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
09.22.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 23:46 by Administrator
In a recent incident, an undercover officer from the Georgia ICAC Task Force posed as a minor on-line and was approached in a chat room by an Arizona man. The Arizona man, believing that the officer was a minor, invited the fictitious minor to view his web cam and then exposed his penis and masturbated to ejaculation. The unemployed Arizona offender later admitted that he spends much of his spare time masturbating to anyone on-line who will view his web camera. This form of sexual misconduct is common on the Internet, where many offenders seek to sexually gratify themselves to an audience of minors.
The Arizona man was arrested and investigators hoped to charge him with the Arizona crime: Furnishing harmful images to minors, a class four felony (ARS 13-3506.01). Unfortunately, a loophole in the law was found when it was determined that according to the statute; the victim must be in the state of Arizona for the crime to be charged.
The loophole means that an offender in Arizona can masturbate on-line to a minor victim in any other state besides Arizona and the crime of furnishing harmful materials to a minor does not apply. The crime can only be charged if the victim is in Arizona.
In the case cited, investigators were able to charge the man with a lesser offense; Attempt public sexual indecency, a class 6 felony, so the investigation was not a total loss.
The loophole in the Arizona law could be easily fixed simply by eliminating the words “in this state” from the law. The fix would permit Arizona law enforcement to also protect minors from other states
EXISTING STATUTE – RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE THE WORDS: IN THIS STATE
13-3506.01. Furnishing harmful items to minors; internet activity; classification; definitions
A. It is unlawful for any person, with knowledge of the character of the item involved, to intentionally or knowingly transmit or send to a minor by means of electronic mail, personal messaging or any other direct internet communication an item that is harmful to minors when the person knows or believes at the time of the transmission that a minor IN THIS STATE will receive the item.
B. This section does not apply to:
1. Posting material on an internet web site, bulletin board or newsgroup.
2. Sending material via a mailing list or listserv that is not administered by the sender. For the purposes of this paragraph, “mailing list” or “listserv” means a method of internet communication where a message is sent to an internet address and then is retransmitted to one or more subscribers to the mailing list or listserv.
C. It is not a defense to a prosecution for a violation of this section that the recipient of the transmission was a peace officer posing as a minor.
D. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
E. The failure to report a violation of this section is a class 6 felony as prescribed by section 13-3620.
F. For the purposes of this section:
1. “Internet” means the combination of computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission media, and related equipment and software, comprising the interconnected worldwide network of computer networks that employ the transmission control protocol or internet protocol or any successor protocol to transmit information.
2. “Internet web site” means a location where material placed in a computer server-based file archive is publicly accessible, over the internet, using hypertext transfer protocol or any successor protocol.
Permalink
08.26.09
Posted in Ethics at 22:24 by Administrator
Interesting advice below from Dr. Richard B. Weinblatt concerning things to think about related to your off-duty use of social networking sites.
1) No gun glorification. While this may upset Second Amendment supporters out there, the reality is that a many members of the public do not like to see firearms glorified in pictures of law enforcers. Several officers have lost their jobs after posing with weaponry in a way perceived as offensive or too “warrior oriented.” While the depiction of guns in the course of their normal scope and use is not problematic, aiming the gun at the camera triggers problems. Images of officers engaged in their normal course of fire at the gun range have not brought about a backlash. Posing with weaponry, involving either the officer or (worse yet) a civilian, has been problematic for the employee.
2) No alcohol. Officers have also found themselves in the hot seat after posting pictures of themselves partying and drinking alcohol. Many agencies view this to be contrary to a professional image. Of greater concern is that sometimes others identified in the pictures turn out to be minors in possession of alcohol which opens up another can of issues.
3) Watch your comments. Posted comments on social networking sites are being dragged into legal proceedings especially when use of force is involved. Comments that imply the officer enjoys using force on people, especially certain groups of people, are being seized on by criminal defense and civil plaintiffs attorneys to show the officer had a pre disposition to be physical or has a documented bias against their client. Remember that discussion boards and the like are a public written record of your communication. Like reports and radio dispatch conversations, they can be discovered and frame your actions in a context that you may not like. Much like reports, if you don’t want it dragged into the legal arena, don’t type it online.
4) Avoid bashing the department. Another area that has gotten some officers into trouble – the First Amendment freedom of speech not withstanding – are comments which bash the agency. Depending on how it’s framed, it could open you up to administrative charges and possibly civil liability. More and more bloggers and online posters are being held responsible for their critical speech online. Especially if it is later proved that the postings lack a factual basis and are intended to damage the target of the criticism. At the very least, launching such a site or contributing to an existing Web site that bashes the agency does not endear you to the powers that be or position you as a “team player” ripe for promotion.
5) Restrict personal information. Much like we can use Facebook and the like as a tool to find people and research information, so can the bad guys. Be judicious in the posting of information and pictures. For example, some officers will not use pictures of their family members or going even further, of themselves. Others withhold their cell phone number.
6) Picture Choice. Make sure that the pictures that you do choose to post don’t have any of the aforementioned problem areas or have nudity. Many officers, including myself, have shirtless bodybuilding or fitness oriented photos online. That is not a problem. The topless woman drinking at the party with you exemplifies what is a problem.
7) Minimize status update complaints. In this year of economic contraction, there are many people waiting in line for your spot in the agency. Administrators know this. This goes back to number four above, but we’ve all seen the officers that post their status with complaints about the shift, their sergeant, or the job. Some supervisors, after reading such negatively tinged status updates, say, “OK, let so and so find another job if they are so unhappy here.” While not every job is going to be great each and every day, gripes should not be aired via status updates. The agency may be perfectly happy to find someone else that would appreciate them.
8) Highlight accomplishments. Many look to Facebook, Linkedin, and the like as electronic resumes. Take advantage of that and use it to highlight your professional accomplishments. Post pictures of you learning some new technique (being careful not to show scores or other information). Post status updates of that advanced training course you take.
9) Manage your privacy settings. While I have my online presence open to the public, many have privacy settings that restrict access to family and friends that you have predetermined. While not foolproof, the settings should keep most interlopers locked out of your pages.
10) When in doubt, leave it out. I have long coached academy students and officers to pretend that I am perched on their shoulder and watching what they are doing. In the same vein, they could have their mother hovering overhead. If you wouldn’t want us to see it or if either of us would be displeased with what is being contemplated to go online, it probably is not a good idea to upload it.
Permalink
08.06.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 05:41 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, July 31, 2009 (revised August 5, 2009) email: kardasz@kardasz.org
Cybersexting
Cybersexting is now a popular Internet activity. It occurs when two or more users of electronic communication devices send sexually explicit text or images to each other. Cybersexters may communicate via cell phones, computers, IPods and/or video games that connect to the Internet. Depending upon the circumstances, cybersexting in the U.S. is a lawful activity when both participants are consenting adults. When the cybersexter is a predatory adult seeking to target a curious minor, the situation is a parental nightmare.
The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force receives many complaints from parents and from the administrators of social networking sites involving minors receiving cybersex communications from strangers via the Internet. In some cases the predatory adult communication comes from someone living in a different state than the young victim. In many cases the police investigation does not produce sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges. In many past cases the communications were stopped before the situation escalated into a criminal offense. After the police step away, the parent must then find a way to prohibit any future communication between the adult predator and the child.
One obvious solution is to revoke the child’s communication device privileges. But completely eliminating a young persons’ communications device is not always practical. Computers, cell phones, messaging devices and video games have become indelible fixtures in many young lives. E-mail, texting, gaming and cell phones are part of the accepted social communication patterns and educational practices of many modern youth. Internet social communications are incredibly important to some young people. Internet access was so important to one Arizona boy that in 2008, when his father revoked the boy’s computer privileges he shot and killed his dad. Parents need another tool with which they can protect children from Internet predators.
Injunction Against Harassment – Restraining Order
Another tactic for thwarting Internet predators that is often recommended when criminal charges are not possible is the injunction against harassment, also called a restraining order or protective order. Most states have some form of restraining order or injunction that can help prevent a troublesome person from contacting an innocent victim under circumstances where sufficient cause does not exist to pursue a criminal complaint.
Example Arizona Incidents
Here are some examples of cases reported to the Arizona ICAC Task Force that involved injunctions against harassment: – An Arizona parent reported that his 17 year old daughter was cybersexting on line with a 26 year old Utah man. The girl admitted to her father that she intended to meet the man in the future when the man traveled to Arizona for business and that she intended to have sex with him. A detective contacted the man and he refused to speak with the investigator. The investigation is continuing and the suspect was served in Utah with an Arizona injunction against harassment. (case 7827) – An Arizona parent reported unusual messages between her daughter and a 41 year old Nevada man using a popular social networking site. There was insufficient information to pursue criminal charges. The parent obtained an injunction against harassment for the Nevada man. (case 1621) – An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter used the Internet to chat with a 49 year old Virginia man. The woman requested information about how to obtain an injunction against harassment to help stop the communications. (case 1231) Many more Arizona cases are listed at the end of this article.
Arizona Law
Investigators sometimes recommend that parents of cybersexting victims obtain injunctions against harassment from an Arizona court (1). Pursuant to the Arizona process for obtaining the injunction the parent goes to a local court and swears to the court order. Typically the injunction orders the respondent (predator) not to have any contact with the complainant (child victim). Once the judge approves the injunction it must then be served on the respondent. The respondent can appear in court to dispute the order but in most Internet predator cases the respondent does not appear and the order is validated. Once the order is validated any violation is the misdemeanor crime of interference with judicial proceeding (2).
Local Injunctions Unenforceable Against Out-of-State Predators
The problem with the Arizona injunction, and other states are in a similar situation, is that when the injunction is served on an out-of-state predator, the offender has little incentive to comply with the order. Predators know that it is highly unlikely that any agency in Arizona would ever extradite a misdemeanant offender from another state for violating an injunction against harassment.
Federal Injunction Would Have Interstate Nexus
A Federal protective order with interstate jurisdiction would resolve the problem of out-of-state violators. A victim in one state could obtain an order and it could be served on the offender in another state. A Federal law would overcome the problems that states have in trying to enforce injunctions across state lines. The existing Federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A, is not sufficient for Internet cyber-communication cases because it requires that either the victim or suspect travel across state lines and that the victim suffer substantial emotional distress (3).
Draft Language
Below is some draft language, modifiable to incorporate with the US Code, that may be useful to begin a discussion about a Federal injunction against electronic harassment. U.S. Code Title 18 – Injunction Against Electronic Harassment A person may file a petition with the court for an injunction prohibiting electronic harassment. If the person is a minor, the parent, legal guardian or person who has legal custody of the minor shall file the petition unless the court determines otherwise. The petition shall name the parent, guardian or custodian as the plaintiff. If the court issues an injunction, the court may do any of the following: – Enjoin the defendant from acts of harassment via electronic communications. – Restrain the defendant from contacting the plaintiff via electronic communications.
References
(1) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 12-1809. Injunction against harassment; petition; venue; fees; notices; enforcement; definition. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/12/01809.htm
(2) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02810.htm
(3) U.S. Code. (2009). 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Stalking. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2261A.htm
Selected Arizona ICAC Incidents Involving Injunctions Against Harassment (2004-2009)
An Arizona parent reported unusual Internet communications between her 14 year old daughter and a 21 year old California man. The parent stated that the girl may have lied to the man about her age. The parent wanted the communications to stop. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (1536)
An Arizona woman reported that her 16 year old sister lives in Illinois. The girl exchanged cybersex messages with a 23 year old Mesa Arizona man whom she met in an online game site. The woman wanted to make the communications stop. A detective contacted the suspect and ordered him to stop communicating with the girl and he agreed. The detective recommended to the woman that she follow-up with an injunction against harassment. (1709)
An Arizona parent reported that her 14 year old daughter was enticed by an 18 year old Canadian man who used a popular social networking site. The man stated that he wanted to marry the girl. A detective asked the parent to provide more evidence of illegal activity and also suggested an injunction against harassment. The parent never re-contacted the detective. (2115)
An Arizona grandmother reported that her 16 year old granddaughter was communicating with a 21 year old California man via a popular social networking site. The girl is in the custody of a guardian and is on juvenile probation for prior unlawful acts. The grandmother learned that the girl plans to go to California to visit the suspect. The girl’s guardian was contacted, the girls Internet privileges were revoked and the detective suggested that the grandmother and/or guardian obtain an injunction against harassment. (2358)
An Arizona parent intercepted romantic chat conversations and web page postings to a popular social networking site by his 16 year old daughter. The girl communicated with an 18 year old California man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation and the detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment for the man. (2958)
A popular social networking site reported sexually explicit chat between a 16 year old Louisiana girl and a 52 year old Arizona man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the man. The investigator suggested that the Louisiana victim obtain an injunction against harassment for the Arizona suspect. (8012)
A 21 year old Tucson man communicated via the Internet with a 14 year old girl from Surprise, AZ. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. The parents obtained an injunction against harassment to help keep the suspect away from the girl. (1433)
An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter met a 19 year old Arizona man via the Internet. The parent intercepted sexually oriented communications between the man and the girl. The parent did not wish to pursue prosecution and restricted the girl’s Internet use. The parent will seek an injunction against harassment if the contact continues. (1695)
A parent from Yuma, Arizona reported that her 15 year old daughter was chatting with an 18 year old man and that via web cam the man exposed his genitals to her and masturbated. The parent reported the incident to local law enforcement authorities and criminal charges were pursued. Investigators also suggested that the parent follow up with an injunction against harassment. (1899)
A Phoenix parent reported that she intercepted Internet communications between her 17 year old son and a 23 year old man whom the boy met via a web site that is oriented towards homosexual men. The parent learned that the boy and the man spent a weekend together. The boy would not disclose what, if any, sexual contact occurred and criminal charges could not be proven. The parent wished to stop the contact between the two. Detectives suggested an injunction against harassment. (2071)
An Arizona parent intercepted communications between her 17 year old son and a 22 year old man. The two used a popular social networking site to communicate and also exchanged sexually explicit emails. When they met at a Phoenix public library the parent intervened and confronted the man. The 17 year old deleted the sexually explicit emails and there was not sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (2420)
The reporting person, a Pima Arizona case manager for disabled persons, reported that a 65 year old Yuma man befriended a mentally impaired 19 year old man. The two exchanged sexually oriented emails. The older man has made attempts to intervene in the life of the disabled man and contacted the victim’s mother suggesting that he be made guardian of the 19 year old. The investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that an injunction against harassment be obtained prohibiting the 65 year old man from contacting the disabled victim. (2549)
An Arizona parent reported a suspicious on-line relationship between her 15 year old daughter and a 21 year old Scottsdale man. The 21 year old was grooming the girl and discussed marriage with her. There was not sufficient evidence of a crime but the parent wants to end the relationship. The detective recommended an injunction against harassment. (2695)
A Phoenix school resource officer reported cyber-bullying and gang activity by students using a popular social networking site. Along with possible criminal charges, detectives recommended that the parents obtain injunctions against harassment. (2783)
An Arizona parent reported that someone hacked into the social networking web page of his 17 year old daughter and sent vulgar messages to her friends. Investigators sought criminal charges and also recommended an injunction against harassment. (2800)
An Arizona parent reported that her 17 year old daughter met an unknown older man in a popular Internet gaming site. The parent learned that her daughter and the man exchanged over 500 messages including offers to marry her when she turns 18. Although there is no indication of sexual talk the parent wants to end the contact and has changed the family phone number and revoked the girls’ Internet privileges. Detectives also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2813)
An Arizona parent reported Internet and personal contact between her 15 year old daughter and an El Mirage, Arizona man whom the girl met on-line. The mother intercepted e-mail communications indicating that the man is 19 years old. The mother also obtained the man’s phone number. She called the man and he admitted to knowing that the girl was 15 years old. He agreed to stop communicating with her. The mother then found pictures of the man’s penis on the girls’ computer and later caught the girl and the man together at a movie theatre. A criminal investigation was initiated and the detective also suggested that the mother obtain an injunction against harassment against the man. (2842)
An Arizona parent reported unusual text messages between her 15 year old daughter and a 24 year old married Phoenix man. The man sent suggestive messages but also stated that he could not be alone with the girl, saying that he might make a “mistake”. A detective interviewed the man and he admitted knowing that what he was doing was wrong. There was insufficient evidence to prefer criminal charges. The investigator suggested to the parent that she obtain an injunction against harassment. (2862)
An Arizona parent phoned to report that she found “alarming” text messages on her 16 year old daughter’s cell phone. The messages were between the daughter and a 28 year old woman but the parent did not describe the messages in detail. A detective explained possible criminal violations if the messages were sexual in nature and also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2967)
An 18 year old Arizona woman reported that a 23 year old male acquaintance sent her pictures of his penis via email. Insufficient evidence existed to file criminal charges. The woman also reported that the man used a popular social networking site to communicate with her 14 year old sister but there was no information about criminal sexual acts. A detective suggested that the woman pursue criminal charges of harassment and obtain an injunction against harassment for the suspect. (3067)
Permalink
03.06.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 17:13 by Administrator
AZ ICAC Offender Apprehension Project – Joint Effort Nets 12 Suspects:
Citizen Internet Safety Training to Follow
Dr. Frank Kardasz, March 5, 2009
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 or videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.
• 394 incidents of various Internet crimes against children reported by 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 11 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.
Persons Arrested
All of the listed 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
• Robert Moran, age 53, from Scottsdale Arizona – a handyman
• 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.
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
• NCMEC 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 hild 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 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.
- 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
• NCMEC 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 NCMEC operates the Cybertip line. The web site is: www.cybertipline.com
Permalink
02.13.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 06:52 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, February 7, 2009
Most law enforcement agencies have standardized policies and written directives guiding their many areas of operation. Directives and policies govern everything from mundane administrative matters to grave threats to public safety. Polices develop after years of experience and in most cases, continue to evolve as new trends emerge. A troubling exception to the continuous modernization of police directives is in the area of Internet crimes against children. Most law enforcement organizations still fail to recognize the growing problem and do not have written directives that require any response to these grim threats to children and teens.
Internet Crimes Against Children
The luring and enticement of minors via cyberspace is alarming and continues to increase. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that 50,000 child predators are online at any time searching for potential victims (1).
Growing exponentially in the past 15 years, the numbers of Internet crimes against children has reached disturbing heights. According to a Congressional report in 2007:
Crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet are a growing problem in the U.S. and around the world, due to the ease with which pedophiles and child predators can trade, sell, view, and download images of child pornography from the Internet (ibid).
Arizona, like many other states, is experiencing significant increases in the number of unlawful images being trafficked via the Internet (2). The increase in Internet crimes begs a dedicated and permanent law enforcement response. Most Arizona law enforcement agencies have no written directives mandating any response to Internet crimes against children.
Invisible Victims – Except in Cyberspace
Unlike spectacular crimes and incidents involving crashes, explosions, shootings and widespread newsworthy bloodletting, the evil offenses against children are committed in mostly dark and private places by offenders who often psychologically control for humiliate their victims into lifelong silence. Although the criminal evidence is visible in cyberspace, the crimes are seldom reported to law enforcement officials.
Deceptive Statistics Ignore the Problem
Internet crimes involving child victims are under-reported and official statistics do not properly collect the numbers of crimes. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is ineffective in capturing statistics specifically related to such crimes. NIBRS does not have specific categories that capture the numbers of Internet crimes against children (4). The tragic failure to collect data permits statistics-driven administrators to deny and ignore the existence of the problem.
Liability
Failure to investigate Internet crimes against children can result in significant liability for an organization. Several agencies in the state of Washington suffered a substantial financial judgment when a failure to protect children was uncovered (3).
Purposeful Ignorance Driven by Repugnance
Crimes against children are particularly repugnant. Most people, including police, wish to disassociate themselves mentally from thoughts of dreadful abuse involving helpless children. According to former FBI agent Ken Lanning, “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 (5).”
Sex crimes against children are the most reviled types of investigations for law enforcement officers. While respectful of the need to bring sex offenders to justice, many officers say, “I could never work those kinds of crimes.” The true facts about the sexual victimization of minors can be so psychologically distressing that few can emotionally tolerate being deeply involved in the investigations. Little wonder that crimes against children in cyberspace are widely ignored by policy makers.
CALEA
At the forefront of modern policy oversight is the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). The Commission began in 1979 as a professional consortium of law enforcement professionals who, among other duties, require that their member-agencies maintain model policies that are common to responsible departments nationwide. Member-agencies of CALEA must adopt and comply with standardized written directives. Agencies are periodically audited by CALEA assessors to insure compliance with the required rules. Some examples of a few simple CALEA standards include the following directives:
43.1.1 The agency has a written directive for investigating vice, drug, and organized crime activities…
61.3.1 A written directive governs performance of agency activities related to traffic engineering…
42.2.8 The agency has a written directive concerning identity crime and procedures…
61.2.2 A written directive defines agency response to the scene of any collision…
CALEA standards are applicable to member agencies based on the size of the organization. Small agencies are not required to provide as many services as large agencies. Sadly, CALEA has not yet recognized Internet crimes against children as subject worthy of policy attention.
Recommendation
Law enforcement policies and written directives must recognize Internet crimes against children. If traffic enforcement and identity theft are crimes worthy of written directives aren’t children also worthy? As a leadership organization whose guidelines are followed by many member-agencies, CALEA should include written directives that mandate a law enforcement response to the growing problem of Internet crimes against children.
References
(1) U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce. (January 2007). Sexual exploitation of children on the Internet: Bipartisan staff report for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 109th. Congress. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/01032007_Report.pdf
(2) Kardasz, F. (January 3, 2009). Contraband Images in Arizona: Eight days in December 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2009/01/contraband_images_in_arizona_e.html
(3) Kardasz, F. (September 15, 2008). Liability for Deliberate Indifference and Failure to Investigate = $ 10.5 Million. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/09/liability_for_deliberate_indif.html
(4) Finkelhor D., and Ormrod, R. (December 2004). Child pornography: Patterns from NIBRS. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204911.pdf
(5) Lanning, K.V. (September, 2001). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 4th Ed. p. 86. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
Permalink
01.20.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 20:23 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, January 20, 2009
Global positioning satellite (GPS) technology is commonly used to track offenders who are on probation or parole. Offenders wear battery powered ankle bracelets equipped with transmitters linked to cellular technology. The ankle bracelet transmitters report the person’s position on a map for the monitoring officer to see. The system helps officers track an offenders whereabouts.
GPS tracking technology has advanced to the extent that mapping markers can pinpoint the offender’s location and also mark surrounding locations that the offender may be prohibited from visiting. Prohibited locations for sex offenders might include grade schools, parks or places where children would logically congregate.
Some offenders’ terms of probation or parole include computer restrictions. Computer restrictions often prohibit or restrict the offender from visiting cyberspace. Computer restrictions are difficult for parole and probation officers to enforce. Computers are ubiquitous and found almost everywhere. Complicating matters is the fact that free wireless access is available in many locations.
How can mapping technology assist probation and parole officers charged with monitoring offenders who used computers and cyberspace to violate?
- Mapping markers might also be used to identify locations where unrestricted wireless Internet access “hotspots” are provided.
How can wireless hotspots be identified?
- A Google search for free wireless hotspots in Phoenix Arizona revealed several hyperlinks including the following: http://ilovefreewifi.com/phoenix/. The site lists dozens of locations that would be attractive places for sex offenders to visit and take advantage of unrestricted wireless Internet access. First on the list was the Phoenix Public Library.
- Net Stumbler is a popular freeware program that can be used to identify wireless hotspots. It detects wireless LANs that use the 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g WLAN standards. Other products perform similar duties. Alternatives to Net Stumbler include: MacStumbler, iStumbler, KisMAC, Kismet, Windows Vista netsh, Vistumbler, Inssider, and DISA Wireless Discovery Device (Flying Squirrel).
Perhaps the integration of mapping technology with GPS monitoring could identify wireless Internet hotspots and assist those who must monitor the offenders who have computer restrictions. The mapping software that shows the locations of schools might also be used to show the locations of wireless hotspots.
Beyond the mapping of wireless hotspots, what else might be done to monitor cyber sex offenders?
- Further future advancements in technology might include ankle bracelets that incorporate radio frequency identifiers that sense those radio frequencies common to wireless Internet channels and report those frequencies to the monitoring system.
Although it may be too restrictive to prohibit an offender from ever entering any area where a free unrestricted wireless radio frequency signal is available, simply collecting and preserving the data may be enough to assist investigators who are tasked with later follow up of ongoing offenses. For example, an investigator who is tracing the source of unlawful Internet trafficked images might be led to a particular Internet protocol address at a particular location. If the location is found to be a free wireless hotspot, it would be nice to know whether or not an ankle-bracelet monitored offender was also at the location during the offense.
Arizona law now includes a section requiring registered sex offenders to provide their e-mail and Internet protocol (IP) addresses to the state. While this is a positive step towards monitoring offenders, registering e-mail and IP addresses is not a foolproof way to track offenders. Further work is needed in the area of tracking and monitoring Internet sex offenders.
Conclusion
Monitoring the offenders who use cyberspace is a challenging task for probation and parole officers. GPS monitoring through ankle bracelets is becoming a popular technology for those who must track offenders.
Businesses that produce and market GPS monitoring systems should consider adding a mapping feature that pinpoints Internet wireless hotspots in order to assist officers who must monitor the activities of cyber offenders. Mapping wireless hotspots might help probation and parole officers know when cyber offenders are near locations where they might reoffend.
Future advancements in technology might include ankle bracelets that incorporate radio frequency identifiers that recognize those frequencies common to wireless Internet channels and report those frequencies to the monitoring system.
Permalink
01.15.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 23:40 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, January 3, 2009
During the eight day period from December 23 – 30, 2008, Internet traffic was reviewed to determine the characteristics of some of the unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors that were trafficked in Arizona during the time-period.
The data collection is limited by the fact that the Internet traffic reviewed represents only a very small portion of the Internet and likely under-represents the total amount of unlawful images being trafficked.
Data was collected from a proactive data source and examined. The examination indicated that approximately 8,170 “hits” were traced to sources in Arizona. Each hit represents a single felony incident of sexual exploitation of a minor (child pornography) in probable violation of Arizona Revised Statute 13-3553.
Of the approximately 8,170 hits, 2,252 unique data source locations throughout Arizona were identified representing 77 different cities and towns.
The hits and locations were associated with 1,054 unique unlawful contraband felony images or videos that have been previously identified as depicting the sexual exploitation of minors in violation of ARS 13-3553.
Breakdown of the hits by source city for eight day period from December 23-30, 2008:
| Phoenix
|
2692
|
| Tucson
|
1084
|
| Mesa
|
788
|
| Gilbert
|
450
|
| Scottsdale
|
371
|
| Chandler
|
299
|
| Peoria
|
281
|
| Tempe
|
237
|
| Glendale
|
199
|
| Yuma
|
144
|
| Kingman
|
106
|
| Flagstaff
|
104
|
| Avondale
|
97
|
| Laveen
|
89
|
| Goodyear
|
88
|
| Lake Havasu City
|
81
|
| Sierra Vista
|
81
|
| Surprise
|
81
|
| Buckeye
|
67
|
| Sun City
|
52
|
| Apache Junction
|
51
|
| Prescott Valley
|
46
|
| Globe
|
43
|
| Sahuarita
|
43
|
| Cottonwood
|
37
|
| Bullhead City
|
34
|
| Litchfield Park
|
32
|
| Prescott
|
31
|
| Casa Grande
|
29
|
| Cave Creek
|
28
|
| Queen Creek
|
27
|
| Paradise Valley
|
25
|
| Fort Huachuca
|
23
|
| San Luis
|
22
|
| Safford
|
20
|
| Golden Valley
|
19
|
| Humboldt
|
19
|
| Coolidge
|
18
|
| Payson
|
18
|
| Sun City West
|
16
|
| Sedona
|
15
|
| Maricopa
|
11
|
| El Mirage
|
10
|
| Fort Mohave
|
10
|
| Tolleson
|
10
|
| Show Low
|
8
|
| Window Rock
|
8
|
| Winslow
|
8
|
| Parker
|
6
|
| Chinle
|
5
|
| Chino Valley
|
5
|
| Rimrock
|
5
|
| Youngtown
|
5
|
| Benson
|
4
|
| Camp Verde
|
4
|
| Cashion
|
4
|
| Red Rock
|
4
|
| Vail
|
4
|
| Green Valley
|
3
|
| Morenci
|
3
|
| Page
|
3
|
| Snowflake
|
3
|
| Thatcher
|
3
|
| Vernon
|
3
|
| Wellton
|
3
|
| Clifton
|
2
|
| Douglas
|
2
|
| Eloy
|
2
|
| Kearny
|
2
|
| Rio Rico
|
2
|
| Ajo
|
1
|
| Arizona City
|
1
|
| Ash Fork
|
1
|
| Ehrenberg
|
1
|
| Gadsden
|
1
|
| Mammoth
|
1
|
| Willcox
|
1
|
Permalink
12.30.08
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 22:53 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, December 30, 2008, Revised February 11, 2009
Our Computer Culture
Cyberspace and computers have altered our lives, for better and sometimes for worse. Many people have computers in their homes and offices. School children often have computers in classrooms. Law enforcement officers have computers in the workplace. Police stations have computers for recording incidents and writing reports. Many police cars have computers to aid officers dispatched to calls. Victims and suspects of crimes have computers that are sometimes stolen or sometimes used during cybercrimes.
Cybercrime Explosion
Computers are also quietly used to facilitate sex crimes against minors including luring, enticement and unlawful images depicting exploitation. Most of the crimes against children go unreported because young victims cannot call the police. Part of our growing awareness of the large numbers of Internet crimes comes from thousands of reports of unlawful images through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrens’ Cybertip line and also from the sad reports of a few victims (1).
Recent undercover investigative efforts to explore cybercrimes against children have resulted in surprising and increasing numbers of incidents in Arizona (2) and worldwide. Internet crimes against children are arguably among the most under-reported and rapidly growing types of crimes. Cybercrimes pose a dangerous threat to young people.
Law Enforcement Training Void
Despite the increases in computer crimes, law enforcement training has not kept pace with the trend. Police training regarding computer crimes is practically nil and not required at the basic academy level. Analogous to the proliferation of automobiles and subsequent development of traffic enforcement a hundred years ago, we now face the proliferation of computers but without the accompanying law enforcement response.
A Congressional report in 2007 said:
Additional resources should be assigned on both the federal and state level to investigate and prosecute
these cases. These resources include federal and state law enforcement agents and prosecutors, forensic
laboratories and law enforcement and prosecutorial training (3).
The slow law enforcement response is exacerbated by a denial and a wishful illusion that the crimes do not exist. Many police officers abhor investigating crimes against children. The emotional toll of acknowledging and investigating sex crimes against children is just too high. A common refrain among otherwise toughened cops is, “I could never work those disgusting kinds of crimes against kids.” Changing these beliefs begins with training officers to recognize and investigate the crimes.
Basic Police Training in Arizona
In Arizona, basic police training includes a long list of topics that a fledgling officer must endure (4). State laws and regulations require training consisting of 585 hours of basic police instruction (4). The list includes many important and worthy subjects including firearms, pursuit driving, laws of arrest and defensive tactics.
Noticeably absent from the list of required basic police training topics is any reference to training about Internet crimes against minors. It is now time to formally recognize the growing problem of cybercrimes against children and provide basic training to officers.
Surely the problem of Internet crimes against children is at least equal in importance with traffic enforcement. Traffic law and traffic law enforcement is mentioned many times in the Arizona State requirements for basic police training. Problematic motoring is taught during Functional Area IV – Traffic Control (5). Students must learn about impaired driver cases, traffic citations, traffic collision investigation, traffic collision (practical), traffic direction, and substantive traffic Law. Aren’t Internet crimes against children as important as traffic crimes?
Nay-sayers may argue that it is impossible to add more hours to current police academy training. The 585 hour schedule is packed with high-liability topics that each new officer must master. While that may be true, and while it may be difficult to extend the 585 hours to 586 or 587, why not combine or shorten some of the other courses and devote a little less time to them in order to make room for the growing needs of child victims in cyberspace. Could less time be spent on history, summonses, civil process, intoxication, or traffic?
Summary
It is time to act affirmatively to help children in cyberspace by educating the police. In 2008, we are finally passing the cyber-torch to a generation of new police officers who were raised with computers as we simultaneously retire those veterans who once abhorred computers. Arizona law enforcement academies should recognize Internet crimes against children by including training about the crimes within the basic police training curriculum.
Partly because children cannot call 911, Internet crimes against them will be ignored until legislation encourages basic training for law enforcement officers. The encouragement begins with educating officers to properly respond to and investigate the offenses. The suggested law revisions below are an affirmative move towards that goal.
Recommendations
The following three changes to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 41 and Arizona Administrative Code R13-4-103 regarding basic peace officer training would make education about Internet crimes against minors mandatory for new officers.
I. ARS 41-1822 – add paragraph (g)
Revise the Arizona Revised Statute 41-1822 regarding basic police training to include the language below in a new paragraph (g) under subsection 4 and a revised paragraph 5:
4. Prescribe minimum courses of training and minimum standards for training facilities for law enforcement officers. Only this state and political subdivisions of this state may conduct basic peace officer training. Basic peace officer academies may admit individuals who are not peace officer cadets only if a cadet meets the minimum qualifications established by paragraph 3 of this subsection. Training shall include:
(g) INTERNET AND COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS
II. ARS 41-1822 – revise paragraph 5
5. Recommend curricula for advanced courses and seminars in law enforcement and intelligence training in universities, colleges and community colleges, in conjunction with the governing body of the educational institution.
SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS WILL INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF
COURSES AND SEMINARS REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF
INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST MINORS.
III. Administrative Regulation R13-4-116 Academy Requirements – add paragraph xi
Revise the Administrative Regulations governing certification of peace officers (R13-4-116). Under functional area V – Crime Scene Management, add the following investigative area to the list of items:
xi. INTERNET AND COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS
——————————
References
(1) Jaffee, M. (October 18, 2007). Emotional testimony from online predator victim. WZZM13.com. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=82414
(2) Kardasz, F. (March 25, 2008). Contraband images in Arizona: Cities and Internet service providers, February through March 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/04/contraband_images_in_arizona.html
(3) Committee on Energy and Commerce. (January 2007). Sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. Staff report of the 109th Congress. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/01032007_Report.pdf
(4) 2008 Arizona Revised Statutes. Title 41 – State Government. Article 8 Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/01822.htm&Title=41&DocType=ARS
For ease of reference, relevant parts of the statute follows:
41-1822. Powers and duties of board; definition
A. With respect to peace officer training and certification, the board shall:
5. Recommend curricula for advanced courses and seminars in law enforcement and intelligence training in universities, colleges and community colleges, in conjunction with the governing body of the educational institution.
(5). Arizona Administrative Code. Title 13. Public Safety. Chapter 4. Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.azpost.state.az.us/
For ease of reference, relevant parts of the statute follows:
Title13. PUBLIC SAFETY
R13-4-116. Academy Requirements
E. Basic course requirements. The academy administrator shall ensure that the academy uses curricula that meet the requirements of R13-4-114 for the following basic courses of instruction.
1. The 585-hour full-authority peace officer basic training course shall include all of the topics listed in each of the following functional areas:
a. Functional Area I – Introduction to Law Enforcement.
i. Criminal justice systems,
ii. History of law enforcement,
iii. Law enforcement services,
iv. Supervision and management,
v. Ethics and professionalism, and
vi. Stress management.
b. Functional Area II – Law and Legal Matters.
i. Introduction to criminal law;
ii. Laws of arrest;
iii. Search and seizure;
iv. Rules of evidence;
v. Summonses, subpoenas, and warrants;
vi. Civil process;
vii. Administration of criminal justice;
viii. Juvenile law and procedures;
ix. Courtroom demeanor;
x. Constitutional law;
xi. Substantive criminal law, A.R.S. Titles 4, 13, and 36; and
xii. Liability issues.
c. Functional Area III – Patrol Procedures.
i. Patrol and observation (part 1),
ii. Patrol and observation (part 2),
iii. Domestic violence,
iv. Mental illness,
v. Crimes in progress,
vi. Crowd control formations and tactics,
vii. Bomb threats and disaster training,
viii. Intoxication cases,
ix. Communication and police information systems,
x. Hazardous materials,
xi. Bias-motivated crimes,
xii. Fires, and
xiii. Civil Disputes.
d. Functional Area IV – Traffic Control.
i. Impaired driver cases;
ii. Traffic citations;
iii. Traffic collision investigation;
iv. Traffic collision (practical);
v. Traffic direction; and
vi. Substantive Traffic Law, A.R.S. Title 28.
e. Functional Area V – Crime Scene Management.
i. Preliminary investigation and crime scene management,
ii. Crime scene investigation (practical),
iii. Physical evidence procedures,
iv. Interviewing and questioning,
v. Fingerprinting,
vi. Sex crimes investigations,
vii. Death Investigations (including training certified by the Department of Health Services on sudden infant death syndrome),
viii. Organized crime activity,
ix. Investigation of specific crimes, and
x. Narcotics and dangerous drugs.
f. Functional Area VI – Community and Police Relations.
i. Cultural awareness,
ii. Victimology,
iii. Interpersonal communications,
iv. Crime prevention, and
v. Police and the community.
g. Functional Area VII – Records and Reports. Report writing.
h. Functional Area VIII – Police Proficiency Skills.
i. First aid,
ii. Firearms training (including firearms qualification),
iii. Physical conditioning,
iv. High risk stops,
v. Defensive tactics,
vi. Vehicle operations, and
vii. Pursuit operations.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
