The internet and sexual offending: an international perspective

Although the sexual abuse of children is a long-standing problem that has received considerable scholarly attention, still little is understood about sex offenses that occur by means of, or are facilitated through, the Internet. Increasing awareness of the Internet as a platform for the perpetration of sexual crimes has raised new questions on this aspect of criminal behavior. Of interest, for example, is whether those who engage in Internet-related sex crimes are a distinct type of sexual offender, or whether these offenders “merely” use newer technological methods to facilitate or perpetrate offenses. Moreover, little is known about the patterns, motivations, or typological similarities among types of individuals who use the Internet to commit sexual crimes. Of further concern is the risk posed by this class of sexual offenders, particularly the extent or rate at which those with an Internet-based conviction will escalate to (or have already engaged in) other types of sexual offences, especially “hands on” or contact sexual offenses. In reviewing the current empirical literature and drawing attention to areas of research need, this chapter addresses these and other pertinent questions related to use of the Internet in the commission of sexual offenses This chapter also draws focus to the importance of international cooperation, including policing, industry, (e.g., Internet Service Providers [ISPs], finance companies), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in the control and persecution of these offenses. Given the still limited empirical knowledge in this area, coupled with the inherently global nature of the Internet and the pace of technological advancement, the prosecution of Internet-based sexual crimes poses unique challenges that require thoughtful and rigorous scholarly attention

Decision-Making About Volitional Impairment in Sexually Violent Predators

The Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) decision, in which the Supreme Court authorized post-sentence civil commitment for certain sex offenders, appeared to be constitutionally legitimized by limiting the class of offenders eligible for this special form of civil commitment to those who are “unable to control” their dangerousness. Nowhere in the available record, however, did the Court elucidate what they meant by this notion of volitional impairment. This study sought to examine factors that legal professionals (n = 43), psychologists (n = 40), and mock jurors (n = 76) deem most relevant to a determination of sex offender volitional impairment. Participants, who were randomly assigned to a sexual predator commitment or an insanity hearing context, read a series of 16 vignettes that described a pedophilic offender and included combinations of variables hypothesized to be related to judgments of volitional impairment. Results suggested that participants, who as a group made remarkably high estimates of likelihood of future sexual violence, considered verbalization of control, history of sexual violence, and the context of the hearing as highly relevant to determinations of volitional impairment. Implications for policy and practice are explored

Detención preventiva de los abusadores sexuales: Una perspectiva comparativa de ley

In recent decades, criminal justice and mental health legislation across the globe hassought to manage and prevent the problem of repeat sexual violence. Perhaps some ofthe most restrictive measures have heen those aimed at the preventive detention of thosesex offenders thought to pose an elevated risk of re-olfense. This paper examines SexuallyViolent Predator (S VP) legislation, deemed constitutional by the U.S Supreme Court inKansas v. Hendricks (1997), and compares (his post-sentence civil commitment schemewith preventive detention statutes targeted at, or otherwise applicable to, sexual offendersin several of the Commonwealth nations. Specilically, this paper examines the AustralianDangerous Prisoners (Sexual Ofenders) Act (2003), which was upheld in Artorney-General (OLD) v. Fardon (2004) and which, similar to SVP legislation in the U.S.allows for the post-sentence preventive detention of sex offenders deemed to be at highrisk of serious sexual recidivism. Morcover, Chis paper reviews the Dangerous Ofenderlegislation in Canada, which allows for indeterminale detention of offenders at sentencing.as Well as the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD)) designation in Finglandwhich authorizes transfer to secure commitment facilites adose offenders thought topose a serious risk of harm to others. A bricl discussion of these alternative schemesconcludes the paper.En décadas recientes, la justicia penal y la legislación de salud mental en todo elmundo ha buscado manejar y prevenir el problema de se reiterada violencia sexual.Tal vez algunas de las medidas más restrictivas han sido aquellas dirigidas a ladetención de aquellos abusadores sexuales que se supone son de un riesgo elevadode reincidencia. Este documento examina la Legislación del Depredador SexualViolento (SVP) considerada constitucional por la Corte Suprema de los EstadosUnidos en Kansas contra Hendricks (1997), y compara este plan de compromisocivil post sentencia con los estatutos de la detención preventiva dirigidos a, o enotros casos aplicados a, los abusadores sexuales en varias de las naciones de laCommonwealth. Este documento examina, precisamente, a los delincuentespeligrosos (abusadores sexuales) de Australia Acto (2003), el cual fue ratificadopor la Fiscalía General (QLD) contra. Fardon (2004) y el cual, al igual que lalegislación SVP en Los Estados Unidos, permite la detención preventiva postsentencia de los delincuentes sexuales que se consideren de alto riesgo dereincidencia sexual. Más aun, este documento revisa la legislación canadiensesobre Delincuentes Peligrosos que permite la deteñción indeterminada dedelincuentes condenados, así como la designación inglesa de Peligrosos y SeverosDesórdenes de Personalidad (DSPD) que autoriza transferir a sitios seguros a quienes se supone representan un alto riesgo de hacer daño a otros. Una brevediscusión de estas ideas alternativas, concluye el documento

Decision-making about volitional impairment in the sexual predator commitment context

The Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) decision, in which the Supreme Court authorized post-sentence civil commitment for certain sex offenders, appeared to have been constitutionally legitimized by limiting the class of offenders eligible for this special form of civil commitment to those who are “unable to control” their dangerousness. Nowhere in the available record, however, did the Court elucidate what they meant by this long-confused notion of volitional impairment. Instead, the Court appeared to rely largely upon Hendricks\u27 own testimony (concerning loss of control when under stress) and prior criminal history (including repeated acts of sexual violence) to support the conclusion that he suffered such volitional impairment. Nor did the Supreme Court in Kansas v. Crane (2002), in holding that something less than an absolute lack of control is required, describe the types of impairment that may make it “particularly difficult to control” behavior. Given the impact an ill-defined notion may have on sexual predator decision-making, this study sought to examine factors that legal professionals (n = 43), psychologists (n = 40), and mock jurors (n = 76) deem most relevant to a determination of sex offender volitional impairment. Participants, who were randomly assigned to a sexual predator commitment or an insanity hearing context, read a series of 16 vignettes which described a pedophilic offender and included every combination of the four control variables manipulated (use of substances, verbal statement regarding inability to control conduct, planning of crime, and prior history). After reading the vignettes, participants made judgments about ability to control conduct, mental disorder, and likelihood of future violence. Results suggest that participants across groups considered verbalization of control, history of sexual violence, and the context of the hearing as highly relevant to determinations of volitional impairment, though results suggest uncertainty with regard to the importance of planning. Implications of these findings are discussed and directions for future research are suggested

Preventive detention of sex offenders: a comparative law perspective

En décadas recientes, la justicia penal y la legislación de salud mental en todo el mundo ha buscado manejar y prevenir el problema de se reiterada violencia sexual. Tal vez algunas de las medidas más restrictivas han sido aquellas dirigidas a la detención de aquellos abusadores sexuales que se supone son de un riesgo elevado de reincidencia. Este documento examina la Legislación del Depredador Sexual Violento (SVP) considerada constitucional por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Kansas contra Hendricks (1997), y compara este plan de compromiso civil post sentencia con los estatutos de la detención preventiva dirigidos a, o en otros casos aplicados a, los abusadores sexuales en varias de las naciones de la Commonwealth. Este documento examina, precisamente, a los delincuentes peligrosos (abusadores sexuales) de Australia Acto (2003), el cual fue ratificado por la Fiscalía General (QLD) contra. Fardon (2004) y el cual, al igual que la legislación SVP en Los Estados Unidos, permite la detención preventiva post sentencia de los delincuentes sexuales que se consideren de alto riesgo de reincidencia sexual. Más aun, este documento revisa la legislación canadiense sobre Delincuentes Peligrosos que permite la detención indeterminada de delincuentes condenados, así como la designación inglesa de Peligrosos y Severos Desórdenes de Personalidad (DSPD) que autoriza transferir a sitios seguros a quienes se supone representan un alto riesgo de hacer daño a otros. Una breve discusión de estas ideas alternativas, concluye el documento

Preventive detention of sex offenders: A comparative law perspective

En décadas recientes, la justicia penal y la legislación de salud mental en todo el mundo ha buscado manejar y prevenir el problema de se reiterada violencia sexual. Tal vez algunas de las medidas más restrictivas han sido aquellas dirigidas a la detención de aquellos abusadores sexuales que se supone son de un riesgo elevado de reincidencia. Este documento examina la Legislación del Depredador Sexual Violento (SVP) considerada constitucional por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Kansas contra Hendricks (1997), y compara este plan de compromiso civil post sentencia con los estatutos de la detención preventiva dirigidos a, o en otros casos aplicados a, los abusadores sexuales en varias de las naciones de la Commonwealth. Este documento examina, precisamente, a los delincuentes peligrosos (abusadores sexuales) de Australia Acto (2003), el cual fue ratificado por la Fiscalía General (QLD) contra. Fardon (2004) y el cual, al igual que la legislación SVP en Los Estados Unidos, permite la detención preventiva post sentencia de los delincuentes sexuales que se consideren de alto riesgo de reincidencia sexual. Más aun, este documento revisa la legislación canadiense sobre Delincuentes Peligrosos que permite la detención indeterminada de delincuentes condenados, así como la designación inglesa de Peligrosos y Severos Desórdenes de Personalidad (DSPD) que autoriza transferir a sitios seguros a quienes se supone representan un alto riesgo de hacer daño a otros. Una breve discusión de estas ideas alternativas, concluye el document

Detenção preventiva dos abusadores sexuais: Uma perspectiva comparativa da lei

In recent decades, criminal justice and mental health legislation across the globe has sought to manage and prevent the problem of repeat sexual violence. Perhaps some of the most restrictive measures have been those aimed at the preventive detention of those sex offenders thought to pose an elevated risk of re-offense. This paper examines Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) legislation, deemed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), and compares this post-sentence civil commitment scheme with preventive detention statutes targeted at, or otherwise applicable to, sexual offenders in several of the Commonwealth nations. Specifically, this paper examines the Australian Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act (2003), which was upheld in Attorney- General (QLD) v. Fardon (2004) and which, similar to SVP legislation in the U.S., allows for the post-sentence preventive detention of sex offenders deemed to be at high risk of serious sexual recidivism. Moreover, this paper reviews the Dangerous Offender legislation in Canada, which allows for indeterminate detention of offenders at sentencing, as well as the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) designation in England, which authorizes transfer to secure commitment facilities those offenders thought to pose a serious risk of harm to others. A brief discussion of these alternative schemes concludes the paper.En décadas recientes, la justicia penal y la legislación de salud mental en todo el mundo ha buscado manejar y prevenir el problema de se reiterada violencia sexual. Tal vez algunas de las medidas más restrictivas han sido aquellas dirigidas a la detención de aquellos abusadores sexuales que se supone son de un riesgo elevado de reincidencia. Este documento examina la Legislación del Depredador Sexual Violento (SVP) considerada constitucional por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Kansas contra Hendricks (1997), y compara este plan de compromiso civil post sentencia con los estatutos de la detención preventiva dirigidos a, o en otros casos aplicados a, los abusadores sexuales en varias de las naciones de la Commonwealth. Este documento examina, precisamente, a los delincuentes peligrosos (abusadores sexuales) de Australia Acto (2003), el cual fue ratificado por la Fiscalía General (QLD) contra. Fardon (2004) y el cual, al igual que la legislación SVP en Los Estados Unidos, permite la detención preventiva post sentencia de los delincuentes sexuales que se consideren de alto riesgo de reincidencia sexual. Más aun, este documento revisa la legislación canadiense sobre Delincuentes Peligrosos que permite la detención indeterminada de delincuentes condenados, así como la designación inglesa de Peligrosos y Severos Desórdenes de Personalidad (DSPD) que autoriza transferir a sitios seguros a quienes se supone representan un alto riesgo de hacer daño a otros. Una breve discusión de estas ideas alternativas, concluye el documento.En décadas recientes, la justicia penal y la legislación de salud mental en todo el mundo ha buscado manejar y prevenir el problema de se reiterada violencia sexual. Tal vez algunas de las medidas más restrictivas han sido aquellas dirigidas a la detención de aquellos abusadores sexuales que se supone son de un riesgo elevado de reincidencia. Este documento examina la Legislación del Depredador Sexual Violento (SVP) considerada constitucional por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Kansas contra Hendricks (1997), y compara este plan de compromiso civil post sentencia con los estatutos de la detención preventiva dirigidos a, o en otros casos aplicados a, los abusadores sexuales en varias de las naciones de la Commonwealth. Este documento examina, precisamente, a los delincuentes peligrosos (abusadores sexuales) de Australia Acto (2003), el cual fue ratificado por la Fiscalía General (QLD) contra. Fardon (2004) y el cual, al igual que la legislación SVP en Los Estados Unidos, permite la detención preventiva post sentencia de los delincuentes sexuales que se consideren de alto riesgo de reincidencia sexual. Más aun, este documento revisa la legislación canadiense sobre Delincuentes Peligrosos que permite la detención indeterminada de delincuentes condenados, así como la designación inglesa de Peligrosos y Severos Desórdenes de Personalidad (DSPD) que autoriza transferir a sitios seguros a quienes se supone representan un alto riesgo de hacer daño a otros. Una breve discusión de estas ideas alternativas, concluye el documento

Evaluating sex offenders under sexually violent predator laws: How might mental health professionals conceptualize the notion of volitional impairment?

This paper examines the significance of the Supreme Court’s Hendricks and Crane decisions, with focus given to how mental health professionals may conceptualize the notion of volitional impairment. The Hendricks decision authorized postsentence civil commitment for sex offenders having a mental abnormality or personality disorder, rendering them likely to engage in future acts of sexual violence. In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice Thomas implied that the Kansas Act was legitimized by limiting the class of offenders eligible for this specialized form of commitment to those who are “unable to control” their dangerousness. In Crane, the Court ruled that while the Hendricks decision does not require that a sex offender be completely unable to control behavior, it does require proof of serious difficulty in controlling conduct. In evaluating the meaning of this decision for mental health professionals, this paper notes the decline of volitional impairment standards in the insanity defense, summarizes case law regarding sexual predators and volitional impairment, and further reviews the empirical and theoretical literatures exploring the notion of volitional impairment