Internet Sexual Offender Laws

  • Ashley SpadaEmail author


While Internet sexual offenses represent only about ten percent of all sex offenses in the U.S., arrests and prosecutions for Internet sex offenders, both child pornography and solicitation offenses, are increasing and may continue to grow as technological advances increase the speed and anonymity of trading illegal pornography online. Internet sexual offenses are also a major concern in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where legislation similar to that enacted in the U.S. has been passed in order to prosecute Internet sex offenders and to deter future Internet sex offenses. This chapter will review the history of Internet sex offense legislation in the United States and globally, as well as the controversies and dilemmas related to the investigation and prosecution of Internet sex offenses.


Internet Sex offenders Crime prevention Child abuse Pornography Laws 


  1. Bazelon, E. (2013, January 24). The price of a stolen childhood. Retrieved from
  2. Brandt, J., Prescott, D. S., & Wilson, R. J. (2012). Pornography and contact offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Retrieved from:
  3. Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208 §121.110 Stat. 3009.Google Scholar
  4. Child Protection Act of 1984, 98-292 Stat 204.Google Scholar
  5. Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690. §7501 et seq.Google Scholar
  6. Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act of 1986, 99-628, 100 Stat. 3510.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, A. (1998). Sexuality and the internet: Surfing into the new millennium. Cyberpsycholo gy & Behavior, 1, 181–187. doi: 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.187 Google Scholar
  8. Department of Justice. (2003, April). Protect act fact sheet. Retrieved from:
  9. Diamond, M. (1999). The effects of pornography: An international perspective. Retrieved from:
  10. Dauvergne, M. & Turner, J. (2010). Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2009. Juristat Component of Statistics Canada, 30, 1–37. Retrieved from
  11. Endrass, J., Urbaniok, F., Hammermeister, L. C., Benz, C., Elbert, T., Laubacher, A., et al. (2009). The consumption of internet child pornography and violent and sex offending. BMC Psychiatry, 9, 1–7. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-9-43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frei, A., Erenay, N., Dittman, V., & Graf, M. (2005). Paedophilia on the internet: A study of 33 convicted offenders in the Canton of Lucerne. Swiss Medical Weekly, 135, 33–34.Google Scholar
  13. Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanson, R. K. & Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene?: Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 27, 6–35. doi:  10.1177/0093854800027001002
  15. Howitt, D. (1995). Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic? British Journal of Medical Psychology, 68, 15–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1995.tb01810.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kingston, D. A., Fedoroff, P., Firestone, P., Curry, S., & Bradford, J. M. (2008). Pornogra phy use and sexual aggression: The impact of frequency and type of pornography use on recidivism among sexual offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 341–351. doi: 10.1002/ab.20250 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kingston, D. A., Malamuth, N. M., Fedoroff, P., & Marshall, W. L. (2009). The importance of in dividual differences in pornography use: Theoretical perspectives and implications for treating sexual offenders. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 216–232. doi: 10.1080/0022440902747701 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kyckelhan, T., Beck, A. J., & Cohen, T. H. (2009). Characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents, 2007–2008. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  19. Middleton, D., Mandeville-Norden, R., & Hayes, E. (2009). Does treatment work with Internet sex offenders? Emerging findings from the Internet Sex Offender Treatment Programme (i-SOTP). Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 5–19. doi: 10.1080/13552600802673444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell, K. J. & Boyd, D. (2014). Understanding the role of technology in the commercial sexu al exploitation of children: The perspective of law enforcement. Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from:
  21. Mitchell, K. J., Jones, L. M., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2011). Internet-facilitated commercial sexual exploitation of children: Findings from a nationally representative sample of law-enforcement agencies in the U.S. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 43–71. doi: 10.1177/1079063210374347 Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2005). Police posing as juveniles online to catch sex offenders: Is it working? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 241–267. doi: 10.1007/s11194-005-5055-2 Google Scholar
  23. Motivans, M. & Kyckelhahn, T. (2007). Federal Prosecution of child sex exploitation offenders, 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 1–8. Retrieved from
  24. Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, 108 USC §§108–121.Google Scholar
  25. Riegel, D. L. (2004). Effects on boy-attracted pedosexual males of viewing boy erotica. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2004(33), 321–323. doi: 10.1023/b:aseb.0000029071.89455.53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Seto, M. C. (2013). Internet sex offenders. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Associa tion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 2005, 201–210. doi: 10.1177/107906320501700209 Google Scholar
  28. Sexual Exploitation of Children Act of 1977, 18 USC §2251.Google Scholar
  29. Sheldon, K., & Howitt, D. (2008). Sexual fantasy in paedophile offenders: Can any model ex plain satisfactorily new findings from a study of internet and contact sexual offenders? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 137–158. doi: 10.1348/135532506X173045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Terry, K.J. (2006). Sexual Offenses and Offenders: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  31. Walsh, W., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2013). Prosecution dilemmas and challenges for child pornography crimes: The third national juvenile online victimization study (NJOV-3). Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from:
  32. Webb, L., Craissati, J., & Keen, S. (2007). Characteristics of internet child pornography offenders: A comparison with child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 449–465. doi: 10.1177/107906320701900408 Google Scholar
  33. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K.J. (2009). Law Enforcement Responses to Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crimes: The National Online Juvenile Victimization Study, 2000 & 2006. Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from:
  34. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. J. (2012). Trends in arrests for child pornography production: The third national juvenile online victimization study (NJOV-3). Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  35. Wolak, J., Liberatore, M., & Levine, B. N. (2013). Measuring a year of child pornography trafficking by U.S. computers on a peer-to-peer network. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38, 347–356. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. J. (2012b). Trends in arrests for child pornography possession: The third national juvenile online victimization study (NJOV-3). Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  37. Wollert, R., Waggoner, J., & Smith, J. (2012). Federal child pornography offenders do not have florid offense histories and are unlikely to recidivate. In B. Schwartz (Ed.), The Sex Of fender, Volume VII (pp. 2–1 to 2-21).Google Scholar
  38. United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828 (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations