ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


The DOJ Has Nearly Doubled Its Prosecutions For Child Sex Crimes Photo of Anders Hagstrom Anders Hagstrom

[The Daily Caller]

Federal investigators nearly doubled the number of investigated sex crimes involving children between 2004 and 2013, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced Thursday.

Child sex crime cases include possession or production of child pornography and child sex trafficking, the BJS reported. Federal investigators took up 1,405 of these cases in 2004, compared to 2,776 cases in 2013. More than 70 percent of the prosecutions each year were for possessing child pornography, followed by those suspected of sex trafficking at 18 percent and those who produced child pornography at 10 percent. (RELATED: UK Reports On Child-On-Child Sex Abuse Are Skyrocketing)

The Department of Justice prosecuted a total of 36,080 child sexual exploitation cases between 2004 and 2013. Nearly 100 percent of the offenders were male; 97 percent were U.S. citizens; 82 percent were white; 79 percent had no prior felony convictions; and 70 percent were unmarried. (RELATED: High Powered Sex Abusers: Too Big To Fail)

Read more


Join the discussion

  1. Not Really

    “Only four percent of those who didn’t plead guilty were convicted in trial.”

    Does that mean without plea bargain extortion their weak cases would be obvious?

    • KM

      Probably. Though it is important to note that a very tiny fraction of cases go to trial at all.

      • Not Really

        It is also important to note that the feds very rarely lose at trial.

  2. TS, ready to crunch numbers

    Conveniently missing is the one stat everyone wants to know: How many were recidivists for a percentage calculation? How many of the recidivists were of which kind, e.g felony and/or misdemeanors? Is it 21% because 79% did not have felony convictions previously? What about misdemeanors? How many had those? How do you want to split this pumpkin pie (seasonally speaking)? This is an incomplete data set published.

    You cannot show a recidivism rate without knowing the recidivists obviously and being registered somewhere. By not giving this very important set of facts, the DOJ is going to continue to perpetuate inflated numbers that were miscalculated to begin with or not even calculated when it comes to registry usefulness, etc as we have discussed here repeatedly. How bloody convenient! Where is an actuary student when you need one to do the number crunching or an inside source with the entire data set for crunching afterward by an interested party?

      • TS

        Thanks for the report @Not Really.

        Unfortunately, the report does not break down those who are recidivists with a prior SO conviction, regardless if felony or misdemeanor. It just says felony convictions of undetermined type. Too bad because it could help the registry uselessness argument, but why put that out there for it to be used against them?

        Without that data, this report merely reports they are prosecuting more people after doing more detective work. Money justification in the end.

        • Not Really

          I was looking for that stat too. Maybe it is in the sources.

    • i can't wait to die

      this will provide a little help
      “79 percent had no prior felony convictions”

      • TS

        @I can’t wait to die – Nope, does not help because it does not classify the 21% remaining as SO recidivists but merely as felonious recidivists (which is a wide open array of possible convictions as illustrated in the report with examples). See my comment above.

        Given the topic at hand, it is specifically looking at CP prosecutions over a period where the statistics deal with that topic and the breakdown in various subcategories. Having to call out this specifically in my comment isn’t required.

        It would still be helpful for the DOJ to annotate the SO recidivists in their report and whether they are registered currently to see how the stack up against those who are first timers and not registered. They either did not study that data set or it is a data set they don’t want known because it would prove the uselessness of the registry.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *