CSAM & Predators - Explanation of Unlawful Images

Dr. Frank Kardasz - revised April 26, 2008 Unlawful images and videos that depict the sexual exploitation of minors are commonly called child pornography. In most jurisdictions child pornography is considered

to be a serious crime. Why is child pornography a serious crime? Beyond sexual self-gratification, possessors and traffickers of unlawful images use the images for one or more reasons including (Child pornography, 1986):

• To blackmail children into keeping silent about the abuse.
• To preserve a child's youthful image at the age preferred by the pedophile.
• To establish trust and camaraderie with other pedophiles.
• To gain access to other markets and children by exchanging material with other pedophiles.
• To duplicate, produce and sell for profit.
• To reassure themselves that their deviant behavior is shared by others and therefore not abnormal.
• To seduce children and lower the child's inhibitions as part of the grooming process intended to model deviant sexual behavior.

Danger Are the possessors of unlawful images dangerous? Is someone who looks at pictures a threat to offend against a child? Recent research (Hernandez, 2006) suggests that there may be a correlation between those who possess child pornography and those who are also “hands-on” contact offenders. One surprising study of federal prisoners indicated that 85% of those in custody for possession of child pornography were also“hands-on” molesters whose contact offenses had never been discovered. Other professionals agree that there is a danger that possessors of unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors could escalate and eventually offend against real children. Dr. Chris Hatcher, (1997) Professor of Psychology at the University of California said, "It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally, to contact." Former FBI profiler John Douglas (Mindhunter, 1995, p. 108) described the relationship between pornographic images and sex offenders. He said, "With most sexually based killers, it is a several-step escalation from the fantasy to the reality, often fueled by pornography, morbid experimentation on animals, and cruelty to peers." Some possessors of unlawful images use the contraband as a "unique solution" to their pedophilic preferences. They rationalize that sexually gratifying themselves after viewing images is a justifiable alternative to committing "hands on" contact offenses against actual children. Victims What about the effect of child pornography on the victims? Are there any lingering problems for children who are the subject of abuse? Researchers found that the effects of unlawful images on child victims are often devastating. According to Klain, Davies and Hicks (Child pornography, March 2001, p.10) child sex abuse victims suffer a multitude of physical and psychological problems. The innocent victims of child pornography sometimes suffer a lifetime of psychological anguish and torment wondering when where and how their tortured images will re-surface. Those who traffic in, possess and derive gratification from child pornography perpetuate the anguish. Some argue that each image tacitly re-victimizes the child whenever the image is viewed. Many victims of child pornography will never disclose their victimization to anyone. They suffer in silent, haunted purgatory. As adults, many do not wish to relive past abuse. What is child pornography? Child pornography depicts the graphic sexual exploitation of minors. It does not include child erotica. It does not include nudism and it does not include “baby in the bathtub” images. Unlawful images are contraband. They are the only form of contraband that is introduced into the human psyche through the sense of sight. A case study In 2003, former Arizona high school teacher Morton Berger was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 200 years prison. He appealed the sentence based on arguments of equal protection under the law and cruel and unusual punishment. In December 2004, the conviction was affirmed by two of the three judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals (State of Arizona, 2004, December 14). Judges Susan Ehrlich and Philip Hall dismissed Berger's appeal with arguments including (citations omitted):

• It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling.

• ...the victimization of a child continues when that act is memorialized in an image. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Unfortunately, the victimization of the children involved does not end when the pornographer's camera is put away.

• The legislative judgment…is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.

• …the possession of child pornography drives that industry and…the production of child pornography will decrease if those who possess the product are punished equally with those who produce it.

• …it (the law) will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand.

• …the possession of child pornography inflames the desires of child molesters, pedophiles and child pornographers. The State has more than a passing interest in forestalling the damage caused by child pornography: preventing harm to children is, without cavil, one of its most important interests.

• …we cannot fault the State for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain.

• Berger downloaded images from the Internet, and every time he visited a website, he demonstrated to the producers and sellers of child pornography that there was a demand for their product. Berger's demand served to drive the industry; there need not have been a direct monetary exchange. Berger maintains also that, because his possession of the pornographic images was passive and because he did not use threats or violence in the commission of his crimes, his sentence is grossly disproportionate. This logic is abstruse. As was described by this court in Hazlett, 205 Ariz. at 527 p. 11, 73 P. 3d at 1262, and as is evident from the violent pornographic images in this case, child pornography is a form of child abuse. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.

The U.S. Supreme court denied Morton Bergers next request for an appeal. His 200 year prison sentence was upheld. Berger is scheduled for release from the Arizona Department of Corrections in 2157. Law enforcement Disturbing unlawful videos of the sexual abuse of minors are often accompanied by the horrible audio sounds of suffering young victims. The typical offender arrested by the Arizona ICAC Task Force possesses dozens and often hundreds of unlawful images and videos. As law enforcement officers, once we overcome the sickening shock of witnessing the brutal recorded acts of terrible sexual violence we are left with a tenacious resolve to bring offenders to justice. Efforts to eradicate the contraband images and videos depicting the sexual suffering of minors must continue and offenders must be brought to justice. Conclusion Contraband images and videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are serious crimes. Offenders use the images for many disturbing reasons. The victims of child pornography deserve to be protected from their torturers and from those who enjoy witnessing the torture. Law enforcement efforts to stop unlawful images must continue. References Child pornography and pedophilia: Report made by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. (1986). 99th Congress, Second session. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.1986. iii. 54: 24 cm. Douglas, J. and Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's elite serial crime unit, New York: Pocket Books. Hatcher, C. (1997, October). Cited in: Armagh, D. A. Safety net for the Internet: Protecting our children. Juvenile Justice Journal (on-line) Volume V, Number 1, May 1998. Retrieved March 15, 2003. From http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjjournal/jjjournal598/net.html Hernandez, A. E. (2006, September 26). Statement of Andres E. Hernandez before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/HernandezTestimonyCongress.pdf Klain, E.J., Davies, H.J., & Hicks, M.A., (2001, March). Child Pornography: The criminal justice system response, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.missingkids. com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf State of Arizona Division One Court of Appeals. (2004, December 14). Appeal from the Superior Court inMaricopa County. 1 CA-CR 03-0243. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CR/CR030243.pdf/CR/CR030243.pdf