There are only two ways of telling the complete truth--anonymously and posthumously.
- Thomas Sowell

Posted by Dr. Kardasz at 04:45 PM | Permalink

Dr. Kardasz:

The following story of alleged police misconduct by Rochelle Olson of the Star Tribune describes "integrity checks" used to test the honesty of officers suspected of theft. During "integrity checks" investigators leave money in situations where an unethical officer can make the wrong decision and steal the money.

Assuming that the allegations below are true, the accused have jeopardized their freedom, their good names and the future of themselves and their families. Misconduct, ethics violations and crimes by public officials often lead us to ask; What was he (or she) thinking?  If the violators had used some logical decision-making processes beforehand, perhaps the alleged ethics violations would not have occurred.

Here is a link to a list of decision making process that may be useful to those who must educate others about ethics: http://www.kardasz.org/Decision_Making_Tools.html

----------------------------------------------------------------  

Corruption trial probes police procedure

August 24, 2008. By Rochelle Olson, Star Tribune

Minnesota - The federal case against two top aides and friends of Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher will enter its second week today with more testimony about how the investigation unfolded.

Inside details of the investigation emerged Friday when a witness, FBI Special Agent Timothy Bisswurm, revealed that it began in spring of 2004 when he first spoke with Shawn Arvin of St. Paul, a former drug dealer who was working with the DEA to reduce a potential 17-year prison sentence.

In early November, Bisswurm used Arvin to set up the first "integrity check" designed to see whether St. Paul police officer Timothy Rehak would act lawfully when presented with money or valuables.

A federal indictment alleges Rehak, in concert with Mark Naylon, the spokesman for the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office, broke the law. Both men were working for Fletcher's Special Investigations Unit, although Naylon was not a peace officer. He was, however, the best man at Fletcher's second wedding.

Bisswurm last week introduced into evidence numerous recorded profanity-laden phone conversations between Arvin and Rehak, including the one in which Arvin set up the first "integrity check."

The FBI had left $13,500 cash at the Kelly Inn. Naylon and Rehak are seen on an FBI videotape pocketing $6,000 during a search warrant executed in the room rented at the Kelly Inn by the fictional Vincent Pellagatti, a supposed drug dealer. The defendants do not dispute they took the money. But their lawyers say the action was a practical joke on a third officer involved in the search.

The officers left a search warrant receipt in the room saying they recovered $7,500 from the search.

Later that night after being unable to locate the alleged drug dealer in state or national criminal databases, Naylon and Rehak called the third officer and told him they had found an additional $6,000 in the room.

That officer, Ramsey County Sgt. Rollie Martinez, testified he didn't press for details because he didn't believe they would give him the truth about where they found the money. He also said Naylon "made it perfectly clear he doesn't respond to anyone but his boss."

Agents went ahead with a second integrity check in the summer because of frequent contact between Rehak and Arvin.

On Thursday, the jury saw a 70-minute recording with video and profanity-filled audio of the two defendants searching a vehicle in July 2005, finding a stash of cash and making reference to another "set up."

Throughout the first week, prosecutors tried to show how the men breached law enforcement protocol in taking the $6,000 of alleged drug money. The defense tried to paint Rehak as a tough street cop who wasn't savvy about paperwork and was working for a sheriff's department with a reputation for playing "loose" with the rules.

Several officers took the stand to talk about the importance of proper procedure and accuracy, including Christopher Hoskin, a longtime St. Paul police officer who retired a couple of years ago as senior commander to Chief John Harrington. He was questioned about how officers handle seized property.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Marti asked whether it was appropriate for seized property to be handed over to a non-peace officer until it is logged into evidence. Hoskin said no.

The point may be significant because Naylon was not a peace officer. Rehak is shown in the November video handing the cash to him and Naylon is seen stuffing it deep into his jacket pocket.

On cross examination, Rehak's lawyer Paul Engh asked about his client's reputation as a cop with history and connections on the rugged East Side. He elicited that Rehak went to work for the Ramsey County unit at the behest of Fletcher but continued to be employed by the St. Paul Police Department.

"You knew Ramsey County was loose in procedures?" Engh asked, referring to a comment Hoskin made to the FBI in May 2008.

Hoskin said, "That is an opinion I had."

Asked about the claim of loose procedures, Fletcher's spokeswoman Holli Drinkwine said: "It would be inappropriate to comment in the midst of a trial."

Retrieved August 26 2008 from http://www.startribune.com/local/27338239.html

Posted by Dr. Kardasz at 06:10 PM | Permalink

Dr. Frank Kardasz, August 15, 2008

An Arizona newspaper recently printed a controversial article about a photographer who publicizes pictures of her own children posing nude.  The article included a chronology of dozens of nude images of the photographers’ pre-pubescent children ranging in age from less than one year to ten years.  The children were not posed in sexually suggestive positions and were not engaged in sex acts.  Although genitals were visible in the pictures, the specific focuses of the images were not zoomed on the child’s genitals.

The published images were probably not unlawful according to present United States Supreme Court standards.  The Court might consider the images to be lawful pictures of nudity or art.  The images probably did not violate the difficult-to-measure-and-enforce community obscenity standard.  The pictures might fall outside the legal definitions of images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.  The photographer appears to be attempting to straddle the sometimes-confusing borderline between art and illegality, at the expense of her children.

While barely lawful, some would consider the nude pictures of children to be erotica.  Erotica includes lawful and non-pornographic items that may stimulate a sexual reaction from the viewer.

Those who would consider nude images of children to be sexually stimulating might include the ranks of pedophiles and others who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent minors.  Anyone who considers sharing nude images of a child should consider that others may find their benign images sexually stimulating.

Those who consider photographing children nude and sharing the images should also know that doing so may make the children the targets of those who will enjoy the images for sexual masturbatory purposes.

The same persons who sexually enjoy the images may also try to befriend the children depicted and ingratiate themselves with the family for the predatory purpose of grooming the targeted children towards actual molestation.

Predators may pose as admiring "fans" of the young model. They may pose as professional photographers interested in advancing the modeling career of a young person: A young person who’s only protection from harm are the same star-hungry parents who send them to the photographer-predator.  This does not mean that all photographers are bad, only that parents must be vigilant.

Distributing and publishing erotic images of children also means that the pictures will likely be duplicated and distributed throughout cyberspace.  That means that once the children depicted are old enough to knowingly object to the pictures the images will already be irretrievable.  Once the child reaches middle school and is confronted with the pictures by crass adolescent peers who found the pictures on the Internet, the subsequent embarrassment will be irreversible.

Benign and innocent images may also be used for alteration or blending with other images for the purpose of creating pornography.  For example, innocent images of the famous child twin actresses Kate and Ashley Olsen have been duplicated, cropped, pasted and altered into sexual images for many years by deviants who enjoy the altered pictures for sexual self-gratification and who then trade them via the Internet.  Deviants often use software programs to cut the young faces from the Olsen twins and superimpose the images onto the nude or sexually active bodies of others so that the deviants can imagine having sex with the young girls.

It is also likely that the images will become part of someone’s larger collection that includes unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.  For example, those who collect and enjoy unlawful images also sometimes collect lawful images of erotica and nudism.  Some go so far as to collect newspaper advertisements from retailers who sell children’s underwear or pajamas.  While there is nothing unlawful about images of children in pajamas, those who derive sexual gratification from such images might be considered by the psychology community as having pedophilic tendencies.

Unlawful images that depict the sexual exploitation of minors are often called child pornography.   Unlawful images of child pornography are different from lawful adult pornography.  Unlawful images should not be confused with lawful art, nudism, medical images or erotica.  The exact legal lines and definitions are often blurry and confusing to the average person.

The photographer who took nude pictures of her children under the legal umbrella protections of “art” should consider the wider ramifications of sharing the images.   Ramifications include the way in which others will perceive the images and the future possible uses of the images by persons with sexually deviant motives.  The barely-legal exploitation of children displayed in the newspaper article is disturbing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 More information about unlawful images

Unlawful images and videos that depict the sexual exploitation of minors are commonly called child pornography.  In most jurisdictions child pornography is 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, 1996):

• 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 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.  Because unlawful images are now often produced in video form, the images are often accompanied by the sounds of children suffering.

What are some of the differences between lawful and unlawful images?

A California court offered some insight into the differences between lawful nudism and unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.   An instructive set of guidelines for determining the differences was provided in the case of United States v.  Dost, 636 F.  Supp.  828, 830-32 (S.D. Cal. 1986).

The Dost factors give a more defined test for determining whether a visual depiction of a minor is a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area".

The Dost factors include the following guidelines:

1. whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area;
2. whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
3. whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
5. whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity;
6. whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

-------------------------------------

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 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.

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 in Maricopa County.  1 CA-CR 03-0243. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CR/CR030243.pdf/CR/CR030243.pdf

Posted by Dr. Kardasz at 01:59 AM | Permalink

Dr. Frank Kardasz, August 14, 2008

Law enforcement personnel whose duties obligate them to view unlawful images have a sad duty. Seeing images and videos that depict the exploitation of minors is a disturbing task. Observing minors being brutally assaulted and hearing their cries creates psychological victimization for those who must review the images and gather or present evidence towards the arrest and prosecution of offenders.

As caring humans, investigators and prosecutors have a natural affinity and empathy for young victims. The empathy and affinity for minors is so profound that many in law enforcement are psychologically unable to accept assignments that routinely deal with the victimization of children.

Unlike other forms of contraband, unlawful images are the only type of banned substance introduced to the human psyche through the perceptions of sight and sound. Although the victims who suffer most are the children who endure the "hands-on" contact offenses, proximate victims of unlawful images also include those who view the images and hear the sounds of suffering. Investigators and prosecutors become psychological victims. Particularly disturbing are the video images that are accompanied by the audio pleas of child victims.

Federal law and many state laws now have victims’ rights provisions. The laws permit victims to describe the effect of crime to the court using a victim impact statement. Depending upon the rules in the jurisdiction, the statement may be provided during pre-sentence oral testimony or in written text.

Below is a draft victim impact statement that I wrote in my capacity as a law enforcement supervisor assigned to review unlawful images during the course of ICAC investigations. My situation is not unique. My investigative experiences are shared by many others in the law enforcement community. The following information may be useful to others who can employ the information as a basis for similar victim impact statements. The information may also be useful in educating the judiciary about the impact of unlawful images.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victim impact statement of Frank Kardasz

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the Federal Law (18 U.S.C. § 3771), a victim is described as any person directly or proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense. Arizona law (A.R.S. 13-4401.19) describes a victim as a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed. I am writing this statement to you for the purpose of sharing my story of proximate victimization. I do not wish to invoke any other legal rights enumerated in the victims rights act. I only wish to submit this statement to the court for consideration.

My name is Frank Kardasz. In the course of my employment as a law enforcement officer and during this investigation it was my sad duty to view the images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors that are the subjects of the present case. Seeing the disturbing images of children being sexually abused caused me despair. Knowing that the defendant received sexual gratification from viewing the images is
particularly abhorrent to me.

Thinking about the images is emotionally troubling. When I consider the abuse that the victims in the images suffered I am deeply affected. I am simultaneously aware that my level of victimization is minimal compared to that of the child who was depicted in the images. Although I am troubled, my worst day in law enforcement is still exponentially better than the day that the child victims in this case were abused, photographed and recorded for the deviant sexual enjoyment of the defendant.

Because I am a law enforcement officer, most people would not consider me a victim in the classic sense. I am a dutiful and humble member of the State in the case of the State versus the defendant. I hope that you will not consider me less of a victim because of my job. I was not physically assaulted and I did not suffer property loss. I was not personally sexually abused. But as you are aware, you Honor, exposure to unlawful images is different. Images are the only kind of contraband that enter the human body through the sense of sight. Unlike other kinds of crimes, psychological victimization from viewing images happens to anyone who sees the images. My victimization was emotional. My memory now retains recollections of horrors that no ones mind should possess.

I am disturbed too because I am aware of troubling research about possessors of unlawful images. According to a Congressional report (Child pornography, 1986) possessors and traffickers of unlawful images use them for one or more reasons including:

• 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
• tomodel deviant sexual behavior.

I am also troubled because my training and experience suggests that possessors of unlawful images are sometimes also dangerous on a physical level. 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. Surprising studies of federal prisoners indicated that 85% of those in custody for possession of unlawful images were also “hands-on” molesters whose contact offenses had never been discovered.

It disturbs me to know that other professionals agree that there exists a danger that possessors of unlawful images could escalate and that possessors could 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 a 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."

The ramifications of unlawful images was succinctly described in the case of Arizona v. Berger. 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 the Arizona Court of Appeals (State of Arizona, 2004, December 14).

Arizona Judges Susan Ehrlich and Philip Hall dismissed Berger's appeal with opinions that have also been similarly reflected in previous US Supreme Court rulings. The AZ Appellate Court opinions included the following excerpts (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.

Please consider that the imaged victims who were the subject of the defendants’ sexual fantasies are unable to provide you with a victim impact statement. Try to imagine what they would say if they could appear before you in court. I know from my training and experience that some victims of child pornography suffer a lifetime of misery wondering when and where their images will reappear on the Internet. 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.

I am disquieted to know from my training and experience that some offenders are adept at creating public personas’ as trustworthy and demure persons while they are privately sexually deviant predators. Offenders sometimes practice techniques enabling them to thwart polygraph and penile plesmograph tests. They often feign religious transformations and plead for mercy from the court while privately
mocking the justice system and re-offending.

Your Honor, if you viewed the images in this case you may share my feelings and you may also have empathy for the victims. While I am anguished, I am also fortunate because unlike the victims depicted in the images, I am able to obtain counseling for my woes and I can use stress management techniques for my problems. I can turn my sadness into a strengthened resolve to continue to bring offenders to you for justice.

In the interest of protecting the public, I request that you impose the longest possible period of incarceration in this case along with lifetime probation and lifetime sex offender registration status for the defendant. In my humble opinion, a long period of incarceration is the best way to prevent the offender from victimizing others.

Thank you for considering my statement.

Kindest regards,

Frank Kardasz

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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 in Maricopa County. 1 CA-CR 03-0243. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.cofad1.state.az. us/opinionfiles/CR/CR030243.pdf

Posted by Dr. Kardasz at 08:32 PM | Permalink