University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository
Crimes Against Children Research Center Research Institutes, Centers and Programs
2009
Trends in Arrests of "Online Predators".
Janis Wolak University of New Hampshire - Main Campus, [email protected]
David Finkelhor University of New Hampshire - Main Campus, [email protected]
Kimberly J. Mitchell University of New Hampshire - Main Campus
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/ccrc
Part of the Psychology Commons, and the Sociology Commons
Recommended Citation Wolak, J., Finkhelhor, D., and Mitchell, K. (2009). Trends in Arrests of Online Predators. Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Institutes, Centers and Programs at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Crimes Against Children Research Center by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRENDS IN ARRESTS OF “ONLINE PREDATORS”
How the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N‐JOV) Janis Wolak Study was conducted The N‐JOV Study collected information from a national sample of law en‐ David Finkelhor forcement agencies about the prevalence of arrests for and characteristics of online sex crimes against minors during two 12 month periods: July 1, 2000 Kimberly Mitchell through June 30, 2001 (Wave 1) and calendar year 2006 (Wave 2).
* For both Waves, we used a two‐phase process of mail surveys followed by Publicity about “online predators” – sex of‐ telephone interviews to collect data from a national sample of the same lo‐ fenders who use the Internet to meet juvenile cal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. First, we sent the victims – has raised considerable alarm about mail surveys to a national sample of more than 2,500 agencies. These sur‐ the extent to which Internet use may be put‐ veys asked if agencies had made arrests for online sex crimes against minors ting children and adolescents at risk for sexual during the respective one‐year timeframes. Then we conducted detailed abuse and exploitation. Media stories and telephone interviews with law enforcement investigators about a random Internet safety messages have raised fears by sample of arrest cases reported in the mail surveys. describing violent offenders who use the Inter‐ net to prey on naïve children by tricking them For the telephone interviews, we designed a sampling procedure that took into face‐to‐face meetings or tracking them into account the number of arrests reported by an agency, so that we would down through information posted online. Law not unduly burden respondents in agencies with many cases. If an agency enforcement has mobilized on a number of reported between one and three arrests for online sex crimes, we conducted fronts, setting up task forces to identify and follow‐up interviews for every case. For agencies that reported more than prosecute online predators, developing under‐ three arrests, we conducted interviews for all cases that involved youth vic‐ cover operations, and urging social networking tims (victims who were located and contacted during the investigation), and sites to protect young users. sampled other arrest cases (i.e., crimes that solely involved undercover op‐ erations in which investigators posed online as minors, or child pornography Unfortunately, however, reliable information possession and distribution). In some agencies, we could not find out which on the scope and nature of the online predator cases had youth victims, so we sampled from all arrest cases. problem remains scarce. Established criminal justice data collection systems do not gather The final data set, weighted to account for sampling procedures and non‐ detailed data on such crimes that could help response, includes data from 1,663 completed case‐level interviews, 612 inform public policy and education. To remedy from Wave 1 of the N‐JOV Study and 1,051 from Wave 2. Having weighted this information vacuum, the Crimes against data which is based on a representative sampling of law enforcement agen‐ Children Research Center at the University of cies and arrest cases allows us to estimate the incidence of arrests for spe‐ New Hampshire conducted two waves of a cific types of crimes during the timeframes of Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the N‐ JOV Study.
The estimates described in this report are based on a subgroup of arrests * Sex offenders who use the Internet to seek underage vic‐ that includes 726 unweighted case level interviews (Wave 1, n=129 for youth tims have been widely characterized as “online predators.” We are using the expression “online predator” in this report victim cases and n=124 for solicitations to undercover investigators; Wave 2, because it has gained so much currency. At the same time, n=120 for youth victim cases and n=353 for solicitations to undercover inves‐ readers must recognize that the term “predator” can mis‐ tigators. characterize some offenders in this study by giving the im‐ pression that these are uniformly highly motivated, repeti‐ tive, and aggressive sex offenders. In reality, sex offenders A full report on the methodology of the N‐JOV Study is posted online at: who target juveniles are a diverse group that cannot be accu‐ http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/N‐JOV2_methodology_report.pdf rately characterized with one‐dimensional labels. Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 2
longitudinal study, the National Juvenile enforcement, the facts do not sug‐ FINDINGS Online Victimization (N‐JOV) Study. This gest that the Internet is facilitating Arrests of online predators increased research collected data from a national an epidemic of sex crimes against between 2000 and 2006. Most arrests sample of law enforcement agencies youth. Rather, increasing arrests and the majority of the increase in‐ about crimes by online predators during for online predation probably re‐ volved offenders who solicited under‐ two 12 month periods–July 1, 2000 flect increasing rates of youth Inter‐ cover investigators, not actual youth. through June 30, 2001 (Wave 1) and net use, a migration of crime from We classified arrested online preda‐ calendar year 2006 (Wave 2). This study offline to online venues, and the tors into two mutually exclusive cate‐ is the only systematic research that ex‐ growth of law enforcement activity gories according to whether their ar‐ amines the number of arrests of these against online crimes. rests were for: 1) “youth victim offenders, the characteristics of their • The nature of crimes in which crimes” that involved youth victims crimes, and the scope of related law online predators used the Internet ages 17 or younger or 2) “solicitations enforcement activity. to meet and victimize youth to undercover (UC) investigators” who changed little between 2000 and were posing online as minors. Any KEY FINDINGS 2006, despite the advent of social offender whose crime involved a In this first report incorporating data networking sites. Victims were ado‐ youth victim was put in the first cate‐ from Wave 2 of the N‐JOV study, we lescents, not younger children. gory whether or not an undercover examine the number of arrests of and Most offenders were open about investigation was also involved. nature of crimes committed by online their sexual motives in their online predators including those who victim‐ communications with youth. Few Arrests for youth victim crimes. In ized youth and those who solicited un‐ crimes (5%) involved violence. 2006, law enforcement at all levels dercover investigators posing online as • There was no evidence that online nationwide made an estimated 615 youth. predators were stalking or abduct‐ arrests (95% CI = 468 to 763) for ing unsuspecting victims based on crimes in which youth victims were Some key findings of the report are: information they posted at social solicited for sex by someone they met • Between 2000 and 2006, there was networking sites. online (see Figure 1). This constituted a 21% increase in arrests of offend‐ • There was a significant increase in an increase in arrests of 21% over ers who solicited youth online for arrests of young adult offenders, 2000, when there were an estimated sex. During the same time, there ages 18 to 25. 508 such arrests (95% CI = 405 to 611). was a 381% increase in arrests of • Few of those arrested for online offenders who solicited undercover predation were registered sex of‐ Arrests for solicitations of UC investi‐ investigators posing as youth. fenders (4%). gators. In 2006, law enforcement • In 2006, of those arrested for solic‐ made an estimated 3,100 arrests (95% iting online, 87% solicited under‐ These findings point to several conclu‐ CI = 2,277 to 3,923) for solicitations to cover investigators and 13% solic‐ sions: First, law enforcement appears to UC investigators posing online as mi‐ ited youth. be having success in investigating, ar‐ nors, compared to an estimated 644 • During the same period that online resting and prosecuting online preda‐ such arrests (95% CI = 327 to 961) in predator arrests were increasing, tors, particularly by using undercover 2000. This was a 381% increase. overall sex offenses against children techniques. Second, based on the scope and adolescents were declining, as of and trend in arrests for online preda‐ These estimates of arrests are not full were overall arrests for such crimes. tion, it is premature to conclude that measures of the number of crimes • Arrests of online predators in 2006 the Internet is an unusually dangerous committed by online predators or constituted about 1% of all arrests environment. Nonetheless, continuing even the number of such crimes for sex crimes committed against research is needed to assess and moni‐ known to law enforcement. Many sex children and youth. tor the relative risk of Internet use in crimes against minors never come to 3,4 • During the interval between the general and of specific contexts, such as the attention of law enforcement, two studies (2000 ‐ 2006), the per‐ social networking sites. Third, current and many of those known to law en‐ 5 centage of U.S. youth Internet users prevention strategies and messages forcement do not culminate in arrest. ages 12‐17 increased from 73% to need to be revised to accurately reflect However, these estimates do provide 93%.1,2 the nature of crimes committed by a means to gauge the growth of these • Although arrests of online preda‐ online predators. crimes, their number relative to other tors are increasing, especially ar‐ sex crimes against minors, and the rests for soliciting undercover law extent of law enforcement activity Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 3
Figure 1. Online predator arrests increased nationwide from 2000 to 2006 These trends were extensions of de‐ clines in sex crimes against minors un‐ derway since the early 1990s that have 2000 2006 continued through 2006. The magni‐ tude of these declines since the early 3500 1990s has been quite large. For exam‐ 3000 ple, the number of sexual abuse cases 3100 substantiated by child protective au‐ 2500 thorities declined 52% between 1992 6 2000 and 2005. Sexual assault rates as re‐ 381% ported by teenagers to the National arrests 1500 Crime Victimization Survey declined by of 7 # 52% between 1993 and 2005. The fact 1000 21% that the evidence for declines in sexual 500 abuse comes from victim self‐report 508 615 664 surveys as well as official child protec‐ 0 tive services and criminal justice system Youth victim cases Solicitations to UC Only data tends to undermine the objection that these trends might be due simply to reduced reporting or changes in in‐ only a few years after the emergence of sex crimes against children (and sex vestigatory or statistical procedures.8 online predation as a public policy con‐ crimes in general) were on the de‐ Other indicators reflective of real de‐ cern. cline. These trends are apparent from clines in sexual victimization rates have multiple sources (see Figure 2). From also improved. For example, the rate of While there was an increase in arrests of 2000 to 2006, forcible rape arrests pregnancy among teenagers declined offenders using the Internet to seek sex involving juvenile victims, estimated 38% between 1990 and 2004,9 the per‐ with minors, there was during the same from the Uniform Crime Report, de‐ centage of teens engaging in sexual in‐ period a decrease in reports of overall clined 16%. During the same time tercourse decreased and fewer children sex offenses against children and ado‐ period, arrests for all sex offenses were running away from home.7 So lescents and a decrease in arrests for against juveniles estimated from the while arrests of online predators in‐ such crimes. FBI NIBRS data collection system de‐ creased, the larger overall sex crime During the interval between Wave 1 and clined by 10%, with a decrease of 7% problem against children appeared to Wave 2 of the N‐JOV Study while arrests for the sub‐group of victims who were have been abating. for online predation were increasing, ages 13 to 17. The nature of crimes in which sex of‐ Figure 2. Arrests for forcible rapes and other sex crimes with victims fenders used the Internet to meet and younger than 18 declined from 2000 to 2006 victimize youth changed little between 2000 and 2006, despite the advent of social networking sites. 2000 2006 Findings from Wave 1 of the N‐JOV
60,000 54,693 Study indicated that the stereotype of the online predator who used trickery 50,000 49,345 and violence to stalk, abduct or assault 40,000 young children was largely inaccu‐ 10,11 30,279 rate. Most crimes by arrested online 30,000 28,226 arrests
20,652 predators involved adolescent victims of
# 20,000 17,248 who knew they were communicating 10,000 online with older adults who wanted 508 615 664 3,100 sex. Most victims who met offenders 0 face‐to‐face went to such meetings ex‐ Online youth Online Forcible rapes, All sex crimes, All sex crimes, pecting to engage in sexual activity. victim cases solicitations to victims 0‐17 victims 0‐17 victims 13‐17 Most offenders were charged with UC, Only crimes such as statutory rape that Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 4
involved non‐forcible sexual activity Figure 3. The nature of crimes by arrested offenders against youth vic‐ with victims who were too young to tims changed little between 2000 and 2008 consent to sexual intercourse with adults. Violence, stalking and abduction 2000 2006 were rare. When offenders solicited undercover investigators, the case dy‐ 97% namics were consistent with this pat‐ Victim 13 to 17 93% 80% tern as well.12 While these crimes rep‐ Met via chat 40% 0% resented serious threats to the well‐ Met via SNS 33% 21% being of young people at the hands of Deceit ‐ sex 15% 5% unscrupulous adults, they differed from Deceit ‐ minor 20% 76% the image of online predation that many F2F mtg 73% 4% people have. Violence 5% 3% Abduction 2% Despite these findings, the dynamics of crimes by online predators are still often 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% misunderstood. For example, the wide‐ % of arrests spread use of social networking sites by adolescents has led some to propose that sex offenders are commonly using • First, in 2000 80% of cases were were initiated with contacts in vic‐ information that youth post online at initiated through contacts in chat‐ tims’ social networking sites. such sites to track down unsuspecting rooms, while this was true of only (Social networking sites were not victims and stalk or abduct them. 40% of cases in 2006 (p<.001). By being used by youth at Wave 1 of
contrast, in 2006 33% of cases the N‐JOV Study). However, this Data from Wave 2 of the N‐JOV Study suggest, however, that the nature of crimes by arrested online predators Crimes by Online Predators: Case Examples against youth victims changed little be‐ tween 2000 and 2006 (see Figure 3). Case #1. Police in a West Coast state found child pornography in the possession We found that in 2006 as in 2000, youth of the 22‐year‐old offender. The offender, who was from a Northeastern state, victims were young adolescents. Sev‐ confessed to befriending a 13‐year‐old local boy online, travelling to the West enty‐three percent were ages 13 to 15, Coast, and meeting him for sex. Prior to the meeting, the offender and victim similar to 2000 when 76%* of victims had corresponded online for about six months. The offender had sent the victim were in that age group. None were age nude images via webcam and e‐mail and they had called and texted each other 10 or younger. Most victims were girls, hundreds of times. When they met for sex, the offender took graphic pictures of but boys were 16% of victims, compared the encounter. The victim believed he was in love with the offender. He lived to 25%* in 2000. In 2006, 85% of of‐ alone with his father and was struggling to fit in and come to terms with being fenders were open about their sexual gay. The offender possessed large quantities of child pornography that he had motives, compared to 79%* in 2000. downloaded from the Internet. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Sexual violence against victims was rare, * 5% of arrests in 2006 and 4% in 2000 . Case #2. A 24‐year‐old man met a 14‐year‐old girl at a social networking site. He In 2006, 73% of cases with youth victims claimed to be 19. Their online conversation became romantic and sexual and the progressed from online contact to face‐ victim believed she was in love. They met several times for sex over a period of to‐face meetings and illegal sexual activ‐ weeks. The offender took nude pictures of the victim and gave her alcohol and * ity, as did 76% in 2000. In most cases drugs. Her mother and stepfather found out and reported the crime to the po‐ the sex was illegal because the victims lice. The victim was lonely, had issues with drugs and alcohol, and problems at were too young to consent. school and with her parents. She had posted provocative pictures of herself on her social networking site. She had met other men online and had sex with them. There were, however, several differ‐ The offender was a suspect in another online enticement case. He was found ences between online predation cases guilty but had not been sentenced at time of the interview. with youth victims that ended in arrest in 2006 compared to those in 2000. * This difference was not statistically significant. Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 5
difference did not appear to signal involved abduction, and it also did not those who solicited undercover investi‐ changes in case dynamics and match the stereotype of a stranger gators (see Figure 4). In both waves of probably simply reflected the shift snatching an unsuspecting victim. In the N‐JOV Study, virtually all offenders of online social interaction from that case, the offender violated crimi‐ (99%) were male. Most were white, other Internet venues to social net‐ nal abduction statutes when he took non‐Hispanic although in 2006 a some‐ working sites by 2006.13 the victim somewhere against her will what higher proportion of online preda‐ • A second difference from 2000 was after, not prior, to a sexual assault tors came from minority groups (16% in that in 2006 a greater proportion of 2006 compared to 10% in 2000, p<.05). the offenders claimed to be minors There was a significant increase in This may reflect increased Internet ac‐ at some point during their online arrests of young adult offenders, ages cess among minority racial and ethnic communications with victims, al‐ 18 to 25. groups in 2006 compared to 2000.14,15 though this ploy was still a factor in Between 2000 and 2006, we found There was no change in the percentage only a minority of cases. In 2000, few changes in the characteristics of of arrested offenders with substance only 5% of cases involved offenders those arrested for online predation abuse problems (15% in 2000, 14% in who lied by originally telling victims when we examined offenders’ gen‐ 2006*), histories of violence (9% in 2000, they were age 17 or younger. In der, race, criminal history and related 5% in 2006*), or prior arrests for of‐ 2006, this happened in 20% of cases problems such as substance abuse. fenses that were not sexual (19% in (p<.001). This consistency was true for offend‐ 2000, 21% in 2006*). Curiously, the pro‐ • Third, in 2006 fewer cases involved ers against youth victims as well as portion of arrested offenders two or more face‐to‐face meetings between offenders and victims. In Stalking Cases 2000, 54% of cases involved re‐ Case #1. This 24‐year‐old offender and his 15‐year‐old victim had at least three peated meeting, but by 2006 that face‐to‐face meetings over two or three years. The investigator said the stalking was true of only 39% (p<.05). occurred late in the relationship when the offender “moved to [the city] where • Finally, in 2006 somewhat fewer [the victim] lived even though she didn't want to continue the relationship.” cases involved offenders or victims who traveled more than 50 miles to Case #2. According to the police investigator, this offender, age 36, harassed or a face‐to‐face meeting, 24% of stalked the victim, age 14, by making “many unwelcome phone calls.” However, cases compared to 37% in 2000 the victim was described as being in love with the offender. She was in phone (p<.05). contact with him for months and continued phone contact after her mother tried to stop the relationship. The victim ran away from home to be with the offender, There was no evidence that online who hid her from police when he found out they were looking for her. predators were stalking or abducting Case #3. The offender, age 41, and victim, age 13, met on a telephone chat line. unsuspecting victims based on informa‐ They communicated via cell phone. They met face‐to‐face at least once for sex. tion posted at social networking sites. Both claimed to be in love. The investigator said the offline harassment or stalk‐ Some have voiced fears that online ing occurred when the offender “had a friend call [the victim’s] house because he predators would use information posted still loved her.” by youth at social networking sites to track down unknowing victims, stalk and The Only Abduction Case abduct them, but we found no cases that reflected this scenario. We specifi‐ The victim, age 17, was raped by the offender when she went to his home to cally asked about offline stalking and meet him. He was a 22 year old man she met online at a social networking site. abduction in all Wave 2 youth victim After the rape, the victim wanted the offender to drive her back home. He re‐ cases. There were only three cases fused and, instead, drove her to a nearby town where he planned to abandon where the investigators we interviewed her. The victim called 911 on her cell phone and told police the offender would said offline stalking occurred, but all of not let her get out of his car. He was arrested and charged with sexual assault these incidents happened after offend‐ and kidnapping. The investigator said the offender was involved in sexual bond‐ ers and victims had already met face‐to‐ age and sadism. face (see Inset). None involved vio‐ lence, and it is not clear that any would have met legal definitions of stalking that require patterns of harassment or * This difference was not statistically significant. threatening behavior. Only one case Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 6
Figure 4. The characteristics of those arrested for online predation the coming of age of the first cohort of changed little between 2000 and 2006 youth to grow up with the Internet. Adults ages 18 to 25 may be more likely 2000 2006 than older adults to use the Internet when engaging in deviant behavior.
99% Male 99% Few of those arrested for online preda‐ 90% Non‐Hispanic white 84% tion were registered sex offenders. 15% Of the online predators who were ar‐ Substance abuse 14% rested for crimes against youth victims, 9% History of violence 5% 10% in 2006 and 9%* in 2000 had prior 19% Prior arrests‐non sex 21% arrests for sex offenses against minors (see Figure 6). Only 4% of those ar‐ Possessed CP 40% 21% rested for crimes against youth victims 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% in 2006 were registered sex offenders, as were only 2%* of those arrested in % of arrests 2000. Among offenders arrested for soliciting UC investigators, 3% in 2006 and 4%* in 2000 had prior arrests for sex who possessed child pornography, how‐ offenders (ages 18 to 25). There was offenses against minors, and 2% of 2006 ever, decreased by almost half (40% in no increase in the estimated numbers arrestees compared to 0%* of arrestees 2000, 21% in 2006, p<.001). of arrests of online predators in other in 2000 were registered sex offenders. age groups. The percentage of ar‐ One potentially important change was rested offenders who solicited UC While registration is one of the steps that a larger percentage of those ar‐ investigators also increased sharply that the criminal justice system has rested for online predation in 2006 were among young adults, from 7% of ar‐ taken to monitor convicted sex offend‐ young adults, ages 18 to 25 (see Figure rests in 2000 to 34% in 2006 ers and reduce re‐offending, aiming 5). The percentage of offenders in that (p<.0001). strategies to prevent online predation at age range increased from 23% in 2000 this population may have limited utility to 40% in 2006 (p<.05), for cases with This increase in young adult offenders because so few online predators are youth victims. In fact, for youth victim does not correspond to any overall registered sex offenders. crimes, the overall increase in arrests in increase in sex criminality within this 2006 appeared to be entirely attribut‐ age group suggested by other IMPLICATIONS able to more arrests of young adult sources. It may be a consequence of Why would arrests of online predators increase while arrests for overall sex Figure 5. There were significant increases in arrests of young adult of‐ crimes against children declined? fenders, ages 18 to 25, from 2000 to 2006 This report finds a large increase in ar‐ rests for sexual predation online at the 2000 2006 same time that overall sex crimes 100% against children have been declining. 90% This may appear to be a paradox, but there are a number of ways to reconcile 80% these contrasting trends. 25 ‐ 70% 18 60% First, as shown in Figure 2, arrests of 50% online predators make up a relatively Age,
40% 40% 34% small proportion of arrests for sex 30% 23% crimes against children in general. The 615 arrests for youth victim crimes were
Offender 20% 7% about 1% of all arrests for nonforcible % 10% sex crimes against actual minors and 2% 0% Youth victim cases Solicitations to UC Only * This difference was not statistically significant. Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 7
Figure 6. Few of those arrested for online predation were registered sex Publicity about online predators may offenders have led to citizens being more likely to recognize and report such cases. Such increases in law enforcement activity 2000 2006 are generally associated with rising ar‐ 100% rests, even when there is no underlying 90% 80% change or even a decline in underlying 70% criminal activity. 60% 50% arrests
Fourth, aggressive law enforcement 40% of 30% activity related to online predation % 20% 9% 10% could actually be reducing overall sex 10% 2% 4% 4% 3% 0% 2% crimes against minors. Arrests of of‐ 0% fenders who solicited UC investigators Prior Registered Prior Registered saw the largest increase and constituted sex arrests sex offender sex arrests sex offender the largest proportion of arrests of Youth victim cases Solicitations to UC Only online predators – an estimated 3,100 arrests in 2006. Arrests of these offend‐ ers, some of whom may be at early of arrests for nonforcible sex crimes crimes could be increasing even while stages in their offending careers,12 may committed against youth ages 13 to 17. total crimes fall. be preventing the victimization of some Because online predation involves a youth. new and relatively rare crime pattern, Third, there has been an undeniably arrests could grow by large orders of large expansion of law enforcement Law enforcement authorities report that magnitude and still not affect overall activity online. The number of agen‐ it is easy to locate sexually predatory arrest rates by much. In spite of the cies funded to pursue online child behavior toward youth online. Some media attention that online predators sexual exploitation crimes has in‐ law enforcement officials have sug‐ have received, it is important to bear in creased, as has the number of trained gested they could easily increase num‐ mind that in the larger context of sex law enforcement investigators. Be‐ bers of arrests even further. But the crimes against children, offenders who tween 2000 and 2006, the number of discovery that the Internet provides a victimize children and youth within their Internet Crimes against Children ready window on sex criminality does families or networks of acquaintances (ICAC) Regional Task Forces funded by not mean necessarily that Internet use are much more common than those the US Department of Justice grew by sex offenders has increased the over‐ who use the Internet to meet victims. from 30 to 46. By 2006, the ICAC Task all quantity of sexual predation of chil‐ Forces had formed partnerships with dren. Nonetheless, the possibility that Second, Internet use, as it grows to oc‐ approximately 1,300 affiliate law en‐ Internet use is fueling sex crimes against cupy more of social life in general, could forcement agencies at the local, state, children at present or could do so in the simply be encompassing sex crimes that county and federal levels; and had a future does need to be taken seriously. may have heretofore originated in other presence in all 50 states. Training The ongoing trends and risks to children environments. Sex offenders may be programs for investigating Internet‐ need to be carefully monitored. substituting online for offline strategies, related child sexual exploitation so that increases in cases where offend‐ crimes have been in place and grow‐ Signs of law enforcement success. ers meet victims online are balanced by ing since around 1999, so that in‐ After six years of considerable law en‐ decreases in cases in which they meet creasing numbers of law enforcement forcement mobilization in response to victims other ways. For example, sex personnel have been trained in inves‐ online predators between 2000 and offenders who before the widespread tigating crimes by online predators. 2006, there has been a marked increase use of the Internet would have gone to New reporting mechanisms have been in arrests of those who would try to use places such as shopping malls, parks, put in place, such as the CyberTipline, the Internet to recruit minors for sexual and roller rinks to meet potential ado‐ operated by the National Center for activity. Most of these arrests have oc‐ lescent victims may now be using online Missing & Exploited Children. There curred through the use of undercover arenas where youth congregate, such as was also increased public awareness decoys posing online as young adoles‐ chat rooms or social networking sites. brought about by television shows cents. Our earlier evaluation of this law Because of this displacement, online such as “To Catch a Predator” and enforcement activity suggested that news accounts of such online crimes. overall this was being carried out Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 8
responsibly by specially trained officers ment studies are needed because education.11 The reality, evidenced in multi‐agency operations, and that it there is a great deal that remains to from 249 interviews about specific ar‐ had resulted in conviction rates as high be understood about Internet use and rest cases with youth victims conducted as or higher than other sex crime inves‐ its impact on youth safety. Nonethe‐ with police investigators in the two tigations.12 Given the overall declines in less, the fact that overall sex crime waves of this research, is that the vic‐ sex crimes against minors and in the rates have been declining during the tims of online predators are almost ex‐ absence of evidence that police author‐ time that Internet use has expanded clusively teenagers who go knowingly to ity is being abused, we are inclined to to virtually the entire adolescent meet men whom they know to be con‐ see this as a sign of a successful initia‐ population is reassuring. siderably older and interested in sex. tive to deploy law enforcement in a do‐ Most of these victims are drawn into main where criminal sexual activities Social networking sites are not neces‐ relationships with offenders after ex‐ may be migrating, as well as the suc‐ sarily dangerous environments. tended online exchanges and because cessful adaptation of new technology to We found that, in 2006, 33% of crimes they are looking for romance, sexual improve police effectiveness. with youth victims involved initial adventure or validation. There is little contact between arrested offenders stalking, deception, violence, abduction These findings do not suggest that the and victims that occurred at victims’ or forcible rape. Online predators com‐ Internet is more dangerous than other social networking sites. This may re‐ mit serious sex crimes and take advan‐ environments that children and adoles‐ inforce recent concerns that social tage of vulnerable youth, but effective cents frequent. networking sites are risky environ‐ prevention strategies need to describe The findings here should emphatically ments. But findings like those of this how these crimes actually come about if NOT be interpreted to suggest that the study do not mean that social net‐ their occurrence is to be prevented or Internet is a dangerous environment for working sites are necessarily danger‐ short‐circuited; otherwise, the adoles‐ children or youth or that the Internet is ous or promoting sex crimes. When a cents involved may not recognize these ridden with sex crimes or becoming medium becomes used by a huge por‐ events as crimes. more dangerous. The levels of arrests tion of the population – in 2006 55% of online predators revealed in this of youth ages 12 to 17 used social For example, we think that more efforts study are quite small compared to total networking sites,13 an estimated 14 need to be made to educate and dis‐ arrests for sex crimes as evidenced by million youth based on census num‐ courage teens from engaging in sexual national crime data. Moreover, the bers (numbers for adult users were and romantic relationships with older growing number of arrests of online not available) – it inevitably becomes partners. Youth awareness also needs predators is best interpreted as a prod‐ a venue for deviant activity by some, to be raised about age of consent and uct of the increasing range of the Inter‐ but it is not necessarily a risk‐ statutory rape laws, the illegality of net and the increasing aggressiveness of promoter. As indicated earlier, stud‐ cross generational sexual solicitation law enforcement activity online. ies are needed about specific activi‐ online, the inadvisability of teens engag‐ To judge how comparatively dangerous ties and environments of young peo‐ ing in sexual conversations and exchang‐ Internet use is we need community ple that are associated with risk. But ing sexual or provocative images with studies of young people that assess the so far studies have not shown that strangers and presenting themselves in full range of sexual victimizations they simply using a social networking site is sexualized descriptions online. These suffer and determine what characteris‐ risky in the absence of other behav‐ sorts of messages are more likely to tics and activities are associated with iors such as responding to sexual address the real dynamics of the crime increased risk. However, the studies of overtures made via such sites.20,21* than warnings about being stalked by child sexual abuse and exploitation that The fact that some online predation someone who obtains personal informa‐ have been conducted to date suggest involved the use of social networking tion posted online. that it is not being online or even being sites may simply reflect the broad use visible to strangers online that puts of such sites as a communication and Beyond registered sex offenders. young people at risk. When Internet interaction tool in current society. Some recent Internet safety debates use puts them in danger, it appears to have dwelt on restricting online access involve specific high risk activities like Revising prevention strategies. for registered sex offenders. The cur‐ talking online about sex with unknown The findings of the N‐JOV study reiter‐ rent study found that only 4% of online people.16,17 Moreover, the greatest ex‐ ate conclusions from earlier studies predators arrested for crimes against posure of children and adolescents to that the dynamics of crimes by online sex crimes is at the hands of people who predators differ from how such crimes * It should also be noted that social networking sites are already a part of their families and are often conceived by the public and have implemented a number of new safety initiatives social networks.18,19 More risk assess‐ characterized in much Internet safety since 2006. Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 9
youth victims were registered sex of‐ children, but misguided action based 8. Finkelhor D, Jones LM. Explanations fenders, as were 2% of those arrested on mistaken assumptions may waste for the decline in child sexual abuse for soliciting undercover investigators. time and resources, and it may even cases. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Thus, it is important for the public and undermine the current and future 2004(January):1‐12. officials to know that policies targeted effectiveness of protection efforts. 9. National Center for Health Statis‐ at registered sex offenders are aimed at We need a sound, regularly updated tics. NCHS Data on teenage preg‐ a very small part of the problem. Inter‐ research agenda to inform evidence‐ nancy: Center for Disease Control net safety needs to be designed with based education and prevention pro‐ and Prevention (CDC). the assumption that most online preda‐ grams geared toward promoting child http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/info tors are not registered offenders and and adolescent safety as the Internet sheets/infosheet_teen_preg.htm have no prior record. Thus, other and other communication technolo‐ Updated September 2008. Accessed mechanisms for deterring this behavior gies continue to evolve and prolifer‐ February 18, 2009. need to be designed. ate. 10. Wolak J, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K. Internet‐initiated sex crimes against Pursuit of conventional child molesters. REFERENCES minors: Implications for prevention The broader statistical picture revealed 1. Macgill AR. Parent and teenager based on findings from a national by the N‐JOV Study is that, despite in‐ Internet use. Washington, DC: study. The Journal of Adolescent creases, crimes by online predators are PEW/Internet; October 24 2007. Health: Official Publication of the still a small percentage of total sex 2. Lenhart A, Rainie L, Lewis O. Society for Adolescent Medicine. crimes committed against children and Teenage life online: The rise of 2004; 35(5):424.e411‐420. adolescents. Thus, public policy should the instant‐message generation 11. Wolak J, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K, be careful not to abandon or underfund and the Internet's impact on Ybarra M. Online "predators" and the investigation of conventional child friendships and family relation‐ their victims: Myths, realities and molestation. Using the Internet to seek ships. Washington, D.C.: Pew implications for prevention and out sex offenders who solicit investiga‐ Internet & American Life Project; treatment. American Psychologist. tors posing online as minors has a clear 2001. 2008; 63(2):111‐128. value, as well as an appeal to law en‐ 3. Finkelhor D, Ormrod RK. Charac‐ 12. Mitchell KJ, Wolak J, Finkelhor D. forcement, which is utilizing technology teristics of crimes against juve‐ Police posing as juveniles online to and sophisticated undercover tech‐ niles. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. catch sex offenders: Is it working? niques regarding a crime of considerable 2000(June):1‐11. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research public concern. But conventional child 4. Kilpatrick DG, Saunders BE, Smith and Treatment. 2005; 17(3):241‐ molestation – abusive fathers, DW. Youth victimization: Preva‐ 267. neighbors, teachers and family friends ‐‐ lence and implications. Washing‐ 13. Lenhart A, Madden M. Social net‐ still constitutes a much larger part of the ton, DC: U.S. Department of Jus‐ working websites and teens: An problem than online predation. There is tice; 2003. overview. Washington, D.C.: PEW every reason for law enforcement to 5. Finkelhor D, Cross TP, Cantor EN. Internet & American Life Project; continue to mount aggressive efforts to The justice system for juvenile January 3 2007. combat sexual abuse of children both victims: A comprehensive model 14. Fox S, Livingston G. Latinos online: on‐ and offline. of case flow. Trauma, Violence & Hispanics with lower levels of edu‐ Abuse. 2005; 6(2):83‐102. cation and English proficiency re‐ More research is needed. 6. Finkelhor D, Jones L. Good news: main largely disconnected from the The discussions about online predators Child victimization has been de‐ Internet. Pew Hispanic Center, reveal an enormous need for additional clining. Why? In: Finkelhor D, ed. Washington, DC; 2007. information. What sites and what ac‐ Child victimization: Violence, 15. Lenhart A, Rainie L, Fox S, Horrigan tivities put young people at risk? What crimes, and abuse in the lives of J, Spooner T. Who’s not online: 57% kinds of online protections and educa‐ young people. New York: Oxford of those without Internet access say tion can help protect youth? How do University Press; 2008:122‐147. they do not plan to log on. Washing‐ online predators compare to offline sex 7. Finkelhor D, Jones L. Why have ton, D.C.: Pew Internet & American offenders in their risk to reoffend? child maltreatment and child vic‐ Life Project; 2000. There is much that we still do not know, timization declined? Journal of 16. Wolak J, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K. Is and because the Internet is a new and Social Issues. 2006; 62(4):685‐ talking online to unknown people rapidly changing environment the need 716. always risky? Distinguishing online for current information is particularly interaction styles in a national sam‐ acute. People are keen to act to protect ple of youth Internet users. CyberP Trends in Arrests of Online Predators Page 10
sychology & Behavior. 2008; 11(3):340‐343. Figure Notes 17. Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Wolak J. Inter‐ net prevention messages: Targeting the right online The estimates in Figures 1, 4, 5 & 6 are based on 726 un‐ behaviors. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent weighted case level interviews (Wave 1 YR 2000, n=129 for Medicine. 2007; 161(2):138‐145. youth victim cases and n=124 for solicitations to UC only; Wave 18. Finkelhor D, Hammer H, Sedlak A. Sexually as‐ 2 YR 2006, n=120 for youth victim cases and n=353 for solicita‐ saulted children: National estimates and character‐ tions to UC only). istics: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; August 2008. In Figure 2, arrests for forcible rapes with victims ages 0 to 17 19. Finkelhor D, Ormrod R, Turner H, Hamby SL. The are estimated from the Uniform Crime Report. Arrests for all victimization of children and youth: A comprehen‐ sex crimes with victims ages 0 to 17 and the subgroup of vic‐ sive, national survey. Child Maltreatment. 2005; tims 13 to 17 are estimated from the National Incident‐Based 10(1):207‐207. Reporting System. Based on these numbers, arrests for forcible 20. Mitchell K, Wolak J, Finkelhor D. Are blogs putting rapes of juvenile victims decreased by 16% between 2000 and youths at risk for online sexual solicitation or har‐ 2006; arrests for all sex crimes against juveniles decreased by assment? Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007; 32:277‐294. 10%; arrests for all sex crimes against teenage victims de‐ 21. Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ. How risky are social net‐ creased by 7%. Arrests for solicitations to UC investigators in‐ working sites? A comparison of places online where creased 381%; arrests for online predation against youth vic‐ youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. tims increased 21%. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(2):350‐357. 22. Wolak J, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K, Ybarra M. Online "predators" and their victims: Myths, realities and Figure 3 estimates are based on 249 unweighted case level in‐ implications for prevention and treatment. Ameri‐ terviews (Wave 1 YR 2000, n=129; Wave 2 YR 2006, n=120). can Psychologist. 2008; 63(2):111‐128. “SNS” social networking site; “Deceit – sex” the offender was deceitful about sexual motives; “Deceit – minor” the offender claimed to be a minor; “F2F mtg” the offender and victim met face‐to‐face. Acknowledgements This project was made possible through Grant Num‐ In Figure 4, “al” alcohol, “CP” child pornography, “Prior arrests‐ bers 2005‐JL‐FX‐0048 and 2006‐JP‐FX‐0061 awarded not sex” prior arrests for crimes that were not sex offenses. by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre‐ vention, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice in the amount of $695,482. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. Some of Janis Wolak’s effort was supported by a fellowship from the Verizon Foundation. We are grateful to the many law enforcement investigators who participated in this research and to the talents, perseverance, and interviewing skills of research assistants Dianne Ramey, Elisabeth Cloyd, Brynn Dunne, Rick Dumont, Tonya Prescott, and Kaitlin Lounsbury. Thanks to Kelly Foster and Toby Ball for help in the production of the bulletin.