Craig Collie University of Portsmouth -

 Definitions  Issues of definition and recording in relation to stranger child abduction  Recent key findings  A look at some recent findings on stranger child abduction that affect how we understand the offence  Theories on offending and decision making  A quick examination of theory  Going forward  Some of the key issues for future examination

 To begin, lets examine the terms “stranger”, “child” and “abduction” in turn, as they are used in the context of this offence.

 Taken to mean no previous relationship or familiarity  First contact- to exclude grooming and “long cons”  First appeared as “stereotypical stranger abduction” in the literature  In response to public fear and moral panic. This spectre hangs over the topic stereotypical; nonfamily abductions; 163, ,100 estimated family abductions  Differentiated “family” and “nonfamily” abduction  Soon recognized that “acquaintance” and “stranger” abduction were different in character.  Acquaintances more associated with grooming behaviour, in private homes and tend to target younger children; Strangers with isolated instances, outside home, outdoor approach, targeting school aged children and teenagers.  Although motive is difficult to prove, it is thought that stranger abduction is generally a sexual domain offence

 Anyone under 18 is the de facto definition  Research has split children into age categories  Infants and neonates (newborns) extremely unlikely to be targeted for sexual offending, more likely to be targeted for “Maternal desire”  Stranger child abduction rates appear to increase as children get older, with a slight drop off at the highest age bracket (Boudreaux et al 1999)  Combination of lack of guardianship, increasing autonomy, relative lack of maturity, lack of awareness, and increasing resemblance to adults. Younger= better guarded; older= self protection

 Legally defined in many ways and by several names  Legislation- Child Abduction Act take or detain a child under 16 without lawful authority or reasonable excuse- leads to a charge of child abduction  Common Law- Kidnap- 4 elements- taking of one person by another; by force or fraud; without consent of person; without lawful authority.  Essence is taking, moving or detaining a child against their will or without lawful authority  -the latter especially necessary with children, as they may go willingly or without awareness of what is happening.  Often has other conditions  -Force or Fraud  -Temporal conditions- becoming increasingly outdated due to escalation of risk- of-harm over time.  -Spatial Conditions (some jurisdictions, such as California state law, expressly deny this condition. Can be any distance)  In research studies, they tend to either go by police records, or make their own generic definition and go through a variety of cases and pick out ones that match, i.e., Beyer and Beasley (2003)- “the coerced, unauthorized or illegal movement of a child for the purpose of a criminal act” -they tend to have some issues or conditions that do not match normal conceptions.

.

 “Caretaker Missing”- differences in perspective  Pendulum effect from caretaker point of view  -more likely to perceive event as serious at outset  -afterwards, more likely to dismiss event if nothing happened  Belief that there is some kind of minimum-time-missing requirement for reporting  Gallagher et. Al Low reporting- 80% of victims disclosed to a caretaker (teacher, parent, guardian), but only 39.4% of cases were reported to police.  -Beasley suggests element of children being too intimidated to report, or unaware that what happened should be reported.  Differing police filing approaches  -Proved to be a serious issue for US studies, same for the UK.  “Lost” figures and charges  -Plea bargaining, especially attractive if avoids child having to testify  -Abductions subsumed by higher offence, or considered incidental  Figures used combine elements that we might like to examine individually  Offender Index studies- Data for kidnap of children and adults combined  Recording as kidnap or child abduction. Convictions for similar behaviour can range from kidnap, to child abduction, to unlawful detainment.

 Gallagher, Bradford and Pease 2008  Around 1 in every 100 children in North-West England reported an attempted abduction scenario at some point in their childhood.  In 33 reported cases of abduction (subject to victims perception and recall):  Offender Gender- 84.8% male; 9.1% female; 6.1% both present  Offender Age- 84.4% adults; 9.4% young people; 3.1% children; 3.1% involved multiple age groups  93.8% of cases occurred outdoors  Location- 60% in the street; 6.7% in a field or park; 13.3% in a shop; 20% “other”.  Number of Offenders- 71.9% single offender; 21.9% two offenders; 6.2% three offenders; 0% 4+ offenders  Child accompaniment- 27.3% were alone; 63.6% were with other children; 3% were with adults; 6.1% were with other children and adults.  Note- Newiss (2014) made findings suggesting children have difficulty differentiating conceptually between strangers and non-strangers, and even between “well meaning adults” if the children aren’t trained.

 Beasley US Study- Offending Histories of Stranger Child Abductors. Useful for overall picture statistics.  25% had no prior history at all.  14% had been previously arrested for kidnapping. 33% for forcible sex crime. 40% for larceny. 41% for assault, 15% for robbery, 35% robbery or breaking and entering, and 17% for motor vehicle offences.  Similar “offender polymorphism” findings made regarding sexual offenders such as sexual murderers and sexual aggressors (i.e., by Cusson & Proulx, 2008)  These findings suggest that there is “criminal diversity among child abductors”, and they are not always specifically sexual offenders.  The offenders are in the “midst of a chronic criminal career characterised by property and violent offending”.  -We will come back to this- it fits in with ideas about opportunistic offenders

 Erikson & Friendship 2001  Offender Index Analysis; All child ablution convictions between 1993 and cases.  Followed up by examining police records, final sample of 149 offenders.  Found 82% of all child abductions involved non-familial perpetrator. 18% Parental.  66% non-familial male, 16% non-familiar female  60% non-familial abductions involved sexual motivation  Sexually motivated group had  highest rates of previous abduction attempts  Highest level of pre-convictions for sex offences  Histories of general and violent offending  Highest mean victim age (as in Boudreaux et al 1999)  Mean victim age of 10 years; Slight over-representation of female victims (60%)  Offender mean age (S.D )  Maternal desire group (12%)  Female perpetrators; Infant victims (1 y.o. average); Younger offenders (SD 9.94)  “Other” non-familial child abductions. Paid attention to low incidence but still interesting motivations seen in stranger abductions.  Religious abduction, e.g., by a sect  Accidental abduction during other crime, i.e., backseat of car  These “other” offenders tended to have the most persistent violent offending histories  Similar mean age to sexually motivated group  Specifically did not include “incidental” abductions, i.e., murders that involved abduction, or where the offender was charged with something more serious.

 Radford et al 2011  In the context of child abuse and neglect  Survey about whether a child had experienced a kidnap. Did not extrapolate on circumstances.  “made to go somewhere, like into a car, by someone who they thought might hurt them”  0.2% Under 11’s experienced stranger kidnap incident in lifetime  0.9% for year olds  0.9% for year olds  “For the older age groups, unknown adults (strangers) were the most frequently reported adult perpetrators outside the family home.”

 Newiss & Traynor 2013  Analysis of 529 cases (year 2011/2, gathered from participating forces)  Found 42% of cases involved stranger perpetrator. This contradicts US stats.  Of this 42%, three quarters were attempted abductions.  Translates to national recordings of approximately 50 completed and 200 attempted stranger child abductions in the UK per year (Newiss 2014). Around 1/5 of completed abductions carried out by a stranger.  181 attempted abductions, mean victim age 12, 75% female, 80% white.  Motive only rarely established, but it is thought to be sexual in most cases. This is consistent with other findings (Boudreaux et al 1999; Erikson & Friendship 2001), but is not exactly proven.  93% no injury, 11 cases of minor injury.  Almost half involved physical contact, varying from light touch to holding necessitating a struggle.  91% involved lone offenders  66% involved offender alighting from, being in, or dragging victim to a vehicle  12 cases of completed abduction. 15 victims. 8 victims were either raped, sexually assaulted, or had clothes removed. Mean victim age 14 for completed abductions when sexual motive was clear.  All but one case took place in less than 24 hours.  Some other cases involved abduction for ransom, robbery, dispute, and some for maternal desire.

 Relevant as abduction offending appears to be largely in response to opportunity  Most abductors not preferential child molesters, but situational child molesters, i.e., they are likely to offend against a variety of targets, and may never have offended against children even in a long criminal career.  Routine activity states offending tends to occur as offenders (and victims) go about normal daily business  Convergence of  Motivated offender. Motivation is key, must be Precipitated; Activated.  Suitable target. Not only vulnerable, but desirable to the offender.  Lack of guardianship  (most recently) lack of caretaker  Guardianship=over target itself; Caretaker=over immediate area  Wortley & Smallbone (2006)- Explains this for sex offenders  Opportunity + dispositional factor= offence likely  Opportunity + no dispositionals= offence unlikely  No opportunity + dispositional= create opportunity, or cope in another way (fantasy/masturbation/other offence against different target).  No opportunity + no dispositionals= offending should not occur, in fact or in fantasy

 Predatory  Chronic offenders; adept at recognizing opportunities; adaptable; calculating. Note: precipitated, usually in response to anger or self- esteem challenge- they do not offend at every chance.  Opportunistic  General offenders who tend not to offend except upon recognition of clear opportunity or when suffering a momentary lapse in self control. Likely to be dissuaded by risk- this makes the child target undesirable.  Situational  Response to extreme emotional affect, or environmental factors. Tend to have little to no prior offence history. *Potential to ignore risks.  * SituationalOpportunistPredatory Challenges and Obstacles X*XManipulates Tempting Situation XExploits Precipitating Situation Reacts to

 A combination of developmental problems, situational and personal problems just before the offence, and a lack of dissuaders before and during the incident.  Offender Background  Stable Traits- Temperament, impulsivity, attachment style (e.g., fear of adults, affinity towards children) etc  Dynamic Traits- Beliefs, cognitive distortion, maladaptive schema  Cognitive Distortions- Key- Entitlement, Dangerous World, Children as Sex Objects, Denial of Harm, uncontrollable/unchangeable desire; Seductive Children.  Lead Up to the Offence- Life difficulties and “Precipitating” events.  Event, or series of events, that cause negative affect -1 year-Life issues and changes in year leading up to offence  Things like relationship difficulties; overcommitted to work; unemployment; increasing onset of fantasy; generalized conflict; perceived rejection. -Hours prior  Alcohol or drug consumption; perceived personal sleight; pornography use; fantasy; other large distressing event (job loss, bereavement, split up, insult).  This is thought to “activate” the offender, and cause them to find a target. Predators begin hunting, others only offend if target is present while they are activated.

 “Maintenance” once activated. Does not guarantee they will offend, or offend against a child.  Offences are ongoing. Recent theories recognize a need for offenders to maintain their “precipitated state” (European Online Grooming Project, 2010).  This process may be unwitting -reinforce criminal beliefs -minimize offending -seek confirmation and affirmation -ignore dissuaders -re-interpret negative reinforcement as deviant  It is thought that a lapse in maintenance can “deactivate” the offender and re- introduce self control. Brings about desistence.  -Unclear about when an offender might have proceeded so far that they keep going regardless of second thoughts.  Alternative explanation is “dissuasion”. The offence is interrupted or made more difficult and therefore abandoned. All but the most motivated offenders give up, because the activated phase has passed.  Situational Prevention Principles therefore apply  Increase Effort (or perception of it)  Increase Risk (or perception of it)  Reduce Rewards (or perception of it)  Remove Excuses- important for disrupting maintenance

 Around 75% of abductions appear to be attempts  Why do some abductions go ahead and others do not? Which factors are most important?  A threshold?  A number of interesting findings beg the question of where a “cut off” is for an attempt being abandoned, and why some offenders persist despite escalating odds  Gallagher et al (2008)- Offences with other children or adults present  Finkelhor and Ormrod (2000)- Offenders with multiple abductees. 14% of cases. Thought that very few of these were planned.  The process of escalation as opposed to abandonment, abandonment seems more likely due to high attempt rates.  The chicken and egg question of motivation to offend- the importance of when motivation to offend manifests, offender commitment, and how this interacts with the factors that could prevent the offence.

 My project at UoP taking a chronological approach. Focuses on reasoning and continuity of affect. “Scene by scene” narrative analysis. Questioning some assumptions.  Developmental factors  Stable traits  Dynamic Traits  Pre-crime factors  Year lead up; 48 hour lead up  Personal and Situational factors  Focus is on establishing the motive for the offence  Did they go out looking for victims? Was there a series of negative experiences?  Crime Phase Factors  Approach, affect, adaptation, attempt  What kinds of things did they notice and pay attention to? How much did they plan ahead? How much did they adapt? How much effort did they go to? Did they take any precautions? Manipulation or reaction to circumstances?  Post crime factors  Return to normal? How did they come to think about the offence? Was their negative state resolved?

 Beasley, J.O., Hayne, A.S., Beyer, S., Cramer, G.L., Berson, S.B., Muirhead, Y., & Warren, J.I. (2009). Patterns of prior offending by child abductors: A comparison of fatal and non-fatal outcomes. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32,  Beauregard, E., Stone, M.R., Proulx, J., & Michaud, P. (2008). Sexual murderers of children. Developmental, precrime, crime and postcrime factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52.  Boudreaux, M.C., Lord, W.D., & Dutra, R.L. (1999). Child abduction: Aged-based analyses of offender, victim, and offence characteristics in 550 cases of alleged child disappearance. Journal of Forensic Science, 44 (3),  Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2013). Dynamic factors of sexual aggression: The role of affect and impulsiveness. Criminal Justice Behavior, 40.  Cusson, M., & Proulx, J. (2008). The Motivation and Criminal Career of Sexual Murderers. In Proulx, J., Beauregard, E., Cusson, M., & Nicole, A. (2008). Sexual Murderers: A Comparative Analysis and New Perspectives. London: Wiley.  Erikson, M., & Friendship, C. (2002). A typology of child abduction events. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7.  Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., & Asdigian, N. (1995). Attempted non-family abductions. Child Welfare, 34.  Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., & Sedlak, A.J. (2002). Nonfamily abducted children- National estimates and characteristics. Washington: US Dept of Justice.  Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2000). Kidnapping of juveniles: Patterns from NIBRS. Washington: US Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  Gallagher, B., Bradford, M., & Pease, K. (2008). Attempted and completed incidents of child-perpetrated child sexual abuse and abduction. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32,  Gannon, T.A., Ward, T., Beech, A.R., & Fisher, D. (2004). Aggressive offender’s cognition: Theory, research and practice. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.  Hanfland, K.A., Keppel, R., & Weis, J. (1997). Case management for missing children homicide investigation. Washington: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

 Marziano, V., Ward, T., Beech, A.R., & Pattison, P. (2006). Identification of five fundamental implicit theories underlying cognitive distortions in child abusers: A preliminary study. Psychology, crime and law, 12(1),  Miller, J., Kurlycheck, M., Hansen, A.J., & Wilson, K. (2008). Examining child abduction by offender type patterns. Justice Quarterly, 25.  Newiss, G., & Fairbrother, L. (2004). Child abduction: Understanding police recorded crime statistics. Findings Paper 225. London: Home Office.  Newiss, G., & Tranynor, M.A. (2013). Taken: A study of child abduction in the UK. London: PACT.  Newiss, G. (2014). Beyond ‘Stranger Danger’: Teaching children about staying safe from stranger child abduction. London: PACT.  Noor-Mohammed, M.K. (2013). The definitional ambiguities of kidnapping and abduction, and its categorization: The case of a more inclusive typology. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, DOI: /hojo  Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N. and Collishaw, S. (2011). Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. London: NSPCC. Valentine, G. (1997). “Oh yes I can.” “oh no you can’t.”: Children and parent’s understandings of kid’s competence to negotiate public space safely. Antipode,  Robertiello, G., & Tallon, K. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 12 (5).  Terry, K., & Tallon, J. (2004). Child sexual abuse: A review of the literature. The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons, 1950–2002, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. (2004)  Ward, T., Polaschek, D.L.L., & Beech, A.R. (2006). Theories of sexual offending. Chichester: Wiley.  Ward, T., & Beech. (2006). An integrated theory of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 11 (1).  Webster, S. (2012). European Online Grooming Project: Final Report. European Union.  Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2006). Situational Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse. Collumpton: Willan.