Explanations given by child pornography offenders for their crimes

Transcription

1 Journal of Sexual Aggression (July 2010), Vol. 16, No. 2, pp Explanations given by child pornography offenders for their crimes Michael C. Seto, 1 * Lesley Reeves 2 & Sandy Jung 3 1 Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Integrated Forensic Program, Brockville, Ontario, Canada; 2 Nova Scotia Department of Justice, Correctional Services, Forensic Sexual Behaviour Program, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada & 3 Grant MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Abstract The explanations given by child pornography offenders for their crimes were explored in two samples, one interviewed by the police as part of a criminal investigation and the second assessed by clinicians following a child pornography conviction. There were many similarities across the two samples with regard to demographic characteristics, criminal history and explanations. Many offenders in both samples admitted possession of child pornography, a majority admitted they deliberately accessed child pornography, and substantial minorities acknowledged their sexual interest in child pornography and/or children. Similar proportions claimed curiosity or accidental access. Relatively few offenders reported internet addiction, child pornography as a substitute for contact offending or indiscriminate sexual interests. There was evidence to suggest that the recently arrested offenders were more sexually deviant, as they were more likely to have images of boys, larger collections, images depicting sexual violence or other paraphilic content and more involvement in online trading and communication. Keywords Child pornography; internet offending; motives for crime; explanations; paedophilia; sexual deviance Introduction There is increasing concern about child pornography offenders, paralleling large increases in the number of arrests and convictions for child pornography offences in the past five years (Mitchell, Wolak & Finkelhor, 2009; Motivans & Kyckelhahn, 2007; Wolak, Finkelhor & Mitchell, 2005), and new legal and public policy initiatives such as the formation of specialized law enforcement task forces and mandatory minimum sentences. Because research in this area is new, there are many questions about the characteristics of child pornography offenders. The present study focuses upon the explanations given by child pornography offenders to account for their crimes. Through examining what offenders say, we hope to shed light on the motives for accessing child pornography. These explanations, in turn, would suggest different offender management strategies. For example, someone who reports credibly child pornography use as a result of sexual attraction to children requires different interventions to *Corresponding author: [email protected] ISSN print/ online # 2010 National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers DOI: /

2 170 M. C. Seto et al. someone who claims credibly that his child pornography use is a result of compulsive sexual behaviour involving pornography in general. We are also interested in these explanations because they may reflect denial or minimization of personal responsibility for the crimes (e.g. claiming that their access was accidental when there is forensic computer analysis to show downloading and repeated viewing), and denial or minimization of personal responsibility can interfere with treatment or supervision compliance (Looman, Dickie & Abracen, 2005). It has been suggested that there are meaningful differences between child pornography offenders who use or produce child pornography as part of contact sexual offending; those who seek child pornography in order to gratify their sexual interest in children through masturbation and fantasy; those who collect child pornography because it is unusual or taboo or because they are interested in many different kinds of pornography; and those who access child pornography out of curiosity about the nature and availability of child pornography (Lanning, 1992). One of the earliest studies of explanations given by child pornography offenders was a qualitative study of interviews with 13 men convicted of downloading online child pornography (Quayle & Taylor, 2002). Six categories of explanations for the use of child pornography were identified by these authors: 1. As a means of achieving sexual arousal, where images were used as either a substitute or a stimulus for contact sexual offending. 2. As a source of pleasure through collecting a complete series of images. 3. As a means of enabling online social relationships with like-minded others. 4. As a replacement for absent or unsatisfying relationships in the real world. 5. As therapy for exploring and dealing with one s problems. 6. As a manifestation of the addictive properties of the internet. A recently published review of the literature on internet child sexual offending suggests that child pornography users fall into one of four major categories (Beech, Elliott, Birgden & Findlater, 2008): 1. Those who fuel existing or developing sexual interests in children. 2. Contact sexual offenders who also use child pornography as part of a larger pattern of offending. 3. Impulsive and curious individuals. 4. Those who deal with child pornography for non-sexual reasons, such as financial gain. All these authors distinguish between sexual and non-sexual explanations for child pornography offending; both typologies emphasize sexual interest in children as a prominent explanation. There is evidence that being sexually interested in children is an important (but not the sole) explanation for child pornography offending. Seto, Cantor and Blanchard (2006) examined the sexual interests and behaviours of 685 male patients to investigate whether child pornography offending was a valid diagnostic indicator of paedophilic sexual preference, as assessed by phallometric testing. They found that child pornography offenders were significantly more sexually aroused by stimuli depicting children than were contact offenders with either child victims or adult victims. Both Bernard (1985) and Riegel (2004) have also described the overlap between paedophilia and child pornography use. Threequarters of Bernard s sample of 50 self-identified paedophiles reported that they collected photographs of semi-nude or nude children, with a majority indicating that they took the photographs themselves. Riegel (2004) obtained responses from 290 self-identified paedophiles (most of them attracted to boys) and found that 95% reported they had used child pornography at some time in their lives.

3 Child pornographers explanations 171 Although sexual interest in children is important, this does not rule out other explanations for accessing child pornography and it certainly does not mean that someone who seeks child pornography because of paedophilia might not give another explanation when arrested and interviewed by the police. It also does not mean that explanations for child pornography offending might not change over time or across different circumstances (e.g. Bourke & Hernandez, 2009; Elliott, Beech, Mandeville-Norden & Hayes, 2009). The present study The present study was conducted to examine the explanations given by child pornography offenders at two different stages of criminal justice involvement: post-arrest when questioned by the police, and post-conviction when questioned by clinicians. We hypothesized that the explanations given by offenders would be influenced by when they were questioned, reflecting differences in the purpose of the interview (evidence for prosecution versus evidence for clinical recommendations) and interview style (more probably adversarial versus more probably therapeutic). We thought individuals questioned by the police at the pre-trial stage would be more likely to explain that their child pornography offences were a result of internet or pornography addiction, curiosity or accidental access, because these explanations would be seen as less culpable than acknowledging a sexual interest in children or reporting that viewing child pornography was a substitute for contact offending (implying the individual would otherwise be at risk for contact offending). In contrast, we thought offenders questioned after conviction would be more willing to acknowledge a sexual interest in children, indiscriminate sexual interests or use of child pornography as a substitute for contact offending. We did not have data from the same sample of child pornography offenders followed over time, but we had access to data from two different samples, one questioned by the police and the other interviewed by clinicians, to examine explanations in a preliminary way and set the groundwork for future research following the same sample over time. We did not attempt to test the validity of the explanations, as our focus was to describe the range of explanations given and to examine the similarities and differences in explanations between the two groups (representing two stages of criminal justice involvement). Based on the research reviewed earlier, we predicted that the most common explanation given would be that the child pornography material was sexually arousing. Based on anecdotal and clinical reports, we also expected that other explanations implying non-paedophilic motivations would be given (e.g. compulsive internet or pornography use, curiosity, accidental access). Lastly, based on our assumption about the effects of stage of criminal justice involvement, we predicted that the clinical sample of offenders would be more willing to admit that they accessed child pornography on purpose and that it was sexually arousing to them because their court cases had already been dealt with, whereas the police sample of offenders would be more likely to claim that their crimes were a result of addiction, curiosity or accidental access, because they were awaiting trial. Method Police sample We obtained information from 50 closed case files made available by the Toronto Police Service. All were individuals who were arrested, charged and eventually convicted of child pornography offences: 17 offenders were convicted for accessing and possessing child pornography, and 33 offenders were convicted of possessing, distributing or making child pornography available

4 172 M. C. Seto et al. to others. Arrests were made between 1 March 2001 and 24 January 2007, with the majority (60%) occurring between 2004 and The sample was comprised of adult men who ranged in age at the time of their arrest from 19 to 65 years old [mean37.6 years, standard deviation (SD) 12.0]. Other demographic information is presented in Table I. For the large majority of the sample (92%), the index offence was the first time they had been questioned by authorities about their child pornography use. The information on explanations was obtained post-arrest but prior to criminal trial. Criminal history is also presented in Table I. Clinical sample In contrast, the Edmonton clinical sample was assessed at the Northern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry service following their conviction for child pornography offences. Some of these offenders also participated in treatment at the service. A file search of adult sexual offenders was conducted at an outpatient forensic psychiatric clinic that provides community-based assessment, treatment, consultation and education services for forensic clients. The files of 34 male offenders who were convicted of possession and/or distribution of child pornography were identified from the clinic database through therapists identifications of relevant cases or treatment referral lists maintained by the clinic. Of the 34 offenders, half (50%) were sentenced to terms of incarceration, 15 (44%) received community sentences in lieu of incarceration and two (6%) received probation. This sample of child pornography offenders was comprised of males who at the time of their index offence ranged in age from 17 to 59 years (mean33.8, SD11.2); offences occurred between 1 November 1996 to 18 July Additional details about this sample are also provided in Table I. The offenders ages at the time of their assessment ranged from 20 to 63 years (mean36.6, SD11.4), and referrals to the clinic spanned from September 2001 to May Table I. Demographic characteristics, social functioning, and criminal history Police sample (%) n50 Clinical sample (%) n34 Fisher s exact test Age (years) Mean37.6 Mean33.8 t (82) 1.46 SD12.0 SD11.2 p0.15 Caucasian ethnicity 40/49 (82%) 31/34 (91%) 0.34 Married/common-law 9/41 (22%) 8/34 (24%) 1.00 Employed at time of arrest 39/50 (78%) 24/34 (71%) 0.45 Work or volunteer with children 12/36 (24%) 1/34 (3%) 0.001** Social difficulties with adults 21/50 (42%) 10/34 (29%) 0.26 Previous child pornography offence 4/50 (8%) 2/34 (6%) 1.00 Previous contact offence (child) 7/50 (14%) 4/34 (12%) 1.00 Previous contact offence (adult) 2/50 (4%) 2/34 (6%) 1.00 Previous non-sexual violence 4/50 (8%) 1/34 (3%) 0.64 Previous non-violent offence 5/50 (10%) 10/34 (29%) 0.04* No previous criminal history 32/50 (64%) 21/34 (62%) 1.00 *pb0.05; **pb0.01. Social difficulties with adults were coded as yes if the offender stated that they had difficulties in their interpersonal relationships and/or had few if any rewarding relationships with adults. For example, an offender might describe himself as a loner who did not have any friends. SD: standard deviation.

5 Child pornographers explanations 173 Procedure The Toronto police sample was gathered from the police case files. These case files typically had the police synopses of the offences, investigator notes and criminal records. Most files also had hand-written or transcribed interview notes, a videotaped record of any statements made by the suspect, forensic computer analysis focusing upon child pornography images and samples of child pornography seized by the police. Some files also contained pre-sentence or clinical assessment reports. The Edmonton clinical sample was gathered from the files of sexual offenders who had previously or were currently attending a forensic outpatient psychiatric clinic for services. Most patient files included a pre-sentence or treatment report with the patient s history that was recorded by a psychologist, psychiatrist or social worker; collateral information on the offence in the form of a police narrative or a prosecutor s information sheet; and other pertinent information (e.g. criminal record, third-party reports from probation or other psychologists). The explanation data were taken from clinic reports, other file documents and the police investigation records when available. Details regarding the content of the child pornography were taken solely from confirmed collateral sources rather than self-report of the offender. If such collateral information was not available, the child pornography content was not coded. Twelve randomly selected files were coded by two independent raters to examine interrater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was generally good, with kappas greater than 0.60 and percentage agreements of 90% or higher. We retained two variables with poorer reliability* claiming pornography addiction and claiming accidental access of child pornography* because these explanations are mentioned frequently in the clinical literature. We attempted to code minimizations of responsibility (blaming others, blaming personal circumstances or blaming the availability of child pornography or internet access for the offences) but the interrater reliability was too poor for these variables, so they were not analysed. Study variables We coded demographic characteristics, criminal history and details about the child pornography collections in terms of age and gender of children depicted, format (images, videos, stories), explicitness of the contact and estimated volume. These study variables were based on information available to us from the police or clinical files, respectively, and thus were based on collateral sources of information such as forensic computer analyses conducted by police officers or court documents. Age of children depicted was coded differently across the two samples; in Toronto, any content in a particular age category was coded, whereas in Edmonton the most prevalent age category was coded. We also coded the explanations given by individuals during their police interviews (Toronto) or during their clinical assessments (Edmonton). These study variables were based upon offender self-report and thus are vulnerable to social desirability and other response biases. These data were also vulnerable to variations across interviewers (police investigators or clinicians) in the questions they chose to ask and in the information they recorded. We coded as yes or no whether the offender admitted that they were in possession of child pornography, whether they deliberately accessed child pornography and whether they admitted that child pornography (or children) was (were) sexually interesting to them. We also examined if offenders claimed that accessing child pornography was used a substitute for sexual contacts with children.

6 174 M. C. Seto et al. In addition, we examined other sexual explanations that might be given, particularly whether the offender claimed that he had indiscriminate sexual interests and thus child pornography was just one manifestation of their online sexual activity, or whether they claimed an addiction to pornography or the internet more generally. We also examined explanations of collecting as a hobby or curiosity. Lastly, we examined whether the offender claimed that the child pornography access was accidental or whether they claimed no recall of why they accessed child pornography. In addition to the explanations that were given by child pornography offenders, we also coded aspects of their child pornography-related activities. These other aspects are summarized below. Efforts to hide child pornography activities. Coded as yes if there was evidence the individual had used encryption or other software in an attempt to hide their child pornography-related activities (e.g. using a programme such as Evidence Eliminator to erase browsing history and related records). This and subsequent variables were coded as no if there was no evidence, or left missing if there was insufficient information to make a determination. Online community participation. Coded as yes if there was evidence that the person had participated in some form of online communication with others who were sexually interested in children or child pornography (e.g. chatroom or newsgroup). In many cases child pornography offenders used aliases or posed as someone else (e.g. a minor themselves). Trading. Coded as yes if there was evidence of trading child pornography content with others, including ing, using peer-to-peer file-sharing programmes and setting up a computer as a server for others. Sexual content. Coded as yes for sexually explicit content if there were depictions of genital touching, masturbation, oral sex or intercourse involving a child, either with another child or with an adult. Coded as yes for sexually violent content if there were depictions of sexual assault where a child appeared to be in distress or pain or it was clear there was coercion or force involved (e.g. child was tied up). Coded as yes for other paraphilic content if there were depictions of other atypical sexual themes, such as bestiality, sadism, masochism or fetishism. Volume. The estimated number of child pornography images was based on forensic analysis for the Toronto police sample. Only the explicitly stated number of child pornography files in the police narrative, agreed statement of facts used in court or prosecutor s information sheet were coded for the Edmonton clinical sample. Results The results from the two samples are compared in Tables I III. Table I describes the characteristics of the child pornography users, Table II describes the explanations given for the use of child pornography and Table III describes child pornography-related activity and content. The numbers of offenders varied across comparisons because of missing data. We compared the two groups using either a t-test (for age) or Fisher s exact test for the categorically coded variables (because of the small cell sizes). The samples were similar in terms of average age, Caucasian ethnicity, marital status and employment status. The average age and predominantly Caucasian ethnicity were consistent with previous studies of child pornography offenders (e.g. Seto & Eke, 2005;

7 Table II. Explanations for access of child pornography Child pornographers explanations 175 Explanation Police sample (%) n50 Clinical sample (%) n34 Fisher s exact test Admitted child pornography possession 43/50 (86%) 31/34 (91%) 0.73 Admitted deliberate access 40/50 (80%) 22/34 (65%) 0.14 Admitted sexual interest in child 23/50 (46%) 13/34 (38%) 0.51 pornography/children Claimed indiscriminate sexual interests 3/50 (6%) 1/34 (3%) 0.64 Claimed non-paedophilic sexual motivation 11/50 (22%) 3/34 (9%) 0.14 Claimed pornography addiction 5/50 (10%) 10/34 (29%) 0.04* Claimed internet addiction 4/50 (8%) 4/34 (12%) 0.71 Claimed substitute for contact offending 3/50 (6%) 2/34 (6%) 1.00 Claimed collecting hobby 3/50 (6%) 2/34 (6%) 1.00 Claimed curiosity 20/50 (40%) 9/34 (27%) 0.25 Claimed accidental access 20/50 (40%) 11/34 (32%) 0.50 Claimed lack of recall 8/50 (16%) 1/34 (3%) 0.08 No explanation provided 11/50 (22%) 1/34 (3%) / 2 ð3þ p0.002 One explanation 13/50 (26%) 2/34 (6%) Two explanations 8/50 (16%) 8/34 (24%) Three or more explanations 18/50 (36%) 23/34 (68%) Changed explanations 26/50 (52%) 9/26 (35%) 0.22 *pb0.05; **pb0.01. Wolak et al., 2004). The police sample was significantly more likely to work or volunteer in a role that brought them into regular contact with children than the clinical sample. The two samples were also mostly similar in their criminal histories, although the Edmonton sample was more likely to have a previous non-violent offence than the Toronto Table III. Child pornography behaviour and content Offending behaviour Police sample (%) n50 Clinical sample (%) n34 Fisher s exact test Tried to hide child pornography 18/20 (80%) 8/34 (8%) ** Participated in online child pornography 27/34 (79%) 13/34 (38%) 0.001** community Traded child pornography with others 22/32 (69%) 6/34 (18%) ** Child pornography images 50/50 (100%) 33/34 (97%) 1.00 Child pornography video 32/40 (80%) 15/34 (44%) 0.002** Child pornography stories 11/42 (26%) 4/34 (12%) 0.15 Any sexually explicit child pornography 40/46 (87%) 25/34 (74%) 0.15 Any sexually violent child pornography 17/32 (53%) 8/34 (24%) 0.02* Any other paraphilic content 16/29 (55%) 3/34 (9%) ** Mostly boy child pornography 15/41 (37%) 1/31 (3%) / 2 ð2þ p Mostly girl child pornography 19/41 (46%) 12/31 (39%) Both boy and girl child pornography 7/41 (17%) 18/31 (58%) 1100 items 6/37 (16%) 7/26 (27%) / 2 ð3þ p ,000 items 10/37 (27%) 13/26 (50%) 1,00110,000 items 9/37 (24%) 6/26 (23%) 10,000 items 12/37 (32%) 0/26 (0%) *pb0.05; **pb0.01.

8 176 M. C. Seto et al. sample. The majority of offenders in both samples had no previous criminal history before their arrest and conviction for child pornography offences. The two offender samples were similar for many of the explanations they gave for their child pornography crimes. The clinical sample of offenders, however, were statistically significantly more likely to claim an addiction to pornography. The police sample of offenders were more likely to give no or only one explanation, while the clinical sample of offenders were more likely to give multiple (sometimes contradictory) explanations for their use of child pornography. The two groups differed on several aspects of their child pornography activity and content. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of online activity, with the police sample being much more likely to hide their child pornography, participate in an online community or trade child pornography with others than the clinical sample. There were significant missing data for the police sample, however. This may reflect a sampling bias, in that the police sample of offenders were more likely to be detected by the police as a result of their online activities, and/or a reporting bias, in that the clinical sample was less willing to disclose their online activities than the police sample. The latter explanation seems unlikely, however, as the clinical sample of offenders had already been convicted and thus had less reason to hide online activities than Toronto offenders still undergoing police investigation. The police sample of offenders were almost twice as likely to have child pornography videos in their possession, more likely to have child pornography depicting sexual violence and more likely to have other paraphilic content in the pornography examined by police than the clinical sample. In addition, the police sample was more likely than the clinical sample to have child pornography depicting mainly boys, rather than both boys and girls, and were more likely to have 10,000 or more child pornography images in their possession. Discussion A number of similarities were noted across the two samples despite coming from different stages in criminal justice involvement (pre-trial versus post-conviction). They were similar in terms of the demographic characteristics that were examined, previous criminal history and many of the kinds of explanations that they gave. Many offenders in both samples admitted possession of child pornography, a majority admitted that they deliberately accessed child pornography and substantial minorities acknowledged their sexual interest in child pornography and/or children. Similar proportions also claimed curiosity or accidental access. Contrary to our predictions, the police and clinical samples did not differ in the likelihood that they explained their child pornography offending as a result of sexual interest in children or as a result of curiosity or accidental access. The police sample were less, rather than more, likely to report pornography addiction than the clinical sample. Relatively few offenders in either group reported other explanations we coded, namely internet addiction than the clinical sample, child pornography as a substitute for contact offending or indiscriminate sexual interests. These low base rates make statistical detection of any true group differences on these variables unlikely without much larger samples. We were not able to examine all the explanations suggested by Lanning (1992), Quayle and Taylor (2002) or Beech et al. (2008). In particular, we did not have data about collecting child pornography because it is taboo (Lanning); as a rewarding behaviour in and of itself, as a substitute for offline relationships or for self-help purposes (Quayle & Taylor, 2002); or as part of a larger pattern of sexual offending (Lanning; Beech et al.). We did find support for the idea that a sexual interest in children and/or in child pornography is relevant in many cases, as this

9 Child pornographers explanations 177 explanation was given by a substantial proportion of child pornography offenders, whether interviewed pre-trial by the police or post-conviction by clinicians. We also found support for the idea that some child pornography offenders would claim curiosity or accidental access. Consistent with Quayle and Taylor s idea that involvement with online activities, including child pornography, might reflect dissatisfaction or problems with real world relationships, almost half the offenders were deemed to have social difficulties with adults. We did not access online social relationships directly in this study, but a substantial number of child pornography offenders, particularly in the police sample, participated in online communities and traded child pornography with others. As we have noted already, few offenders in either sample explained their crimes as a result of indiscriminate sexual interests, internet addiction, collecting child pornography as a hobby or collecting child pornography as a substitute for contact sexual offending. Some unanticipated differences were observed between the two groups. The police sample of offenders gave fewer explanations, possibly because they were interviewed postarrest but pre-conviction, while the clinical sample of offenders were more likely to claim pornography addiction as an explanation of their crimes. There was also evidence to suggest that compared to the clinical sample, the police sample were more likely to be sexually deviant, because they were more likely to have content focusing upon boys, more likely to have large collections of 10,000 images, more likely to have child pornography depicting sexual violence and more likely to have pornography depicting other paraphilic content (assuming that, as is true for contact offenders, an interest in boys is more indicative of paedophilia than an interest in girls; larger collections of child pornography indicate more involvement in terms of time and effort, and involvement suggests a persistent motivation; and that possessing depictions of sexual violence or other paraphilic content is suggestive of these sexual interests). This finding is disturbing, because the police sample of offenders were also more likely to work or volunteer in positions that brought them into contact with children. This may reflect a sample selection bias, as police investigators have indicated that they prioritized cases where they were aware that the suspect worked with children; at the same time, this could also have been true for the investigators who arrested the offenders in the clinical sample. Although their collections suggested otherwise, the two groups did not differ in the likelihood that they admitted to having a sexual interest in child pornography or children, suggesting that the police sample of offenders were more likely to deny this motive in light of their pornography collections. Future directions and implications We are particularly interested in examining the validity of the explanations given by child pornography offenders. For example, one could test to see if offenders who acknowledge sexual interest in child pornography or children respond differently on measures of sexual interests*phallometric testing of penile responses, viewing time for sexual images*than those who deny any paedophilic sexual interests, consistent with phallometric research on contact offenders (e.g. Freund, Chan & Coulthard, 1979). Similarly, less intrusive measures, such as the implicit association test, may differentiate those who admit versus those who deny the commission of child pornography offences (see Nunes, 2009). There may indeed be a typology of child pornography offending, with different motives underlying different patterns of offending, but this needs to be tested further using objective information. Our results provide support for some aspects of the typologies suggested by Lanning (1992), Quayle and Taylor (2002) and Beech et al. (2008), but not all. Future research could also test potential explanations that we did not address in this study,

10 178 M. C. Seto et al. for example, Quayle and Taylor s (2002) idea that child pornography collecting may be a rewarding behaviour in and of itself for some individuals (e.g. from the satisfaction of completing a sought-after series of images). Many offenders in both samples gave multiple and sometimes contradictory explanations (e.g. claiming initially that child pornography was accessed accidentally but acknowledging later in the interview that the content was sexually arousing). One could also assess change in explanations over time in the same sample of child pornography offenders, and determine if the explanations given are related to treatment or supervision compliance and behaviour. In this study, we found that a third to half of the child pornography offenders changed their explanation(s) at some point. Determining explanations for offending may be useful in guiding clinicians to make decisions about what the treatment focus should be. For instance, if an offender claims he uses child pornography to avoid contact offending, it may be beneficial for the treatment provider to address the concern that he has these interests and identify new ways to refrain from contact offending. Also, through questioning the offender about his motives, supervisory professionals, such as probation officers, could enable offenders to recognize the circumstances or states they would be in when approaching an increasingly risky situation. For example, in the case of an offender who claims accessing child pornography is a collecting hobby, probation could inquire about the offender s use of their leisure time (e.g. how much time, money and energy spent on the activity) and what other goals he has that this leisure activity may be affecting, thereby focusing upon what their life may look like with a significant reduction in this hobby. It may also be the case that offenders with different motives also differ in the risk they pose of future offending, with a particular concern about sexual contacts with children. Research on paedophilia suggests that child pornography offenders who are motivated by a sexual interest in children or by indiscriminate sexual interests may pose a greater concern with regard to risk to offend against children than those who are motivated as a result of compulsive behaviour involving the internet or pornography, curiosity or other nonpaedophilic reasons (see Seto, 2008). Limitations There were a number of limitations with this study. First, it was a retrospective file review so there were sometimes substantial amounts of missing information, depending upon the police investigator or clinician who was involved, quality and detail of notes and foci of interviews. This might account for why fewer clinic-assessed offenders were coded as trying to hide child pornography, participate in online communities or trade child pornography with others; not because they were less likely to engage in these activities, but because the police were particularly interested in these aspects and were therefore more likely to ask relevant questions in their interviews. Another issue is that some of the data relied on self-report, with obvious reasons for offenders in both samples to minimize their perceived culpability, especially through the explanations they provided (Nugent & Kroner, 1996; Pollock & Hashmall, 1991). We expect that some individuals who denied a sexual interest in child pornography or in children were lying; in contrast, we do not expect individuals who did not have any such sexual interests to report them, given the potential sanctions for this admission. The veracity of the offenders explanations cannot be determined, because we did not usually have access to collateral information (e.g. individuals who claimed they had child pornography because of a general pornography addiction may have sought treatment for pornography addiction previously or had problems as a result of their adult pornography use in previous relationships or work).

11 Child pornographers explanations 179 The potential for self-reporting biases was particularly true of the clinical sample, where more of the data relied on self-report, whereas we had access to police investigator notes and forensic analysis for the Toronto sample. It would be useful to replicate this study using a standardized and prospective data collection procedure, to ensure that adequate information is obtained for all the study variables. A third limitation of this study is the small sample size, with a total of only 84 child pornography offenders. This limited our statistical power to detect differences, especially for variables with relatively low endorsement rates (e.g. claiming indiscriminate sexual interests). Replication of this research with larger samples would be helpful in understanding the explanations and motives of child pornography offenders. Finally, our interpretation of the group comparisons is cautious, because there are many differences between the Toronto and Edmonton samples that might explain the differences in explanations that were observed. Ideally, we would have followed a larger sample of child pornography offenders over time, to see if the explanations they gave changed from the time they were investigated and interviewed by police to the time they were referred for a clinical evaluation. It is interesting to note, however, the similarity we observed on many of the explanation variables. Conclusion We believe the results of this study add to our knowledge of the motivations of child pornography offenders and to the development of appropriate treatment or supervision strategies. For example, a substantial minority of child pornography offenders in both samples acknowledged being sexually interested in children or child pornography, consistent with the findings reported by Seto et al. (2006), using objective testing of sexual arousal patterns. This suggests that the effective management of child pornography offenders needs to address these sexual interests. In contrast, indiscriminate sexual interests or pornography addiction were reported infrequently and are likely to be rare considerations in the treatment or supervision of child pornography offenders. References Beech, R. B., Elliott, I. A., Birgden, A., & Findlater, D. (2008). The internet and child sexual offending: A criminological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, Bernard, F. (1985). Paedophilia: A Factual Report. Rotterdam: Enclave Press [in German]. Bourke, M. L., & Hernandez, A. E. (2009). The Butner Study redux: A report of the incidence of hands-on child victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24, Elliott, I. A., Beech, A. R., Mandeville-Norden, R., & Hayes, E. (2009). Psychological profiles of internet sexual offenders: Comparisons with contact sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, DOI: / Freund, K., Chan, S., & Coulthard, R. (1979). Phallometric diagnoses with non-admitters. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, Lanning, K. V. (1992). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis. Report no. NC-70. Washington, DC: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Available at: (accessed 9 October 2009). Looman, J., Dickie, I., & Abracen, J. (2005). Responsivity issues in the treatment of sexual offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, DOI: / Mitchell, K., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). The National Juvenile Online Victim Study: Methodology Report. Crimes against Children Research Center. Available at the Crimes Against Children website: N-JOV2_methodology_report.pdf (accessed 31 July 2009).

12 180 M. C. Seto et al. Motivans, M., & Kyckelhahn, T. (2007). Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin: Federal prosecution of child sex exploitation offenders, Available at the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs website: (accessed 3 July 2008). Nugent, P. M., & Kroner, D. G. (1996). Denial, response styles, and admittance of offenses among child molesters and rapists. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, DOI: / Nunes, K. L. (2009). Measuring child molesters implicit cognitions about self and children. In D. Thornton & D. R. Laws (Eds), Cognitive Approaches to the Assessment of Sexual Interest in Sexual Offenders (pp ). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley. Pollock, N. L., & Hashmall, J. M. (1991). The excuses of child molesters. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2002). Child pornography and the internet: Perpetuating a cycle of abuse. Deviant Behavior, 23, Riegel, D. L. (2004). Effects on boy-attracted pedosexual males of viewing boy erotica [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, DOI: / X Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, DOI: /s y. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors: Implications for prevention based on findings from a national study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 424.e11424.e20.