Child Pornography: - Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

State Law
Every state and the District of Columbia has criminal statutes addressing the production,
distribution, or possession of child pornography. 291 Some states have more inclusive definitions
of child pornography and impose greater penalties. Many states model their statutes after
federal law, and US Supreme Court decisions also shape and guide the language and content
of these statutes. In addition states have greater jurisdiction under the civil child-welfare system
in the juvenile or family court.
The Juvenile Court's Response to Child Pornography
Although federal law also requires reporting of child abuse and provides penalties for failure
to report, 292 it is more often state agencies that respond to reports of child abuse involving
sexual exploitation. 293 In California, for instance, as in many states, the definition of sexual
exploitation under the mandatory child-abuse reporting law includes both prostitution and
pornography. 294
By including pornography in their mandatory child-abuse-reporting definitions, states
can also respond to the sexual exploitation of children through the civil child-protection system.
In Rhode Island, for instance, local law enforcement or the family- and child-services
director may enter any place where a child may be being exploited and detain and hold the
child victim as a witness. If no one comes forward to claim custody of the child, the officer
may bring neglect proceedings on behalf of the child. 295 For a pornography case to enter the
child-protection system, however, the alleged offender must be a parent, legal guardian, custodian,
or a member of the household, or the parent or legal guardian must have somehow
contributed to the child's exploitation.
The jurisdiction of the juvenile or family court is often invoked to facilitate the provision
of services or remove children from the streets. Few placement alternatives exist, however,
for adolescents who may be at risk of sexual exploitation or are already involved in pornography,
and even fewer viable placements or intervention strategies exist for runaway youth. 296
Thus the ability of the child-protection system to respond comprehensively to protect
victimized youth may be limited.
Another challenge facing the juvenile court is the recent increase in the number of juvenile
offenders. In a study of the justice system's response to child sexual exploitation, 10
percent of the exploited youth who were interviewed reported being depicted in pornography
made by peers. 297 Force was used or threatened in one-half of these peer pornography incidents.
Three-quarters of the peers who made the pornography were younger than 18 years of
age, while 88 percent of the youth photographed were between the ages of 14 and 17 at the
time. One-half of the reported peer offenders were girls. 298
Youth exploited through pornography by their peers were more likely to be living on the
street or with friends than at home or in a shelter. Significantly, three-quarters of the peer
offenders were described as friends or lovers. 299 The recent online victimization study by the
University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center also raises
concerns about the number of online sexual solicitations and approaches initiated by youth.
Almost half of the overall solicitations and approaches were reportedly committed by juveniles
who also reportedly committed almost half of the aggressive episodes. 300 The study is
clear, however, that in almost all of the cases, the youth never met the perpetrator, and there-
26 - CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: THE CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-SYSTEM RESPONSE