Are we being mislead by DOJ Press Releases and State AG claims?

3-30-2009 National:

As promised and resulting from a readers comment about my post of a DOJ Press Release: RECOVERY ACT PROVIDES $50 MILLION FOR INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN GRANT PROGRAMS . The reader commented "Curious to know how many of the 5,000 were part of Internet sting operations?" Well, that got me thinking, so here goes:

The Department of Justice announced today that $50 million is available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) for Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) (State offices). What I don't know is, is that a one time grant or a grant covering 2 years, which will factor into my response.

Here is the portion of their statement which is in question:

"The ICAC program supports a national network of 59 coordinated task forces, representing more than 2,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies engaged in proactive investigations, forensic examinations, and criminal prosecutions. During the past two years, the ICAC task forces have successfully conducted more than 24,371 forensic examinations, identified nearly 1,439 children who were victims of some form of abuse or neglect, and arrested 5,450 individuals. Of the total arrests, 2,073 resulted in the defendant accepting a plea agreement."

My Analysis:
1) 24,371 forensic examinations were conducted. I doubt more than one was conducted for any one perpetrator. Given roughly 5,450 perpetrators were arrested, its unknown how many were convicted. For discussion sake lets assume all, that means that 77.7% of the forensic examinations yielded zippo nothing. Now, each forensic exam cost $2,051.00 and the amount of the 50 mil wasted is, drum roll, $38,850,000.00 but it provided jobs and saved children who were suffering, so is it really wasted?

2) There is no mention of whether any of those arrested were previously convicted sex offenders, parents or other caregivers. Am I confusing folks? Read on, it will be made clear. One would think the ICAC would love to tout "sex crime" if it were true, but nothing no mention of sex crimes.

3) 24,371 forensic exams nationally or 488 per state, and of each 488, there was no or insufficient evidence in 380 cases, or 108 cases with evidence existed.

For some time now each state Attorney General has been making news about the HIGH number of Internet crimes against children and how so many children are at risk from SEXUAL PREDATORS lurking on the Internet. I doubt folks have not read those news reports, no need to cite them.

The US Census bureau shows there are (roughly) 73,675,560 children under 18 in the US, roughly 1,473,511 per state. If every forensic exam was a case targeted towards a child, a real person, that means in every state (488 cases) 0.033% of a state's children were actually targeted. And, real evidence showed 108 cases yielded evidence or 0.00732% of a state's children were actually subjected to an improper act.

Now, because someone is going to jump on me for saying "an improper act" rather than a sex crime, read what ICAC says "... identified nearly 1,439 children who were victims of some form of abuse or neglect..." they would definitely say "sex crime if all were sex crimes, but they do not say that, they use "abuse or neglect." Abuse may be sex crimes but neglect has nothing to do with sex crimes.

OK folks, why is the ICAC handling neglect crimes against children? All I can figure is, someone reported to NCMEC (Cyber Tip Line) maybe a picture of a child being slapped, beaten, starved or something of that nature (which likely falls in the neglect area), rather than anything sexual. Then because it was initiated via the Internet ICAC had jurisdiction to begin an investigation.

Now that my eyes have been opened thanks to a reader, and reading the article much closer (even the title does not say sex crimes), we all now have a better idea of what ICAC handles and know non sex crimes are also covered. However, my suggestion would be to pass neglect cases on to CPS workers who are likely paid far less than ICAC personnel.

Finally, I am very thankful children were removed from circumstances that were detrimental to them, but I think the public needs to be better and properly informed.

From now on I will be more critical of State AGs when they claim they have joined forces with federal folks and the NCMEC touting "Stop Internet Sexual Predators," when there own evidence points to non sexual crimes taking place on the Internet. i.e. this Press Release. We must read them closer..

eAdvocate

PS: I'm sorry we couldn't answer my reader's question, but I think we found something better, for now.