2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Internet and child sexual offending: A criminological review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
95
1
9

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(107 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
95
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Whilst individuals with offences relating to sexually explicit material involving children (SEM-c) (Elliott, Beech, & Mandeville-Norden, 2013) arguably commence their identity repair work from an easier position than other (contact) sexual offenders, the literature does not unequivocally demonstrate that such individuals constitute a separate group of offenders (see Beech, Elliott, Birgden & Findlater, 2008 for a comprehensive review of research in this area). A previous study indicated that 85% of internet sex offenders had previous contact offences (Bourke & Hernandez, 2009), although, surprisingly, only 24% of the participants had a documented history of previous contact offences; the remainder selfreported contact offences during treatment, and in some cases after undergoing polygraph testing.…”
Section: 1)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whilst individuals with offences relating to sexually explicit material involving children (SEM-c) (Elliott, Beech, & Mandeville-Norden, 2013) arguably commence their identity repair work from an easier position than other (contact) sexual offenders, the literature does not unequivocally demonstrate that such individuals constitute a separate group of offenders (see Beech, Elliott, Birgden & Findlater, 2008 for a comprehensive review of research in this area). A previous study indicated that 85% of internet sex offenders had previous contact offences (Bourke & Hernandez, 2009), although, surprisingly, only 24% of the participants had a documented history of previous contact offences; the remainder selfreported contact offences during treatment, and in some cases after undergoing polygraph testing.…”
Section: 1)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These types of Internet sex crimes against minors have caused concern among parents, law enforcement agencies, lawmakers, educators and other child advocates and become a factor in the debate over Internet regulation. Internet sex crimes against minors is comprised of a diverse range of offences including completed and attempted sexual assaults (Lanning 2001, Wolak et al 2003, 2008; illegal use of the Internet to transmit sexual material to solicit minors (Lanning 2001, Wolak et al 2003, 2008; the possession, distribution and production of child pornography (Lanning 2001, Quayle and Taylor 2002a, 2002b, Taylor and Quayle 2003, Wolak et al 2003, 2008, Beech et al 2008, Elliott and Beech 2009; and establishing and maintaining contact with other individuals having a sexual interest in children (Lanning 2001, Beech et al 2008.…”
Section: Internet Crimes Against Children (Icac) and Undercover Operamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The capacity to instantly access information, exchange files, and the relative absence of effective legal regulation and geographical boundaries online have also encouraged this type of offending [24,25]. This has facilitated the proliferation of commercial activities related to SEIC, and been a major contributor to increases in the amount and quality of SEIC circulating online [25].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other studies have also identified motivations associated with Internet addiction, avoiding negative life experiences, forming social relationships with offenders who have similar interests, and the satisfaction of collecting a complete series of images [41][42][43]. Motivational factors also include the use of SEIC as a part of physical sexual offending against children, for financial gain, or out of curiosity [24].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%