Internet Offending Interest Group

[delmonico]

This discussion board is open to all professionals who are working with Internet sex offenders. It is not an ATSA discussion board and therefore does not have privacy like on the listserv.

At the Interest group meeting at the recent ATSA conference there was discussion on the following questions. Please post your thoughts to these or other questions you may have regarding Internet sex offenders.

What can be done to assess risk of child pornography offenders?

Are we close to having a risk assessment instrument for the child pornography offender?

Is there a way that clinicians treating Internet sex offenders can help researchers in this area collect data?

Is there a difference with a child pornography offender who has been compulsive with his use of adult pornography and over time progresses into looking at child pornography vs. the child pornography offender who has always been interested in child pornography?

Is there a difference between an Internet offender who chats with a minor or undercover officer vs. one who chats and then travels to meet the victim?

Should Internet sex offenders be put in separate treatment groups or mixed in with the offline sex offenders?

Do Internet sex offenders need the same level of treatment as hands on sex offenders?

These are just a sampling of the questions that can be raised regarding Internet sex offenders. Feel free to give your thoughts on any of these questions or others you may have.

We hope this discussion board fosters dialogue among those interested in this topic. There is so much we don’t know that we need to open the lines of communication around this topic and hope you are willing to be an active participant in this discussion.

[kensinger]

I'm wondering if anyone has an idea about how or under what conditions the Feds come into a local child porn investigation?

I've had a couple of offenders who are pretty clean as far as any other offenses are concerned and the Feds took over the investigation. One is in NJ and the other in in PA.

Anybody know whether it is luck of the draw or something specific like number of files on the computer or what?
Ken Singer

[PMH]

Nov 22, 2010 19:15:02 GMT -6 kensinger said:

I'm wondering if anyone has an idea about how or under what conditions the Feds come into a local child porn investigation?

I've had a couple of offenders who are pretty clean as far as any other offenses are concerned and the Feds took over the investigation. One is in NJ and the other in in PA.

Anybody know whether it is luck of the draw or something specific like number of files on the computer or what?
Ken Singer

Or they may have already been tracking the one of the suppliers and jumped in when they found the locals persuing your offenders ...

-PMH

[docjan]

Hi. I am very interested in this topic. I have two people right now who came to me through the child porn issue. Neither has hands-on victims that I am aware of at this time, though one is brand new (was kicked out of another program). Both stand on the fact that they should not be in mainstream SO treatment, as they do not "touch kids." Judges in two different areas sent them here.

So, I am very open to any suggestions/thoughts, etc about working with these guys.

Thanks! Janice

[Phil Witt]

Ken Singer suggested I post to this discussion a short review article I've written on risk assessment in child porn cases. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to attach a PDF to my post. If someone can give me instructions, I'd be happy to do so. The article is:


Witt, P.H. (2010). Assessment of risk in child pornography cases. Sex Offender Law Report, 11(1), pp. 1, 4, 13-15.

You can also get a copy by going to my staff page on my group practice's website (below), and navigating down the page to my pubs, where there is a hot link to a PDF of the article.

Phil Witt

Philip H. Witt, Ph.D., ABPP
Associates in Psychological Services, P.A.
25 N. Doughty Ave.
Somerville, NJ 08876
908-526-1177, x22
www.apspa.com

[Michael Miner]

I think the problem with all of the questions posted is that they assume that the individual who uses the internet to access child pornography or to contact a child or teenager is qualitatively different from the offenders we know from before the wide-spread access to the world wide web. It seems to me that this is like talking about a telephone offender, a film offender, or a video offender. I don't think that the internet is an individual difference variable, I think it is a vehicle for acquiring information and for communication. What I wish we were talking about, as a field, was how the universal access to the internet has chanced the way individuals acquire child porn, how it makes it more accessible, so that some folks who might not have accessed it historically are now accessing it, and how chat rooms, instant messaging, social networking sites, etc. change the way certain offenders attempt to gain access to victims. I think the research is showing that these are not new people, but those with the same issues using a new medium.

[PMH]

Nov 23, 2010 8:33:15 GMT -6 @Phil Witt said:

Ken Singer suggested I post to this discussion a short review article I've written on risk assessment in child porn cases. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to attach a PDF to my post. If someone can give me instructions, I'd be happy to do so.

Philip,

You have to log in as a member of the forum in order to post attachements such as PDF files.

You'll find the attachment bar directly under the Subject line when you "Reply" to the thread.

We are looking forward to reading your article.

-PMH

[phw]

OK, as promised, attached is the child porn risk article:

Witt, P.H. (2010). Assessment of risk in child pornography cases. Sex
Offender Law Report, 11(1), pp. 1, 4, 13-15.

Phil Witt

Attachments:

[delmonico]

Mike -

I would respectfully disagree. Although the Internet may not be the individual difference variable for all sex offenders, I still believe that for some, it is THE factor that makes a difference in their offense behavior - a person we write about as the "Discovery" user.

I believe there is something qualitatively different about the Internet as opposed to other forms of media (e.g., video, magaznines, etc.). The Internet appears to have the power to change the individual psychology in a way that other mediums have not.

One of the reasons I like these types of discussions is because the jury is still out on many of these issues....including the debate about whether these are just our same old sex offenders who are acting out online, or a new group of individuals for whom the Internet serves as the catalyst. My guess is both are true.

Thanks for posting and look forward to continued discussion on this topic.

Best,

David

Mike Miner Writes: I think the problem with all of the questions posted is that they assume that the individual who uses the internet to access child pornography or to contact a child or teenager is qualitatively different from the offenders we know from before the wide-spread access to the world wide web. It seems to me that this is like talking about a telephone offender, a film offender, or a video offender. I don't think that the internet is an individual difference variable, I think it is a vehicle for acquiring information and for communication. What I wish we were talking about, as a field, was how the universal access to the internet has chanced the way individuals acquire child porn, how it makes it more accessible, so that some folks who might not have accessed it historically are now accessing it, and how chat rooms, instant messaging, social networking sites, etc. change the way certain offenders attempt to gain access to victims. I think the research is showing that these are not new people, but those with the same issues using a new medium.

[Elizabeth Griffin]

Ken,

My experience is that there is not one factor that causes the Feds to be involved in these Internet cases- At times it seems to be seriousness of the crime or the dangerousness of the offender and at other times is seems they are just randomly picking cases - I have been involved in state cases that I can't believe the Feds said no to and I have been involved in federal cases that I can't believe the Feds have said yes to

[jlooman]

In follow-up to delmonico's response to Mike Miner's comment - as in most cases, I think it has a lot to do with the offender.

Becuase of the population I deal with I have never seen a strictly child porn offender. However I have seen a number of child molesters who, with the advent of the internet, have incorporated internet activity into their offending, either looking at and distributing porn or using chat rooms to find victims. This is consistent with what Mike was getting at, I think.

However, I'm sure that, with the new ease of access to porn and such that the internet allows, there are also the "Doscovery" users. I find it hard to imagine that sort of thing not happening.

Jan

[kensinger]

This is perhaps at the heart of the question. The newness of the technology has not allowed for the research to confirm that these guys are a different breed or perhaps just wolves in new sheep clothing.

My population may be different from Jan's or Mike's. However, I'm getting a lot of these guys who don't seem to be hands-on offenders. They, for the most part, don't claim to be aroused in looking at the pre-pubescent material but will admit to arousal/masturbation to the adult and teen images.

I can understand the downward slide many seem to do (from legal adult to "barely legal" to illegal teens to "lolitas"). My hunch is that the adolescent part of their brain (and ditto for lots of us not in the legal system) get aroused to the young adolescents because that's where most of us got aroused in the first place when the hormones were kicking in.

However, when they start looking at the pre-pubescents, is it the same arousal that they're getting from the old turn-ons from adolescence or is something else going on?

There's also the issue of minimizing, denial and outright lying. Though I hate to think that any of my clients would lie to me , it is a possibility that some/many do.

Does anyone know if there have been any good studies of these guys using polygraph to determine credibility? Maybe something like the claims of being abused going down a few years ago when the poly was used to verify sexual history?

From my weak research brain, I wonder if there is something about this population in terms of the role of curiosity to initially look at the images of younger (pre-pubescent) children. Also wonder if anyone is doing or plans to do fMRI on them to determine if the same areas of the brain light up between adult/legal porn and the pre-pubescent ones.

Maybe some possibilities for the research crowd.

[candice]

I thought I would share my experience with those clients with convictions for viewing sexual abuse images. I have provided treatment for about 10 years for federal probation clients and most have been convicted for illegal porn. I also am getting more referrals of this type of offender from state probation officers. I use the polygraph in treatment and although the federal numbers are small--about 30 clients-many of them have hands-on offenses. The federal officer and I just did a presentation recently for other federal officers and as we reviewed past and current clients, we found that 67% of the men had hands on offenses to children. A few of them had high sexual interest in children with many victims, but never had been accused or convicted. And a few of them, but not many, did appear to have "discovered" sexual abuse images through adult porn use. In addition, it was rare for these clients to have a prior criminal history of any kind. And of course, all of them initially denied hands on victims or extensive internet viewing of sexual abuse images. I have found that even the guys who did not have hands on victims, they all admitted to much more extensive use of illegal porn than even the federal agents found during in the investigation, some had been doing it for years.
My initial assessment of clients with only illegal porn convictions includes a victim/sexual history polygraph in order to decide on treatment goals; other clients get the polygraph during the first phase of treatment, not initial assessment. As one of my clients said once (he was a doctor who was convicted of child porn) the polygraph is the xray for sex offenders; he would not have treated a patient without xrays or other tests in order to determine the course of treatment, and the polygraph and the abel helps to provide the information for therapists to determine the course of treatment for sexual offenders.
Depending on what the history is, treatment time is 6 months to years for the highest risk offenders. With the lowest risk clients, I usually provide education about victims and use the book, Cybersex. I am also beginning to recommend the book, The Porn Trap, for them to read. I try to make sure they have a basic relapse plan before I discharge, even if they are only in treatment a short time. I have learned to never assume that what we know or hear at the initial referral is what it is. So I find a high percentage of my clients are like other offenders and so treatment for them is the same as the clients who have been convicted of hands on offenses.
I am wondering if others have similar experiences if they use the polygraph in treatment.
Candice Cleveland, LCSWR
Choice Program Director, Corning, NY

[andres]

I have worked with hundreds of federally convicted Child Pornography Offenders (CPO). After 14 years, my "working" conclusion is that the issue is far more complicated. The arguments I hear are along dichotomous lines: Are CPOs a different breed of criminals and sexual deviants? are they sexual deviants or sexual addicts? are they at risk of committing child molestation or not? etc. etc. The proportion of CPOs in my treatment program who have disclosed a prior history of contact sexual criminality has been 80 to 85%. I know that many individuals have taken this porportion to the "bank," and made some outrageous claims in court trying to prove that a CPO defendant is a child molester. I believe it is equally inappropriate to conclude the CPO is not a child molester or at risk of such conduct when there are no prior convictions of child molestation (particularly without a polygraph examination attempting to verify the CPOs claims). Even if the CPO does not have a history (documented or undocumented) of hands-on sexual crimes, perhaps the most important question is what is the significance of his online criminality in relation to being at risk of committing child molestation in the future?

Child pornography offenses are motivated by several factors. Some factors, such as having a sexual interest in children, are primary driving forces. However, there are other factors which appear to have a synergistic influence on the CPOs. These factors include the unique features of the internet world and how that world is accessed. Sitting in front of a computer gives the user the perception of anonymity and privacy which, then, appears to promote behavioral disinhibition and de-individuation. Additionally, many CPOs with (pehaps) latent pedophilic interets are driven to participate in the online subculture of pedophiles and child molesters because of their need to belong (i.e., need for group affiliation). Many CPOs have shared with me that accessing the child pornography on the Internet was sexually gratifying, but also socially gratifying. They felt like there was a group of individuals, in fact a community "out there," that normalized their sexual interests, their thoughts and fantasies. Even though they knew it was illegal, they felt "understood" by the online community.

So, in my humble opinion, I believe it's a bit more complicated than the arguments which I often hear (and I also have made in the past). Food for thought... I thought I would share with the group.

Take care,

Andres Hernandez

[candice]

Andres
thanks for your post; looks like you have found similar histories of CP clients as I have; although you certainly have a much higher number of clients over the years. And I do think it is important to think about how this behavior impacts one's risk to offend a child. I am working with a client right now that has one victim and he offended her when she was in his home visiting. He had been viewing child porn and went into her room where she was sleeping and fondled her. Viewing the porn and having access to a child at the same time clearly created a high risk situation for him and helped break down the barriers that had prevented him from offending in the past. He does admit to sexual interest in prepubescent females and works on that issue in treatment.
I am not interested in research, but I would like to see someone collect information like ours from treatment providers who use polygraphs in order to see if this is common and what the stats would be.