04.28.10
Posted in Uncategorized at 00:29 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, April 27, 2010. Revised May 12, 2010
As a career law enforcement officer, first in Michigan and for the past 25 years in Arizona, I have admired many immigrants who came here legally and worked hard to succeed while following the laws of the land. I have also seen some people quietly slink into the US, not because they had criminal motives, but because they wanted to find productive work and send money back to their families in other countries.
I have empathy and respect for legal, first-generation immigrants who do the jobs that spoiled and “entitled” Americans refuse to do. They often toil in necessary but low-paying jobs including day-laborers, farm workers, cab drivers, housekeepers, caregivers, restaurant kitchens and hundreds of other places where they just want to do honest work and survive.
I am grateful for my born-into US citizenship and I have been employed in law enforcement for the past 30 years. I also have friends and family who properly emigrated and dutifully followed the lawful and cumbersome naturalization processes for obtaining US citizenship.
As a young law enforcement officer in Michigan in the late 1970’s I was only vaguely aware of the illegal immigration issues facing the southern border states. I assumed that a strong law enforcement contingent protected the Country: I was wrong.
When I moved to Arizona in the 1980s I was surprised to learn that police policies restricted an officers’ ability to assist in thwarting criminal illegal aliens. Officers could notify Federal enforcement officers only when an arrest was for a serious felony, but in most other cases there was no immigration enforcement whatsoever. Police could assist the Feds fighting illegal drugs, illegal alcohol, illegal weapons and counterfeit currency – but not illegal immigration.
During my Arizona law enforcement work I have watched the revolving-door border non-protection mechanism of the Federal government sometimes result in aliens deported to Mexico one-day and returning across the barely-regulated border a few days later.
In the 90’s I supervised a police undercover unit specializing in recovering stolen property. During that time there were many incidents involving criminal illegal aliens trafficking property and narcotics.
More recently, I supervised investigations of Internet predators and I am aware of many incidents involving criminal illegal aliens committing sex crimes against minors. Several years ago 13-year-old Christina Long of Danbury, Connecticut was murdered by an illegal from Brazil whom she met on the Internet (Ohio Jobs, no date). Dozens of other troubling examples exist involving illegals committing various sex crimes against US citizens (Shilling, January 09, 2007).
As a supervisor in a Police Vice Unit I learned of many incidents involving prostitutes here illegally from other countries. One recent newsworthy case involved a prostitution business and money laundering operation in Washington and California involving illegals (Auburn Reporter April 26, 2010).
The underground but highly organized process of illegal entry to the U.S. sometimes involves “coyotes,” criminals who facilitate the illegal transportation of foreigners. Coyotes accept payments from aspiring immigrants trying to cross the border and transport them across. Upon arrival the coyotes sometimes hold their illegal human cargo hostage and then demand more money from relatives. The unlawful transportation process is highly evolved. A recent Arizona raid dismantled an organized shuttle service that was bringing illegals from Mexico to Arizona (McCombs, April 15, 2010). In another recent incident three children who were being smuggled from El Salvador and destined for Washington DC were rescued in Arizona after the parents reported that the smugglers were demanding additional ransom (Barron, May 11, 2010).
Illegals are often secreted at “drop-houses.” Drop-houses are usually rental homes in suburban neighborhoods where people are off-loaded from unmarked passenger vans under cover of darkness and quietly secreted in the quiet dwelling. In recent months police in Arizona have responded to dozens of calls about drop-houses. Police sometimes arrive at these locations only to witness a dozen or more people fleeing on foot in different directions. Sometimes those who remain are frightened men, women and children who may have been deprived of food and water by their captors (Gibson, April 13, 2010).
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 reawakened many Americans’ consciousness regarding lackluster border enforcement. Since then, efforts to strengthen border defenses have improved but are still imperfect (AP April 27, 2010).
A recent political flash-point killing involved Arizona rancher Robert Krentz who was shot on his own property near the southern border town of Douglas, Arizona (Robbins, April 12, 2010). The murder is unsolved but unidentified illegals are suspected. Besides the long list of good American citizens who have tragically lost their lives to criminal acts committed by illegal aliens (Ohio Jobs, no date), the following is a sad list of some of my law enforcement colleagues who have died as the result of criminal acts committed by illegals (Crime Victims, no date):
Officer Nick Erfle, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Shane Figueroa, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Marc Atkinson, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Kenneth Collins, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Jeffery Stone, Lebanon, TN
Officer Henry Canales, Houston, TX
Officer Gary Gryder, Houston, TX
Officer Rodney Johnson, Houston, TX
Office Brian Jackson, Dallas, TX
Officer Vincent Owen D’Anna , Flint, MI
Officer Andrew Widman, Fort Myers, FL
Officer Daniel Golden, Huntsville, AL
Officer Hugo Arango,Doraville, GA
Officer Tony Zappetalla, Oceanside, CA
Officer Gregory Bailey, CA
Officer Roy Wade Jr. Long Beach, CA
Officer Abe Yap, Long Beach, CA
Border Patrol Agent James Paul Epling, CA
Senior Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar, Yuma, AZ
Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas Jr., Campo, CA
Border Patrol Inspector Theodore L. Newton Jr. Oak Grove, CA
Border Patrol Inspector George F. Azrak, Oak Grove, CA
Officer Robert Bryant, Denver, CO
Officer Will Seuis, Oakland , CA
Officer Michael Gordon, Chicago, IL
Deputy David March, Los Angeles County, CA
Trooper Bret Clodfelter, OR
Officer Sheila Herring, Detroit, MI
In 2003, Phoenix Police Officer Robert Sitek was shot and wounded by an illegal who had previously been deported but had returned the US to continue a criminal career (ImmigrationsHumanCost.org, no date). Officer Sitek survived the shooting. In April, 2010 Deputy Louie Puroll of the Pinal County Arizona Sheriffs Department was shot by illegals who were trafficking drugs across the border (Christie, May 1, 2010). Deputy Puroll survived. Many other law enforcement officers have been assaulted and injured by criminal illegal aliens.
The illegal immigration issue must be addressed and border security must be tightened. The new Arizona law, SB1070, attempts to loosen the restraints on a police officers’ ability to assist in fighting illegal immigration. It does not authorize racial profiling. It does not authorize Constitution-trampling and it does not appear to be an apocalyptic reawakening of the Hitler regime. Naysayers should read the legislation closely before believing the misinformed hype (Arizona State Legislature, 2010).
Officers who enforce the laws must meet standards of reasonableness towards developing probable cause for arrest when enforcing the new laws. These are the same standards used in every other kind of investigation done by law enforcement. Enforcement will be scrutinized by supervisors, prosecutors judges and juries before anyone is ever adjudicated for a crime under the new laws. I recommend that the justice system be allowed to proceed before the new laws are preemptively abolished by misinformed critics.
References
Arizona State Legislature. (2010). SB1070 Immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods. (web page). Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070&image.x=6&image.y=7
Associated Press. (April 27, 2010). Senators call for scraping ‘virtual fence”. Las Vegas Sun (web page) .Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/27/senators-call-for-scraping-virtual-fence/
Auburn Reporter. (April 26, 2010). Two arrested in multi-state prostitution, money laundering scheme. Auburn Reporter (web page). Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/aub/news/92108544.html
Barron, A.E. (May 11, 2010). ICE agents rescue 3 kids held hostage by smugglers in Phoenix. AZ Family.com (web page). Retrieved May 12, 2010 from http://www.azfamily.com/news/ICE-agents-rescue-3-kids-held-hostage-by-smugglers-in-Phoenix-93477129.html
Christie, B. (May 1, 2010). 17 caught in search for Arizona deputy’s attackers. Associated Press. (web page). Retrieved May 1, 2010 from http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gGgzImP2k9_40Sl_i3l7IX2Cn7bgD9FE7BUG0
Crime Victims of Illegal Aliens. (no date). Immigrations Human Cost. Web page. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
Gibson, D. (April 13, 2010). Another drop house found in Phoenix. Examiner.com (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.examiner.com/x-35821-Immigration-Reform-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Another-drop-house-found-in-Phoenix
ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. (no date). (web page). http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
McCombs, B. (April 15, 2010). Border shuttles in Tucson raided in AZ immigration sweep. Arizona Daily Star (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_6d121a36-48b1-11df-ac5b-001cc4c002e0.html
Ohio Jobs and Justice PAC. (no date). web page.
Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp
Robbins T. (April 12, 2010). Arizona ranchers caught up in Mexican drug violence. National Public Radio (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125844450&ps=cprs
Shilling, C. (January 09, 2007). Sex-offender stings get thousands of illegals: Experts stil concerned U.S. children. WorldNetDailey.com (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=39607
Wooldridge, F. (April 22, 2010). States rights: Arizona deals with illegal alien immigration. NewsWithViews.com Web site. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty563.htm
Dr. Frank Kardasz is a sworn law enforcement officer in Arizona. His opinions do not reflect the official position of any government agency.
Permalink
02.14.10
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 13:05 by Administrator
AZ ICAC Offender Apprehension Project:
Joint Effort Nets 12 Suspects: Citizen Internet Safety Training to Follow
Background
Over the past decade, the ubiquitous proliferation of computers connected to the Internet led to a skyrocketing number of Internet crimes against children. In the year 2008, the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force recorded the following:
• 4,318 incidents involving unlawful images of the sexual exploitation of minors.
• 394 incidents of Internet crimes against children reported from the NCMEC Cybertip hotline.
• 228 cases of the Internet facilitated luring of minors for sexual exploitation.
• 27 reported incidents of Internet related child prostitution.
During eight days in December 2008, Arizona ICAC undercover investigators found that in one narrow avenue of the Internet, 8,170 unlawful images were traced to various locations in Arizona involving 77 different cities throughout the state.
Offender Apprehension Project
In the three months between December 2008 and February 2009, a joint task force of Arizona and Federal investigators conducted a series of proactive cybercrime enforcement operations targeting Internet criminals committing sex crimes against children; including the trafficking of unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. The project was followed by an education effort geared towards Internet crime prevention and awareness.
Law Enforcement Agencies
Investigators affiliated with 13 law enforcement agencies partnered with the Arizona ICAC Task Force in a cooperative effort during this operation. Agencies participating included (alphabetically):
• Arizona Attorney General’s Office (education and training)
• Chandler PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• F.B.I. – (investigation and enforcement)
• Gilbert PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• I.C.E. – (investigation and enforcement)
• Maricopa County Attorney’s Office – (prosecution)
• Mesa PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• Phoenix PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• Scottsdale PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• Tempe PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• U. S. Postal Inspection Service – (investigations)
The Investigators’ Work
Trained investigators endured witnessing disturbing cyber images and videos depicting brutal sexual torture of actual children. They use sophisticated computer investigative techniques combined with undercover tactics to identify offenders. They conducted surveillance operations, requested subpoenas, and wrote and executed dozens of search warrants. They seized thousands of items of computer evidence. Detectives and special agents conducted computer forensics examinations to identify contraband images. They interrogated offenders and interviewed witnesses. They conducted exhaustive searches of dwellings and wrote voluminous reports on their activities.
The proactive investigators agreed to participate in this undercover operation in addition to their regular duties that involve responding to citizens’ complaints of Internet crimes against children. Although the investigations required hundreds of work hours, very little overtime was used. Through their proactive efforts investigators and special agents sought justice for thousands of children who could not call 911. Their fine efforts are greatly appreciated. Next, they will work closely with prosecutors to prepare for trials.
Cases pursued by local agencies under Arizona State Law have been submitted to the local County Attorney’s Office – in most cases this involved the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Cases pursued by federal agencies under the US Code have been submitted to US Attorney’s Office for the Arizona District. The justice system considers all suspects innocent until proven guilty in court.
The Offenders
All of the following suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law:
These suspects were arrested and charged with violating Arizona State laws regarding the sexual exploitation of minors (child pornography).
Donald Morici, age 79, from Gilbert Arizona – retired appliance repairman
Richard Leathers, age 49, from Phoenix Arizona – an embalmer/mortician
Ronald Good, age 39, from Tempe Arizona – a computer IT specialist
Sean Johnson, age 21, from Tempe Arizona – a college student
Christopher Youngs, age 59, from Quatar – a surveyor
Michael Carter, age 40, from Peoria Arizona – a plumber
Julio Ayala, age 21, from Scottsdale Arizona – a student
Two unnamed juveniles, both age 16 from Mesa and Tempe
Penalties
Unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are described under Arizona State law in ARS 13-3553. It is a class 2 felony. In Arizona the mandatory minimum penalty for a single image crime is ten years in prison.
The luring and enticement of minors for sexual exploitation is described under Arizona State law in ARS 13-3554. It is a class 3 felony. In Arizona the mandatory minimum penalty for the crime is five years prison.
Training and Education
On March 6, 2009 at 10 a.m. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, in cooperation with all of the agencies involved in the enforcement operation will host an Internet safety meeting for citizens at Orangedale Junior High Prep Academy in Phoenix. The Attorney General has been a statewide leader in bringing the message of Internet safety to children and adults and the meeting is expected to provide important information useful to business owners, parents and minors.
Organizations that can provide more information about Internet crime prevention:
• Arizona Attorney General: www.azag.gov
• Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force: www.azicac.org
• Enough is Enough: www.enough.org
• FBI: www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm
• Get Net Wise: www.getnetwise.org
• ICE: www.ice.gov/pi/childexploitation/index.htm
• ISafe: www.isafe.org
• National Association to Protect Children: www.protect.org
• National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Netsmartz Program: www.netsmartz.org
• Phoenix PD: www.phoenix.gov/POLICE/net_safe.html
• Scottsdale PD: www.scottsdaleaz.gov/assistance/fac/icac.asp
More Information
Arizona ICAC Task Force
The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force efforts are partially funded by grants from the US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The ICAC program is a nationwide network of 59 state task forces representing 1,800 local and regionally affiliated agencies engaged in investigations, forensics examinations, prosecutions and community education. We are pleased to know that the recently announced Federal stimulus package provides a much needed $50 million dollar nationwide boost to the program. We hope to see some of those funds in Arizona.
Within Arizona, the ICAC Task Force is affiliated or partnered with 54 law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies statewide. Since 2000, Arizona detectives and special agents have conducted over 8,000 investigations resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of offenders.
Unlawful Images
Images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are commonly called child pornography. The images and videos are contraband. The images that investigators found were not of babies in bathtubs. Some of the unlawful videos included acts of bestiality between minors and animals including the horrible audio sounds of human suffering. Detailed descriptions of the images will not be fully provided here.
Some people have a lingering ambivalence towards unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. Some offenders say that they think that since the depicted sex act already occurred that possession of the image should not be a crime. This convoluted thinking was eloquently refuted by judges of the Arizona appellate court who said in a 2004 decision:
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.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What undercover tactics were used?
• We cannot release details of our tactics because investigations are still underway using the same undercover techniques. Those details will probably not be available until they come out at trial.
- Are the search warrant affidavits public records?
• The affidavits were sealed by the courts because the investigations using these same techniques are continuing.
- Was this an investigation into chat rooms and social networking sites?
• Many avenues of cyberspace, including but not limited to chat rooms and social networking sites were investigated during this project.
- Was this an investigation into P2P file sharing?
• Many avenues of cyberspace, including but not limited to P2P sources were investigated during this project.
- Where on the Internet were the suspects found?
• We cannot release that information because investigations are still pending using the same undercover tactics. Those details will not be available until trial.
- Was this an organized ring of people working together?
• At this time the evidence does not indicate that the offenders knew of each others activities.
- What training did the investigators have in order to work on these cases?
• The average investigator assigned to conduct these investigations has received over one hundred hours of specialized training specific to Internet crimes and/or computer forensics coursework.
- Are the images and videos available for viewing pursuant to a public records request?
• No – Images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are contraband. Even in a courtroom setting, the prosecutors try to protect the gallery, the media and everyone but the judge, jury, defense and prosecution from seeing the images.
- Can citizens go on-line and volunteer to go undercover like they did on Dateline with Perverted
Justice?
• Citizen cyber-vigilantism is not supported by the agencies involved in this enforcement operation. To learn about the reasons why we advise against cyber-vigilantism see: www.kardasz.org/Cybervigilantes.html
- Can the media “ride along” and accompany the cyber crime investigators?
• Because child pornography is contraband, we do not permit anyone except those investigating or prosecuting the offenses to be exposed to the images.
• Media exposure of our undercover investigative tactics will make our jobs more difficult by making offenders aware of the techniques we use.
- What Internet safety tips can you provide to citizens about unlawful images?
• Homeowners: Pay attention to what is occurring on your home computer. Take responsibility for the control of your computer.
• Business owners: Watch what your employees are doing on their work computers. Law enforcement intervention can result in an embarrassing disruption of services to your customers.
• Parents: Monitor your child’s use of cell phone cameras. A troubling number of minors are using cell phone cameras to create felony images depicting the sexual exploitation of themselves and others. The images are then being shared throughout cyberspace and the images will never be retrieved.
- What Internet safety tips can you provide to citizens about luring/enticement?
• Parents: Closely monitor your child’s use of the computer and know who your child is contacting on line. Be aware that some children have multiple on line profiles. They may show one profile to their parents while keeping another secret profile that they use to communicate with friends and strangers.
• Also, while you are protecting your children at home, be aware that some children go to places where free Internet access is provided to communicate with others. Coffee shops, libraries and colleges offer free Internet service where young people may be communicating with predators.
- Were any “hands on” contact victims discovered as the result of these investigations?
• Not yet – We have encouraged the families and friends of the suspects to call us if they wish to report contact offenses. We know that victims are understandable reluctant to come forward for fear of embarrassment and because they do not wish to relive the abuse by subjecting themselves to the criminal justice system. We know from the scientific research conducted on the subject of unlawful images that a significant number of possessors are also contact offenders. We encourage victims to report abuse so that we can bring offenders to justice. Complicating our investigative endeavors is the fact that it is impossible for some of the victims, who are as young as infants, to notify the police. How can you call 911 when you are not yet old enough to count or to use a telephone?
- Are women ever arrested for Internet crimes against children?
• Sometimes, but 99% of the offenders in theses cases are men. During this investigation, no women were arrested.
- Who can we call to get an Internet safety and education program at my school or business?
• The Arizona Attorney General Community Services Program at 602-542-2123. Outside Maricopa County call 1-800-352-8431, or e-mail community services@azag.gov
- Where can I go on-line for more information?
• Arizona Attorney General: www.azag.gov
• Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force: www.azicac.org
• Enough is Enough: www.enough.org
• FBI: www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm
• Get Net Wise: www.getnetwise.org
• ICE: www.ice.gov/pi/childexploitation/index.htm
• ISafe: www.isafe.org
• National Association to Protect Children: www.protect.org
• National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Netsmartz Program: www.netsmartz.org
• Phoenix PD: www.phoenix.gov/POLICE/net_safe.html
• Scottsdale PD: www.scottsdaleaz.gov/assistance/fac/icac.asp
- What is the number to call to report Internet crimes against children?
• Local crimes can be reported through the telephone 911 service.
• The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children operates the Cybertip line where crimes can be reported on-line. The web site is: www.cybertipline.com
Permalink
02.07.10
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 12:49 by Administrator
On February 4, 2010, I provided a presentation to an Online Safety and Technology Working Group panel at the Commerce Department in Washington DC. The subject was the contentious topic of data retention. I included thoughts and opinions from law enforcement investigators who work Internet crimes against children, some good – some bad.
Parts of my presentation to the panel were not well-received by some of the Internet Service Providers in the room. At one point I praised their good work, but when I criticized some of their failings one lawyer (from AOL) shouted, “Objection!” as if we were in court, and the committee chair-lawyer (from News Corporation/MySpace) – the apparent judge – sustained the objection and asked me to delete the offending PowerPoint slides. The kangaroo OSTWG court was not pleased with some of my work.
In a preemptive attempt to discredit the work, one media-member of the group was already misquoting the information and taking it out of context in an article the day before I gave the lecture.
I guess they do not want Congress to hear all sides of the arguments.
Below is a link to my un-redacted presentation, including the offending slides.
Here are the slides:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3XfthhGWg7RYmY3YWQ2NTItYWIzZi00NGI1LWJhNjktOWQ3ZjFkNWEwMGI1&hl=en
Here is the text:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3XfthhGWg7RYWY5MzRjZTktYTMzYS00Y2ViLWFhYTItMjMzZjkyMzg3N2Rl&hl=en
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Here is another analogy describing the reporting system whereby Internet service providers respond – or sometimes do not respond – with customer subscriber information to investigators hunting Internet predators:
“When the ISP-law enforcement information response system works efficiently and we arrest an offender it feels like Snoopy and the good-guys beating the evil Red Baron. On bad days, when nothing comes through from the ISP, it is as if our own allies accidentally knocked out the radar station with friendly-fire and we cannot locate the enemy.“
- Dr. Frank Kardasz
Permalink
11.12.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 22:23 by Administrator
Remarks of Dr. Frank Kardasz
November 12, 2009
To the Arizona Family Council meeting – Phoenix
Thanks for inviting me to speak today about the threat of pornography to our children. I would like to first talk about a prominent Arizona case involving child pornography, then briefly about the sad phenomena of “sexting” and end with a couple safety tips and educational references.
CASE STUDY
In 2003, an Arizona man was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 200 years prison. He appealed the sentence and lost. In affirming the conviction the Arizona Court of Appeals said several important things about unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors:
- 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 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 victimization 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.
- …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 one of its most important interests.
- Defendant 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. His demand served to drive the industry.
- Defendant 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. The court said that this logic is abstruse.
As a law enforcement officer I share the courts opinion about unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors and I am guided by the courts judgements. The aforementioned case occurred several years ago but everything the court said still applies to the adult offenders we see today.
SEXTING
Now – today – in 2009, we have a new unlawful images threat. That threat comes from something that has come to be known as sexting.
As you know, modern cell phones often come equipped with cameras that can be legitimately used to capture images. Young people use their cell phone cameras to snap pictures of friends, families and special occasions. Images taken with cell phone cameras can be shared between users who can quickly send images to wider groups of friends. There have even been cases of crimes being solved by images retrieved from cell phones.
Unfortunately, cameras are also sometimes used to capture images of nudism or sexual exploitation. Often the images are part of the “sexting” process. Sexting is the act of sending sexual text or sexual images from one electronic device to another, often for the purpose of grooming another person towards a sex act. Adult sexual predators often groom intended victims by sexting. Immature grade schoolers also trade images and those images are quickly traded to others in the child’s school causing humiliation and grief for all involved. Sometimes the images are felony pictures of child pornography.
An increasing number of complaints are being received by law enforcement involving illegal images trafficked via cell phone. It is unlikely that we will be locking up grade school kids for child pornography, however we are investigating many of the cases and submitting them to the county attorneys for their analysis towards prosecution.
In the one case of sexting where we have received a response from the county attorneys office, the matter was deemed “de minimus” which means trivial and not worthy of judicial scrutiny. The case was seen to have no reasonable likelihood of conviction and the predicted cost of prosecution outweighed the benefit of prosecution to the victim and/or society. That response does not solve the problem for the sexting victim or family. The response tells you that the criminal justice system cannot solve the sexting problem either. I am hoping that someone can develop some kind of diversion program for young people who involve themselves with unlawful images while sexting.
With the justice system waffling on sexting, it becomes incumbent upon parents to police the activities of their children.
ADVICE ABOUT “SEXTING” PREVENTION
Here is my advice to parents:
- Parents, please monitor your child’s use of a cell phone camera.
- Talk to your children about the problem and the long-term implications.
- Remember that once an image is released to others or into cyberspace, it is irretrievable.
- Pictures can be shared and duplicated across cyberspace and the images might not ever be erased.
- Consider purchasing cheaper “pay as you go” phones that are manufactured without cameras.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Here are four helpful organizations for more educational information.
- Netsmartz – http://www.netsmartz.org/index.aspx
- ISafe – http://www.isafe.org/
- GetNetWise – http://www.getnetwise.org/
- Enough is Enough – http://www.enough.org/
TO REPORT INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
- Report Internet crimes against children to your local police or to the
- NCMEC Cybertipline at: https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US
Permalink
11.09.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 23:25 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, November 9, 2009
With some frustration yesterday that I read a news report quoting an alleged computer forensics expert who inferred that viruses routinely plant unlawful images on the computers of innocent citizens (1). The expert is apparently making a living by promoting the “someone-planted-images-on-my-computer” defense whenever a virus is found on a defendants computer. It is probably a lucrative business given the number of offenders who now collect unlawful images and who are seeking alibis. They all want to say that some other person did it.
Here is an excerpt from yesterdays Associated Press report about a case involving a Massachusetts defendant named Fiola:
(The computer examiner), who inspected Fiola’s computer, recalls a case in Arizona in which a computer was so “extensively infected” that it would be “virtually impossible” to prove what an indictment alleged: that a 16-year-old who used the PC had uploaded child pornography to a Yahoo group. Prosecutors dropped the charge and let the boy plead guilty to a separate crime that kept him out of jail, though they say they did it only because of his age and lack of a criminal record.
The preceding statement infers that a virus planted unlawful images on an innocent boys computer. The article’s headline: “Framed for child porn – by a PC virus” would have readers believe that viruses routinely plant unlawful images on the computers of unsuspecting citizens. In my nearly ten years supervising investigations into unlawful images, involving thousands of cases, we have never found this to actually occur.
Facts of the Arizona Case
For the record, and to clarify the statements above, the facts of the Arizona case were as follows:
In 2004, Yahoo found 35 unlawful images on their computer servers and reported them to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Some of the images were from series of pictures involving known and identified victims of sexual molestation and depicted criminal sexual acts involving minors.
The images had been loaded into a Yahoo group titled: “beth_lard9″.
The screen name used to load the images into the Yahoo group was “mrbob1980hoopdu”.
The source of those images was found to be a Phoenix home and a search warrant was served at the home. A man and wife along with a 16 year old boy and his younger sister were found to reside at the home. Evidence was seized including a computer and most importantly, compact disks.
Examination of one of the compact disks seized from home revealed that the disk contained unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.
The forensics exam (2) indicated that the date and time at which some of the images were trafficked was in the early afternoon at a time when the 16 year old was home alone and without parental supervision.
Forensics of the compact disk showed that someone had created a file on the compact disk named: kid/Lolita/goodones. Investigators know that Lolita, besides being a book written by Nabakov in the 1950s, is a popular term referring to underage girls and is often used by criminals seeking unlawful images.
Images were also found on the disk that were titled: “pthc”. The letters pthc are used by offenders who seek unlawful images and refers to the words “pre-teen-hard-core”.
Also in the home computer were references and links to web sites with titles referring to bestiality involving dogs and cows, rape, prostitution, sadism, murder, infantile sex, underage kiddy sex, urination, transsexualism and other acts.
During the interview the 16 year old admitted that he uses the screen name “joebean1988hoopdu”. Notice the similarity between the original suspect screen name, mrbob1980hoopdu and joebean1988hoopdu. Both were likely created by the same person – the 16 year old suspect.
Plea Deal and Discussion
Anticipating the “I-am-a-virus-victim” defense, Arizona prosecutors charged the 16 year old with only the images that were found on the compact disk. The reason for this prosecutorial path was because while it might be theoretically possible for someone to plant a virus on a computer and also send images to the computer it would be impossible for the same virus to then transfer those images to a compact disk, name the file kid/Lolita/goodones, remove the disk from the computer, and place it on the nearby desk where we found it.
Computers that contain both viruses and unlawful images sometimes make for challenging prosecutions because it is easy confuse a jury into giving a guilty defendant the benefit of a doubt when the case involves complicated computer concepts.
Investigators and prosecutors were confident that the 16 year old was the correct suspect but chose to give him a light plea deal based on his youth and lack of prior offenses, not because anyone believed that someone planted images on his computer.
In the five years since this case, no new information has emerged indicating that the defendant was innocent. There has been no information about a vindictive enemy of the young man who would have had motive to infect the home computer. There has not been a rash of such cases duplicating the same effect on other computers anywhere.
Conclusion
In the interest of truth, the computer examiner mentioned in the story should discontinue inferring that the Arizona case is an example of a virus putting images on a persons computer. The examiner never proved that a virus put images on the computer in the Arizona case. The exam only showed that the suspect computer contained both viruses and unlawful images – a common occurrence in these cases. The leap in logic is unsubstantiated by the facts in this case.
While it is possible – in theory – for a virus to plant an image on a computer, in the field and in the lab we have never encountered it on a suspect’s computer. Chances of an unwitting citizen’s computer being infected with a porn-planting virus are probably equivalent to the odds of being struck by lightning.
Note to parents: For educational purposes, if the parents of the 16 year old in the Arizona case had done a better job of monitoring their child’s computer use, the entire incident might have been avoided.
Notes:
(1) Robertson, Jordan. (September 9, 2009). AP IMPACT: Framed for child porn _ by a PC virus. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFP7nhggkjFFeVx5PS60H2O4qeIwD9BRFQ680
(2) Reported in Phoenix Police report #2004-42357269
Permalink
10.30.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 02:12 by Administrator
The link below leads to the survey results from information recently provided by investigators of Internet crimes. The survey explored data-retention times, investigations damaged by the failure to retain data and suggestions for improving the system and relationships with ISP’s.
Copy and paste the hyperlink below into your browser and give it a minute to load. There are 46 slides. Slides 4-9 are the executive summary that is also reproduced below.
Link to the survey results:
http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AY35igHT2KB9ZGdyNHhmeDdfMjQwam5qM21rZjI&hl=en
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Some interesting results from the survey include the following:
- 100 investigators surveyed estimated that they submit between 239 – 1900 items of legal process per month to various ISP’s.
Impact of failure to retain data on investigations
– 61% had investigations detrimentally effected because data was not retained.
– 47% had to end an investigation because data was not retained.
How long should subscriber data be retained?
– 31% believed subscriber information should be retained for 3 years.
– 28% believed subscriber information should be retained for 5 years.
How long should content data be retained?
– 44% believed content information should be retained for 1 year.
– 19% believed content information should be retained for 3 years.
Possible Solution
89% of investigators agreed that a nationwide computer network should be established for the purpose of linking ISP’s with law enforcement agencies so that they may exchange legal process requests and responses to legal process. Authorized users would communicate through encrypted virtual private networks in order to maintain the security of the data.
Investigators suggested the following improvements by ISP’s
– Longer retention times
– Provide information more quickly
– Provide user guides
– Have a site that permits electronic submission of process
– Have a law enforcement direct line
.
Permalink
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 01:45 by Administrator
In January 2005, Yahoo discovered unlawful images on their computer servers and reported the images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The information was directed to the Arizona ICAC Task Force leading to a search warrant and the arrest of 44 year old Donald Lee Cook, an unmarried security guard. Cook, who used the screen name Ilove_littlekittys, made admissions to the images and also named a child seen in the images as a family friend. Further investigation revealed that Cook had repeatedly molested the child and that he had recorded the unlawful acts.
After four years of legal maneuvering, in October 2009 Cook was found guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court and sentenced to 136 years in prison.
The principals in the successful investigation and prosecution included Yahoo, NCMEC, AZ ICAC Task Force, Phoenix PD, Mesa PD, and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.
See also: http://www.azicac.org/content.php?info_id=28&PHPSESSID=8dff902026d53ba267897089f1ffab79
Permalink
10.17.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 16:41 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, October 17, 2009
Detectives who investigate Internet crimes against children often rely upon information preserved by Internet service providers (ISP’s) to solve crimes. ISP’s provide customer subscriber information that permits investigators to trace the source of unlawful activity. Without information from the ISP’s, an investigative trail can quickly grow cold, leaving the offender to prowl freely in cyberspace. Sometimes the information from the ISP is the only link to the offender. Investigators need accurate and timely historic information from ISP’s so that they can help child victims.
Questions surrounding the struggle for information preservation and reporting include: How long should an ISP retain data and how quickly should they respond to law enforcement? Typically, ISP’s retain data not to appease law enforcement, but for the logical purpose of billing subscribers and servicing customer Internet accounts.
Customer information is tightly held and private; law enforcement may only obtain the information through subpoena, search warrant, or court order.
Data preservation and reporting to law enforcement is bothersome and costly for ISP’s for several reasons. Many terabytes of computer storage space may be required to warehouse the data. The data must be secured so that it is not subject to theft. Dedicated personnel are required to respond to law enforcement subpoenas and search warrants. Legal questions about information release sometimes arise that may require the opinions of corporate lawyers.
ISP’s are not legally mandated to preserve data. Thirty days is the arbitrary voluntary preservation standard set by many ISP’s. For many law enforcement investigations the 30 day standard is unsatisfactory because it does not permit investigators to identify the offenders who can slip away quickly in cyberspace.
Often a Time-Consuming Two-Subpoena Imperfect Process
In many cases the initial investigative process requires two subpoenas, thus delaying identification to weeks or months before a suspect location can be determined. For example, in luring/enticement cases, often the only information reported to law enforcement is the offenders screen name. With only a screen name, the investigation proceeds as follows in non-emergency cases:
1. The investigator determines the provider associated with the screen name. Yahoo, MySpace, and Facebook are typical examples of providers in such cases but there are hundreds providing the services. The investigator subpoenas the provider and then, days or weeks later, receives a response. The first subpoena response provides one important clue; the Internet protocol (IP) address from which the offending screen name communicated.
2. Next, the investigator conducts research on the Internet protocol address to determine which company is responsible for providing the previously identified IP address to the offender. Verizon, Cox and Comcast are typical examples of ISP’s but there are hundreds providing such services.
3. The second subpoena is submitted, this time to the ISP associated with the Internet protocol address identified in number two above. The subpoena requests subscriber information associated with the IP address that came from the results of the first subpoena.
4. After a few days or weeks the ISP responds to the second subpoena with the name and address of the subscriber who was assigned to the IP address where the suspect screen name originated. Finally, 14-60 or more days after the original report, Cyber-detectives can begin to focus on a location and name to further the investigation.
Further problems sometimes result when typographical errors occur at any stage, prosecutors delay subpoena authorization, and/or workloads backup because of insufficient staffing. The slow turn-around time for information and the short 30-day retention periods are problematic for law enforcement. Investigations are sometimes slaves to the long wait for information from ISP’s. Detectives worry that while they wait, the offender may be busy actively molesting children.
Civil Liability Concerns
ISP’s are the unwitting facilitators of Internet crimes against children. Civil liability is now a growing concern for law enforcement in delayed Internet crimes against children investigations (see: http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/09/liability_for_deliberate_indif.html). In time, civil attorneys defending abused children will recognize the complicity of ISP’s in the lethargic investigative process and begin to add ISP’s as co-defendants in civil lawsuits.
Conclusion
For the sake of children, ISP’s should consider long data retention periods and rapid response to legal process. Federal legislation to mandate data preservation and reporting would assist investigators in protecting children in cyberspace.
Permalink
09.30.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 23:30 by Administrator
September 30, 2009
United States Sentencing Commission
Office of Public Affairs
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC. 20002-8002
RE: PLEASE DO NOT SOFTEN PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL IMAGES: JUDGES UNRAVELING THE LEGISLATIVE WILL AGAINST CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Dear Sentencing Commission,
I solemnly read a news report that began with the following troubling headline: Sentences for Possession of Child Porn May Be Too High, Judges Say (1). The story described a recent meeting of the U.S. Sentencing Commission where judges advocated softening sentences for possessors of child pornography.
Not in attendance and sadly unrepresented at the commission meeting were thousands of anonymous victims of child sexual abuse whose tortured images and videos are being traded as you read this, by pedophiles, sex offenders, and the criminally sexually curious.
As a law enforcement officer, having supervised thousands of investigations into unlawful images over the past ten years, it is disheartening to see some in the judiciary attempting to unravel years of progressive legislation against this disturbing form of child abuse.
Normally I am reticent to contradict judges because I am only a humble policeman, dutifully aware that judge-liness is next to godliness in the justice system but I must herein rebut some of the misinformation from the report for the purpose of informing those in the judiciary who do not deal with this subject on a regular basis. Opinions expressed herein are personal and do not represent the thoughts of any government agency.
According to the report, one judge said that he;
“…doesn’t condone possession of child pornography or understand it, but focused on the unfairness of treating one person sitting in his basement receiving videos over the Internet the same as a commercial purveyor of child pornography.”
ESCALATING OFFENSES – FROM BASEMENT TO ABOMINATION
Former criminal profiler John Douglas 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 (2).” Here in Arizona, my colleagues and I saw the beginning of this progression in a recent investigation where an offender admitted that he no longer enjoys lawful adult pornography and that he now must use child pornography to gratify himself.
Sometimes, experts say, the offender emerges from the proverbial basement described by the judge, emboldened by what he has seen and then, like an enthusiastic but twisted movie-goer emulating an on-screen hero, endeavors to re-enact the horrible video somewhere in real life. Dr. Chris Hatcher, Professor of Psychology at the University of California said, “It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally, to contact (3).”
IMAGE-FUELED OFFENDERS’ CASE STUDIES
After one child pornography-fueled murder, software developer Michael Brier admitted that viewing child pornography made him long for the sex acts that led to him kidnapping, murdering and dismembering ten year old Holly Jones in Toronto in 2003. Brier is now in prison and little Holly is gone forever (4). Serial killer Arthur Gary Bishop was similarly fueled by child pornography. The child pornography addict killed five boys in Utah before being caught and executed in 1988 (5).
OFFENDERS RISK ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to my work with the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force I am beginning to understand the crimes and the offenders. My training and experience suggests that a significant number of possessors of unlawful images are also undiscovered “hands-on” contact offenders. Formal academic research indicates that there may be a correlation between those who possess child pornography and those who are also “hands-on” contact offenders. A surprising study 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 (6).
In landmark research (7), psychiatrists Bourke and Hernandez compared two groups of child pornography offenders participating in a voluntary prison treatment program. The goal was to determine whether the possessors were collectors of child pornography at little risk of engaging in hands-on sexual offenses, or if they were contact sex offenders whose criminal sexual behavior involving children went undetected. The research found that Internet offenders were significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a child via a hands-on act. The findings were apparently so shocking to the prison rehabilitation project that the Federal Bureau of Prisons tried to prevent the release of the surprising study.
Doctors Bourke and Hernandez concluded their report by saying:
• In fact, if it had not been for their online criminality, these offenders may not otherwise have come to the attention of law enforcement.
• Upon being discovered, these offenders tend to minimize their behavior. They may attribute their search for child pornography to “curiosity” or similar benign motivation. They may “accept responsibility” only for those behaviors that are already known to law enforcement, but hide any contact sexual crimes to avoid prosecution for these offenses, or to avoid the shame and humiliation that would result from revealing their deviance to family, friends, and community.
• Only later do the majority of sex offenders who enter treatment acknowledge that they were not, as they initially claimed, merely interested in sexual images involving children; they were (and are) sexually aroused by children.
• Further…it appears that the manifestations of their deviant sexual arousal was not limited to fantasy. Rather, when an opportunity arose (either incidentally or as a result of planned, predatory efforts), many offenders molested or raped children, and engaged in a variety of other sexually deviant behaviors.
• Results of the study suggest…that many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters, and that their use of child pornography is indicative of their paraphilic orientation.
IMAGES – VIDEO WITH SOUND
Unlawful images are an unusual type of evidence because the images themselves are contraband and cannot be released for public viewing. Images are the only form of contraband introduced to the human brain through the sense of sight. When described in text the dispassionate details of unlawful images use sanitized statutory legalese to explain the sex acts. The pedantic written accounts of the images and videos can never fully explain the abominations suffered by the victims nor can a written description reproduce the shocking sounds of sexual violence.
EMPATHY, SYMPATHY AND VICTIM REALITY – CHILDREN ARE CITIZENS AND HUMANS
Existing tough penalties against unlawful images were earned at the expense of tiny human victims whose voices are heard on secretive videos trafficked and traded by criminal pedophiles and other sexual deviants. Some of us in law enforcement have seen the violations and heard the victims’ cries. They plead, “No! No!” while being penetrated by men and sometimes animals. Some of the infant victims are so young that they cannot yet formulate words, only scream in pain. I could further describe the exact details of the abuses but I know that I would lose this reading audience. These are not “baby-in-the-bathtub” images.
If, as you read this, you find descriptions of sexual abuse emotionally troubling it means that you are probably normal. Now consider those who view images of child abuse and find them sexually gratifying. Those who possess or purvey child pornography are criminally abnormal.
Those who would soften the penalties against unlawful images dishonor the young victims of horrific sex crimes. Victims who cannot appear at sentencing commission hearings. Children who become political afterthoughts because they do not make financial contributions to political campaigns and who do not vote. Babies who cannot organize and hire influential lobbyists to represent them before legislators. Minors who are the mute and powerless constituents of well-intentioned elected officials who are often unwittingly blind to their victimization.
MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC PSYCHE
Sex crimes against children are sometimes so horrible that the news media is unable to fully describe the incidents. The public psyche abhors reporting of sex crimes against children. Television and print reporters only discuss the sanitized version of events. News producers cannot permit too much time spent describing the crimes because audiences will switch channels in disgust. Hollywood does not focus on the subject because no audience can stomach it.
OFFENDERS, THE PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
In the book Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (8) former investigator Ken Lanning discussed crimes against children. He said that most people wish to disassociate themselves mentally from thoughts of abuse involving children. 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. City officials may apply pressure to halt or cover up the investigation. 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.
OFFENDERS: PUBLIC DR. JEKYLL AND PRIVATE MR. HYDE
Pre-sentence reports to the court about the offenders in these cases are sometimes a joke. I know from training and experience that some offenders are adept at creating public personas’ as trustworthy and demure individuals while privately they are sexually deviant predators, waiting for an opportunity to strike. They may present to the court as socially awkward simpletons. Once caught they often feign religious transformations and plead for mercy from the court while privately mocking the justice system as the re-offend.
Offenders sometimes practice techniques enabling them to thwart polygraph and penile plesthysmograph tests. Dubious “12-step” pornography addiction treatment programs have sprung up because the psychological community has no proven method of rehabilitating some sex offenders. As the Latin proverb states: Pardus maculas non deponit – a leopard does not change his spots.
In court, offenders are seldom charged with each and every terrible image or video in their voluminous illegal collections and most plead to reduced charges based on just a few images. Consequently judges never fully review all of the evidence.
POLICING THE IMAGES
Crimes against children are the most reviled types of investigations for most law enforcement officers. While respectful of the need to bring offenders to justice many officers say, “I could never work those kinds of crimes.” Although it is highly rewarding to capture the offenders, the true details about the sexual victimization of minors is so psychologically distressing that few cops can emotionally tolerate being deeply involved in the investigations. Viewing the images and videos is troubling. The victims of unlawful images include those who must view the images in the course of their law enforcement duties (9).
PROSECUTION
Pressured by defense arguments that defendants are really good and solid citizens prosecutors can be worn down by the psychologically brutal nature of the crimes and the tiring nature of the system and may offer progressively weaker pleas to offenders. One concern is that over time, those diluted pleas will become the standardized norm, and the legislative imperative of mandatory sentencing will eventually be abandoned.
In Arizona, the penalties on the books are some of the toughest in the country. Despite the history of these strict penalties being upheld at the appellate level, some prosecutors are offering lighter pleas to “attempt” possession of unlawful images thus negating the mandatory sentencing provisions intended by legislators. The “attempt” charge avoids the mandatory sentencing provisions of Arizona law and gives the court wide discretion to drastically lessen the period of incarceration.
JUDICIARY
It must be difficult for judges to fully apprehend the gravity of these crimes. In plea-bargained cases, judges seldom review the troubling images or videos so they never have a full appreciation of the entirety of the case. Having supervised hundreds of arrests and subsequent pleas involving unlawful images, my investigators and I know of only a handful of sentences involving a judge who took the time or had the fortitude to view the disturbing images or videos.
The commission report mentioned one judge who lumped child pornography sentences in with gun and drug crimes and characterized the sentences for each of those crimes as being too harsh. Such “apples vs. oranges” comparisons of crimes are predictable from the overworked ringmasters of an assembly-line process that has become America’s criminal justice system. Uninitiated courtroom observers might compare sentencing day in some courtrooms with a fast-food restaurant order process. I sometimes imagine the defense attorney shouting, “Hold the prison, extra probation and can you super-size that release please, your honor!”
Judges are often offended when laws come to them with mandatory penalties. Apparently voters and legislators are tired of the legal loopholes and sentencing reductions that keep letting criminals out of jail to re-offend. This naturally offends those judges whose egos convince them to believe that only they know, better than anyone else, how criminals should be penalized.
Despite progressively tougher legislative actions to properly criminalize and punish possessors of unlawful images, some judges wish to improperly create sentencing law from the bench while attempting to undo the enacted will of legislation.
Perhaps some overworked judges must suffer from compassion fatigue, a gradual lessening of empathy and sympathy over time, the result of the taxing nature of showing compassion for someone who is suffering in a situation that is continuous and irresolvable. If that is the case, I hope that judges remember that the unlawful images situation is resolvable. The resolution is incarceration of offenders.
NOT DISPARATE SENTENCING
The report of the commission meeting also described the following tired and misleading statement that I have grown to abhor:
“In some cases, a person who has watched one video gets a maximum sentence that may be higher than someone sentenced for raping a child repeatedly over many years.”
The statement is misleading hogwash for two reasons. First, no offender who is charged with unlawful images has ever watched only one video. The offender may be charged with only one count of the many crimes he committed, but offenders typically watch dozens, often hundreds of different videos, hundreds of times, over weeks, months or years while simultaneously sexually gratifying themselves. Secondly, when a person who rapes a child receives a short period of incarceration it is often because contact offenses are much tougher to prove due to the uncommunicative nature of the young victim. Sometimes the light sentence is offered by the prosecution as a plea bargain so that the child does not have re-live the horror by testifying in open court. It is misleading to try to compare child pornography offenders to rapists.
BERGER 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. Berger chose not to accept a plea to lesser charges. He went to trial and lost. 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 (10).
Mirroring language found in previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Arizona Judges Susan Ehrlich and Philip Hall dismissed Berger’s appeal with arguments including:
• 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.
CONCLUSION
The justice system could do more at every level to address the growing problem of unlawful images. Law enforcement agencies devote minimal personnel to investigate the crimes. Overworked investigators have thousands of cases and only a handful of staff. Harried prosecutors with overwhelming caseloads must arrange plea deals to avoid time-consuming trials while allowing offenders to plead to fewer charges or lesser offenses. Strained judges misunderstand the crimes and mischaracterize the offenders. Knowing that prisons are overcrowded, it becomes easy for judges to convince themselves that someone who possessed pictures cannot possibly be as bad as someone who committed robbery or rape. Such comparisons are unfair and disregard the serious nature of unlawful images.
MESSAGE TO JUDGES
Please do not marginalize the young victims of unlawful images and do not minimize the offenses. Let minimum sentences remain in the purview of the legislature.
Finally, Judges, when you look out over the bench and into the court gallery at sentencing time, please imagine the seats filled with child victims quietly requesting justice; then act in accordance with the law.
Thank you for considering this letter.
Dr. Frank Kardasz
PO Box 45048
Phoenix, AZ 85064
http://www.kardasz.org/ICAC.html
cc: L. Marek – The National Law Journal
================================================================
NOTES
(1) Marek, L. (September 10, 2009). Sentences for Possession of Child Porn May Be Too High, Judges Say. The National Law Journal. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from http://www.law.com/newswire/cache/1202433693658.html
(2) Douglas, J. and Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s elite serial crime unit, New York: Pocket Books.
(3) 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
(4) CBS News online. (June 17, 2004). In Depth: Holly Jones Timeline. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/jones_holly/
(5) Montaldo, Charles. (2009). Arthur Gary Bishop. About.com: Crime/Punishment. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/db_bishop.htm
(6) Hernandez, A. E. (September 26, 2006). 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
(7) Bourke, M.L. and 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, 24:183-191. Published online: December 10, 2008.
(8) Lanning, K.V. (September, 2001). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 4th Ed. p. 86. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
(9) Kardasz, F. (June 8, 2008). The law enforcement victims of unlawful images: Victim impact statement. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from http://www.kardasz.org/victimimpact.html
(10) 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
====================================================
Permalink
09.27.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 17:27 by Administrator
“Cyberspace can be compared to a big city street. On the bright side of the street are wonderful learning and business opportunities, supported by good and helpful people. On the dark side of the street are criminal sex offenders, fraudsters and identity thieves. The challenge for parents is to monitor and control childrens’ Internet use to keep them out of harm’s way in cyberspace.”
=======================================================================================================
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
