Stumbling into Sexual Crime: The Passive Perpetrator in Accounts by Male Internet Sex Offenders

Abstract

Public reactions to internet child offending remains ambivalent in that, whilst there is vocal condemnation of contact child sex offending, there is less indignation about internet child abuse; this is potentially due to a lack of recognition of this type of offence as sexual offending per se. This ambiguity is reflected by internet sex offenders themselves in their verbalisations of their offending, and this paper presents a qualitative analysis of the accounts offered by individuals convicted of internet-based sexual offences involving the downloading and viewing of images of children (N=7). In particular, this paper presents an analysis of the explanations of offenders for the commencement of internet activity and the progression to more illicit online materials. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews, and analysed using discursive methods, paying close attention to language use and function. The analysis documents the practices that internet child abusers employ in order to manage their identities, distance themselves from the label of sex offender, and/or reduce their personal agency and accountability. Implications of this analysis are discussed with reference to the current minimisation of the downloading of sexually explicit images of children as a sexual crime per se by the public and offenders alike, and the risk assessment and treatment of individuals convicted of these offences.

The implicit theories of child sexual exploitation material users: An initial conceptualization

“…other CSEM-related ITs (e.g., Children as Sex Objects), the Unhappy World IT will influence offending behavior (i.e., downloading CSEM) in order to avoid real-life and regulate negative affect (Kettleborough & Merdian, 2014;Middleton et al, 2006;Quayle et al, 2005;Surjadi, Bullens, Horn, & Bogaerts, 2010). Indeed, CSEM users have reported using the Internet and the viewing of CSEM as a means of emotion regulation, coping, or avoiding their stressful and unhappy lives Surjadi et al, 2010;Winder et al, 2015). For example, in Surjadi et al"s (2010) study of 43 CSEM users, avoiding real-life was the most important function for downloading CSEM.…”

“…On examination of how CSEM users talk about their offenses, a pessimistic explanatory style is evident. For example, many CSEM users state they are "obsessed", "fixated", or "addicted" (Quayle & Taylor, 2002;Winder & Gough, 2010;Winder et al, 2015), communicating a perception of their offending behavior as being internally driven, stable over time, and…”

“…Concerning the first way in which Nature of Harm will manifest, the reviewed literature indicated that some CSEM users view their behavior as being on the extreme lower end of the harm dimension (i.e., not harmful), based on the claim that their engagement with CSEM does not involve any physical contact with a child (Howitt & Sheldon, 2007;Winder & Gough, 2010;Winder, Gough, & Seymour-Smith, 2015). This is exemplified from the discourse of CSEM users in Quayle and Taylor"s (2003) 183).…”

Child porn users & risk for engaging in contact offenses: faulty data minimizes offender’s risk & puts more children at risk for sexual abuse

“…Research demonstrated that some sexual offenders in fact have minimal if any criminal history and many that do have a criminal history may have related offenses but not direct sex offense convictions. 67,68 There is empirical support for the following. The majority of child porn offenders have undetected contact victims, undetected sex crime offenses, and continue to offend with use of child porn/child related erotica even while in sex offender treatment.…”

Understanding Online Child Sexual Exploitation Offenses

“…When they did admit their offenses, a common explanation was that their CP collections became an Bobsession^and an Baddiction.^Many also reported that their first experience with CP was from randomly encountering it on the Internet. Others reported seeking out the material and rationalized their collecting as a [19] response to a negative life event, which Btriggered^them into using CP as a way of Bcoping^ [28]. Overall, factors that best differentiated mixed offenders from online offenders were: having more than one Internet access device confiscated by the police, prior contact with the police, and possession of pornography that involved children under age 5 and/or included explicit content [19].…”