Evaluating the Child Pornography Offender

During her confirmation hearing for a position on the Supreme Court, there was considerable focus on Judge Kitanji Brown Jackson’s rulings in sentencing child pornography offenders. A great deal of the controversy was politically motivated. But bringing the subject before the public could be beneficial if it leads eventually to a nuanced understanding of a subject that rarely is in the public eye but about which there are preconceptions and strong emotions.

In this column, I am not minimizing the seriousness of possessing, buying, distributing, or producing child pornography. Unquestionably, the child pornography industry is based upon the exploitation and abuse of children of all ages.

My objectives in this two-part column are threefold. One is to help interested parties in their thinking about the entire issue. A second is to aid clinicians who evaluate child pornography offenders. A third is to advocate for sentencing that considers both the offense and the offender.

I have evaluated close to fifty child pornography offenders, all male. These men varied greatly from one another in age, family background, education, ethnicity, occupation and income. Some were married, others divorced, and some remained single.

To view child pornography, one need no longer sneak around to purchase or trade illicit publications or photos. With the click of a button, an almost infinite number of pornographic children’s images are available from the Internet.

The polarized and often simplistic discussion about Judge Jackson’s sentencing in this area revolved around whether she was “too lenient.” Without minimizing how reprehensible child pornography is, the Judge emphasized the importance of imposing a sentence that “is sufficient but not greater than necessary.”

A “one size fits all” mentality in terms of punishment focuses on the vileness of the offense but does not take into account the personality of the offender. There is a distinction between those who fantasize and those who touch. A person who accesses pornography in the privacy of his home but finds repugnant the idea of contacting a child for sexual activity is very different from a person who collects and files pornographic images, then uses websites and chatrooms as springboards for making contact with a minor for sexual purposes. The collecting may be more indicative of obsessive-compulsive behavior than of risk for exploitative sexual behavior toward minors. (The number of images has not been found to predict risk.)

The fact that someone could receive more years in prison for viewing images than someone who actually molests a child does not make sense from a public policy perspective. By law, both must appear on a sex offender registry which is accessible to the public. The person who viewed pornography at home and fantasized but did not engage in sexual activity with any minor will appear on this public registry along with violent sexual predators. Both will be subject to drastic restrictions as to where they can live, work, and travel.

An emerging professional literature has been leading to models for understanding different categories of cybersex users. There are individuals who do not have a history of sexual interest in children but, nonetheless, they become involved online with child pornography. Pornography may serve as a fantasy escape from life stressors even for a person who usually is empathic. A person of otherwise strong moral character may view and collect these images. However, he remains repulsed by even the thought of enacting what he has seen.

Psychologist John Suler described an “online disinhibition effect” in which some people feel less inhibited online than in the real world because of perceived anonymity and the ease of access to the sexual images. The pornography enhances fantasy. However, there are no actual attempts to contact children for sexual purposes.

Psychologists David L. Delmonico and Elizabeth Griffin have developed a three-category model for understanding cybersexual offenders:
*A person with no previous problematic sexual behavior or other prominent psychopathology
*A person who by engaging in cybersex triggers earlier predispositions
*A person with longstanding patterns of compulsive sexual behavior both online and offline.

Pornography Essential Reads

Treatments for Problematic Pornography Use

Do Accessibility and Anonymity Lead to Problematic Porn Use?

The above is not to suggest that there should be no punishment for involvement with child pornography. Individuals do not necessarily control whom they are attracted to. However, people can choose whether to act on their attractions. Along with punishment for their illegal behavior, some individuals can be helped through treatment to control their behavior. More will be said about this later.

Alan: A Case Study

I spent nearly fifty hours interviewing and treating Alan before, during, and after his conviction for possession of child pornography. Although he amassed a collection of child pornography images that he stored on his computer, there was no indication that he ever desired to have sex with a child.

Sixty-year-old Alan was the youngest of four children growing up in a poor family in which his father worked at three jobs. Alan said he learned from his dad “honesty and fortitude – you make do.” From his mother, he learned “perseverance.” Alan was extremely shy in part because of a significant stutter that made him a target for bullies at school. Always a pessimist, Alan was withdrawn and did not make close friends. He never dated and had no girlfriends. His only sexual experiences occurred on several occasions with prostitutes.

Two decades of military service cured Alan of his stuttering, and he regarded that part of his life in positive terms because he “could contribute to a greater cause.” He got along with his fellow servicemen but again made no close friends. After honorably retiring from the military, Alan became a draftsman and graphic artist, developing what he described as “a strong work ethic” and self-confidence. As he was nearing retirement from this field, he was offered a position that paid a considerable amount of money. However, at the last minute, due to the company’s worsening finances, the offer was withdrawn. Alan’s fragile confidence crashed as no other job in his field materialized, and he remained out of work for over a year. Describing himself as socially inept, he had no one in whom to confide and had no friends. He also had to cope with physical problems that limited his mobility.

Alan’s only previous arrests were for several speeding tickets. He never used illegal drugs and rarely consumed alcohol. Isolated in an efficiency apartment, Alan started spending a great deal of time surfing the Internet. His living area was disorganized as he saved all sorts of things haphazardly. The same was true with his saving files from the Internet, nearly all of which he never viewed more than the first time. He just tucked them away in storage, so to speak. Alan never purchased pornography, traded it, or entered chatrooms. He had “no desire to turn the fantasies into reality,” and he never considered actually contacting minors. As an adult, Alan had never gravitated to children or gone to areas where they congregated.

Alan found that once work – the one positive aspect of his life - vanished and he could not find employment, he immersed himself in adult, then child pornography. He commented, “You can go very deep with that when there is nothing else to do or you’re not feeling so good about life generally.”

Alan never minimized his wrongdoing or offered excuses. Psychological testing showed him to be preoccupied with guilt and feeling unworthy. The test profile stated, “He tends to blame himself for his own interpersonal problems…He feels hopeless at times and feels that he is a condemned person.” Alan acknowledged that he contemplated suicide but did not want to cause more harm to his siblings, the only enduring relationships he had.

Alan was sentenced to five years in prison for “possession” of child pornography. Half of that sentence was suspended. He spent 2 ½ years in confinement and is serving five years on probation.

My next column will present two cases quite different from Alan’s. This will be followed by a discussion highlighting important aspects of evaluating and treating child pornography offenders.