No excuse for child porn

Recent police investigations, including the infamous Operation
Ore, have seen the arrests of hundreds of people on charges of
possessing child pornography, downloading and making child
pornography on the internet. There have been new arrests reported
each week, covering all sections of public and professional life –
from priests, politicians and pop stars to police officers and
social workers. Why do these people do it?

The range of reasons and excuses is as broad as the range of people
involved – and a few are listed (see panels, right, and page 40).
For some it will be that they are paedophiles: they believe
children can consent to sexual acts, and they believe that it is
not abuse. However, it is clear from the interviews I have
conducted with suspects that the present legislation is unlikely to
deal with child pornography on the internet, and that we have a
situation where easy access to such material will lead many more
people to break the law.

The pornography industry on the internet is worth $1.5bn, and in a
six-month period in 2001 there was a 345 per cent increase in child
pornography sites. As a result, most internet users are only three
clicks away from obtaining illegal material. We need to recognise
the links between legal and illegal pornographic websites, and the
path that individuals follow which brings them to the point of
buying pornographic images of children.

For instance, David (not his real name) had always enjoyed
pornography. His introduction on the internet was via the normal
pornography sites advertised through e-mail and “pop-ups”.

Three areas that attract a large number of internet pornography
users are “younger”, “amateur” and “bizarre”. Schoolgirls,
cheerleaders and virgins are common sites. When one accesses these
sites they are usually models over 18 pretending to be school
girls. Pornography is legal and schoolgirl fantasies are not
uncommon. David focused on schoolgirls and “gymslip” sites.

David found that the same materials were available free on other
sites, leaving him feeling ripped off by the commercial sites he
was paying for. Once away from commercial sites, David began to
find special interest groups and special chat rooms. Websites
called P2P (peer to peer networks) opened up a world where anything
and everything was available. Search words like “Lolita”, which in
the commercial world threw up legal websites, now presented him
with doorways to illegal material.

Some of the sites David visited gave him pictures of children that
did not seem abusive – pictures and videos of children who were
participating in sex with each other but who seemed to be “enjoying
it”. Many pornography users are not familiar with the intricacies
of child abuse and do not understand that corruption can lead to
children appearing to be initiating and enjoying sexual
contact.

For David, in a strange way the pictures became secondary to the
excited anticipation of what unusual, unexpected things would come
next. He would download overnight and wait with anticipation to
find what it contained. Having gone this far, David then had access
to materials through paedophile chat rooms and by then it was too
late. He felt out of control, that it was taking him over, and that
he needed to be caught. He never believed he would abuse a child
but he was beginning to lose the certainty.

David’s story is not that of a paedophile, but of a man who got out
of his depth. There are thousands like him. This does not excuse
him.

The authorities need to grasp the fact that, while at one time it
was difficult to access illegal material, it is now easy. We need
to have the debate we should have had in 1988 when possession of
child pornography became illegal. We need a recognition that the
addictive qualities of sex, the freedoms of the internet and
widespread access to computers have come together with explosive
consequences. Adults who would never have gone into a shop to buy a
magazine let alone an under-the-counter video now have access to it
in the privacy of their home.

The internet has developed on the money from the pornography
industry and continues to do so. The censorship of adult
pornography – even at the extreme end – seems now a non-starter.
But the link between pornography and this other illegal world
cannot be ignored – we must recognise the road to ruin that many
adults are on, and how the journey can destroy the lives of their
partners and children as well as their own. Interestingly, the
professional who engages in sexual crime is one of the highest
suicide risks.

In terms of those who reach the bottom of the spiral and are
caught, there has been little consistency in their treatment. In
some areas all suspects with children have been asked to leave the
home. In others they have been suspended from their jobs.

Strangely, the responses of the authorities are often determined by
the reaction of the suspect when accused. In some cases they ask
for the adult to leave the home voluntarily – and some do. If they
refuse, the responses vary in different parts of the country.
Interim care orders may be taken, but local authorities are
reluctant to remove children, especially when the mother is capable
of protecting and caring for them, and had no knowledge of what her
partner was doing on the internet. However, the adults who do agree
to leave are often left waiting for up to a year before appropriate
assessments are made, while those who refuse to co-operate often
remain in the family home.

In the past many professionals have been given access to child
pornography as part of their training. There was and still is an
argument that police, politicians and professionals need to know
first hand what they are talking about. For example, MPs shown
child pornography at the House of Commons immediately saw the need
to change legislation.

I would argue strongly that the point at which an investigator has
to view indecent photographs and to interview a child should not be
their first introduction to child pornography. Professionals need
to understand child pornography and to have mental “victim boxes”
already set up in their head, so that they can deal appropriately
with the material they are exposed to. I am concerned that –
judging by those who have visited my offices – many of the police
officers investigating these cases have neither an understanding of
sexual crime nor a knowledge of the internet.

Finally, I believe a lack of funding may be preventing suspects’
computers being properly investigated (see news, page 6, 28
August). A profile of the internet use of the alleged offender is
essential. It is not enough just to find illegal images. An audit
of the computer may substantiate or refute what the person is
saying and, more importantly, the failure to do a proper audit
makes it difficult to establish what risk they are to their own
children. The fact that they have illegal images is not in itself
proof.

Alternatively, some dangerous offenders may be “let off” if there
is a failure to audit the computer properly. Profiling computer
activity may show extensive concerns. Conversely, defence teams are
already requesting organisations such as ours to do a proper audit
if all the police have done is found some illegal images and
charged the person. It is possible for images to be sent without
the person knowing that they were going to be illegal. CC

Ray Wyre is an independent consultant on paedophiles and
child pornography.
www.sexual.crime.com

Why we did it…

“I’m a collector and I save a variety of pornography. I’m
interested in the bizarre but I am as unlikely to abuse a child as
I am to mutilate a woman. The fact that 99 per cent of my
collection on my computer had nothing to do with children shows
that I do not have a sexual interest in children.”

“I was doing it for research. I am a psychologist at a university
and I felt there was a real need to understand this issue. I didn’t
tell anyone in the university and I suppose that was my downfall. I
have been involved in protecting children for years – surely they
must know I am not a risk to my children.”

“I had always been to commercial sites where normal pornography had
cheerleaders and schoolgirls. I went to a different one, and the
warning on the site said it was monitored and did not allow illegal
material. But I searched using the same names that I had used on
the commercial sites and immediately I had images. I didn’t know
whether they were really under-age or if they were illegal. I
should have stopped then, but human nature wants to know what else
is there. In the end some of the material was illegal. But to stop
me seeing my own children is cruel and abusive.”

“I was in a chat room and arranged to meet a child, who turned out
to be a police officer. I didn’t think they allowed entrapment. Had
I not been encouraged I would not have done it. They say they
didn’t encourage me but I know different.”

“What is child pornography? There were pictures of children but I
was not sure whether they were indecent. The jury will decide
whether the images are indecent and underage. It is appalling that
I should have to wait months for that decision.”

“I was searching teen sex sites and schoolgirl sites. Out of 4,500
images I got four that were indecent, but that was not my
intention.”

“The material initially put me into a trance. It reminded me of
when I was abducted as a child and made to have sex with a girl. I
just wanted to get all of it off the internet. I wanted to destroy
it all.”

“I did not know it was there. It must have been a pop-up.”

“I was curious but as soon as I saw what it was I erased it.”

“It wasn’t me. Many of my relatives and family have access to the
computer.”

“It was something that happened to me as a boy and I could not stop
being aroused by it. When I downloaded similar material on the
internet, although it was illegal I did not see it that way because
in my fantasy I was a boy. I was not the adult.”