July 26, 2011
5. Newblog2011: 07/26/11 The crimes listed as examples of "nuisance" offenses aren't even the crimes that are considered the worst ones by a lot of investigators, so what does that tell you about how bad sex crimes against children really get?
“A central theme of this publication is to emphasize the “big-picture” approach
to investigation. In short a reported case of a 12-year-old child molester requires an
investigation of more than just the reported crime. Many people have an idea the
cycle of abuse only means child victims grow up and become adult offenders. It can
also mean the same individual is both a victim and offender at the same time. For
example say a man sexually molests a 13-year-old boy. The 13-year-old boy goes
home and molests his 7-year-old brother. The 7-year-old brother then molests the
baby his mother is babysitting. The investigation of the last activity should lead
back to the first crime.”
(p. 19)
--From “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis For Professionals Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children, 2010, Lanning
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 2011
It’s a problem that not enough laws have been passed to deal with sex crimes against children. What the people who are now obviously promoting child molestation have been saying since last year is that the pictures, ads and suggestions being made aren’t illegal; that is part of how the promoters have been able to keep the campaign going while they have moved the conversation from “the suggestions aren’t illegal” to “isn’t it possible that it’s normal, healthy and beneficial, both for children and for adults, for everyone to have sex with children?”
That has been the progression of the situation.
I also have felt that many of the people who haven’t been taking what’s been going on seriously, who are in denial, or who have lived relatively sheltered lives and so have no idea what humanity is capable of could benefit from reading specific examples of real cases. Today, I chose to put some information about “nuisance sex offenders” on this blog page. As you can read in the definition of “nuisance sex offenders,” they are people who commit crimes that aren’t considered as serious by many investigators as the majority of crimes that get investigated are.
In the excerpt entitled “Case Evaluation,” there are examples of some of the cases which Mr. Lanning worked on. Even though he accurately describes them as “bizarre,” they still fell under the category of being “nuisance sex offenses.” He says about them:
“In many of these cases it is difficult to prove the sexual motivation unless one
understands preferential sex offenders. Some are still not considered sex crimes or
not crimes at all, even if one can prove the sexual motivation.”
I’ve first provided the definitions that Mr. Lanning gives for some of the terms he uses in the excerpts from his report that I chose to put on my blog today.
Sentences and phrases which are both in bold print and underlined look that way because I emphasized them.
Also, the section "DEFINITIONS FROM THE REPORT" was created by me for this blog page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINITIONS FROM THE REPORT:
Paraphilias
Preferential Sex Offenders
Nuisance Sex Offenders
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paraphilias are psychosexual disorders defined for clinical and research purposes in
the DSM-IV-TR. They are defined there as recurrent, intense, and sexually arousing
fantasies, urges, or behaviors generally involving nonhuman objects, the suffering or
humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or children or other nonconsenting persons,
and that occur over a period of at least six months. Better known and more common
paraphilias include exhibitionism (exposure), fetishism (objects), frotteurism
(rubbing), pedophilia (child), sexual masochism (self pain), sexual sadism (partner
pain), and voyeurism (looking). Less known and less common paraphilias include
scatologia (talk), necrophilia (corpses), partialism (body parts), zoophilia (animals),
coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia (enemas), urophilia (urine), infantilism (baby),
hebephilia (female youth), ephebophilia (male youth) and theoretically many others
“not otherwise specified” (NOS)."
(p.16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Preferential Sex Offenders
Characteristics
A preferential sex offender can usually be identified by the behaviors noted below.
Long-Term and Persistent Pattern of Behavior
■ Begins pattern in early adolescence
■ Is willing to commit time, money, and energy
■ Commits multiple offenses
■ Makes ritual- or need-driven mistakes
Specific Sexual Interests
■ Manifests paraphilic preferences (may be multiple)
■ Focuses on defined sexual interests and victim characteristics
■ Centers life around preferences
■ Rationalizes sexual interests and validates behavior
Well-Developed Techniques
■ Evaluates experiences
■ Lies and manipulates, often skillfully
■ Has method of access to victims
■ Is quick to use modern technology (e.g., computer, video) for sexual needs
and purposes
Fantasy-Driven Behavior
■ Collects theme pornography
■ Collects paraphernalia, souvenirs, visual images, narratives
■ Records fantasies
■ Acts to turn repetitive fantasies into reality"
(p. 52)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nuisance Sex Offenders
The word “nuisance” is an unfortunate but descriptive term commonly applied
to sex offenses that occur frequently and are viewed as causing little or no harm
(i.e., financial loss or physical injury). Examples with which most investigators are
familiar include window peepers (voyeurism), flashers (exhibitionism), and obscene
callers (scatologia). Nuisance sex offenders are often linked to the sexual paraphilias.
As previously stated nuisance sex offenders are the sex offenders most likely to
exhibit predominately preferential motives and patterns. These cases, therefore, are
highly solvable if the cases can be captured and linked and the patterns and rituals
can be identified. They are usually given a low priority and not solved because
■ Most incidents are not reported to law enforcement
■ When they are reported they are either not recorded or recorded in a way that
makes retrieval difficult
■ Little, if any, manpower and resources are committed to the investigation
■ Law-enforcement agencies frequently do not communicate and cooperate with
each other concerning these cases
■ The specific crimes often involve minor violations of the law"
(p.44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Case Evaluation
Some “nuisance” sex offenses against children are more common than others. Some
of the more bizarre ones I have worked on over the years include an offender
engaging in behaviors for sexual gratification such as stealing soiled diapers being
worn by a baby; photographing children wearing diapers; squirting children with
a water pistol filled with semen; listening to children urinate in a school bathroom;
videotaping cheerleaders at a football game; having parents/guardians send
photographs of their children getting an enema; playing the master/servant game
by having children rest their feet on his prone body; tape recording boys belching;
window peeping at his own children; urinating on prostitutes, girlfriends, and his
own child; masturbating to videos of children’s autopsies; having children spit
in cups; buying soiled underwear from adolescent boys; leaving sexually explicit
images or communications for children or their parents/guardians to find; and
soliciting body fluids from boys on the Internet. The investigative priority of these
types of crimes can change rapidly when it is discovered the offender carries the
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or is entering homes in the middle of the
night. In many of these cases it is difficult to prove the sexual motivation unless one
understands preferential sex offenders. Some are still not considered sex crimes or
not crimes at all, even if one can prove the sexual motivation.
(p. 45-46)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 2011
I thought that the last two sentences in the previous paragraph from the report were highly relevant to what’s been going on over the past year.
Mr. Lanning goes on to say:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A big investigative issue in nuisance sex offenses is always the question of
progression to more serious offenses. Some nuisance sex offenders progress little
over the years in their criminal sexual behavior. Some progress to more serious sex
crimes and some move back and forth. Many investigators consider the possibility
a nuisance sex offender might progress to more serious crimes in the future, but they
ignore the possibility that he already has. An offender who has committed serious
sex offenses in the past might later engage in nuisance sex offenses for a variety of
reasons ranging from expediency to guilt and need-driven specific sexual preferences.
When evaluating nuisance sex offenders, investigators should consider focus,
escalation, theme, and response to identification. The fact that a nuisance sex offender
moves from victims meeting general criteria to specific victims is a potential danger
sign. Escalation over time is also a danger sign. Escalation can be evaluated only
when there are multiple offenses. Because of the low priority of the cases enumerated
above, this can be difficult to do.The cases that the investigator believes are
the first, second, and third, may actually be the tenth, sixteenth, and twenty-second.
Investigators should also consider the theme of the nuisance sex offenses. Not all
obscene calls or indecent exposures are the same. As will be discussed later in this
publication, specific details, not general labels, are needed. Lastly, in evaluating
dangerousness, investigators should consider the nuisance sex offender’s reaction to
identification. Did he become violent and aggressive? Is he indifferent to or aroused
by the response of his victims? Is he cooperative? Whatever their personal feelings,
investigators will almost always get more information, details, and admissions from
these offenders when they treat them with respect, dignity, and empathy.”
(p. 45-46)
-------------
5. Newblog2011: 07/26/11 The crimes listed as examples of "nuisance" offenses aren't even the crimes that are considered the worst ones by a lot of investigators, so what does that tell you about how bad sex crimes against children really get?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman July 26, 2011 @ 6:44 p.m./edits and additions @ 9:26 p.m.
5. Newblog2011: 07/26/11 The crimes listed as examples of "nuisance" offenses aren't even the crimes that are considered the worst ones by a lot of investigators, so what does that tell you about how bad sex crimes against children really get?
“A central theme of this publication is to emphasize the “big-picture” approach
to investigation. In short a reported case of a 12-year-old child molester requires an
investigation of more than just the reported crime. Many people have an idea the
cycle of abuse only means child victims grow up and become adult offenders. It can
also mean the same individual is both a victim and offender at the same time. For
example say a man sexually molests a 13-year-old boy. The 13-year-old boy goes
home and molests his 7-year-old brother. The 7-year-old brother then molests the
baby his mother is babysitting. The investigation of the last activity should lead
back to the first crime.”
(p. 19)
--From “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis For Professionals Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children, 2010, Lanning
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 2011
It’s a problem that not enough laws have been passed to deal with sex crimes against children. What the people who are now obviously promoting child molestation have been saying since last year is that the pictures, ads and suggestions being made aren’t illegal; that is part of how the promoters have been able to keep the campaign going while they have moved the conversation from “the suggestions aren’t illegal” to “isn’t it possible that it’s normal, healthy and beneficial, both for children and for adults, for everyone to have sex with children?”
That has been the progression of the situation.
I also have felt that many of the people who haven’t been taking what’s been going on seriously, who are in denial, or who have lived relatively sheltered lives and so have no idea what humanity is capable of could benefit from reading specific examples of real cases. Today, I chose to put some information about “nuisance sex offenders” on this blog page. As you can read in the definition of “nuisance sex offenders,” they are people who commit crimes that aren’t considered as serious by many investigators as the majority of crimes that get investigated are.
In the excerpt entitled “Case Evaluation,” there are examples of some of the cases which Mr. Lanning worked on. Even though he accurately describes them as “bizarre,” they still fell under the category of being “nuisance sex offenses.” He says about them:
“In many of these cases it is difficult to prove the sexual motivation unless one
understands preferential sex offenders. Some are still not considered sex crimes or
not crimes at all, even if one can prove the sexual motivation.”
I’ve first provided the definitions that Mr. Lanning gives for some of the terms he uses in the excerpts from his report that I chose to put on my blog today.
Sentences and phrases which are both in bold print and underlined look that way because I emphasized them.
Also, the section "DEFINITIONS FROM THE REPORT" was created by me for this blog page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINITIONS FROM THE REPORT:
Paraphilias
Preferential Sex Offenders
Nuisance Sex Offenders
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paraphilias are psychosexual disorders defined for clinical and research purposes in
the DSM-IV-TR. They are defined there as recurrent, intense, and sexually arousing
fantasies, urges, or behaviors generally involving nonhuman objects, the suffering or
humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or children or other nonconsenting persons,
and that occur over a period of at least six months. Better known and more common
paraphilias include exhibitionism (exposure), fetishism (objects), frotteurism
(rubbing), pedophilia (child), sexual masochism (self pain), sexual sadism (partner
pain), and voyeurism (looking). Less known and less common paraphilias include
scatologia (talk), necrophilia (corpses), partialism (body parts), zoophilia (animals),
coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia (enemas), urophilia (urine), infantilism (baby),
hebephilia (female youth), ephebophilia (male youth) and theoretically many others
“not otherwise specified” (NOS)."
(p.16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Preferential Sex Offenders
Characteristics
A preferential sex offender can usually be identified by the behaviors noted below.
Long-Term and Persistent Pattern of Behavior
■ Begins pattern in early adolescence
■ Is willing to commit time, money, and energy
■ Commits multiple offenses
■ Makes ritual- or need-driven mistakes
Specific Sexual Interests
■ Manifests paraphilic preferences (may be multiple)
■ Focuses on defined sexual interests and victim characteristics
■ Centers life around preferences
■ Rationalizes sexual interests and validates behavior
Well-Developed Techniques
■ Evaluates experiences
■ Lies and manipulates, often skillfully
■ Has method of access to victims
■ Is quick to use modern technology (e.g., computer, video) for sexual needs
and purposes
Fantasy-Driven Behavior
■ Collects theme pornography
■ Collects paraphernalia, souvenirs, visual images, narratives
■ Records fantasies
■ Acts to turn repetitive fantasies into reality"
(p. 52)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nuisance Sex Offenders
The word “nuisance” is an unfortunate but descriptive term commonly applied
to sex offenses that occur frequently and are viewed as causing little or no harm
(i.e., financial loss or physical injury). Examples with which most investigators are
familiar include window peepers (voyeurism), flashers (exhibitionism), and obscene
callers (scatologia). Nuisance sex offenders are often linked to the sexual paraphilias.
As previously stated nuisance sex offenders are the sex offenders most likely to
exhibit predominately preferential motives and patterns. These cases, therefore, are
highly solvable if the cases can be captured and linked and the patterns and rituals
can be identified. They are usually given a low priority and not solved because
■ Most incidents are not reported to law enforcement
■ When they are reported they are either not recorded or recorded in a way that
makes retrieval difficult
■ Little, if any, manpower and resources are committed to the investigation
■ Law-enforcement agencies frequently do not communicate and cooperate with
each other concerning these cases
■ The specific crimes often involve minor violations of the law"
(p.44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Case Evaluation
Some “nuisance” sex offenses against children are more common than others. Some
of the more bizarre ones I have worked on over the years include an offender
engaging in behaviors for sexual gratification such as stealing soiled diapers being
worn by a baby; photographing children wearing diapers; squirting children with
a water pistol filled with semen; listening to children urinate in a school bathroom;
videotaping cheerleaders at a football game; having parents/guardians send
photographs of their children getting an enema; playing the master/servant game
by having children rest their feet on his prone body; tape recording boys belching;
window peeping at his own children; urinating on prostitutes, girlfriends, and his
own child; masturbating to videos of children’s autopsies; having children spit
in cups; buying soiled underwear from adolescent boys; leaving sexually explicit
images or communications for children or their parents/guardians to find; and
soliciting body fluids from boys on the Internet. The investigative priority of these
types of crimes can change rapidly when it is discovered the offender carries the
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or is entering homes in the middle of the
night. In many of these cases it is difficult to prove the sexual motivation unless one
understands preferential sex offenders. Some are still not considered sex crimes or
not crimes at all, even if one can prove the sexual motivation.
(p. 45-46)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 2011
I thought that the last two sentences in the previous paragraph from the report were highly relevant to what’s been going on over the past year.
Mr. Lanning goes on to say:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A big investigative issue in nuisance sex offenses is always the question of
progression to more serious offenses. Some nuisance sex offenders progress little
over the years in their criminal sexual behavior. Some progress to more serious sex
crimes and some move back and forth. Many investigators consider the possibility
a nuisance sex offender might progress to more serious crimes in the future, but they
ignore the possibility that he already has. An offender who has committed serious
sex offenses in the past might later engage in nuisance sex offenses for a variety of
reasons ranging from expediency to guilt and need-driven specific sexual preferences.
When evaluating nuisance sex offenders, investigators should consider focus,
escalation, theme, and response to identification. The fact that a nuisance sex offender
moves from victims meeting general criteria to specific victims is a potential danger
sign. Escalation over time is also a danger sign. Escalation can be evaluated only
when there are multiple offenses. Because of the low priority of the cases enumerated
above, this can be difficult to do.The cases that the investigator believes are
the first, second, and third, may actually be the tenth, sixteenth, and twenty-second.
Investigators should also consider the theme of the nuisance sex offenses. Not all
obscene calls or indecent exposures are the same. As will be discussed later in this
publication, specific details, not general labels, are needed. Lastly, in evaluating
dangerousness, investigators should consider the nuisance sex offender’s reaction to
identification. Did he become violent and aggressive? Is he indifferent to or aroused
by the response of his victims? Is he cooperative? Whatever their personal feelings,
investigators will almost always get more information, details, and admissions from
these offenders when they treat them with respect, dignity, and empathy.”
(p. 45-46)
-------------
5. Newblog2011: 07/26/11 The crimes listed as examples of "nuisance" offenses aren't even the crimes that are considered the worst ones by a lot of investigators, so what does that tell you about how bad sex crimes against children really get?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman July 26, 2011 @ 6:44 p.m./edits and additions @ 9:26 p.m.