWORKING/HIGH SECURITY) 6) CULTIVATING ON-LINE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD – PORN MAYBE TO FACILITATE (VARYING NETWORK/SECURITY DEPENDS ON CHILD) 7) ABUSING A CHILD MET ON-LINE – PORN MAY BE USED TO FACILITATE (VARYING NETWORK/SECURITY DEPENDS ON CHILD) 8) RECORDS OWN ABUSE OR THAT OF OTHERS 9) DISTRIBUTES AT ANY OF THE ABOVE LEVELS (VARYING SECURITY/SECURE)

16 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

17 TYPOLOGY OF INTERNET OFFENDERS ELLIOTT & BEECH (2009)
1) PERIODICALLY PRURIENT 2) FANTASY ONLY 3) DIRECT VICTIMIZATION OFFENDERS 4) COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OFFENDER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ACT IMPULSIVELY B/C CURIOSITY TO DOWNLOAD CP AS PART OF BROADER INTEREST IN PORNO USE CP TO FUEL SEXUAL INTEREST IN CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET TO GROOM CHILDREN TO SEXUALLY OFFEND PRODUCE CP IMAGES FOR FINANCIAL GAIN

18 I GOT AN IDEA… LET’S ASK THE OFFENDER WHY THEY DID IT

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 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 A UNIQUE APPROACH TO A TYPOLOGY – ASK THE OFFENDER

20 EXPLANATIONS FOR CP ACCESS (FREI, ERENAY, DITTMAN, & GRAF - 2005)
51% OF SAMPLE REPORTED CURIOSTY AS MOTIVE FOR VIEWING CP 935 ESTIMATED ARRESTS FOR CP B/T 7/1/00 & 7/1/01

21 EXPLANATIONS FOR CP ACCESS SETO, REEVES, & JUNG (2010)
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 Claim Collecting Hobby Claim Curiosity 40% 27% Claim Accidental Access 32% Claim Lack of Recall 16% No Explanation Provided N = 34 OFFENDERS IN O/P TX. N = 50 ARRESTEES BETWEEN 3/01 AND 1/07 SOME PROVIDE MORE THAN ONE EXPLANATION ONLY SIGINIFICANT DIFFERENCES WAS PORNOGRAPHY ADDICITION

22

23 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE

24 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
ONLY TWO STATES PROHIBITED CP IN 1977 (DOREN ) 491% INCREASE IN CYBER TIP LINE CALLS BETWEEN 2001 & 2004 (NCMEC – 2005A) CP ARRESTS DOUBLED IN THE US (SETO – 2009) CP IS A “NEW” CRIME.

25 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
CP ARRESTS DOUBLED IN US (WOLAK ET AL. – 2011) 2,062% INCREASE IN CP INVESTIGATION (FBI – 2011) CP IS A “NEW” CRIME.

26 SUSPECTS REFERRED TO US ATTORNEYS WITH SEX OFFENSE (adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007)
1994 2006 Percent Growth Lead Charge Number Percent Total 774 100% 3,661 2,887 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 PAY ATTENTION TO THE PERCENT OF GROWTH

27 FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS – CHILD SEX OFFENDERS (adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007)
WITH MORE COUNTIES SETTING UP INTERNET CRIME DIVISIONS, WE MIGHT EXPECT THIS NUMBER TO DECLINE FOR THE FEDS

28 USA CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES (Adapted from Jones & Finkelhor– 2007; per 10,000)
53% DECLINE IN SUSBSTANTIATED SEXUAL ABUSE CASES BY CPS

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

30 MEDIAN PRISON SENTENCE IMPOSED IN MONTHS – 1994 to 2006 (adapted from Motivans & Kyckelhahn - 2007)
SENTENCES FOR SEX CRIMES ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY LONGER

31 DISORDER IN THE COURT

32 IMPACT OF PORNOGRAPHY ON THE OFFENDER

33 “I WAS JUST LOOKING… WHATS THE BIG DEAL
“I WAS JUST LOOKING… WHATS THE BIG DEAL? IT’S NOT LIKE I EVER TOUCHED A KID.”

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) NOT BASED ON RESEARCH – JUST OPINIONS

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) EASE OF ACCESS OR DEVIANCY?? YET TO BE SUPPORTED BY RESEARCH SEE NEXT SLIDES

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

37 USA RAPE VS ASSAULT – 1940 TO 1985 (adapted from Kutchinsky - 2007; per 100,000)
AS AVIALABILITY OF PORNOGRAPHY INCREASES IN THE 60s, WE WOULD EXPECT A INCREASE IN RAPE COMPARED TO OTHER CRIMES

38 USA CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES (Adapted from Jones & Finkelhor– 2007; per 10,000)
REMEMBER WHAT JONES & FINKELHOR TELL US

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

40 SEX CRIMES - CZECH REPUBLIC (adapted from Diamond, Jozifkova, & Weiss - 2011)
Transition from Communism to Democracy in November 1989 Rape spike – related to governmental transition and other focus so people act out Child Abuse spike – increase in allegations in divorce/increase in policing & prosecution child prostitution

41 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 LOWEST INTERNET ACCESS – AR, KY, MN, WV HIGHEST INTERNET ACCESS – AL, CO, NJ, WA STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE

42 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 META-ANALYSIS OF 46 STUDIES WITH 12,323 INDIVIDUALS

43 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). N = 341 CONTACT CHILD (VICTIM < 16 YRS. OLD) OFFENDERS CHARGED OR CONVICTED FOLLOWED FOR AVERAGE OF 8.4 YRS.

44 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 N = 341 CONTACT CHILD (VICTIM < 16 YRS. OLD) OFFENDERS CHARGED OR CONVICTED FOLLOWED FOR AVERAGE OF 8.4 YRS.

45 DISORDER IN THE COURT

46 CP OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

47 DEMOGRAPHICS OF CP OFFENDERS (see
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 ( % 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%) NOTE: FINDINGS GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS STUDIES – SULLIVAN (2005) DIVERGING ON AGE b/c high % in college NEUTZE (2011) DIVERGING ON AGE WAKELING (2011) DIVERGING ON AGE Babchishin et al. (2011) - mean on-line = 38.6 mixed w/ travelers mean hands on = 43.6 McCarthy (2010) – no differences in demographics except Contact more likely to have - substance abuse - more than one conviction for sex crime - Dx of pedophilia

48 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% Concealed CP 28% 41% Organized CP 20% 25% Posted CP 5% 9% Use of Child Modeling Images* 24% Use of Erotic Stories* 21% 52% Chat with Minor*** 74% Sent CP to Minor*** 0% Sent AP to Minor* 22% Attempt to Meet Minor* 16% 35% Communicate with Others Online*** 11% 50% Communicate with Others in Person** 3% N = 107 OFFENDERS IN O/P TX. NONCONTACT (N=56) CONTACT (N=51)

49 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 Number AP Images 51398 630 Number AP Video Clips 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 Time Spent Viewing AP (hrs/wk) 7 12 Time Spent Viewing CP & AP (hrs/wk) 18 24 N = 107 OFFENDERS IN O/P TX. NONCONTACT (N=56) CONTACT (N=51) EMPHASIZES THAT POSSESSION IS NOT A CAUSITIVE FACTOR

50 PRIOR CRIMES

51 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) 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 Laulik et at. (2007) 6.7% Prob. O/P Tx Sample (convictions) Sullivan (2007) 9% N = 206 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) 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) Wollert et al. (2009) 14% Fed. Internet Prob. (conviction)

52 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) 20% 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) Bourke et al. (2009) 85% N=155 Fed. Prison Tx Sample (self rpt)

53 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 VICTIMS PER OFFENDER OF 24 DENIERS, 9 POLYGRAPHED & ONLY 2 “PASSED” SUGGESTING LESS THAN 2% HAD NO CONTACT VICTIMS N = 155 INTERNET CP OFFENDERS IN FEDERAL TX PROG. SELF REPORT & CONVICTION DATA IF YOU DO THE MATH, W/ POLYGRAPHS = EXTREMELY HIGH.

54 THIS IS WHAT THE BUTNER STUDY WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE
EVERY OFFENDER IS THE SAME

55 ASSESSED VARIABLES

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. N = 100 CP (57 W/O CONTACT & 43 W/ CONTACT) & 178 CONTACT OFFENDERS

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) N = 100

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. N = 90 INTERNET OFFENDERS N = 120 CONTACT OFFENDERS

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 N=30 CLINICALLY SIGNIFNCANT DIFFERENCES FROM CONTROL SAMPLE

60 LAULIK, ALLAM, & SHERIDAN (2007)
ON THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT INVENTORY (PAI) CP OFFENDERS SCORED LOWER ON SCALES ASSESSING: - MANIA - AGGRESSION - TREATMENT REJECTION - DOMINANCE - WARMTH N=30 (24 CP Offenders) CLINICALLY SIGNIFNCANT DIFFERENCES FROM CONTROL SAMPLE

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 OFFENDERS. - CONTACT OFFENDERS HAD MORE PROBLEMS WITH “ATTITUDES TOWARD SEXUAL ASSAULT” AND “CO- OPERATION WITH SUPERVISION.” N = 90 MORE PROBLEMS W/ SEXUAL SELF-REGULATION IS CURIOUS FINDING

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 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 SEXUAL AROUSAL FUNCTION – EXCLUSIVE PREFERENCE FOR CHILD COLLECTING FUNCTION FACILITATING SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS FUNCTION SEXUAL AROUSAL FUNCTION – PARAPHILIC INTEREST AVOIDING REAL LIFE FUNCTION

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

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 SWISS STUDY CLUSTER A = PARANIOD/SCHIZIOD CLUSTER B = APD/BORDERLINE/NARCISSISTIC CLUSTER C = MORE NEUROTIC N = 36 REFERRED TO O/P TX BY MAGISTRATE AFTER CHARGING

65 PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES BABCHISHIN ET. AL (2011)
COMPARED TO OFF-LINE OFFENDERS O N-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 METAANALYSIS OF 27 STUDIES (CP BUT ½ OF STUDIES ALSO LURING) N = 4,844 ONLINE OFFENDERS

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. N = 155 IN O/P TREATMENT SELF REPORT

67 MARSHALL ET AL. (2012) CP OFFENDERS SCORED HIGHER THAN CONTACT OFFENDERS ON MEASURES OF: - LONELINESS - OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE TENDENCIES BUT NOT: - SOCIAL ANXIETY N = 30 CP Offenders N = 28 Contact Offenders IN O/P TREATMENT UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al ) Obsessive Compulsive Inventory (Foa et al. – 2002 Social Phobia Inventory (Conner et al. – 2000)

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) N = 35 CP OFFENDERS N = 26 CONTACT OFFENDERS NEW ADMISSIONS TO FEDERAL PRISON

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) N = 35 CP OFFENDERS N = 26 CONTACT OFFENDERS NEW ADMISSIONS TO FEDERAL PRISON

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 N = 459 CP OFFENDERS N = 526 CONTACT OFFENDERS CONVICTED OFFENDERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

71 ELLIOTT ET AL. (2013) CONTACT OFFENDERS SCORE LOWER ON:
- INTERNAL REACTIVITY INDEX: FANTASY (GREATER ABILITY TO RELATE TO FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) N = 459 CP OFFENDERS N = 526 CONTACT OFFENDERS CONVICTED OFFENDERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

72 APPLICATION OF CURRENT RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS

73 BARNETT ET AL. (2010) RISK MATRIX 2000 PREDICTED CONTACT RECIDIVISM FOR CP OFFENDERS. CP OFFENDERS SCORED LOWER THAN OTHER TYPES OF SEX OFFENDERS. N = 513 CP OFFENDERS MODIFIED VERSION

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 N = 513 UK SAMPLE LO = 1.5%, MED. = 0.0%, HIGH = 1.8%, & VERY HIGH = 11.5% AUC = .70 (CI = .43 TO .97) FOR RM2000s & .73 (CI = .52 TO .94) FOR RM200c NOTE: ONLY 7 REOFFENDERS RM-2000 CATAGORIES – STEP 1) AGE AT RELEASE, # SENTENCING OCCASSIONS FOR SEX; # SENTENCING OCCASIONS FOR GENERAL OFFENDING. STEP 2) MALE VICITMS, STRANGER, LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP >2 YRS., NONCONTACT (EXCLUDING STRANGER & NON-CONTACT FOR PURELY INTERNET OFFENDERS)

75 OSBORN, ELLIOTT, MIDDLETON, BEECH (2010)
Risk Level Static-99 RM2000 RM2000R Low 53 Moderate Low 1 N/A Moderate 16 Moderate High 56 High 10 4 Very High SUGGESTS RM2000 & STATIC-99 OVER PREDICT RISK N = 73 F/U = YRS. UK SAMPLE NOTE: 0 REOFFENDERS RM-2000 CATAGORIES – STEP 1) AGE AT RELEASE, # SENTENCING OCCASSIONS FOR SEX; # SENTENCING OCCASIONS FOR GENERAL OFFENDING. STEP 2) MALE VICITMS, STRANGER, LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP >2 YRS., NONCONTACT (EXCLUDING STRANGER & NON-CONTACT FOR PURELY INTERNET OFFENDERS) RM-2000R CATAGORIES – STEP 2) MALE VICITMS, LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP >2 YRS.,

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 N = 1,344 O/P OFFENDERS (918 INTERNET SPECIALISTS) F/U = 1 YR. FOR 1,326 & 2 YRS. FOR 994 UK SAMPLE ONLY STEP 1 OF RM-2000 (STEP 2 = VICTIM ITEMS) MAY UNDERESTIMATE RISK SPECIALISTS = 63.2% CLASSIFIED AS LOW RISK 36% AS MEDIUM 1% AS HIGH RISK 0% AS VERY HIGH RISK 2 YR. REOFFENSE - LO = 1.6%, MED. = 1.6%, HIGH = 0.0%, & VERY HIGH = - % AUC = .67 OVERALL

77 DISORDER IN THE COURTS

78 FOLLOW UP STUDIES

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 N= 190 (73 INTERNET & 117 CONTACT OFFENDERS) AVERAGE OF 18 MOS. FOLLOW UP RECONVICITON/BREECH/RECALL

80 RECIDIVISM STUDIES FAUST, RENAUD, & BICKART (2009)
5.7% REOFFENDED WITH A SEXUAL OFFENSE (non-production CP, other non-contact, or contact sexual offense) N = 870 (50 RECIDIVISTS) RELEASED B/T 2002 & 2005 F/U = 3.8 YRS. CONVICTIONS

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 N= 72 FEDERAL INTERNET OFFENDER PROBATIONERS AVG. F/U = 4 YRS. CONVICTIONS

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) ENDRASS: N= 231 INDIVIDUALS CHARGED WITH A CP OFFENSE IN SWITZERLAND. 6 YR. FOLLOW-UP ONGOING INVESTIGATION, CHARGE, OR CONVICTION BARNETT: N= 513 INDIVIDUALS IN UK 2 YR. FOLLOW-UP OSBORN: N= 73 INDIVIDUALS IN UK. 1.5 TO 4 YR. FOLLOW-UP

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 N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

84 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% N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

85 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% N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

86 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% N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

87 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) N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

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 N = 1,344 O/P OFFENDERS (918 INTERNET SPECIALISTS) F/U = 1 YR. FOR 1,326 & 2 YRS. FOR 994 UK SAMPLE CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

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. METAANALYSIS N = 2,630 ONLINE OFFENDERS FROM 9 SAMPLES FOR TOTAL SAMPLE N = 1,247 ONLINE OFFENDERS FOR WHOM HAD TYPE OF OFFENSE DATA 1.5 TO 6 YR. F/U (MOST UNDER 4 YRS.)

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) 610 offenders sentenced in fiscal year 1999 to 2000 Sexual Offense = arrest or conviction (including violation or technical violation) avg. f/u = 8 yrs. 6 mos.

91

92 RISK FACTORS

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 N = 210 (90 INTERNET OFFENDERS) F/U = 18 MOS.

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 N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

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 N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

96 CONTACT RECIDIVISM (SETO & EKE 2008)
CRIMINAL HISTORY SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS SELF-REPORTED SEXUAL INTEREST IN CHILDREN 301 CP OFFENDERS 2.5 YR. F/U NOTE: VIOLENT OFFENDING WHICH ALSO INCLUDED SEXUAL

97 CONTACT RECIDIVISM SETO (2009)
OFFENDER AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE (NEGATIVE) ANY JUVENILE CRIMINAL RECORD PRIOR DRUG USE PROBLEMS ADMITS HEBEPHILIC INTERESTS N= 301 MALE CP OFFENDERS POLICE CASE STUDY INFORMATION (SETO & EKE, 2008 UNPUBLISHED DATA) ALL SIGNIFCANT AT 0.05 LEVEL

98 CONTACT RECIDIVISM (FAUST ET AL. 2009)
LOW EDUCATION PRIOR TREATMENT FOR SEX OFFENDING SINGLE POSSESSING SEXUAL MATERIAL DEPICTING 13 – 15 YEAR AGE RANGE N = 870 (50 RECIDIVISTS) RELEASED B/T 2002 & 2005 F/U = 3.8 YRS. THOSE W/ NON-INTERNET CP HIGHER RISK FOR REEARREST THAN INTERNET CP

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 N = 541 CONVICTED OFFENDERS W/ 36% PRIOR OR INDEX CONTACT OFFENSE AVG. FOLLOW UP OF 4.1 YRS. / 5.9 YRS. FOR 201 OFFENDERS CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS

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 N = 349 (113 internet only/176 contact offenders/60 mixed)

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)

102 DISORDER IN THE COURT

103 FISCAL IMPACT OF CP OFFENDER SENTENCING

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

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

106 PARTING THOUGHTS FROM THE RESEARCHERS

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).

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)

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)

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

111

112 ...DON’T WORRY WE’LL SHOW YOU HOW TO AVERT DISASTER

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

114 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

115 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

116 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 SETO WORKING IN THIS DIRECTION F/U = 8 YRS. 6 MOS. (USSC REPORT) ASSESSMENT SHOULD FOCUS ON DISPROVING MYTHS

117 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

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

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?

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

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

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

123 BECOMES THIS:

124 COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION

125 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”)

126 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

127 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

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

129 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

130 CLINICAL INTERVIEW SEXUAL HISTORY VICTIM EMPATHY
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?)

131 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

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

133 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

134

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

136 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

137 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

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

139 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% %

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

141 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)

142 TESTIMONY: KEY ISSUES

143 KNOW YOUR STUFF

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)

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)

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)

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) N = 101 FROM USSC DATA BASE YEAR 2008

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…

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. CONCERNS REGARDING COOERCION TO PARTICIAPTE FOR GAIN TIME & PRESSURE TO ADMITT TO OFFENSES (WHICH MAY NOT BE TRUE) TO STAY IN TREATMENT

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)

151 BATTLING WITH BUTNER FOUR POINT ARGUMENT
3) THIS IS NOT A RECIDIVISM STUDY. - CITE RECIDIVISM STUDIES (SEE ABOVE LITERATURE REVIEW) THERE IS NO FOLLOW-UP COMPONENT TO THIS STUDY FROM THE GENERAL LITERATURE, WE KNOW ONE FACTOR FOR RECIDIVISM IS BEING DETECTED AND THEN COMMITTING ANOTHER OFFENSE.

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) …AND GOING IN FOR THE KILL

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.” THIS IS REALLY GOOD.

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.” …AND IT ONLY GETS BETTER

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).” … AND HERE’S THE KICKER

156 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

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) N = 22,181; META-ANALYTIC REVIEW OF 69 STUDIES (N=347) ; *NOTE: COMPARED TO BASE RATES OF 13% - 14% FROM HANSON & MORTON-BOURGON (2004) IN WHICH FOLLOW-UP WAS 5-6 YEARS AND ADJUSTED FOR RISK LEVEL

158 CASE EXAMPLES

159 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

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.

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

166 CASE 1 – J. G. SENTENCE PENDING

167 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

168 CASE 2 – J. E.

169 CASE 2 – J. E.

170 CASE 2 – J. E.

171 CASE 2 – J. E.

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

173 CASE 2 – J. E. SENTENCED TO

174 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

175 CASE 3 – A. K.

176 CASE 3 – A. K.

177 CASE 3 – A. K.

178 CASE 3 – A. K.

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

180 CASE 3 – A. K. SENTENCED TO

181 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

182 CASE 4 – W. B.

183 CASE 4 – W. B.

184 CASE 4 – W. B.

185 CASE 4 – W. B.

186 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.

187 CASE 4 – W. B. sentenced to

188 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

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.

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

195 CASE 5 – J. M. SENTENCED TO

196 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

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.

202 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

203 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.

204 CASE 6 – J. C. SENTENCED TO

205 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

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.

212 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.

213 CASE 7 – R. C. SENTENCED TO

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

215

216 CONTACT Eric A. Imhof, Psy.D.
Specialized Treatment and Assessment Resources, P. A. P. O. Box Weston, FL Tel. (954) Fax (954)

217 CONTACT Gilbert Schaffnit, Esq. 719 NE First Street Gainesville, FL Tel. (352) Fax (352) Web:

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, DOI: / * Bagely, C. (2003). Diminishing incidence of internet child pornographic images. Psychological Reports, 93, 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, doi: / Beech, A., Elliott, I., Birgden, A., & Findlater, D. (2008). The internet and child sexual offending: A criminological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior.13, doi: /j.avb 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, doi: /s 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.

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, doi: /j/ x. Carr, J. (2004). Child abuse, child pornography, and the internet. The Children’s Charity. Retrieved from 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, doi: / D’Amato, A. (2006). Porn up, rape down. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Retrieved from Northwestern University School of Law: Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., & Weiss, P. (2011). Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2011, Diamond, M. & Uchiyama, A. (1999). Pornography, Rape, and Sex Crimes in Japan. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 1-22.

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, doi: 10/107/s Elliott, I. & Beech, A. (2009). Understanding online child pornography use: Applying sexual offense theory to internet offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, doi: /j.avb 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, doi: / 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, doi: /

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 Accessed May 19, doi: / X/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 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, * Grove, R. & Zerega, B. (2004). The Lolita problem. Red Herring. Retrieved from 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.

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 Internet Watch Foundation (2008). Annual and Charity Report. Retrieved from Internet Watch Foundation (2009). Annual and Charity Report. Retrieved from Internet Watch Foundation (2010). Annual and Charity Report. Retrieved from Jones, L. & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Updated trends in child maltreatment, Crimes Against Children Research Center. Retrieved from

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: . 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: /ab Krone, T. (2004). Typology of online child pornography offending. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 279, 1-6. Available at Kutchinsky, B. (1991). Pornography and rape: Theory and practice? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14, 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

224 REFERENCES Laulik, S., Allam, J., & Sheridan, L. (2007). An Investigation into maladaptive personality functioning in internet sex offenders. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 13, doi: / * Lazarova, D. (2009, February). Child porn consumers safe from prosecution in the Czech Republic. Czech Radio 7, Radio Prague. Retrieved from 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, doi: /a Losel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005). The Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Offenders: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 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: / X 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, doi: /

225 REFERENCES McCarthy, J. (2010). Internet sexual activity: A comparison between contact and non-contact child pornography offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, doi: / * 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, doi: / * Motivans, M. & Kyckelhahn, T.: Federal Prosecution of Child Sex Exploitation Offenders, 2006, Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 1 – 8, December Available at 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

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 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, doi: / * Niveau, G. (2010). Cyber-pedocrimininality: Characteristics of a sample of child pornography offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, doi j.chiabu * 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 ). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Chapter retrieved from: Accessed September 26, 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, doi: jacpr *

227 REFERENCES Qualyle, E., & Taylor, M. (2002). Paedophiles, pornography, and the internet: Assessment issues. British Journal of Social Work , 32, Ropelato, J. (2004, December). Internet pornography statistics. Top Ten Reviews. Retrieved from 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 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: / X

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, doi: /s 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: / 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, doi: / Seto, M., Maric, A., & Barbaree, H. (2001). The role of pornography in the etiology of sexual aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, Seto, M., Reeves, L., & Jung, S. (2010). Explanations given by child pornography offenders for their crimes. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, doi: /

229 REFERENCES Sher, J. & Carey, B. (2007, July 19). Debate on child pornography’s link to molesting. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Sullivan, C. (2007). Internet Traders of Child Pornography: Profiling Research - Update. Auckland, New Zealand: Department of Internal Affairs. Retrieved from: 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, doi: / * Taylor, M., Holland, G., & Quayle, E. (2001). Typology of paedophile picture collections. The Police Journal, 74, Taylor, M. & Quayle, E. (2003). Child pornography: An internet crime. London, England: Taylor & Francis. Top Ten Reviews (2004). Press Release. Author. Retrieved from reviews.com/ htnl.

230 REFERENCES United States of America v. Michael Paul Johnson Sentencing Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 4:07-cr (S.D., Iowa Central, December 3, Retrieved from: 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, doi: / 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, doi: /s * 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

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, doi: / * 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 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 Wyre, R. (2003) No excuse for child porn. Community Care. Retrieved from


Download ppt "Eric A. Imhof, Psy.D. MiATSA 2013 Conference May 30, 2013"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google