Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Online Child Sexual Exploitation Offenses

  • Sexual Disorders (G Dwyer, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past three decades, there has been an exponential increase in the worldwide availability of Internet access and devices that are able to access online materials. This literature review investigated whether increased accessibility of Internet child pornography (CP) increases the risk of in-person child sexual exploitation. The current review found little to no evidence that availability of the Internet has increased the worldwide incidence or prevalence of in-person child sexual abuse. In fact, during the time period in which the Internet has flourished, international crime statistics have shown a steady decrease of in-person child sexual abuse. The only exception to this trend is an increase in Internet child pornography or luring offenses (e.g., Stats Can, 2014), which involves child abuse by definition. This article reviews the impact of the Internet on child sexual abuse. It also reviews the characteristics of online CP offenders. Treatment of these offenders and prevention of such offenses is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Martin J, Alaggia R. Sexual abuse images in cyberspace: expanding the ecology of the child. J Child Sex Abus. 2013;22(4):398–415. doi:10.1080/10538712.2013.781091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Murphy L, Ranger R & Fedoroff JP. Legal and clinical issues in interpreting child pornography on the Internet. In: F. Saleh, A. Grudzinskas & A. Judge, editors. Adolescent sexual behavior in the digital world. Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 213-243. This chapter takes a further look into the legal and clinical issues with definitions of child pornography.

  3. Prentky R, Dowdell E, Fedoroff P, Burgess A, Malamuth N, Schuler A. A multi-prong approach to strengthening internet safety. United States Office of juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2010

  4. Murphy L. Definitional issues with child pornography: legal and clinical interpretations. Presentation in panel, Murphy L, Dwyer G, Kreuger R. & Knack N, editors. Child Pornography offenders: assessment, risk and treatment. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law annual meeting. Fort Lauderdale. 2015.

  5. Wolak J, Liberatore M, Levine BN. Measuring a year of child pornography trafficking by U.S. computers on a peer-to-peer network. Child Abuse Negl. 2013;38(2):347–56. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reeves C. Fantasy depictions of child sexual abuse: the problem of ageplay in second life. J Sex Aggress. 2013;19(2):236–46. doi:10.1080/13552600.2011.640947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boyce J. Statistics Canada. Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2014. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Ottawa. 2014. Released on July 22, 2015.

  8. McManus MA, Almond L. Trends of indecent images of children and child sexual offenses between 2005/2006 and 2012/2013 within the United Kingdom. J Sex Aggress. 2014;20(2):142–55. doi:10.1080/13552600.2014.893031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diamond M, Uchiyama A. Pornography, rape and sex crimes in Japan. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999;22(1):1–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Diamond M. Pornography, public acceptance and sex related crime: a review. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2009;32(5):304–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Diamond M, Jozifkova E, Weiss P. Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Arch Sex Behav. 2011;40(5):1037–43. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y. This study shows that the amount of sex crimes decreased when pornography became accessible.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Müller K, Curry S, Ranger R, Briken P, Bradford J, Fedoroff JP. Changes in sexual arousal as measured by penile plethysmography in men with pedophilic sexual interest. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1221–9. This study demonstrated that sexual interests in children can change to sexual interests in adults, as measured by phallometric testing.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wurtele SK, Simons DA, Moreno T. Sexual interest in children among an online sample of men and women: prevalence and correlates. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2014;26(6):546–68. doi:10.1177/107906321350688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Seto MC, Hermann CA, Kjellgren C, Priebe G, Svedin CG, Långström N. Viewing child pornography: prevalence and correlates in a representative community sample of young Swedish men. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(1):67–79. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0244-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. González-Ortega E, Orgaz-Baz B. Minors’ exposure to online pornography: prevalence, motivations, contents and effects. Anales de Psicologia. 2013;29(2):319–27. doi:10.6018/analesps.29.2.131381.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tener D, Wolak J, Finkelhor D. A typology of offenders who use online communications to commit sex crimes against minors. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2015;24(3):1–19. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.1009602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Magaletta PR, Faust E, Bickart W, McLearen AM. Exploring clinical and personality characteristics of adult male internet-only child pornography offenders. Int J Comp Criminol. 2014;58(2):137–53. doi:10.1177/0306624X12465271.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Babchishin KM, Hanson RK, VanZuylen H. Online child pornography offenders are different: a meta-analysis of the characteristics of online and offline sex offenders against children. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(1):45–66. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0270-x. This is the most recent meta-analysis that analyzes characteristics of online offenders, mixed offenders, and contact offenders against children.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smid W, Schepers K, Kamphuis JH, van Linden S, Bartling S. Prioritizing child pornography notifications: predicting direct victimization. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2015;27(4):398–413. doi:10.1177/1079063213514453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aslan D, Edelmann R. Demographic and offence characteristics: a comparison of sex offenders convicted of possessing indecent images of children, committing contact sex offences or both offences. J Forensic Psych Psychol. 2014;25(2):121–34. doi:10.1080/14789949.2014.884618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Aebi M, Plattner B, Ernest M, Kaszynski K, Bessler C. Criminal history and future offending of juveniles convicted of the possession of child pornography. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2014;26(4):375–90. doi:10.1177/1079063213492344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jung S, Ennis L, Stein S, Choy AL, Hook T. Child pornography possessors: comparisons and contrasts with contact- and non-contact sex offenders. J Sex Aggress. 2013;19(3):295–310. doi:10.1080/13552600.2012.741267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Faust E, Bickart W, Renaud C, & Camp S. Child pornography possessors and child contact sex offenders: a multilevel comparison of demographic characteristics and rates of recidivism. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2014; 1-19. doi:10.1177/1079063214521469

  24. Stoltenborgh M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Alink LRA, van IJzendoorn MH. The prevalence of child maltreatment across the globe: review of a series of meta-analyses. Chile Abus Rev. 2014;24(1):37–50. doi:10.1002/car.2353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolak J, Finkelhor D. Are crimes by online predators different from crimes by sex offenders who know youth in-person? J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(6):736–41. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McManus MA, Long ML, Alison L, Almond L. Factors associated with contact child sexual abuse in a sample of indecent image offenders. J Sex Aggress. 2015;21(3):368–84. doi:10.1080/13552600.2014.927009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Elliott IA, Beech AR, Mandeville-Norden R. The psychological profiles of internet, contact, and mixed internet/contact sex offenders. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2013;25(1):3–20. doi:10.1177/1079063212439426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Winder B, Gough B, Seymour-Smith S. Stumbling into sexual crime: the passive perpetrator in accounts by male internet sex offenders. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(1):167–80. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0302-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aslan D, Edelmann R, Bray D, Worrell M. Entering the world of sex offenders: an exploration of offending behaviour patterns of those with both internet and contact sex offences against children. J Forensic Pract. 2014;18(2):110–26. doi:10.1108/JFP-01-2013-0015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Seto MC, Eke AW. Predicting recidivism among adult male child pornography offenders: development of the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT). Law Hum Behav. 2015;39(4):416–29. doi:10.1037/lhb0000128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Habermeyer B, Esposito F, Händel N, Lemoine P, Kuhl HC, Klarhöfer … Graf M. Response inhibition in pedophilia: an fMRI pilot study. Neuropsychobiology, 2013; 68(8), 228-237. doi: 10.1159/000355295

  32. Steel C. The Asperger’s defence in digital child pornography investigations. Psych Psychol Law. 2015; 1-10. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2015.1080150

  33. Richards D, Fedoroff JP. Helping those with intellectual disabilities. In: Stephen L, editor. Handbook of clinical sexuality for mental health professionals. 3rd ed. New York: Brunner/Routledge; 2016.

  34. Seigfriend-spellar KC. Distinguishing the viewers, downloaders, and exchangers of internet child pornography by individual differences: preliminary findings. Digit Investig. 2014;11(4):252–60. doi:10.1016/j.diin.2014.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Seto MC, Cantor JM, Blanchard R. Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. J Abnorm Psychol. 2006;115(3):610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Quayle E, Taylor M. Child pornography and the internet: perpetuating a cycle of abuse. Deviant Behav. 2002;23(4):331–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rogers MK, Seigfried-Spellar KC. Using internet artifacts to profile a child pornography suspect. J Digit Forensic Secur Law. 2014;9(1):57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Griffin-Shelley E. Sex and love addicts, who sexually offend: two cases of online use of child pornography (child sexual abuse images). Sex Addict Compulsivity. 2014;21(4):322–41. doi:10.1080/10720162.2014.966936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Prat S, Bertsch I, Chudzik L, Réveillère C. Women convicted of a sexual offence, including child pornography production: two case reports. J Forensic Legal Med. 2014;23:22–4. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2014.01.002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Steel CMS. Web-based child pornography: the global impact of deterrence efforts and its consumption on mobile platforms. Child Abuse Negl. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.12.009.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wolak J, Evans L, Nguyen S, & Hines DA. Online predators: myths versus reality. New Engl J Public Policy. 2013; 25(1), Article 6

  42. Quayle E, Allegro S, Hutton L, Sheath M, Lööf L. Rapid skill acquisition and online sexual grooming of children. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;39(1):368–75. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Beier KM, Grundmann D, Kuhle LF, Scherner G, Konrad A, Amelung T. The German Dunkelfeld Project: a pilot study to prevent sexual abuse and the use of child abusive images. J Sex Med. 2015;12(2):529–42. doi:10.1111/jsm.12785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sexual Behaviours Clinic, Integrated Forensic Program, The Royal Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada

    Thanh Ly, Lisa Murphy & J. Paul Fedoroff

  2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    J. Paul Fedoroff

Authors
  1. Thanh Ly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Paul Fedoroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Paul Fedoroff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ly, T., Murphy, L. & Fedoroff, J.P. Understanding Online Child Sexual Exploitation Offenses. Curr Psychiatry Rep 18, 74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0707-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0707-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation