'Top cop' should go back to school

[Cub Reporter]

Top officer calls on courts for harsher paedophile sentences

Horncastle News, UK: 22 February 2012
http://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/news/crime/top_officer_calls_on_courts_for_harsher_paedophile_sentences_1_3546250
[ http://tinyurl.com/89kp7j4 ]

THE TOP cop investigating "absolutely disgusting" online paedophiles
in Lincolnshire has revealed he often leaves court "deflated" at weak
sentences handed out by judges.

Det Sgt Paul Hutchins has said this country needs tougher sentences
like Australia and the USA where paedophiles who download indecent
child images can get put behind bars for up to 40 years.

He thinks we need to have sentences that actually deter people from
committing these crimes - some convicted sex offenders in this country
do not even go to prison.

[So what evidence is there that such draconian sentencing deters
people from downloading illegal images? And, if you put people in gaol
for 40 years for child porn, what about people who actually rape and
kill children?]

Last year Lincolnshire Police seized five million indecent images of
children - more than three times the number in 2010. Det Sgt Hutchins
said "it makes you shudder".

The officer - who has nearly 30 years' experience investigating major
crimes in this county - said: "We often come away quite deflated by
sentences given by the court.

"The actual impact of these crimes is just awful. On the end of every
image there's a victim and the destruction that it does. It's
absolutely disgusting.

[What evidence is there that the children in the pictures suffer as a
result of people looking at them, unless they are reminded by the
police and courts?]

"You have to have sentences that deter people. Sentencing in Australia
and the USA is a lot stronger than ours - people who collect and
distribute images can get 20, 30 or even 40 years. It's astonishing.

[Astonishing indeed.]

"Our primary role is to safeguard children. The rest is with the court
and there isn't a lot any of us can do about it.

"We all know the prisons are overcrowded and they're not going to
build new ones. We know their hands are tied but I would like someone
to get 20 years."

Det Sgt Hutchins is in charge of Lincolnshire Police's Paedophile
Online Investigation Team, set up in May 2011.

He said research shows that 85 per cent of people who commit image
offences have already committed a hands-on offence with a child.

[What research? Much research says exactly the opposite.]

He said: "Already this year we've seized two collections of 747,000
and 800,000. That's 1.5 million victims."

[No it's not. There are likely to be many pictures of each child in
such collections, which usually include many innocuous pictures to
boost the headline figures]

[Jethro]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:21:28 +0000, Cub Reporter wrote:

> He said: "Already this year we've seized two collections of 747,000 and
> 800,000. That's 1.5 million victims."
>
> [No it's not. There are likely to be many pictures of each child in such
> collections, which usually include many innocuous pictures to boost the
> headline figures]

It has been illuminating, when people have been acquitted, to hear what
the definition of "child porn" covers.

[totallyconfused]

Well, due to certain individuals my family was investigated.
Apparently a photo of one of my children having her first bath at home
after being born was classed as a 'level one' image. When I pointed
out that the picture was part of a collogue made by the said child as
a mother's day gift, the officer went very quiet. I was then told
that 'normal' people do not take a 'memorial' photo of their child
having their first bath at home after being born. I thought everyone
did this?

I am absolutely against child abuse and exploitation- but I do get fed
up about hearing about 'images of child abuse' and then find out it is
a clipping from an old Littlewoods catalogue.

TC

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 22/02/2012 11:21, Cub Reporter wrote:
> "absolutely disgusting" online paedophiles

Giggle - what a tool.

WM

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 22/02/2012 11:21, Cub Reporter wrote:

> He said: "Already this year we've seized two collections of 747,000
> and 800,000. That's 1.5 million victims."

Via the 'Praise For Lincolnshire Police' contact form (there was no,
'Advise Them To STFU' option) ...

*****

FAO: Det Sgt Paul Hutchins

Police's 'Paedophile' Online Investigation Team

Re: Top officer calls on courts for harsher paedophile sentences
http://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/news/crime/top_officer_calls_on_courts_for_harsher_paedophile_sentences_1_3546250
'Top cop' should go back to school
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/998db6977d99ce4b?hl=en#

I recommend that Det Sgt Paul Hutchins keeps his lies, misinformation
and opinions to himself, before we discredit him, for them, just as we
have done to his CPI predecessors.

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield
Critical Estoppel

****
WM

[Jethro]

Shades of the (pre paedosteria) Julia Sommerville story ....

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 22/02/2012 11:21, Cub Reporter wrote:

> Det Sgt Hutchins is in charge of Lincolnshire Police's Paedophile
> Online Investigation Team, set up in May 2011.
>
> He said research shows that 85 per cent of people who commit image
> offences have already committed a hands-on offence with a child.
>
> [What research? Much research says exactly the opposite.]

Allow me to critique the good sergeant's 'research' ...

*******

>Whether or not one can predict what an individual might do, there is
some statistical evidence that consumers of child pornography may also
be child contact offenders. Contrary to the statements in the article, a
study has been published indicating that among individuals who were
convicted federally of trafficking or possessing child pornography,
there was a high incidence of previously undisclosed contact offenses
against children. Bourke, M.L, Hernandez, A.E. (2009). The ‘Butner
Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization
by Child Pornography Offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24(3), 183-191.

Oh dear, a lawyer setting themselves up for a fall. I think you need to
keep up with current affairs, Ms Gelber. Please allow me:

_____


“But, I caution the law enforcement community and others against
generalizing beyond the offenders who were the subjects of my treatment
interviews. I urge the professional and scientific community to attend
to this understudied group of offenders.”

STATEMENT OF ANDRES E. HERNANDEZ DIRECTOR OF THE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT
PROGRAM FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BUTNER, NC

http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/HernandezTestimonyCongress.pdf

_____

The Government also furnished the Court with a presently unpublished
study entitled, “The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of
Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders” (“Butner
Study” or “Study”). This Study set out to determine whether a group of
men who had been convicted of possessing, receiving, or distributing
child pornography, but who had no known history of “hands-on” sexual
abuse, were “merely” collectors of child pornography or, alternatively,
whether this group actually had committed “hands-on” sexual abuse. The
Study concluded that the collectors of child pornography were “more
likely than not to have sexually abused a child via a hands-on act”
based on rather startling data. Butner Study at 2. The Study found that
85% of collectors admitted to having previously abused children and that
only 2% of collectors who still denied abusing children could pass a lie
detector test on that question. Id. at 18. Rogers was provided a copy of
the Study and was able to comment on its merits. The Government has
offered this Study, at a minimum, as an indication that recipients of
child pornography are dangerous individuals and, possibly, to suggest
that Defendant has committed a sexual assault against a child in the
past.3 See Pl.’s Sentencing Mem. at 22. The Court will elaborate on this
Study and the weight the Court assigns to it in discussion to follow.

3 While the Government never explicitly argued that Defendant has
personally sexually assaulted a child, the Government seems to
implicitly take this position, arguing its brief: “[The Butner Study]
shows that the Defendant is statistically more likely than not to have
actually committed an act of child sexual abuse. . . . [T]he study
suggests that the Court should not give any substantial weight to the
fact that the Defendant has not been discovered to have committed a
hands-on child sex offense.” Pl.’s Sentencing Mem. at 22.

C. Consideration of the Butner Study

The Government offers the Butner Study to demonstrate that Defendant
is a threat to the public. However, the Government also offers the Study
to show that “defendant is statistically more likely than not to have
actually committed [a past] act of [“hands-on”] child abuse.” Pl.’s
Sentencing Mem. at 22. The inference that the Government asks the Court
to draw is distasteful and prohibited by law. Uncharged criminal conduct
may generally only be considered in sentencing if proved by a
preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Howe, 538 F.3d 842,
855 (8th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Tyndall, 521 F.3d 877,
882 (8th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the Government bears the burden of proof.
United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922, 933 (8th Cir. 2008). The Butner
Study, even if credible, falls far short of this standard because it
fails to demonstrate whether Defendant has, personally, previously
assaulted a child sexually. At most, the Study reveals that a majority
of other individuals with a similar criminal history committed crimes
against children, but the Court cannot see how evidence of those
individuals’ crimes establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
Defendant committed a prior sexual crime. This conclusion is only
bolstered by the fact that the Government failed to present any physical
evidence that Defendant sexually assaulted anyone, let alone a child.
The Government produced no witnesses, no victims, no forensic evidence,
no confession, and no other sign that any previous improper sexual
activity occurred. Indeed, the Government agreed with the PSR’s Case
4:07-cr-00127-RP-RAW Document 53 Filed 12/04/2008 Page 14 of 18 7 The
Court will note that the Butner Study is not exactly on point because it
never delves into the risk of recidivism of sexual offenders. The Study
merely investigates whether current sexual offenders have committed
other, undisclosed sexual crimes. The Court will, however, accept the
proposition that those who have physically harmed children are more
dangerous to the community than individuals who only collect child
pornography. Thus, the Study is indirectly relevant in determining the
dangerousness of an individual like Defendant. -15- calculation of
Defendant’s criminal history, which does not include any references to
prior sexual crimes. Therefore, this Court will not accept the implicit
invitation to use the Butner Study to hold Defendant accountable for a
phantom crime unsupported by any evidence. The Court also rejects the
Government’s attempt to use the Butner Study to demonstrate that
Defendant is a danger to the community. The Government argues that
Defendant is dangerous because the Study indicates other individuals
charged with similar crimes have committed “hands-on” sexual abuse of
children.7 The Court rejects this proposition because the Butner Study
is not credible. The Butner Study’s sample population consisted of
incarcerated individuals participating in a sexual offender treatment
program at a federal correctional institution. Tr. at 29. As Rogers
testified, the program is “highly coercive.” Id. Unless offenders
continue to admit to further sexual crimes, whether or not they actually
committed those crimes, the offenders are discharged from the program.
Id. Consequently, the subjects in this Study had an incentive to lie,
despite the fact that participation in the program would not shorten
their sentences. Rogers testified that the Study’s “whole approach” is
rejected by the treatment and scientific community. Id. Complicating
this bias is the fact that the Butner Study did not report on the nearly
23% (46/201) of individuals in the treatment program who left due to
“voluntary withdrawal, expulsion, or death.” Butner Study at 10. As a
result, the offender population and the Study’s results were almost
certainly skewed. Tr. at 30. Case 4:07-cr-00127-RP-RAW Document 53 Filed
12/04/2008 Page 15 of 18 8 Peer review is also a key factor that the
courts consider when deciding whether to allow scientific testimony into
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993). Although the Federal Rules
of Evidence do not technically apply at sentencing, the Court does note
that this Study would likely fail to meet the Daubert standard. -16- The
Butner Study also suffers from additional methodological flaws. First,
the subjects of the Study were not randomly selected from those who only
collect child pornography, which indicates that even setting aside the
incentive to lie, the sample population may not be representative of the
larger population that collects child pornography. Id. at 33. Second,
the Study employed an unpublished questionnaire. Id. at 37. This
prevents other independent researchers from verifying whether the
questionnaire is reliable and capable of producing results that are
accurate and meaningful. Id. at 38. Third, the Study relies, in part, on
the results from polygraph examinations, which is highly problematic
given the unreliability of such tests, especially since “no standard for
training polygraph experts” exists. Id. at 34. Fourth, the Study is not
peer reviewed, which is the norm in science.8 Id. at 30. According to
Rogers, the peer review process would likely be “pretty uncomfortable”
for the researchers because the data and statistics in the Study do not
fit the researchers’ conclusions. Id. Finally, the Study also appears to
suffer from flaws relating to its control group and independent
variable, or lack thereof. Id. At 31-34. Instead of producing an expert
to explain the apparent weaknesses in the Butner Study, the Government
preferred to attack Rogers’ critique. The Government first brought out
the fact that Rogers had not seen the questionnaire and had no knowledge
of the 155 inmates, arguing that Rogers had “no factual basis to
dispute” the methodology or conclusions of the Study. Id. At 38-41, 51.
The Government also tacitly encouraged the Court to look beyond any
flaws in the Case 4:07-cr-00127-RP-RAW Document 53 Filed 12/04/2008 Page
16 of 18 9 The Court finds these results highly questionable given the
extraordinarily high percentages, as well as the fact that the
researchers saw a 2,369% increase “in the number of contact sexual
offenses acknowledged by the treatment participants” during the course
of the Study. Butner Study at 17. These astronomical figures lead the
Court to question whether this unvetted prison Study, conducted by the
former chief of the federal sexual offender treatment program and
distributed by the Department of Justice to prosecutors, is, in
actuality, a product of the tremendous “political pressure applied” to
researchers in this research field. Tr. at 7, 45. 10 The Court believes
that the adversarial process is the best means for ferreting out the
truth, and without another expert to challenge Rogers, any weaknesses in
his testimony may not be revealed. Thus, the Court hesitates to simply
accept his testimony. -17- Study because it was “exploratory,” a “first
step” that the authors believe to be the “tip of the iceberg.” Id. at
51. The Court, however, finds neither of these argument persuasive. The
Court agrees with Rogers’ testimony that it was the duty of the
researchers to be transparent and to fully incorporate their methodology
and conclusions into the Study so that other independent researchers
could verify the reliability of the Study. Id. at 42. By failing to
disclose this information, the researchers failed to meet the “standard
in scientific research” and failed to produce a study upon which the
Court can rely. Id. The Court will not accept “science” conducted in
secret. Second, the Court will not look past the shortcomings of this
Study merely because the Study is unique or new. Indeed, the fact that
the Study is revolutionary in nature gives this Court great pause for
concern, especially since it produced the sensational result that
somewhere between 85% and 98% of child pornography collectors have
personally molested children.9 In sum, the Court will not consider the
results of the Butner Study unless and until either the Government or
the researchers provide transparency for its methodology and a
compelling explanation for its many apparent failings. While the Court
is loathe to simply agree with a mostly unchallenged expert,10 the Court
can find no error in Rogers’ conclusion that the Butner Case
4:07-cr-00127-RP-RAW Document 53 Filed 12/04/2008 Page 17 of 18 -18-
Study “isn’t scientifically vetted, doesn’t meet scientific standards
for research, and is based upon, frankly, an incoherent design for a
study.” Id. at 33.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, **
4:07-cr-00127
Plaintiff, *
*
v. **
MICHAEL PAUL JOHNSON, * SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

* OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant. *

http://sentencing.typepad.com/files/johnson-cp-sentencing-decision.pdf

The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child
Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders

Michael L. Bourke and Andres E. Hernandez

http://www.springerlink.com/content/c313832g17rt2850/

_____

… because the Butner Study is not credible.

****

A Response to Alexandra Gelber’s, “Response to “A Reluctant Rebellion,””,
by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield, Researcher and Ex-offender in This Field.

The article from Mr Hansen:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a_reluctant_rebellion/

The article from Ms Gelber:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/ReluctantRebellionResponse.pdf

The article from ‘Sentencing Law and Policy’:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/07/potent-doj-response-to-aba-journal-article-about-federal-child-porn-sentencing.html

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield
9th July, 2009
I reserve copyright on this article and the right to alter it, at any
time. I welcome any feedback or communications.

****

Here you go, Sergent ...

"These astronomical figures lead the Court to question whether this
unvetted prison Study, conducted by the former chief of the federal
sexual offender treatment program and distributed by the Department of
Justice to prosecutors, is, in actuality, a product of the tremendous
“political pressure applied” to researchers in this research field. Tr.
at 7, 45. 10 The Court believes that the adversarial process is the best
means for ferreting out the truth, and without another expert to
challenge Rogers, any weaknesses in his testimony may not be revealed.
Thus, the Court hesitates to simply accept his testimony. -17- Study
because it was “exploratory,” a “first step” that the authors believe to
be the “tip of the iceberg.” Id. at 51. The Court, however, finds
neither of these argument persuasive. The Court agrees with Rogers’
testimony that it was the duty of the researchers to be transparent and
to fully incorporate their methodology and conclusions into the Study so
that other independent researchers could verify the reliability of the
Study. Id. at 42. By failing to disclose this information, the
researchers failed to meet the “standard in scientific research” and
failed to produce a study upon which the Court can rely. Id. The Court
will not accept “science” conducted in secret. Second, the Court will
not look past the shortcomings of this Study merely because the Study is
unique or new. Indeed, the fact that the Study is revolutionary in
nature gives this Court great pause for concern, especially since it
produced the sensational result that somewhere between 85% and 98% of
child pornography collectors have personally molested children.9 In sum,
the Court will not consider the results of the Butner Study unless and
until either the Government or the researchers provide transparency for
its methodology and a compelling explanation for its many apparent
failings."

How do you like that research, sergeant?

WM

[totallyconfused]

> Shades of the (pre paedosteria) Julia Sommerville story ....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am also reminded of an Encase report I read:

Officer: How old do you think this girl is?
Defendant: Not sure- maybe between 16 and 22 I guess.

Officer: Is this an indecent image of a child?
Defendant: I have no idea- I don't think so.

Officer: If I turn it upside down, now what do you think?
Defendant: I really don't know..it doesn't look the same so how can I
tell?

Officer: I don't know means you are not sure so therefore you are
guilty.

TC

[malcol...@googlemail.com]

Taking seriously polygraph tests in such a context is particularly chilling, since the polygraph actually measures stress, rather than lying per-say.

Also, did they scour the backgrounds of an equal number of men not deemed to be viewers with the same vigour, trying to browbeat accusations out of anyone who might have had contact as a child?

[McKevvy]

I seem to remember a case of a TV news presenter (female) who was
investigated when all the hype about child abuse began to build. She
put a roll of film into Boots to be processed and the assistant phoned
the plod when the prints were developed. He claimed that one photo of
two naked children was abuse and the plods agreed. It went to court
and was thrown out. The photo? It was a harmless photo taken by the
parent of her two kids in bath but taken completely out of context and
paraded in the media as "abuse" and "child porn".

McK

[totallyconfused]

> McK- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Welcome to UK 'child porn'. I was informed that if I had emailed such
a photo to my own parents or family members or put it on Facebook, I
'could' have been charged with distribution. To the best of my
knowledge, My daughter doesn't consider herself to have been a victim
of child abuse or a victim of porn- after all, she was 4 days old, I
took the photo and apparently it was 'porn' because it was her father
giving her a bath. (one of those baby baths from Boots over 20 years
ago on the kitchen table!)

I was never charged nor considered a risk. As I said, it only came up
during enquires about a person here who is considered a risk.

This is why I have so little faith in the media reporting about 'child
abuse'. BABY P- now those were some sicko's who deserved longer. TC

[Phi]

"totallyconfused" <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eded7c1b-a3c6-400f...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

The authorities turn a blind eye to the abuse of baby boys being circumcised
for no other reason than tradition.

[malcol...@googlemail.com]

Anyone who seriously considers such pictures as pornographic has a serious problem themselves.