skip to content »

ik-kem.ru

Sex dating in chichester sussex

In addition, "pure" child pornography offenders were more likely than offenders with contact victims to provide more than one explanation for their behaviour.Individuals with contact offences were found more likely to admit a sexual interest in children.

sex dating in chichester sussex-53sex dating in chichester sussex-20sex dating in chichester sussex-35sex dating in chichester sussex-31

Again, they found a variety of motives: While most people in both samples reported to be motivated by a sexual interest in children (46% in the police-sourced and 38% in the clinical sample), the offenders also named accidental access, curiosity, or addiction to pornographic material as reasons for their behaviour and, less frequently, indiscriminate sexual interests, "internet addiction", or their general interest in collecting activities.Aim/ Background: There has been some professional discussion surrounding the "function" of child pornography offending for the individual offender: Why is someone looking at child pornography and what needs are met with this behaviour?The limited research in this area has mainly focused on information extracted from interview transcripts, which is likely biased by the offender's situation at the time.Nevertheless, based on the outcomes of these studies, it seems valid to conclude that CPOs as a group display a wide variety of motivations for their behaviour and that the individual offender may have more than one explanation for his behaviour.It is further acknowledged that the functions of CP for the individual may change over time (Seto et al., 2010; Surjadi et al., 2010), requiring specific offender management strategies according to the functions they assign to the material.Conclusions: These findings point to the value of a motivation-based offender typology.

For treatment providers, the assessment of offence motivations appears as a promising source about an individual's risks and needs.

Secondly, every interview consists of an interactive exchange between the interviewee and interviewer and its outcomes are partly dependent on the interviewer's prompting and note-taking, as well as the interviewee's openness and verbal fluency.

A more impartial account of the offender's explanations for their offending has so far been missing from the current research.

One of the most prevalent questions in the work with child pornography offenders (CPOs) is the assessment of risk, predominantly their proclivity to cross-over to contact sex offending (Webb, Craissati, & Keen, 2007).

To date, it appears that only a subgroup of CPOs will continue to engage in contact sex offending; in the most recent meta-analysis including a combined sample of 2,630 online offenders, Seto, Hanson, and Babchishin (2011) reported that 3.4% of online offenders were found to reoffend with another CP offence, while only 2% reoffended with a contact sex offence.

Firstly, an anonymous, non-interactive data collection process was employed to compensate for the limitations identified in interview-based research.