Internet Crimes Against Children: A Call for Law Enforcement Policy Reform
By Dr. Frank Kardasz, February 7, 2009
Most law enforcement agencies have standardized policies and written directives guiding their many areas of operation. These directives govern everything from mundane administrative matters to grave threats to public safety. Policies develop after years of experience and evolve as new trends emerge.
A troubling exception to this modernization is in the area of Internet crimes against children. Most law enforcement organizations still fail to recognize the growing problem and lack written directives requiring any response to these grim threats against children and teens.
Internet Crimes Against Children
The luring and enticement of minors via cyberspace continues to rise. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that 50,000 child predators are online at any given time searching for potential victims (1). Crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet have grown exponentially in the past 15 years.
A 2007 Congressional report warned:
“Crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet are a growing problem in the U.S. and around the world, due to the ease with which pedophiles and child predators can trade, sell, view, and download images of child pornography from the Internet” (ibid).
Arizona, like many other states, has seen a significant increase in the trafficking of unlawful images (2). Despite this, most Arizona law enforcement agencies have no written directives mandating any response to Internet crimes against children.
Invisible Victims—Except in Cyberspace
Unlike sensational crimes involving crashes, explosions, or shootings, these offenses are carried out in dark and hidden spaces. Offenders often psychologically manipulate victims into silence.
Although evidence of these crimes exists in cyberspace, reports to law enforcement remain rare.
Deceptive Statistics Ignore the Problem
Reporting systems fail to capture the magnitude of online child exploitation. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) lacks categories to properly track Internet crimes against children (4).
This failure allows administrators—who rely heavily on statistics—to deny or minimize the problem.
Liability
Failure to address Internet crimes against children creates organizational liability. In Washington State, several agencies incurred a substantial financial judgment after a failure to protect children was uncovered (3).
Purposeful Ignorance Driven by Repugnance
Crimes against children are so emotionally disturbing that even law enforcement personnel often avoid involvement. Former FBI agent Ken Lanning observed:
“Law-enforcement investigators must deal with the fact that the identification, investigation, and prosecution of child molesters may not be welcomed by their communities—especially if the molester is a prominent person. Individuals may protest, and community organizations may rally to the support of the offender and even attack the victims… Many law-enforcement supervisors, prosecutors, judges, and juries cannot or do not want to deal with the details of deviant sexual behavior. They will do almost anything to avoid these cases” (5).
With the psychological weight of such cases, it is not surprising that crimes against children in cyberspace remain ignored by many policy makers.
CALEA and Policy Oversight
The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) sets professional standards requiring agencies to maintain certain model policies. Examples include:
-
43.1.1: Directives for investigating vice, drug, and organized crime activities
-
61.3.1: Directives governing agency activities related to traffic engineering
-
42.2.8: Directives regarding identity crime procedures
-
61.2.2: Directives defining responses to collisions
However, CALEA has yet to recognize Internet crimes against children as an issue deserving of mandatory written directives.
Recommendation
Law enforcement policies and written directives must adapt to confront Internet crimes against children. If traffic enforcement and identity theft require written policies, should children not be afforded the same priority?
As a leading policy body, CALEA should include directives requiring law enforcement agencies to address the growing threat of Internet crimes against children.
References
-
U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce. (January 2007). Sexual exploitation of children on the Internet: Bipartisan staff report for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 109th Congress. Link
-
Kardasz, F. (January 3, 2009). Contraband Images in Arizona: Eight days in December 2008. Link
-
Kardasz, F. (September 15, 2008). Liability for Deliberate Indifference and Failure to Investigate = $10.5 Million. Link
-
Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (December 2004). Child pornography: Patterns from NIBRS. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Link
-
Lanning, K.V. (September 2001). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 4th Ed. Link
___________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.