Video Abstracts -- brief videos summarizing key findings of new articlesHow Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting? Data From a National Sample of Police Cases
Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1
Youth-produced sexual image cases handled by law enforcement agencies during 2008 and 2009: dispositions of the mail and telephone surveys.
- FIGURE 2
Typology of youth-produced sexual image cases known to law enforcement. To create the typology we reviewed the narrative case descriptions prepared by interviewers to identify the themes that were used to describe the case types and subtypes. We then circulated the initial typology among researchers in the field and revised it on the basis of their comments. We used quantitative data and narrative case summaries to categorize cases as to type. The quantitative data included variables that described whether various aggravating circumstances occurred (eg, adult involvement; criminal behavior such as blackmail or violence; lack of consent to being photographed or to distribution, including images forwarded by a recipient). Cases that could not be classified on the basis of such variables were coded using the narrative case descriptions. All cases were double-coded by project staff with discrepancies resolved by the study director.
Tables
- TABLE 1
Youth-Produced Sexual Image Cases Handled by Law Enforcement Agencies During 2008 and 2009: Characteristics of Cases by Case Typea
Characteristics of Cases Case Type Adult Involved Aggravated n = 278 % (n) Youth-Only Aggravated n = 183 % (n) Experimental n = 214 % (n) All Cases n = 675 % (n) Age of offender, adult-involved cases n/a n/a n/a ≤17b 5 (17) 18–24 50 (119) ≥25 38 (118) Unknown 7 (24) Youngest minor involved in case 5 or younger <1 (2) <1 (2) 1 (3) <1 (7) 6–10 1 (7) 4 (8) 1 (4) 2 (19) 11 or 12 13 (31) 10 (21) 8 (19) 10 (71) 13–15 60 (165) 62 (113) 69 (140) 64 (418) 16 or 17 24 (71) 24 (39) 21 (48) 23 (158) Case involved criminal behaviorc Blackmail or attempts to blackmail 7 (22) 9 (18) 0 5 (40) Other coercion (eg, bullying) 4 (13) 6 (9) 0 3 (22) Threats of violence or actual violence 2 (8) 5 (11) 0 3 (19) Sexual abuse/exploitation by a minor 0 5 (11) 0 n/a No criminal behaviord 0 81 (114) 100 (214) n/a Case involved interpersonal conflict 0 16 (38) 0 5 (38) Photograph was takenc By surprise <1 (2) 8 (12) 0 3 (14) Using deception 2 (12) 4 (6) 0 2 (18) Over objection of subject 4 (7) 2 (5) 0 2 (12) While subject was asleep/unconscious <1 (2) 2 (4) 0 1 (6) With hidden camera <1 (1) 1 (2) 0 1 (3) Other lack of consent 0 1 (2) 0 <1 (2) No apparent lack of consent 92 (253) 82 (152) 100 (214) 91 (619) Images were distributedc Without the knowledge of a subject 11 (30) 57 (100) 0 22 (130) Over the objection of a subject 5 (15) 13 (24) 0 6 (39) No apparent lack of consent 86 (236) 38 (73) 97 (211) 75 (520) Images were forwarded by a recipient 8 (19) 54 (90) 0 20 (109) Images showed genitals or explicit sexe 70 (208) 62 (115) 68 (150) 67 (473) There was an arrest 62 (172) 36 (71) 18 (47) 39 (290) Suspect was chargedf With federal crimes 8 (35) 0 0 3 (35) With state crimes 57 (146) 18 (38) 5 (17) 28 (201) In juvenile court 2 (5) 29 (54) 17 (41) 15 (100) Felony plea or conviction 35 (103) 5 (13) 1 (7) 14 (123) As a result of this case, suspect will or will likely be a registered sex offender 45 (128) 5 (10) 0 17 (138) n/a, not applicable.
↵a Results are weighted to reflect selection probabilities. ns and percentages may not be proportionate because some cases have more influence than others. Some totals do not round to 100% because of rounding or missing data. Missing data are shown when they exceed 5%.
↵b Police considered some minors to be offenders because they aggressively pursued sexual contacts with adults.
↵c Categories are not mutually exclusive.
↵d By definition, all adult-involved aggravated cases and no experimental cases involved criminal behavior.
↵e We used a question based on the federal definition of child pornography to determine whether images were sexually explicit (ie, images showed genitals or sexual activity). Cases with no sexually explicit images involved nude or seminude images that were not sexually explicit.
↵f Some minors who were charged in state court also had juvenile court cases.
- TABLE 2
Youth-Produced Sexual Image Cases Handled by Law Enforcement Agencies During 2008 and 2009: Distribution of Youth-Produced Sexual Images by Case Typea
Characteristics of Distribution Cases Case Type Adult Involved Aggravated n = 278 % (n) Youth-Only Aggravated n = 183 % (n) Experimental n = 214 % (n) All cases n = 675 % (n) Images were distributed 86 (243) 83 (148) 83 (178) 84 (569) Cases where images were distributedb A minor took and distributed picture of self 90 (215) 66 (97) 93 (169) 84 (481) How images were distributed Sent to another but not postedc 86 (211) 82 (118) 84 (148) 84 (477) Posted online, not sent to anyone 5 (11) 5 (9) 11 (23) 7 (43) Both posted and sent 9 (21) 13 (21) 5 (7) 9 (49) Images were found ond Cell phone 76 (159) 85 (121) 74 (134) 78 (414) Computer or computer media 37 (113) 21 (38) 20 (36) 27 (187) Online site 12 (31) 16 (24) 13 (28) 14 (83) Digital camera or memory card 7 (22) 6 (5) 9 (10) 7 (37) Ipod or mp3 player 1 (3) 0 2 (2) 1 (5) Other place 3 (3) <1 (1) 1 (2) 1 (6) Images found on cell phone only 57 (106) 69 (96) 65 (114) 63 (316) ↵a Results are weighted to reflect selection probabilities. ns and percentages may not be proportionate because some cases have more influence than others.
↵b For distribution cases, n = 569.
↵c Sent images were distributed via texting, e-mail, or instant message; posted images were copied to a Web site where access could have been public or limited.
↵d Categories are not mutually exclusive.
