The cybersex offender and children.

The law enforcement community increasingly faces situations involving explicit chat discussions and other disturbing online activities that victimize minors. Officers encounter troubling images and dialogue during undercover operations, as well as other types of efforts, such as computer forensic examinations targeted at locating missing children.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Because of the capabilities that computers offer criminals lurking in the Internet's shadows, these individuals are particularly threatening to the community. From the safety of their homes, pedophiles can use the Internet to anonymously and simultaneously prepare numerous children for future molestations. With the click of a mouse, child pornographers easily can distribute their collections to many other offenders or even to juveniles.

Cybersex offenders who target young people use computers for purposes that may include viewing, storing, producing, sending, and receiving child pornography; contacting, grooming, and enticing juveniles for victimization; and communicating with (and, thus, helping to validate) each other. Upon their apprehension, these individuals often will attempt to justify their actions. Law enforcement officers must learn to identify and understand such offenders to effectively diffuse their defenses and lay the groundwork for a successful prosecution.

THE YOUNG VICTIM

A recent study of 1,501 Internet users ranging from 10 to 17 years of age revealed the following disturbing information:

* Approximately 1 in 5 received a sexual solicitation over the Internet in the past year.

* One in 33 experienced an aggressive approach--an individual who requested a meeting; telephoned; or sent regular mail, money, or gifts.

* One in 4 had unwanted exposure to explicit pictures in the past year.

* One in 17 faced threats or harassment.

* Youths reported less than 10 percent of sexual solicitations and only 3 percent of unwanted exposure episodes to authorities, such as law enforcement agencies, Internet service providers (ISP), and appropriate hotlines. (1)

Cybersex offenses have a lasting and, thus, devastating effect on victims. For instance, electronically maintained images do not deteriorate. They also can become dispersed easier, faster, and to a wider audience than hard copy materials. Once distributed on the Internet, they are harder to retrieve and control. Because of these factors, digital pornographic images have a longer duration of harm for victims than nonelectronic materials.

Through the Internet, cybersex offenders can affect victims without any physical contact. Individuals easily can forward explicit images to juveniles. Subjects also can obtain innocent pictures of children via the Internet or other sources and then "morph" those images into pornography. (2) Until the pictures begin surfacing online, these juveniles may not become aware of this type of victimization.

Additionally, these offenders use electronic images, as they would with hard copy materials, of child pornography and even favorite cartoon characters engaged in sexual acts to encourage or entice juveniles to participate in inappropriate conduct. This exposure serves to desensitize young people and make them think such behavior is normal.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

For these victims, finding justice can prove difficult. Of course, no one country or authority governs the Internet's content; issues of child pornography and exploitation frequently transcend jurisdictional boundaries. This causes not only legal problems but also difficulties for juveniles and their families when seeking redress.

THE CYBERSEX OFFENDER

Background

Research consistently revealed a troubling aspect of sex offenders--that they held responsibility for numerous victimizations beyond those for which they were convicted. One study described a ratio of nearly 30 additional similar crimes to each offense. (3) Evidence also pointed to a comparative frequency of reoffending among individuals guilty of child pornography. Specifically, a study of 54 federal offenders convicted of possession or distribution found 1,371 victims of contact sexual crimes never detected by the criminal justice system. (4)

Offenders who misuse the Internet to commit lewd acts involving juveniles have found a sense of validation from one another. Before the advent of the Internet, individuals with deviant tendencies usually were isolated. Today, however, offenders feel normal because they see from chat rooms and Web sites that many other individuals have the same interests. Thus, the behavior becomes reinforced, perhaps emboldening them to commit acts, such as sex with a child, in the real world.

Cybersex offenders find the computer and the Internet compelling tools in their deviant behavior for four general reasons. One, the Internet provides them with anonymity. They can communicate with whomever they want with little fear that someone will discover or identify them. Further, individuals can portray anyone (e.g., someone from the opposite sex, single, more attractive, less overweight, or similar in age to the victim) in their attempts to entice juveniles online.

Two, using computers, sex offenders can groom multiple victims not only over an extended period of time but simultaneously. Such activity would prove harder and riskier to accomplish in the real world.

Three, digital equipment greatly enhances the ability to store, catalog, and retrieve the offender's collection. A computer can maintain thousands of pornographic files and keep them hidden from family members and employers yet readily available for the subject's viewing and other purposes.

Four, advanced technologies permit anyone to produce pornography. Offenders easily can morph innocent pictures into explicit ones; they even can put themselves into the images. These individuals also can take digital photos of their victims without worrying about the risks associated with having the film developed.

Types of Offenders

Three types of offenders exist: 1) the dabbler (curious individuals with access to child pornography or to a dealer); 2) the preferential offender (the person with deviant sexual interests involving juveniles); and 3) the miscellaneous offender (pranksters or misguided individuals who possess these materials as a result of their own investigations). (5) Determining which category a subject falls under involves examining the files found in the offender's possession, the individual's equipment and ISP, the subject's online behavior, and the person's other activities. Looking at these areas--both individually and in conjunction with one another--helps to assess offenders' levels of deviance, diffuse any possible justifications for their actions (e.g., they downloaded them by accident, a hacker was responsible, it was just for fantasy, or they did not know it was child pornography), and, possibly, influence sentencing.

Files

Investigators should examine the files found in the offender's possession to gain insight into the subject's level of interest and deviancy and foreclose several defenses. Areas of consideration should include file quantity, themes, types, organization, locations, and uses.

Obviously, the quantity of files according to theme will reveal an individual's level of interest and deviancy in particular areas. Officers should compare the number of pornographic images containing children with the overall size of the subject's collection. And, authorities should see if the individual possesses violent materials (e.g., rape and torture themes); this provides further insight into what type of offender investigators are dealing with. In this regard, officers may find file names (e.g., child7rape) enlightening. Authorities also should consider the similarities (e.g., pertaining to a particular age group or fetish) among the images.

The types of files also prove important. Specifically, do they include still pictures (e.g., files with extensions of .jpg; .bmp; or .gif) or moving images (e.g., names ending in .avi or .mpg)? A collection of movies may indicate a deeper level of involvement as downloading these files requires more time and storage space.

A system of well-organized files also proves significant because it indicates active offender participation. For example, did the subject leave them in temporary Internet folders or intentionally save them in specific locations according to areas of interest?

Finally, how did the offender use the images (e.g., as masturbation material)? How many files were sent to or received from others? Were they sent to juveniles? Did the subject use them to outdo others who collect child porn (i.e., to have a larger or better collection)? To barter for other types of materials (e.g., adult, incest, or fetish)? Did the individual sell child pornography? This information provides insight into the offender's involvement with the community of deviancy and may serve as a source of investigative leads (perhaps, to other offenders).

Equipment and ISP

An examination of offenders' equipment also provides insight into their activities. Top-of-the-line hardware (e.g., computers, scanners, and digital cameras) may reflect an interest in producing or viewing high-quality pornographic images. Large hard drives could reveal an individual's desire to store a library of image files, as they take a lot of space. State-of-the-art equipment not only provides faster access to images for viewing but the ability to produce and distribute child pornography as well.

An ISP also can reveal the offender's ability to download images. For instance, cable connections will offer faster Internet speeds and better capabilities to subjects than dial-up services. Certainly, an individual who spends a lot of time downloading files with a slow service has demonstrated willingness and commitment in obtaining them.

Online Behavior

Investigators also must examine an offender's online activities. For instance, how many screen names does the subject use? Do any of them suggest some deviant interest? Does the individual have a screen profile? If so, what interests does it mention? Does it include the offender's photo? Is the profile accurate? Or, did the person provide false information (e.g., pertaining to age or gender) to entice the child?

Investigators also must consider how long the offender has had access to the Internet and, in that period, how much time the individual has spent online, particularly during hours when juveniles would be logged on (e.g., after school). Also, how many people communicated with the offender? How many names were regular contacts (e.g., in a chat buddy list or in the e-mail address book), and did these include other adults or juveniles? If grown-ups, were they other individuals interested in child porn? How many messages, with and without attachments, did the subject send and receive? What were the offender's favorite Web sites, and did the individual pay for access to online porn? Did the subject use file-sharing programs to obtain and trade images?

What was discussed in messages and chats involving the offender? If involved with any meetings with juveniles or undercover officers, did the subject bring any suspicious items (e.g., digital cameras, condoms, sex toys, weapons, or drugs)? One chilling example involved an offender arrested in an undercover sting operation in which he brought a shovel, an axe, gasoline, and garbage bags to his meeting with an investigator posing as a minor.

Other Activities

Officers also should examine the offender's real world activities. For instance, does the subject's current or prior employment involve juveniles? Has the person volunteered in activities involving children (e.g., coaching little league)? Does the individual reside near places where juveniles frequent or do children live in the home? Offenders who organize their lives around young people indicate that they may be drawn to minors and that additional victims may exist.

Also, does this person have an extensive record of foreign travel (perhaps, to a country that does not aggressively enforce laws prohibiting sex acts with minors)? And, does the individual's prior record include sex crimes? In this regard, probation and parole agencies increasingly use monitoring software and hardware that records released offenders' activities and, where appropriate, provides investigators with additional evidence as to a subject's online behavior.

CONCLUSION

The cybersex offender poses a unique and troubling risk to juveniles. The law enforcement community must learn to fully understand and investigate these individuals and their crimes. Knowledge of such predators' habits can serve as a crucial factor in diffusing possible defenses. Once investigators peel back these layers of deception and rationalization, they will reveal these subjects for who they really are and take a fundamental step in the successful prosecution of these cases and the protection of children--both online and in the real world.

Endnotes

(1) University of New Hampshire, Crimes Against Children Research Center, Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth (Durham, NH, 2000).

(2) Through morphing, an individual can combine one picture with another to create a new image.

(3) G. G. Abel, J. V. Becker, M. S. Mittelman, J. Cunningham-Rathner, J. L. Rouleau, and W. D. Murphy, "Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2, no. 6 (1987): 3-25.

(4) Andres E. Hernandez, Self-Reported Contact Sexual Crimes of Federal Inmates Convicted of Child Pornography Offenses, presentation given at the 19th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA, November 2000.

(5) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Use of Computers in the Sexual Exploitation of Children (Washington, DC, 2000).

RELATED ARTICLE: Sample Online Chat

Man4y: Hi, babe!

Girl11: Hi.

Man4y: Are we still meeting tonight?

Girl11: For sure! My parents think I am going to a friend's house.

Man4y: Kool! I can't wait to be your first lover. Will pick you up in my blue truck at the mall at 5 p.m. I have a room reserved so we can explore together in private!

RELATED ARTICLE: Common Defenses

* I downloaded them by accident.

* I did not know it was child pornography.

* It was just fantasy. I never intended to have sex with a minor.

* I just had dirty pictures. I did not hurt anyone.

* A hacker put these files on my computer.

* I have them so I will not abuse children.

BY ARTHUR BOWKER, M.A., and MICHAEL GRAY 

Mr. Bowker serves as a computer crime specialist with the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio Probation Office in Cleveland.

Mr. Gray is a probation officer with the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio Probation Office in Cleveland.