Debate on Child Pornography’s Link to Molesting

It is important to read this in its proper context, and the findings CANNOT be applied to ALL SEX OFFENDERS! The only offenders allowed to participate were KNOWN child pornography offenders who ALREADY had a conviction for some form of child pornography. This -choice of offenders allowed to particpate- shows why the results cannot be applied to all offenders; simply said, this group is not representative of the entire population of offenders.

7-19-2007 North Carolina:

Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.

The study, which has not yet been published, is stirring a vehement debate among psychologists, law enforcement officers and prison officials, who cannot agree on how the findings should be presented or interpreted.

The research, carried out by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is the first in-depth survey of such online offenders’ sexual behavior done by prison therapists who were actively performing treatment. Its findings have circulated privately among experts, who say they could have enormous implications for public safety and law enforcement.

Traffic in online child pornography has exploded in recent years, and the new study, some experts say, should be made public as soon as possible, to identify men who claim to be “just looking at pictures” but could, in fact, be predators.

Yet others say that the results, while significant, risk tarring some men unfairly. The findings, based on offenders serving prison time who volunteered for the study, do not necessarily apply to the large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography, and whose behavior is far too variable to be captured by a single survey.

Adding to the controversy, the prison bureau in April ordered the paper withdrawn from a peer-reviewed academic journal where it had been accepted for publication, apparently concerned that the results might be misinterpreted. A spokeswoman for the bureau said the agency was reviewing a study of child pornography offenders but declined to comment further.

Ernie Allen, who leads the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is mandated to coordinate the nation’s efforts to combat child pornography, said he was surprised that the full study had not been released. “This is the kind of research the public needs to know about,” Mr. Allen said. Others agreed that the report should be published but were more cautious about the findings. “The results could have tremendous implications for community safety and for individual liberties,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. “If people we thought were not dangerous are more so, then we need to know that and we should treat them that way. But if we’re wrong, then their liberties aren’t going to be fairly addressed.”

Everyone agrees that researchers need to learn more about online consumers of illegal child images. The volume of material seized from computers appears to be doubling each year — the National Center collected more than eight million images of explicit child pornography in the last five years — and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales made child protection a national priority in 2006.

Those who are arrested on charges of possession or distribution of child pornography generally receive lighter sentences and shorter parole periods than sexual abusers. They do not fit any criminal stereotype; recent arrests have included politicians, police officers, teachers and businessmen.

“It’s crucial to understand the sexual history of all these offenders, because sometimes the crime they were arrested for is the tip of the iceberg, and does not reflect their real patterns and interests,” said Jill S. Levenson, an assistant professor of human services at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., and head of the ethics committee of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Previous studies, based on surveys of criminal records, estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of those arrested for possessing child pornography also had molested children.

The psychologists who conducted the new study, Andres E. Hernandez and Michael L. Bourke, focused on 155 male inmates who had volunteered to be treated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C., according to a draft of the paper obtained by The New York Times from outside experts who want the study published.

The Butner clinic is the only residential program devoted to the treatment of sexual offenders in the federal prison system. The inmates in the study were all serving sentences for possession or distribution of child pornography.

About every six months as part of an 18-month treatment program, they filled out a record of their sexual history, including a “victims list” tallying their previous victims of abuse. Therapists encouraged the men to be honest as part of their treatment, and the sexual histories were anonymous, according to the paper.

The psychologists compared these confessions with the men’s criminal sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26 percent who were known to have committed any “hands on” offenses at sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims: 1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the men were sentenced.

Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke concluded in the paper that “many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters.” But they also cautioned that offenders who volunteer for treatment may differ in their behavior from those who do not seek treatment.

They submitted the paper to The Journal of Family Violence, a widely read peer-reviewed publication in the field, and it was accepted.

But in a letter obtained by The Times, dated April 3, Judi Garrett, an official of the Bureau of Prisons, requested that the editors of the journal withdraw the study, because it did not meet “agency approval.”

Editors at The Journal of Family Violence did not respond to phone or e-mail messages asking about the withdrawal.

Dr. Hernandez mentioned the research briefly during testimony before a Senate committee last year. But the bureau blocked Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke from attending some law enforcement conferences to speak about the findings, said two prosecutors who did not want to be identified because they have a continuing work relationship with the bureau.

“We believe it unwise to generalize from limited observations gained in treatment or in records review to the broader population of persons who engage in such behavior,” a bureau official wrote to the organizers of a recent law enforcement conference, in a letter dated May 2 and given to The Times by an expert who is hoping the study will be published.

Some prosecutors say they could use the study to argue for stiffer sentences. While some outside researchers agreed that the risk of over-generalizing the study’s results was real, almost all the experts interviewed also said that the study should still be made public.

Dr. Peter Collins, who leads the Forensic Psychiatry Unit of the Ontario Provincial Police, called the findings “cutting-edge stuff.”

“We’re really on the cusp of learning more about these individuals and studies should be encouraged, not quashed,” Dr. Collins said.

Understanding the relationship between looking at child pornography and sexually assaulting children is central to developing effective treatment, psychologists say.

It is not at all clear when, or in whom, the viewing spurs action or activates a latent, unconscious desire; or whether such images have little or no effect on the offender’s subsequent behavior. But the relationship probably varies widely.

“My concern is about sensationalism, about the way something like this is handled in the media,” said Michael Miner, an associate professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Minnesota who treats sex offenders. “The public perception is that all of these guys will re-offend, and we know that just isn’t true.”

At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires — exactly the opposite.

“Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”

How many offenders does he speak for? The study may help answer that question, some say.

“The penalties we seek, the vigor with which we prosecute — the very importance we give to child pornography cases — all of these things are affected by what we know about the offenders,” said Leura G. Canary, the United States attorney for Middle Alabama who also leads the Attorney General’s Working Group on Child Exploitation and Obscenity. “And right now we know very little.” ..Source.. New York Times, JULIAN SHER and BENEDICT CAREY

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Controversial New Study Strongly Links Child Porn Use And Child Abuse

12-21-2009 National:

December 11, 2009 — A recent study performed by psychologists among inmates of the Bureau of Prisons suggests a strong link between the use of child pornography and child abuse. The study, conducted between 2002-2005 and chronicled in an article by Tori DeAngelis in this month's edition of the American Psychological Association's Monitor on Pyschology, studied men who had already been convicted of child pornography crimes to see if they had also molested children.

Clinical psychologists Michael Bourke, PhD, and Andres Hernandez, PsyD found that while many child pornography viewers before their trial would deny having molested children, after the conviction many of them changed their story.

Bourke said, "There is this assumption - in the treatment context, in courtrooms, in investigative circles and in the assessment literature - that these are dichotomous groups … However, in the course of treatment, these men would disclose to us that their use of the Internet was not the limit of their sexual acting out - it was in fact an adjunctive behavior."

The study, initially released in the April issue of Journal of Family and Violence, studied 155 men convicted of possessing child pornography. Of the 155 men, 74% before their convictions denied having ever molested children. However, at the end of treatment, 84% of these same men had admitted to molesting a child at least once. The average number of victims per man was 13.5.

When the study was finished, it was initially suppressed because opponents felt that it would generalize too much. Dr. Fred Berlin, the head of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at John Hopkins said, "These studies have tremendous implications, both in terms of community safety and in terms of individual liberties. So we have to be very careful that our conclusions are valid before we get too firmly tied to them."

Dr. Berlin's criticism of the study rested on the fear that the men were being overly cooperative with the therapists in order to be please them.

However, Graham Hill, head of Great Britain's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, believes that the fact that the men were speaking to therapists makes it more likely that they are being truthful.

"In our view, the therapeutic relationship is the strength of the survey, because these men are more likely to be truthful with therapists they trust than if they're just filling out a questionnaire."

Thus Hernandez, one of the two leading psychologists in the study said, "Our study was exploratory, and our aim was to highlight the apparent co-morbidity of two seemingly distinct forms of criminality."

With the link between child pornography and child molestation established, some believe that this should also be extra cause to prosecute those who are involved in the adult pornography industry. Judith A. Reisman, former president of the Institute for Media Education and a noted psychologist, says that the link between adult pornography and child pornography is also largely recognized.

In her book Soft Porn Plays Hardball, Reisman quotes John Rabun, Jr., Chief Operating Officer of the National Missing and Exploited Children's Center in Washington, D.C as saying that of "fourteen hundred cases of suspected child exploitation all, that is 100 percent … had in their possession at the time of arrest, adult pornography ranging from what is … typically referred to as soft pornography such as Playboy, on up to harder, such as Hustler."

Reisman goes on to say that pornography, like any addiction, starts out soft and moves on to harder material.

"As in all addictive stimuli one proceeds from the original stimuli to 'harder' stimuli. If pornography is an addiction, like alcohol and other drugs, than it also leads a significant percentage of users to 'harder' stimuli, period."

With this new study, Reisman argues that the chain of events can now easily be traced from adult pornography to child pornography and ultimately child molestation.

"[The use of harder pornography] eventually moves into children, and then to increasing sexual violence and brutality to children."

"Pedophilia is a progressive form of degeneracy that commonly follows from the use of adult 'normal' pornography (all of which, including Playboy, our study found included child pornography triggers throughout the magazines). That such use frequently progresses to more deviance is now a given." ..Source.. Matt Anderson, LifeSiteNews.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

No quick fixes, but child-porn users can be reformed, experts say

2-6-2009 Canada:

Despite the disturbing rate of repeat offenders, experts believe that some sex offenders - child-pornography enthusiasts included - can learn to control their criminal appetites.

But it takes years rather than months, they say.

"If you do it in the right way and target the right things, you can pretty much guarantee that you can reduce the re-offence rate," says Bill Marshall, who has treated thousands of sex offenders over the past 40 years and is director of the internationally acclaimed Rockwood Psychological Services in Kingston.

Yet he also emphasizes that there's no quick fix.

"Whenever I go into court, and it's always on behalf of the Crown, the judge often says, 'How long a sentence does this man need to get effective treatment?' And I always say, 'Give him less than three years and he's not going to get effective treatment.' "

Child-porn crimes, however, rarely incur such sentences. Far more common is a provincial jail term, meaning less than two years.

Both Dr. Marshall and Peter Collins, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto who lectures widely on treating sex offenders, reject the notion that child-porn users are innately different from other pedophiles, or that their activities serve as a kind of safety valve.

And a landmark piece of research published two years ago for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, dubbed the Buttner Study, bears them out.

The survey questioned several hundred convicted child pornographers who had no criminal record for contact offences against juveniles.

In therapy and confidential surveys, a full 85 per cent of the pool admitted that they had, in fact, physically abused children.

They simply hadn't been caught.

"All the evidence that we have on these guys is they have the same kind of features and background," Dr. Marshall said.

So can child-porn users be reformed? Probably, both specialists say.

"They can be treated if they're motivated," Dr. Collins said.

"But pedophilia is a deeply ingrained erotic preference." ..News Source.. by TIMOTHY APPLEBY

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Jail programs had little effect on whether freed inmates re-offended, new study shows

3-31-2004 Canada:

VANCOUVER -- Treating sex offenders in custody for their deviant urges has little impact on whether they go on to commit sex crimes -- or other offences -- after they're freed, according to a new study.

The study, which is sure to reignite the debate about whether sex offenders can ever be safely rehabilitated, traced a group of 724 sex offenders serving federal prison terms in British Columbia beginning in the early 1980s. Of these, 403 received treatment, while 321 did not.

After 12 years, the criminals who underwent a treatment program in jail had slightly lower repeat records, but the differences were so negligible that researchers said they had no significance.

For example, 21.1 per cent of sex offenders who received treatment went on to commit another sex crime, compared with 21.8 per cent of those who were not treated.

Another 42.9 per cent of treated criminals committed violent crimes after release, compared with 44.5 per cent for offenders with no treatment. For other crimes, the repeat rate was 56.6 per cent for treated offenders versus 60.4 per cent for those who weren't counselled.

"It is reasonable to conclude that the overall [treatment] program did not have any meaningful effect on recidivism rates," said the study, co-authored by psychologist Karl Hanson and published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Studies. "We still have much to learn about how best to intervene with sexual offenders."

The study could be viewed as a blow to the professionals who provide treatment to sex offenders in Canadian prisons, where the conventional wisdom has been that treatment works. The new study paints a bleaker picture of whether treatment has a positive impact.

As early as this year, federal statistics said treatment for sex offenders reduced that sexual recidivism rate from 17 per cent to 10 per cent.

Right now, there are just over 3,000 inmates in federal institutions whose primary crime is a sex offence. And while treatment isn't mandatory, it's often part of an inmate's "correction plan" written for an offender as he starts his sentence. Since the late 1980s, however, sex offenders in B.C. have been required to undergo treatment before they're released.

According to Correctional Service Canada statistics, 40 per cent of sex offenders are in treatment and 20 per cent are on a waiting list.

However, there's never been scientific proof that treatment works. For years there have been debates among law enforcers, social workers, treatment providers and academics about the effectiveness of treating sex offenders.

For academics, the main problem has always been finding random subjects to study. They provide the most statistically sound outcomes, but they're hard to find in the criminal justice system, and sex offenders, because they're a small group, are harder to come by. Many offenders who don't receive treatment have refused it.

If that person goes on to reoffend, it's not clear if it's because he didn't receive treatment or because he was not motivated to change in the first place.

Mr. Hanson said the new survey provides a more accurate picture because the inmates who did not receive treatment were randomly selected from an era when treatment wasn't required as part of a B.C.'s sex offenders correction plan.

However, he added, the news isn't all bad. Treatment programs today in Canadian prisons are more sophisticated than the programs available when his subjects were incarcerated.

Now, prisons tailor programs for sex offenders to address deviant behaviour. They also identify an offender's level of risk to the community.

"The moral of this particular article is that even though we think these [new programs] are likely to be better, we need to do the evaluations to make sure we're not fooling ourselves again."

The study followed a group of male prisoners released between 1980 and 1992. All the men were serving federal prison terms for a sex offence, meaning their sentences were longer than two years. ..more.. by Column courtesy The Globe & Mail © worldwide 2004

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Porn triggers acting out on victims? Really?

7-25-2007 National:

Why did the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, spike its own shocking study, that during therapy, fully 85 percent of incarcerated child pornography users have reluctantly admitted to sexually assaulting children?

The BOP study by psychologists Andres E. Hernandez and Michael L. Bourke has been momentarily suppressed and tossed onto the political hot seat as "debated" and "contested."

The New York Times recently leaked the BOP report on 155 child pornography users who were in a treatment program at the low security Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C.

At the time of their arrests, 26 percent (40 men) admitted to being child molesters. However, during therapy, 85 percent (132 men) confessed to sexually abusing children. Also at arrest, the men admitted to victimizing 75 children. During therapy, however, the 155 felons finally confessed to 1,777 young victims – and, this is what they admitted.

Why should BOP yank the Butner prisoners' study from the peer-reviewed academic journal poised to publish it? Anyone can check the Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Statistics website for thousands of prisoner studies. Just from the top:

Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners
Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities

Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails

American Indians and Crime: A BJS Statistical Profile Profile of Nonviolent Offenders Exiting State Prisons

Age Patterns of Victims of Serious Violent Crime

Although many readers would – rightly or wrongly – interpret the above study findings as vilifying convicts, the studies have not been publicly disputed and suppressed. Yet, scientific findings that prove pornography's harmful effects are immediately disputed and suppressed by closeted persons and entities.

In her Culture and Media Institute essay on this scandal, legal maven Jan LaRue wonders why the BOP is hiding the study: "Are officials more concerned about misinterpretations than protecting kids?"

La Rue reports, "Judith Simon Garrett, assistant general counsel at the BOP, is heavily involved in squelching the study." Garrett has railed against legislators, says LaRue, who want longer sentences and "restrictions on early release mechanisms."

On point, Garrett also feels commercial "nudity or sexually explicit pictures" should be available to convicts.

La Rue observes that Garrett's own advocacy writings are published with a BOP disclaimer.

"Why isn't she urging the BOP to do the same here? Is it because she thinks 'programs' that permit prisoners access to pornography are acceptable, and the study could prove her wrong?"

These are prudent questions.

Garrett's sexual activism exemplifies why our "adult" pornography laws are ignored by those whose special interests misdirect our justice system.

For years, I have received mail from homosexual and heterosexual convicts who claim theirs was a "soft pornography" downward spiral into abuse and prison. Did the psychologists gather embarrassing data on these hot-button political issues?

And Butner is not dé jà vu – because I have been here before.

Some brief background. In 1986, my federally funded analysis of "Images of Children, Crime & Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler," was suppressed by Verne Speirs who was then director of the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

In 1994, after my study was endorsed by OJJDP Director Robert Sweet, in-depth investigations proved that Big Porno and the Kinsey Institute had significantly invested in discrediting our study findings. For, like Butner, our research identified a strong link between pornography and child sexual abuse.

The claim that the Butner study did not "meet agency approval" and that "the results might be misinterpreted" is suspect and does not justify BOP censorship. The pornography industry and its closet cohorts never want the public to learn that "just looking at pictures" has too often triggered serious copycat crimes against women and children.

Before leaving this subject, I must note that Dr. Fred Berlin, of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic worried that the Butner findings might actually be dangerous.

The New York Times reporters quote Berlin: "If people we thought were not dangerous are more so, then we need to know that, and we should treat them that way. But if we're wrong, then their liberties aren't going to be fairly addressed."

However, Berlin has historically protected the "liberties" of convicted pedophiles who he knew were abusing children during their mandated sex therapy program at Hopkins' Berlin/Money clinic.

Based on decades of "liberties" wrongly given to dangerous child predators, the Butner prison findings may cause such sexperts legitimate worry about future litigation.

Now, as LaRue says, after We The People study the whole, unedited report, let a real "debate" begin! ..more.. by Judith Reisman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The tragedy of freeing sex offenders

9-15-2007 National:

On July 25, I asked in a column entitled, "Porn triggers acting out on victims? Really?" why the Federal Bureau of Prisons spiked its own sex-offender study at Butner prison in North Carolina.
The Butner study, as it turns out (newsflash!), found that criminal sex offenders tend to hide the extent of their crimes.

Moreover, although of 155 men arrested "just" for child pornography 40 (26 percent) admitted to being child molesters, it turns out that later, 132 men (85 percent) confessed to sexually abusing children – admitting to 1,777 young victims.

So, the Butner study finds the allegedly "benign" lust for child pornography correlates with a 85 percent probability of child sexual abuse. When Butner refused to release the study, lawyer Jan Larue noted, "Judith Simon Garrett, assistant general counsel at the BOP, is heavily involved in squelching the study." Garrett believes sex offenders deserve sexual media and wants to eliminate "restrictions on early release mechanisms."

Well, now, two months after the Butner report was leaked to the New York Times, FindLaw reports that U.S. District Court Judge W. Earl Britt has struck down a law aimed at holding sex offenders indefinitely in mental hospitals.

Coincidentally, it turns out the decision looks like it involves the release of five men identified as "sexually dangerous" at the home of the embargoed report: Butner prison.

The liberal judge is anxious to release all convicted sexual predators. He says the government must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that each felon is "unlikely to refrain from sexually violent conduct in the future as a result of … [both] mental illness or abnormality such as pedophilia."

Holding some sex offenders at hospitals, known as civil commitment, was approved under a federal law signed in 2006. The legislation requires that the state prove "clear and convincing" evidence, (a lower standard than reasonable doubt) that a convicted sex offender is "sexually dangerous."

One wonders if the embargoed Butner report, proving massive sexual violence against children by their "residents," was hidden from the judge?

Was Judge Britt also ignorant of the June 1996 Government Accounting Office report "Sex Offender Treatment: Research Results Inconclusive About What Works to Reduce Recidivism"?

That [the 1996] GAO study of 500 sex offender therapy programs over a 50-year period cited no program that proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that there was any "cure" for sex offenders. Nor was there "clear and convincing" evidence that sex offenders, as a class, can be "cured."

Moreover, a 2004 report on 724 Canadian sex offenders validated the U.S. GAO report. In "Jail Programs had Little Effect on Whether Freed Inmates Re-offended," roughly 22 percent of 724 treated and untreated sex offenders had been reconvicted of sex crimes within 12 years.

These data reflect only those predators caught for another sex crime within 12 years of release. Even this high rate of recidivism wildly understates re-offenses, since child molesters are commonly undetected despite assaulting scores of children for years.

Furthermore, unfortunately there is no way to tell who will re-offend.

Paroling sex offenders, treated or no, into our disordered sexually saturated environment is more dangerous than playing Russian roulette.

The odds are much better than 1 in 4 that a parolee will injure another innocent woman or child, versus 1 in 6 of injury from a single bullet in a six-bullet gun chamber.

We read daily of legislators, teachers, prosecutors, judges, doctors, ACLU lawyers, therapists, psychologists, priests and rabbis convicted of child sexual abuse and child pornography. With this in mind, why would the judge want to release sexual predators back into sexual cyberspace and Internet addiction, knowing that hundreds of parolees will assault thousands of additional victims?

Well, surely the judge has no fear of sexual assault on his own person. Nor can a judge be sued by victims or their families for paroling a sex offender who subsequently rapes and/or kills again – an all too common reality.

Judge Britt has temporarily suspended release of the sex offenders until the government decides to file a formal objection.

One wonders, if some special interest will spike the government's motion to stay. The U.S. attorney's office in Raleigh did not immediately return calls, said FindLaw. ..more.. by Judith Reisman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Why is the Bureau of Prisons Squelching a Child Porn Link to Molestation?

Shocking study indicates that 85% of convicted child porn users may have sexually abused minors, more than double the previous estimates.
7-20-2007 National

Reporters Julian Sher and Benedict Carey of The New York Times got their hands on a leaked copy of a prison study suggesting a link between viewing child pornography and molesting children. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) wants to keep it in isolation. To their credit, Sher and Carey blew the lid off the study in their July 19 article, “Debate on Child Pornography’s Link to Molesting.”

Most experts they’ve talked to agree that the study should be published, though they are debating “how the findings should be presented or interpreted.” So why doesn’t the BOP want the study published? Are officials more concerned about misinterpretations than protecting kids?

Judith Simon Garrett, assistant general counsel at the BOP, is heavily involved in squelching the study. Editors at The Journal of Family Violence,” a peer-reviewed academic journal, agreed to publish the study until they received a letter from Garrett asking them to withdraw it because it did not meet “agency approval,” according to Sher and Carey, who also received a copy of Garrett’s letter.

Some research on Garrett may explain what’s motivating BOP censorship. Garrett is co-editor of Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory, a collection of essays published in 1999, to which she contributed three chapters. Her chapter, “Political Involvement in Penal Operations,” has a BOP disclaimer stating: “Opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Bureau of Prisons or the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Garrett writes that she doesn’t appreciate “federal and state legislators” who “have taken unprecedented steps toward micromanaging correctional operations” such as “enacting longer sentences and placing new restrictions on early release mechanisms.”

Most telling are her comments about efforts “to limit programs in jails and prisons.” She writes: “Until recently, federal prison officials were prohibited from distributing to inmates any commercially published material that contained nudity or sexually explicit pictures.”

Garrett’s own work has been published with a BOP disclaimer. Why isn’t she urging the BOP to do the same here? Is it because she thinks “programs” that permit prisoners access to pornography are acceptable, and the study could prove her wrong?

Garrett cites a federal district court ruling that struck down the BOP porn regulations as unconstitutional. However, she doesn’t mention a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld BOP regulations and that the Supreme Court denied review. The Ninth Circuit also upheld a similar prohibition implemented by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the Maricopa County, Arizona jail system.

Garrett refers to Arpaio’s “spartan manner” of jail operations because “he makes some inmates to sleep in tents, and, if they are sex offenders, to wear pink underwear.”

Oh, the humanity!

In the study suppressed by the BOP, psychologists Andres E. Hernandez and Michael L. Bourke focused on 155 male inmates who had volunteered to be treated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C. Their study reports on the proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children and also molest them.

According to Sher and Carey, the study “suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.” It “is the first in-depth survey of such online offenders’ sexual behavior done by prison therapists who were actively performing treatment.”

Sher and Carey report that “previous studies based on surveys of criminal records, estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of those arrested for possessing child pornography also had molested children.”

Dr. Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told the Times that he was surprised that the full study had not been released. “This is the kind of research the public needs to know about.”

Garrett and the BOP need to explain:

Why doesn’t the study “meet agency approval”?

Why, according to two unnamed prosecutors, did Garrett and the BOP prevent Hernandez and Bourke from speaking to law enforcement conferences about their research?

Why doesn’t the BOP trust the peer-review process?

Why doesn’t the BOP at least permit Hernandez and Bourke to publish their study with a BOP disclaimer as it did for Garrett?

If a study is publishable showing that “30 percent to 40 percent of those arrested for possessing child pornography also had molested children,” why not the Hernandez-Bourke study?

If you’re surprised to find that a very high percentage of men who look at child pornography also molest children, ask yourself if you think you’re more or less likely to blow your diet if you stare at photos of your favorite food.

For the “experts” who promote the brain-dead theory that looking at child porn prevents molestation, here’ a legal term for your theory: Crockus Humungus. ..more.. by Jan LaRue, Esq. , Culture and Media Institute

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Debate on Child Pornography’s Link to Molesting

July 19, 2007 National

Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.

The study, which has not yet been published, is stirring a vehement debate among psychologists, law enforcement officers and prison officials, who cannot agree on how the findings should be presented or interpreted.

The research, carried out by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is the first in-depth survey of such online offenders’ sexual behavior done by prison therapists who were actively performing treatment. Its findings have circulated privately among experts, who say they could have enormous implications for public safety and law enforcement.

Traffic in online child pornography has exploded in recent years, and the new study, some experts say, should be made public as soon as possible, to identify men who claim to be “just looking at pictures” but could, in fact, be predators.

Yet others say that the results, while significant, risk tarring some men unfairly. The findings, based on offenders serving prison time who volunteered for the study, do not necessarily apply to the large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography, and whose behavior is far too variable to be captured by a single survey.

Adding to the controversy, the prison bureau in April ordered the paper withdrawn from a peer-reviewed academic journal where it had been accepted for publication, apparently concerned that the results might be misinterpreted. A spokeswoman for the bureau said the agency was reviewing a study of child pornography offenders but declined to comment further.

Ernie Allen, who leads the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is mandated to coordinate the nation’s efforts to combat child pornography, said he was surprised that the full study had not been released. “This is the kind of research the public needs to know about,” Mr. Allen said. Others agreed that the report should be published but were more cautious about the findings. “The results could have tremendous implications for community safety and for individual liberties,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. “If people we thought were not dangerous are more so, then we need to know that and we should treat them that way. But if we’re wrong, then their liberties aren’t going to be fairly addressed.”

Everyone agrees that researchers need to learn more about online consumers of illegal child images. The volume of material seized from computers appears to be doubling each year — the National Center collected more than eight million images of explicit child pornography in the last five years — and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales made child protection a national priority in 2006.

Those who are arrested on charges of possession or distribution of child pornography generally receive lighter sentences and shorter parole periods than sexual abusers. They do not fit any criminal stereotype; recent arrests have included politicians, police officers, teachers and businessmen.

“It’s crucial to understand the sexual history of all these offenders, because sometimes the crime they were arrested for is the tip of the iceberg, and does not reflect their real patterns and interests,” said Jill S. Levenson, an assistant professor of human services at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., and head of the ethics committee of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Previous studies, based on surveys of criminal records, estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of those arrested for possessing child pornography also had molested children.

The psychologists who conducted the new study, Andres E. Hernandez and Michael L. Bourke, focused on 155 male inmates who had volunteered to be treated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C., according to a draft of the paper obtained by The New York Times from outside experts who want the study published.

The Butner clinic is the only residential program devoted to the treatment of sexual offenders in the federal prison system. The inmates in the study were all serving sentences for possession or distribution of child pornography.

About every six months as part of an 18-month treatment program, they filled out a record of their sexual history, including a “victims list” tallying their previous victims of abuse. Therapists encouraged the men to be honest as part of their treatment, and the sexual histories were anonymous, according to the paper.

The psychologists compared these confessions with the men’s criminal sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26 percent who were known to have committed any “hands on” offenses at sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims: 1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the men were sentenced.

Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke concluded in the paper that “many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters.” But they also cautioned that offenders who volunteer for treatment may differ in their behavior from those who do not seek treatment.

They submitted the paper to The Journal of Family Violence, a widely read peer-reviewed publication in the field, and it was accepted.

But in a letter obtained by The Times, dated April 3, Judi Garrett, an official of the Bureau of Prisons, requested that the editors of the journal withdraw the study, because it did not meet “agency approval.”

Editors at The Journal of Family Violence did not respond to phone or e-mail messages asking about the withdrawal.

Dr. Hernandez mentioned the research briefly during testimony before a Senate committee last year. But the bureau blocked Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke from attending some law enforcement conferences to speak about the findings, said two prosecutors who did not want to be identified because they have a continuing work relationship with the bureau.

“We believe it unwise to generalize from limited observations gained in treatment or in records review to the broader population of persons who engage in such behavior,” a bureau official wrote to the organizers of a recent law enforcement conference, in a letter dated May 2 and given to The Times by an expert who is hoping the study will be published.

Some prosecutors say they could use the study to argue for stiffer sentences. While some outside researchers agreed that the risk of over-generalizing the study’s results was real, almost all the experts interviewed also said that the study should still be made public.

Dr. Peter Collins, who leads the Forensic Psychiatry Unit of the Ontario Provincial Police, called the findings “cutting-edge stuff.”

“We’re really on the cusp of learning more about these individuals and studies should be encouraged, not quashed,” Dr. Collins said.

Understanding the relationship between looking at child pornography and sexually assaulting children is central to developing effective treatment, psychologists say.

It is not at all clear when, or in whom, the viewing spurs action or activates a latent, unconscious desire; or whether such images have little or no effect on the offender’s subsequent behavior. But the relationship probably varies widely.

“My concern is about sensationalism, about the way something like this is handled in the media,” said Michael Miner, an associate professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Minnesota who treats sex offenders. “The public perception is that all of these guys will re-offend, and we know that just isn’t true.”

At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires — exactly the opposite.

“Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”

How many offenders does he speak for? The study may help answer that question, some say.

“The penalties we seek, the vigor with which we prosecute — the very importance we give to child pornography cases — all of these things are affected by what we know about the offenders,” said Leura G. Canary, the United States attorney for Middle Alabama who also leads the Attorney General’s Working Group on Child Exploitation and Obscenity. “And right now we know very little.” ..more.. by JULIAN SHER and BENEDICT CAREY

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...