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
September 15, 2007
Why is the Bureau of Prisons Squelching a Child Porn Link to Molestation?
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
