Examining the Effects of Child Pornography
Researchers in Switzerland took unique advantage of a 2002 sweep of child pornography viewers in Zurich to examine what the relationship between viewing child pornography and sexually offending against children might be. The study, published Monday in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry, offers few definitive answers but does an important job of adding to the generally murky picture we have of different ways people sexually offend against children and the different kinds of people who do it.
Researchers got the names of 231 men charged with viewing child pornography in 2002. They searched their criminal records prior to 2002 and also recorded any convictions or police investigations between 2002 and 2008. Here are some of the findings:
- Two of the men (1%) those charged in 2002 had previously been convicted for hands-on offense.
- Eight of the men (3.5%) charged had convictions for hands-off offenses (e.g. viewing illegal pornography).
- Nine (3.9%) of those charged in 2002 were investigated, charged, or convicted for possessing illegal pornography within the subsequent six years.
- Two (0.8%) of those charged were being investigated or charged with child sexual abuse within the subsequent six years.
The researchers are quick to point out that this sample isn’t representative. We also need to keep in mind that recidivism, which is the likelihood that someone who has committed a crime will do so again, can only be measured by crimes where the person is caught. So the fact is that none of the 231 men who viewed child pornography was convicted of sexually abusing a child within six years of being charged. That doesn’t mean they didn’t, it just means they didn’t get caught (of course it doesn’t mean they did either).
With those caveats considered, the researchers surmise that viewing child pornography alone isn’t, at least among these men, enough of a risk factor to predict that they will commit a hands-on sexual offense against a child.
Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. And not just for the obvious reason that no one in their right mind would want to spend time talking to people who sexually abuse children. It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered:
Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?
Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film. So why “split hairs”.
But the thing is we’ve got to split hairs, because what we know about pedophilia in particular and sexual offenses against children in general, is kind of like a big hairy mess. If we want to change things we need to untangle it, even a little. Researchers are trying, but they routinely get attacked for it. Journalists are interested in trying but laws essentially prohibit them from reporting on it in anything other than the most pandering and arguably exploitative of ways.
Sexually offending isn’t a simply a behavior that people choose to do or not do. There’s all kinds of offending and all sorts of causes; social, cultural, environmental, biological, etc… If we want to put an end to, or even reduce the amount of sexual victimization we’ve got to be willing to look at it for what it is, and not simply close our eyes open up the prison doors, and hope it’ll go away.
| | Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum | |
Or one could just legalise ownership and solve the problem in one fell swoop.
“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.”
Are you mad?
Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’.
NLO
You’ve provided another perspective but considering the clinical literature I would say that your position simply isn’t supported by what we know.
Knowing people who have experienced abuse that’s been recorded I know that THEY feel that others watching the images is a re-victimization, so my comment reflects their individual experience. I’m don’t think we can ignore such statements anymore than we should ignore the good research as it comes out.
Dr Nigel:
Are YOU mad? I think you know that this is not about looking at random pictures.
Buying child porn, actively looking for child porn, collecting child porn (whether free or bought) victimizes children. I absolutely can’t comprehend how you are not able to understand that.
julie:
While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail.
Cory,
“Knowing people who have experienced abuse that’s been recorded I know that THEY feel that others watching the images is a re-victimization, so my comment reflects their individual experience.”
The anecdotal claims, of a self-admitted, dysfunctional (supposedly), person are poor evidence, at best.
I challenge you, or anyone, to show me one piece of ‘clinical literature’ which proves (I know you cannot do that) or even evidences what you claim. You will not be able to do it for acts, let alone images.
Until the truth reaches the surface, we will remain in the horrendous position, in which we find ourselves, where hundreds of men are killing themselves and thousands of families are being destroyed (all clearly proven) for, essentially, no gain.
NLO
Julie,
You are, predominantly, incorrect (except in the most superficial way) and you may read why, here:
http://www.critest.com/documents/A%20Response%20to%20Alexandra%20Gelber.htm
NLO
BTW Cory,
Thank you for allowing contentious comments.
NLO.
looking at pictures with the intent of getting off sexually is completely different than viewing documentary evidence of horrible human events.
@Nigel: contentious comments are fine as long as they are respectful.
Dr. Oldfield, you do have a point: looking at a photo of a crime doesn’t equal committing a crime. The fact is that children are a specially protected class in the US because children cannot give any legal consent and cannot enter into any contract with a pornographer, as can an adult. Your argument is moot.
However, I do think that it is unfair to equate looking at porn with committing child abuse. They are separate crimes, but treated as one and the same in the eyes of the law. That is wrong. Looking at child porn should, I think, be illegal, but no assumption should be made about whether the person will act out or not.
Dr. Oldfield should self-reflect upon the phrase he used “Are you mad?” How many would continue to publish if they knew that no one would read or look at what they published? When there would be no financial or publicity profit resulting from the publication?
Looking at somthing on the internet in your own time after you get done working is compleatly diffrent then commiting a crim. ex. If some one liked watching how people kill other people (death row exicution,gang member recording a shooting…) what would be wrong with that shit happens there not doing it for your intrest there doing it cause they like or feel the need that it needs to be done!