The three dimensions of online child pornography offending

Abstract

The internet has opened up opportunities for non-contact sex offending, such as the viewing of child pornography. This paper proposes a model for the classification of child pornography offenders as an aid for their assessment and treatment, deducted from empirical studies and existing\ud typologies for child pornography offenders. Different subgroups of child pornography offenders may be described according to three dimensions: (1) type of offending, (2) the motivation behind child pornography offending and (3) the situational and social engagement in the offending behaviour. Distinct pathways of child pornography offending can be identified, related to differing criminogenic\ud needs, severity of offending, and appropriate assessment and treatment strategies for the offenders

Motivational pathways underlying the onset and maintenance of viewing child pornography on the Internet

“…[With children] it's just – they are like, real, you know? I don't want to touch them.” These results are supported by Merdian et al's () distinction between fantasy‐driven and contact‐driven CP offenses.…”

“…Our results are in line with Quayle and Taylor's (2002) finding that men with CP offenses reported progressing through increasingly extreme types of pornography, and in some cases selected pornography based solely on the fact that it was tagged as illegal. Similarly, Merdian et al (2013) have suggested that a sexual interest in 'deviance' or 'deviant porn' could motivate the use of CP. However, since we assume there are many people who have a sexual interest in taboo themes or activities but would never cross the line into viewing CP, it seems plausible that certain trait and/or state factors exist that distinguish between these individuals.…”

A Prototype-Willingness Model of Sexual Crime Discourse in England and Wales

“…Merdian et al . () distinguish between ‘child sexual exploitation material (CSEM)’ users on three dimensions: (i) the function of CSEM use (fantasy‐driven vs . contact‐driven); (ii) the underlying motivations of CSEM use (paedophilic sexual interest vs .…”

“…However, evidence of a direct and causal link between the use of child abuse material and contact sexual offending against children is mixed (Hanson and Babchishin 2009;Seto, Hanson and Babchishin 2011), and thus the political response here represents another example of reactionary, and potentially-ineffective, policy making in response to a sexual crime prototype. Merdian et al (2013) distinguish between 'child sexual exploitation material (CSEM)' users on three dimensions: (i) the function of CSEM use (fantasy-driven vs. contact-driven); (ii) the underlying motivations of CSEM use (paedophilic sexual interest vs. general sexual deviancy vs. financial motivations vs. other motivations; and (iii) the sociality of CSEM use (social use vs. lone use). Models such as these indicate the heterogeneous nature of CSEM users, and question the wisdom of advocating an automatic and blanket ban on all forms of explicit online material as an appropriate policy response to a single prototype case.…”

Characteristics and treatment of internet child pornography offenders

“…For instance, some ICPOs had similar psychological problems as contact offenders, but about half of ICPOs did not (Middleton et al, ). However, other reports in the literature suggest that ICPOs who have similar treatment needs as contact sex offenders will benefit from the treatment models used to treat contact offenders (Merdian, Curtis, Thakker, Wilson, & Boer, ). Mixed offenders may benefit more from current treatment models than ICPOs, as they have engaged in contact sexual offenses.…”