The Challenges of Identifying and Classifying Child Sexual Abuse Material

The aim of the present study was to (a) assess the reliability with which indecent images of children (IIOC) are classified as being of an indecent versus nonindecent nature, and (b) examine in detail the decision-making process engaged in by law enforcement personnel who undertake the difficult task of identifying and classifying IIOC as per the current legislative offense categories. One experienced researcher and four employees from a police force in the United Kingdom coded an extensive amount of IIOC (n = 1,212-2,233) to determine if they (a) were deemed to be of an indecent nature, and (b) depicted a child. Interrater reliability analyses revealed both considerable agreement and disagreement across coders, which were followed up with two focus groups involving the four employees. The first entailed a general discussion of the aspects that made such material more or less difficult to identify; the second focused around images where there had been either agreement (n = 20) or disagreement (n = 36) across coders that the images were of an indecent nature. Using thematic analysis, a number of factors apparent within IIOC were revealed to make the determination of youthfulness and indecency significantly more challenging for coders, with most relating to the developmental stage of the victim and the ambiguity of the context of an image. Findings are discussed in light of their implications for the identification of victims of ongoing sexual exploitation/abuse, the assessment and treatment of individuals in possession of IIOC, as well as the practice of policing and sentencing this type of offending behavior.

[1]  Pasquale Poppa,et al.  Can facial proportions taken from images be of use for ageing in cases of suspected child pornography? A pilot study , 2011, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[2]  J. Wolak,et al.  Risk factors for and impact of online sexual solicitation of youth. , 2001, JAMA.

[3]  Alec Samuels,et al.  Criminal Justice Act , 1968 .

[4]  A. James,et al.  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) , 2012 .

[5]  E. Quayle,et al.  Typology of Paedophile Picture Collections , 2001 .

[6]  D. Glasgow,et al.  The potential of digital evidence to contribute to risk assessment of internet offenders , 2010 .

[7]  E. Quayle,et al.  Paedophiles, Pornography and the Internet: Assessment Issues , 2002 .

[8]  A. Gillespie,et al.  Legal definitions of child pornography , 2010 .

[9]  Sarah Seymour-Smith,et al.  A Qualitative Analysis of Offenders’ Modus Operandi in Sexually Exploitative Interactions With Children Online , 2017, Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment.

[10]  The COPINE Project , 2008 .

[11]  S. Cooper The Medical Analysis of Child Sexual Abuse Images , 2011, Journal of child sexual abuse.

[12]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[13]  M. Ratnayake,et al.  The juvenile face as a suitable age indicator in child pornography cases: a pilot study on the reliability of automated and visual estimation approaches , 2014, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[14]  Arlan L. Rosenbloom Age estimation based on pictures and videos presumably showing child or youth pornography , 2014, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[15]  N. Srinivasan,et al.  Role of affect in decision making. , 2013, Progress in brain research.

[16]  Mariano Ruiz Espejo,et al.  WHO Child Growth Standards: Methods and Development , 2007 .

[17]  Marco Grandi,et al.  The difficult issue of age assessment on pedo-pornographic material. , 2009, Forensic science international.

[18]  Child Pornography: Balancing Substantive and Evidential Law to Safeguard Children Effectively from Abuse , 2005 .

[19]  J. Knottnerus,et al.  Real world research. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  K. Pease,et al.  Offences involving indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children: an analysis of sentencing guidelines , 2009 .

[21]  M. Seto,et al.  Hebephilic Sexual Offending , 2016 .

[22]  R. K. Hanson,et al.  Online Child Pornography Offenders are Different: A Meta-analysis of the Characteristics of Online and Offline Sex Offenders Against Children , 2015, Archives of sexual behavior.

[23]  M. Seto,et al.  Contact Sexual Offending by Men With Online Sexual Offenses , 2011, Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment.

[24]  United Kingdom. Parliament Criminal Justice Act 2003 , 2003 .

[25]  Kathleen M. MacQueen,et al.  Applied Thematic Analysis , 2011 .

[26]  J M Tanner,et al.  Growth and maturation during adolescence. , 2009, Nutrition reviews.

[27]  J. Wolak,et al.  Defining Child Pornography: Law Enforcement Dilemmas in Investigations of Internet Child Pornography Possession 1 , 2007 .

[28]  M. Seto,et al.  Examining the Criminal History and Future Offending of Child Pornography Offenders: An Extended Prospective Follow-up Study , 2011, Law and human behavior.

[29]  Al Cooper,et al.  Sexuality and the Internet: Surfing into the New Millennium , 1998, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[30]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[31]  Laurence Alison,et al.  KIRAT: Law enforcement’s prioritization tool for investigating indecent image offenders. , 2016 .

[32]  L. Webb,et al.  Characteristics of Internet Child Pornography Offenders: A Comparison with Child Molesters , 2007, Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment.