Collecting and viewing behaviors of child sexual exploitation material offenders

Correspondence of Child Age and Gender Distribution in Child Sexual Exploitation Material and Other Child Content With Age and Gender of Child Sexual Assault Victims

“…This study extends previous work showing that pornography use can correspond to sexual interests (Bártová et al, 2021) and more specifically, that CSEM use can reflect sexual preferences relating to children among individuals known to the criminal justice system (e.g., Babchishin et al, 2015; Seto et al, 2006). Though CSEM use can also reflect curiosity, novelty-seeking, and other motivations (Seto et al, 2010; Steel et al, 2021), in aggregate, age and gender distributions of CSEM content are associated with contact victim age category and gender. For age, this was true using the most common age category and for gender, this was true when the data were analyzed simply in terms of whether a majority of CSEM or other child content depicted boys or girls.…”

“…People tend to seek out content that is sexually interesting to them in terms of gender, age category, and activity, and this includes child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) (see Bártová et al, 2021; Glasgow, 2010; Vogels & Sullivan, 2019). Up to half of CSEM perpetrators admit they are sexually aroused by CSEM and/or sexually interested in children (Seto & Eke, 2015; Seto et al, 2010), though CSEM use does not automatically mean sexual interest (Quayle, 2020) as some users state different motivations such as curiosity or novelty-seeking (Seto et al, 2010; Steel et al, 2021). Individuals who use CSEM often report attitudes that support the sexualisation of children (see Paquette & Cortoni, 2020).…”

Improving child sexual exploitation material investigations: Recommendations based on a review of recent research findings

“…They are, however, likely to employ countermeasures that frustrate forensics efforts, with 68% admitting that they have deleted their web browsing history, 38% using In-Private browsing, and 31% using wiping software on their hard drive (Steel et al, 2022a). Additionally, a small percentage (4%) of offenders admitted to only viewing but never downloading pornography (Steel et al, 2021a), and the majority of offenders, 74%, admitted they deleted their entire collection at least once (Steel et al, 2021a). This may pose potential limits on the amount of forensic artifacts that are recoverable in a particular case, but it also highlights the fact that the forensic findings are the lower bound of activity, and the actual amount and duration of viewing will be substantially higher in many cases.…”

“…Forensically, this may be evident in the proportion of child SEM compared to adult SEM. In a study looking at the ages of content present, 74% of previously convicted child pornography offenders viewed more adult SEM than child SEM, and no offenders exclusively viewed CSEM (Steel et al, 2021a). Forensically identifying a high ratio of CSEM to adult SEM content may be of later interest in terms of risk based on whether or not an offender is predominantly interested in CSEM or if it is a secondary interest based on their overall viewing habits.…”

Bestiality Law in the United States: Evolving Legislation with Scientific Limitations

“…One study of adult male CSEM offenders found that 15% had collected bestiality material within five years of release from a custodial setting [ 63 ]. A recent study assessed the pornography viewing habits of over 250 members of the public and 78 adults previously convicted of CSEM offenses [ 64 ]. The study found that 44% of offenders reported viewing adult pornography featuring bestiality, and 18% reported viewing CSEM featuring bestiality, compared to 3% of the public who reported viewing any bestiality material at all.…”