1. Internet Sex Offenders: What we know about them
Professor David Middleton
Childsafe Associates, London
De Montfort University, Leicester

2. Trends in Online child sex abuse
Internet Related sexual offences are increasing in volume in most countries
Producers may be commercial organised crime
Producers may be individuals involved in a private network
Demand for images leads to new child sexual abuse
Some countries will act to have sites with indecent images removed, some will block access

3. Internet Offenders are not a homogenous group
Conclusions
Internet Offenders are not a homogenous group
One of the sub groups are socially isolated people, with intimacy deficits who meet their need for pseudo intimacy, emotional and sexual needs through online sexual activity
The second major group are those who are use internet for emotional avoidance, soothing strategy in response to emotional distress
The term “internet offender” covers a broad spectrum of clinical presentation. A significant minority may not present with the psychological characteristics commonly found in child molesters.

4. Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study
“Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics” Wolak,J.;Finkelhor, D.; and Mitchell, K. Journal of sex abuse 2011;
“Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics” Wolak,J.;Finkelhor, D.; and Mitchell, K. Journal of sex abuse 2011;
“Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics” Wolak,J.;Finkelhor, D.; and Mitchell, K. Journal of sex abuse 2011;
Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study
Arrests for child pornography possession across 2,500 USA Law enforcement agencies
Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics
Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly Mitchell
SEX ABUSE 2011;

5. What is the volume of traffic to sites with child abuse images?
International Association of Internet Hotlines (INHOPE)
33 hotlines in 29 countries
2004 – 2010
1.9m reports
60,200 unique reports per month
66% of these contained child sexual abuse material
c.p. grew by 15% per yr
a.p. grew by 24% per yr
(source:

6. Online sex offending. Downloading Trading Production Grooming
Thanks to Dr Ethel Quayle

7. In both 2006 and 2000, most offenders were
Trends in the USA
In both 2006 and 2000, most offenders were
White, non-Hispanic males and socio-economically diverse.
Few were convicted of previous sex crimes.
Most had CP that depicted pre-teen children and serious sexual
abuse.
By 2006, a higher proportion of offenders were
ages 18 to 25,
used peer-to-peer (p2p) networks,
had images of children younger than three and CP videos.
P2p users had more extreme images (e.g., younger victims, sexual violence) and larger numbers of images than those who did not use p2p networks.
Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics
Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly Mitchell
SEX ABUSE 2011;

8. Deviant sexual interests
Distorted Cognitions
- Attitudes supportive of sex with children
- sexual entitlement beliefs
Deviant sexual interests
Sexual arousal to children
Sexual preoccupation
Socio-Affective Functioning
- management of relationships
- view of self and others
- Intimacy deficits
Self-Management
Anti-social orientation
Impulsivity
Poor problem solving
Structured Risk Assessment (Thornton, 2002)

9. Do Sexual deviance risk factors apply to internet offenders?
Evidence of sexual arousal to children?
Evidence of sexual preoccupation?
What about images collected?

10. Sexual preference for children
“60% of convicted child pornography users without contact offences, registered a PPG assessment indicative of paedophilia – a higher proportion than contact offenders”
Seto et al (2006)

11. Does severity of image tell us anything?
Level 1 erotic posing no sexual activity
Level 2 images depicting non-penetrative sexual activity between children; or solo masturbation by child
Level 3 sexual activity between adults and children
Level 4 penetrative sexual activity involving child/children, or both child and adults
Level 5 images of child/children depicting sadism, or penetration of or by an animal

12. 15% viewed up to level 3 only
85% viewed all images including Level 4 & 5
36% viewed level 5 images
Low risk 72.6%
Medium risk 21.9%
15% viewed up to level 3 only
High risk 5.5%
No high risk offenders viewed level 5 images
Very High risk 0%
25% of Medium risk and
35% of Low risk
had level 5 images
n = 72
Osborn, Elliott, Middleton & Beech 2010

13. Do Sexual deviance risk factors apply to internet offenders?
Evidence of sexual arousal to children?
Evidence of sexual preoccupation?
What about images collected? )

14. Evidence for Distorted Attitudes?
Middleton et al (2006) less evidence of cognitive distortions c.f. Offline offenders
(213 internet cf. 191 contact offenders)
Bates & Metcalfe (2007) Online offenders less than offline on cognitive distortions and victim empathy

15. Evidence for Distorted Attitudes?
Elliot et al (2009) Internet offenders tended to be lower on Cognitive Distortions and higher on Victim Empathy than Contact offenders
(n = 505 Internet n= 526 Contact)
Webb et al (2007) Internet Offenders scored lower on “attitudes towards assault” than Contact Offenders
(90/120)

16. “Self-Distancing” was dominant theme
The offence is construed as a privatised, imaginary affair where real others are physically absent (intimacy deficits).
Sophisticated rationalisations - children are unaffected by (or even benefitted from) being photographed;
Rejection of sex offender tag not the same as contact and flasher offences;
Rejection of sexual interest in children.
Winder, B. & Gough, B. (2010) “I never touched anybody –that’s my defence”: A qualitative analysis of internet sex offender accounts. Journal of Sexual Aggression 16,2. Pp

17. Distorted Attitudes Evidence of Distorted Attitudes? mixed
Evidence of poor victim empathy towards child abuse? no
Evidence of post offence rationalisations? YES
Evidence of cognitive schema which precede or maintain offence? mixed

18. Evidence for Problematic Socio-Affective Functioning?
Contact offender data
Internet data
Intimacy deficits
25%
20%
Emotional dysregulation
21%
17%
Anti-social cognitions 8% 3%
Distorted sexual scripts 7% 5%
Pathways 1 and 3
15%
10%
n of sub-sample
124
135
n of Total sample
191
213
Middleton et al (2006; 2008)

19. Predominant pathways Intimacy Deficits [35%/n = 15]
Middleton et al (2006) n = 72 of which 43 reported elevated scores
Intimacy Deficits [35%/n = 15]
- offend when lonely/rejected/adult relationships compromised
- experience high levels of emotional loneliness,
- difficulty in establishing age appropriate relationships, internet used for pseudo-intimacy
Emotional Disregulation [33% n = 14]
- experience strong negative mood states over which lack of control, combined with sexual desire,
- become disinhibited, use sex as a soothing strategy,
- internet pornography to alleviate negative emotions, increase feelings of well-being ON

20. Other Studies
Laulik et al 2006 (n = 30)
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI: Morey 1991)
Compared internet offenders to normative population
Internet offenders low on Warmth & Dominance
“indicates a rejecting and submissive interpersonal style, which is thought to preclude effective interaction with others”
Higher levels of depression

21. Morahan-Martin & Schumacher 2000
Other Studies
Webb et al (2007) found high levels of intimacy deficits in both online and offline offenders [90/120]
Morahan-Martin & Schumacher 2000
“viewing indecent images of children may be used as a mechanism to escape from negative mood states”

22. Elliott et al 23.4% in relationship Webb et al 38% married
IBAQ DATA
MARITAL STATUS
Single 52
44.4%
Married 32
27.4%
Divorced / Separated
HIGHEST QUALIFICATION
No Formal Qualifications 15
12.4%
O-Levels, City & Guilds 27
22.3%
A-Levels 17
14.0%
University educated 40
33.0%
Elliott et al % in relationship
Webb et al 38% married
43% no co-habiting relationships +1yr

23. Self-Management 31 (25%) 27 (20%) 26 (21%) 23 (17%)
Contact offender data
Internet data
Intimacy deficits
31 (25%)
27 (20%)
Emotional dysregulation
26 (21%)
23 (17%)
Anti-social cognitions
10 (8%)
4 (3%)
Distorted sexual scripts
9 (7%)
7 (5%)
Pathways 1 and 3
18 (15%)
14 (10%)
Total of sub-sample
124
135
Total sample
191
213
Middleton et al 2006;2008

24. Self-Management Middleton et al (2006); Elliott et al (2009)
Evidence for Impulsivity in internet offenders
Elliot et al found contact offenders found to have higher levels of “making snap decisions “
Webb et al (2007) found Internet Offenders scored lower on PCL-R than contact offenders ”

25. Self-Management
Seto (2009)
“Internet offenders score relatively low on measures of anti-social tendencies,
(criminal history, antisocial personality traits, antisocial attitudes and beliefs)
indicating they are less likely to act upon their sexual interest in children”

26. Online escalating to offline?
Seto & Eke (2005; 2006; 2008)
Criminal records of child pornography offenders listed on Ontario Sex Offender Registry n= 201 adult males
2.5 yr follow up; 4% contact sexual offence
3.6 yr follow up % new contact sexual offence
5.9 yr follow up % new contact sexual offence
Prior conviction for sex or violence was best predictor of new contact offence

27. Studies based on Official records examining prior contact sex offences among online offenders
Elliot et al. (2008)
494
10.9%
(n = 54)
Prior cons/Probation
Seto & Eke (2005)
201
11.9% (n = 24)
Prior charges
Galbreath et al. (2002) 39
7.7% (n = 3)
Prior charges/mental health
Seto & Eke (2008)
301
5% (n = 15)
Prior charges/convictions
Laulik et al. (2007) 30
6.7% (n = 2)
Prior convictions/Prob
Webb et al. (2007) 90
14.4% (n = 13)
Convicted and unconvicted charges/allegations
Wolak et al. (2005)
1,713
11% (n = 188)
Prior arrests/Police

28. % with contact offences
Self Report studies
Online offenders admitting to past contact offences
Study N
% with contact offences
Source
Bourke & Hernandez (2009)
155
84.5% (n = 131)
Self-reports
Buschman & Bogaerts (in press) 38
55.3% (n = 21)
Self-reports (polygraph)
Neutze et al. (2009)
108
57.4% (n = 62)
Self-reports
Quayle & Taylor (2003) 23
47.8% (n=11)
About half admit to past offences

29. 1 in 8 (13%) caught for both online & offline sexual offences
Karl Hanson’s view:
Official data on 3,212
1 in 8 (13%) caught for both online & offline sexual offences
Self report on 452
1 in 2 (50%) admit to both
Meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 3,536 offenders of which 18% appear to have committed contact sexual offence
(Hanson & Babchisin 2009)

30. Summary Reconvictions studies have produced a wide variance
Prior convictions may be useful guide to future sexual risk
Actuarial risk tools may be useful for rank order but may overestimate actual risk

31. Internet Offenders are not a homogenous group
HYPOTHESIS
Internet Offenders are not a homogenous group
One of the sub groups are socially isolated people, with intimacy deficits who meet their need for pseudo intimacy, emotional and sexual needs through online sexual activity
The second major group are those who are use internet for emotional avoidance, soothing strategy in response to emotional distress
The term “internet offender” covers a broad spectrum of clinical presentation. A significant minority may not present with the psychological characteristics commonly found in child molesters.