PREFACE
Pedophilia
, defined as a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children, is an emotional and controversial topic. For many people, the mention of pedophilia brings images to mind of sexual predators
1
who pursue and violate unknown children, although the reality is quite different. The public’s perceptions of sexual offenses against children are influenced by media stories focusing on sensational cases that involve child abductions, killings, or individuals with long histories of sexually offending against many children (see Cheit, 2003; Jenkins, 1998).
Parents are understandably worried about the safety and well-being of their children, and many others are concerned that children they know might be exploited or harmed by adults. In this preface, I discuss the social, political, and legal contexts for studying pedophilia to provide readers a framework for understanding the social, political, and legal responses to pedophilia and the associated problem of sexual offending against children.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
Child sexual abuse
2
is a widespread social problem. In the United States, there were approximately 89,500 cases of substantiated child sexual abuse in 2000 (Finkelhor & Jones, 2004). A nationally representative survey of children and adolescents between the ages of 2 and 17 found that approximately 1 in 12 reported being sexually abused in the study year (parents responded for younger children; Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005). Finkelhor (1994) reviewed international surveys of adults and found a wide range of prevalence rates for child sexual abuse (likely reflecting differences in survey methodology and definition of sexual abuse, rather than true variations in prevalence). Data were available from 19 countries, including 10 national probability samples from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. The average rate of childhood sexual abuse recalled by adult respondents was approximately 20% for women and 10% for men. Across these international surveys, females were more likely to have been sexually abused than males, females were more likely to have been abused by relatives than males, and the perpetrators were usually male.
Official crime data indicate that the majority of incidents of child sexual abuse are committed by someone known to the child, and the majority of offenses involve sexual touching (Snyder, 2000). Although incidents in which children are kidnapped or killed by pedophiles are thankfully rare, those incidents that do occur are widely publicized in media coverage (Cheit, 2003) and appear to have had a tremendous influence on the social, legal, and political responses to pedophilia and sexual offending against children.
SOCIAL CONTEXT
Public attitudes are extremely negative toward pedophiles and individuals who sexually offend against children. Sexual offenses against children are viewed as very serious crimes, ranking even higher than intentional homicide in one study of perceived moral wrongfulness (D. Lieberman, personal communication, February 19, 2003; Lieberman, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2003). Rosenmerkel (2001) also found that sexual offenses against children ranked higher in wrongfulness than felony homicide and other violent offenses in another survey of college students and received the second highest rating for overall seriousness, after homicide.
Calls for lifetime imprisonment, castration, and capital punishment have been made for convicted sex offenders against children (for a historical account of the shifting attitudes and laws about sexual offenses involving children, see Jenkins, 1998). Being identified as a pedophile could jeopardize one’s relationships, employment, home, and even physical safety. Although incidents are rare, vigilantes have burned houses and assaulted suspected or known sex offenders against children (for a description of several incidents in the United States, see Freeman-Longo, 1996). A recent and highly publicized case involved the murder of two registered sex offenders in Maine by a young Canadian man who killed himself after his bus was stopped by police; a similar case involved two sex offenders against children in Washington killed by a man who found their addresses on an online sex offender registry (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News, 2006). An English tabloid newspaper News of the World
began publishing the names of convicted sex offenders as part of a “Name and Shame” campaign following the murder of Sarah Payne, an 8-year-old girl, in the summer of 2000. Following this campaign, a pediatrician was forced to flee her home after a group mistook her professional title for the word pedophile
and spray-painted her front door (Boulware, 2000).
I include the story about the harassment of a pediatrician to illustrate how fear and outrage about child sexual abuse and the individuals who commit such crimes can lead to what Jenkins (1998) has described as a moral panic: times in history when child sexual abuse has been seen as endemic, devastating, and an overwhelming menace to society. Jenkins argued that social views of child sexual abuse and sex offenders against children have been quite different in the past when sexual offenses against children were considered to be unlikely to lead to serious consequences for the child if a proportionate response was made. There was a dramatic shift in such views in the 1980s and early 1990s, with extensive coverage of child sexual abuse rings and dramatic stories of satanic rituals involving child sexual abuse; 20 years later, many of these convictions have been overturned and there is little, if any, evidence that satanic ritual child abuse ever took place (Jones, 2004; Nathan & Snedeker, 2001). Currently, there is increasingly strong rhetoric about the dangers of the Internet, including claims of a large and profitable child pornography industry; many so-called Internet predators who use e-mail, chat rooms, and other technologies to communicate with potential child victims; and vast online networks of pedophiles, child pornography offenders, and sex offenders against children. There is little research, however, to support the rhetoric or to guide the major policy and legal changes that are taking place as a result.
I had my own encounter with public outrage about pedophiles and sexual offending against children while copyediting this book. My colleagues and I received government funding to begin a new research study comparing child pornography offenders with no history of sexual contacts with children with child pornography offenders who had a contact sexual offense history to identify factors that distinguish these two groups. Data were to be collected through interview, questionnaire, and a viewing time task involving the presentation of digitally morphed images of clothed children and adults (see
chap. 2
, this volume). The university of one of my coinvestigators issued a press release about the new grant, and a subsequent newspaper story focused on the fact that the offenders who would be asked to volunteer for the study would be financially compensated for their time and expenses rather than on the purpose of the study and the knowledge that might be gained in understanding the onset of sexual offending against children and ultimately prevent further victims (Tetley, 2007). Victims’ rights advocates expressed their opposition to the idea that sex offenders would be paid to participate in the research, perhaps unaware that no research ethics committee would approve a study that forced individuals to participate in research or that it is common practice to compensate research participants as part of study recruitment.
The newspaper story was posted on a Canadian newswire service and then picked up by other newspapers, radio, and television (e.g., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News, 2007). Although the research funding was not affected by the controversy, such public reactions may have a chilling effect on researchers and the institutions that might be asked to collaborate on research studies intended to increase the understanding of pedophilia or sexual offending against children.
POLITICAL CONTEXT
Given the public’s attitudes about sex offenders against children and their crimes, it is not surprising that political views can be similarly emotional and strong. A recent example was the political response to the publication of a meta-analysis by Rind et al. (1998) that concluded the average effect of childhood sexual contact with an adult was generally small (but still negative) among college students. Rind et al. did not argue or suggest in their article that adults should not be held legally or morally responsible for sexual offenses against children and, in fact, made a specific point of distinguishing between the results they obtained and the legal or moral implications of their findings. Nonetheless, there was a media outcry that then led to an extraordinary vote by the U.S. Congress to censure the American Psychological Association (the publisher of the journal in which the article appeared and the publisher of this volume) for allegedly publishing nonscientific research findings that did not conclude that child sexual abuse was tremendously and irreversibly harmful. This censure led the American Psychological Association to conduct an intense internal inquiry (see the March 2002 issue of the American Psychologist
for a thorough overview from the journal editors, American Psychological Association officers, and additional commentators; Albee, Newcombe, & McCarty, 2002).
The political censure was alarming because of its implications for academic freedom, journal independence, and the relationship between public policy and science. The censure also was notable because serious harm is not required to justify the legal and moral prohibitions against adult–child sex.
3
An internally consistent philosophical rationale can be made in terms of children’s rights, uncertainty about children’s ability to provide consent given their stages of cognitive and emotional development, and asymmetry in the potential benefits versus potential risks of sexual contact for the adults and the children. One can ask the following questions in this analysis: How many children have advocated for the decriminalization of adult–child sex compared with the number of adults who have done so? What are the motivations of the adults who advocate for the decriminalization of adult–child sex? One of my assumptions throughout this book is that the legal and moral prohibitions against adult–child sex should and will continue.
LEGAL CONTEXT
Jenkins (1998) also reviewed the history of laws regarding sexual offenses against children in the United States. These laws have varied greatly in the 20th century, reflecting public and political views about sex with children. The current views are highly restrictive, singling out sex offenders from nonsexually violent offenders in the scope of legal controls that are possible. Though there is also a great deal of public and professional concern about gun-related crimes, gang-related crimes, and domestic violence, no other group of offenders is specifically subject to laws involving community notification when moving into a neighborhood, lifetime registration with police, rules about where they can live, and potential civil commitment to a secure treatment facility on completion of a criminal sentence.
In the United States, two child victims of sexual offenses are memorialized in federal legislation. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (2001), which requires sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies, is named after a 11-year-old boy who was kidnapped while on his way home from a convenience store with his younger brother and a friend by a masked man who threatened the children with a firearm. No arrest has been made, and Jacob Wetterling has not been found. Megan’s Law (1994), which requires community notification of sex offenders living in the area, is named after a 7-year-old New Jersey girl named Megan Kanka. On July 29, 1994, she was lured to a neighbor’s residence and raped and murdered by a previously con victed sex offender. As a result of this crime, New Jersey and eventually the federal government of the United States passed laws requiring community notification about sex offenders when they move into a neighborhood. Jurisdictions in many states have also begun to legislate where sex offenders can live by requiring them to live a minimum distance from areas where children may congregate, including schools, parks, day care centers, and school bus stops (J. Levenson & Cotter, 2005). More detailed information about state and federal legislation pertaining to sex offenders has been provided by Doren (2002); Matson and Lieb (1996); Prentky, Janus, and Seto (2003); and LaFond (2005). A national sex offender public registry administered by the U.S. Department of Justice provides access to state sex offender registry Web sites (
http://www.nsopr.gov
).
Other legislative responses include the civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders after they have served their prison sentences (see Doren, 2002). A 2002 survey found that 2,478 sex offenders were in civil commitment facilities at that time: 1,632 offenders were committed, and the remainder were awaiting a hearing. Approximately half (49%) of the civilly committed sex offenders had a diagnosis of pedophilia (Fitch, 2003); pedophilic sex offenders are more likely to be recommended for civil commitment (J. Levenson, 2004b). Finally, some countries have begun to introduce extraterritorial jurisdiction over sexual contacts with children because of concerns about citizens traveling to other countries to engage in sex tourism and prostitution of minors. The scope of such sex tourism and prostitution is unknown, but it is widely perceived to be a major problem (see
chap. 3
, this volume).
GOALS FOR THIS BOOK
This book was written to address the following questions: Is pedophilia a human universal that has appeared across cultures and across times? How can pedophilia be detected? What is the relationship between pedophilia and sexual offending against children? How do pedophilic and nonpedophilic sex offenders against children differ? What explains pedophilia and sexual offending against children? How is the risk to sexually offend assessed? Finally, what is known about interventions to reduce the occurrence of sexual offenses against children?
My hope is that public policy and clinical practice can be informed by scientific knowledge regarding these topics to prevent the sexual victimization of children. There is a major gap between scientific understanding of these topics and the practices and policies that have been developed in response to the problem of child sexual abuse. Much of what laypeople and professionals believe about pedophiles and sexual offending against children— and the policies and laws that are implemented as a result—is not supported by empirical evidence. I believe this has been to the detriment of children, offenders, their respective families, and the mental health and criminal justice systems that deal with sex offenders against children. Children have been placed at undue risk because of suboptimal decisions made about offender sentencing or release from custody, offenders have not been suitably matched to intervention according to the risk they pose for recidivism, and the mental health and criminal justice systems have not been able to efficiently allocate their resources.
Although much remains to be discovered, scientific knowledge is available to guide policies and practices. In particular, major advances have been made in the assessment of sex offender risk to reoffend; this information should be systematically involved in decisions about offender sentencing, placement, release, and supervision or treatment. Although accurate estimates of risk to reoffend are increasingly available, many decisions involve extraneous factors that are brought in as a result of subjective judgment. Accurate risk assessment is extremely important, because there is, as yet, no effective treatment to reduce sexual recidivism among sex offenders. The studies that are often proffered as support for the efficacy of sex offender treatment are methodologically weak, and the best randomized clinical trial of psychological treatment that has been reported so far found no significant effect of treatment among adult sex offenders against children (Marques, Wiederanders, Day, Nelson, & van Ommeren, 2005). In contrast, two small randomized clinical trials of multisystemic therapy have both shown a significant reduction in the recidivism of adolescent sex offenders, suggesting society might benefit from putting more resources into earlier intervention before criminal attitudes, beliefs, associations, and behaviors become entrenched. I conclude by proposing that innovative treatments are needed and that the null results for current treatments suggest such programs could be considered “treatment as usual” in a future randomized clinical trial. I also argue for increased attention to prevention efforts, including school-based sexual abuse prevention programs, support and treatment for pedophiles before they have initiated sexual activities with children, and public education campaigns to speed disclosure and help responsible adults to protect children. Resources could also be shifted to treatment of children with sexual behavior problems and adolescent sex offenders and to increasing disclosures of sexual offenses against children and apprehension and prosecution of adult sex offenders.
Less is known about pedophilia than about sexual offending against children. Much of what is known about pedophilia has come from studies of clinical or correctional samples of men who have committed sexual offenses against children. More research is needed on pedophiles outside of these settings, especially self-identified pedophiles who have no known history of sexual contacts with children. Such research is difficult to conduct in the current social, political, and legal climates, but it is necessary for full understanding of pedophilia. Because pedophilia appears to be a stable sexual preference— akin to heterosexual or homosexual orientation in the sense that it manifests early in life and directs a person’s sexuality—it is highly unlikely that any treatment can change it, just as no treatments have successfully changed homosexual (or heterosexual) orientation (Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002; Zucker, 2003). Instead, successful interventions are likely to come from teaching pedophiles effective self-management skills, teaching children how to avoid or disclose sexual abuse, and decreasing the perceived benefits and increasing the perceived risks of having sexual contact with children through situational crime prevention efforts. New research on the causes of pedophilia and sexual offending against children will be critical to the development of effective prevention programs.
I have written this book because I want to help prevent children from becoming victims of sexual offenses. Members of advocacy organizations such as the North American Man–Boy Love Association or of online message boards like Girlchat and Boychat have argued that children are capable of giving consent to sex; repression of pedophiles and adult–child sex constitute violations of children’s rights; and children are more likely to be harmed by the negative reactions of their families and society than by adult–child sex. Such arguments do not recognize that there is a large asymmetry in the benefits and risks for children and adults. The benefits for adults who are sexually interested in children are obvious, whereas the benefits for children are unclear; there is also some risk of harm to the child, even though the magnitude of harm may be small for many sexually abused children (Rind et al., 1998). In my opinion, the arguments of many adult–child sex advocates are self-serving, and adult–child sex is a moral wrong. To prevent this wrong, I believe pedophiles need to be supported in a way that will encourage them to avoid acting on their sexual interests in children, and sex offenders against children should be treated and managed in a manner that is consistent with what is known about risk to reoffend and effective intervention. I hope that this book will contribute to these efforts.
