Dr. Frank Kardasz, August 14, 2008

Law enforcement personnel whose duties obligate them to view unlawful images have a sad duty. Seeing images and videos that depict the exploitation of minors is a disturbing task. Observing minors being brutally assaulted and hearing their cries creates psychological victimization for those who must review the images and gather or present evidence towards the arrest and prosecution of offenders.

As caring humans, investigators and prosecutors have a natural affinity and empathy for young victims. The empathy and affinity for minors is so profound that many in law enforcement are psychologically unable to accept assignments that routinely deal with the victimization of children.

Unlike other forms of contraband, unlawful images are the only type of banned substance introduced to the human psyche through the perceptions of sight and sound. Although the victims who suffer most are the children who endure the "hands-on" contact offenses, proximate victims of unlawful images also include those who view the images and hear the sounds of suffering. Investigators and prosecutors become psychological victims. Particularly disturbing are the video images that are accompanied by the audio pleas of child victims.

Federal law and many state laws now have victims’ rights provisions. The laws permit victims to describe the effect of crime to the court using a victim impact statement. Depending upon the rules in the jurisdiction, the statement may be provided during pre-sentence oral testimony or in written text.

Below is a draft victim impact statement that I wrote in my capacity as a law enforcement supervisor assigned to review unlawful images during the course of ICAC investigations. My situation is not unique. My investigative experiences are shared by many others in the law enforcement community. The following information may be useful to others who can employ the information as a basis for similar victim impact statements. The information may also be useful in educating the judiciary about the impact of unlawful images.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victim impact statement of Frank Kardasz

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the Federal Law (18 U.S.C. § 3771), a victim is described as any person directly or proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense. Arizona law (A.R.S. 13-4401.19) describes a victim as a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed. I am writing this statement to you for the purpose of sharing my story of proximate victimization. I do not wish to invoke any other legal rights enumerated in the victims rights act. I only wish to submit this statement to the court for consideration.

My name is Frank Kardasz. In the course of my employment as a law enforcement officer and during this investigation it was my sad duty to view the images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors that are the subjects of the present case. Seeing the disturbing images of children being sexually abused caused me despair. Knowing that the defendant received sexual gratification from viewing the images is
particularly abhorrent to me.

Thinking about the images is emotionally troubling. When I consider the abuse that the victims in the images suffered I am deeply affected. I am simultaneously aware that my level of victimization is minimal compared to that of the child who was depicted in the images. Although I am troubled, my worst day in law enforcement is still exponentially better than the day that the child victims in this case were abused, photographed and recorded for the deviant sexual enjoyment of the defendant.

Because I am a law enforcement officer, most people would not consider me a victim in the classic sense. I am a dutiful and humble member of the State in the case of the State versus the defendant. I hope that you will not consider me less of a victim because of my job. I was not physically assaulted and I did not suffer property loss. I was not personally sexually abused. But as you are aware, you Honor, exposure to unlawful images is different. Images are the only kind of contraband that enter the human body through the sense of sight. Unlike other kinds of crimes, psychological victimization from viewing images happens to anyone who sees the images. My victimization was emotional. My memory now retains recollections of horrors that no ones mind should possess.

I am disturbed too because I am aware of troubling research about possessors of unlawful images. According to a Congressional report (Child pornography, 1986) possessors and traffickers of unlawful images use them for one or more reasons including:

• To blackmail children into keeping silent about the abuse.
• To preserve a child's youthful image at the age preferred by the pedophile.
• To establish trust and camaraderie with other pedophiles.
• To gain access to other markets and children by exchanging material with other pedophiles.
• To duplicate, produce and sell for profit.
• To reassure themselves that their deviant behavior is shared by others and therefore, not abnormal.
• To seduce children and lower the child's inhibitions as part of the grooming process intended
• tomodel deviant sexual behavior.

I am also troubled because my training and experience suggests that possessors of unlawful images are sometimes also dangerous on a physical level. Recent research (Hernandez, 2006) suggests that there may be a correlation between those who possess child pornography and those who are also “hands-on” contact offenders. Surprising studies of federal prisoners indicated that 85% of those in custody for possession of unlawful images were also “hands-on” molesters whose contact offenses had never been discovered.

It disturbs me to know that other professionals agree that there exists a danger that possessors of unlawful images could escalate and that possessors could eventually offend against real children. Dr. Chris Hatcher, (1997) Professor of Psychology at the University of California said, "It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally, to contact." Former FBI profiler John Douglas (Mindhunter, 1995, p. 108) described a relationship between pornographic images and sex offenders. He said, "With most sexually based killers, it is a several-step escalation from the fantasy to the reality, often fueled by pornography, morbid experimentation on animals, and cruelty to peers."

The ramifications of unlawful images was succinctly described in the case of Arizona v. Berger. In 2003, former Arizona high school teacher Morton Berger was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 200 years prison. He appealed the sentence based on arguments of equal protection under the law and cruel and unusual punishment. In December 2004, the conviction
was affirmed by the Arizona Court of Appeals (State of Arizona, 2004, December 14).

Arizona Judges Susan Ehrlich and Philip Hall dismissed Berger's appeal with opinions that have also been similarly reflected in previous US Supreme Court rulings. The AZ Appellate Court opinions included the following excerpts (citations omitted):

• It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling.
• …the victimization of a child continues when that act is memorialized in an image. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Unfortunately, the victimization of the children involved does not end when the pornographer's camera is put away.
• The legislative judgment…is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.
• …the possession of child pornography drives that industry and…the production of child pornography will decrease if those who possess the product are punished equally with those who produce it.
• ...it (the law) will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand.
• …the possession of child pornography inflames the desires of child molesters, pedophiles and child pornographers. The State has more than a passing interest in forestalling the damage caused by child pornography: preventing harm to children is, without cavil, one of its most important interests.
• …we cannot fault the State for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain.
• Berger downloaded images from the Internet, and every time he visited a website, he demonstrated to the producers and sellers of child pornography that there was a demand for their product. Berger's demand served to drive the industry; there need not have been a direct monetary exchange. Berger maintains also that because his possession of the pornographic images was passive and because he did not use threats or violence in the commission of his crimes, his sentence is grossly disproportionate. This logic is abstruse. As was described by this court in Hazlett, 205 Ariz. at 527 p. 11, 73 P. 3d at 1262, and as is evident from the violent pornographic images in this case, child pornography is a form of child abuse. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.

Please consider that the imaged victims who were the subject of the defendants’ sexual fantasies are unable to provide you with a victim impact statement. Try to imagine what they would say if they could appear before you in court. I know from my training and experience that some victims of child pornography suffer a lifetime of misery wondering when and where their images will reappear on the Internet. Researchers found that the effects of unlawful images on child victims are often devastating. According to Klain, Davies and Hicks (Child pornography, March 2001, p. 10) child sex abuse victims suffer a multitude of physical and psychological problems.

I am disquieted to know from my training and experience that some offenders are adept at creating public personas’ as trustworthy and demure persons while they are privately sexually deviant predators. Offenders sometimes practice techniques enabling them to thwart polygraph and penile plesmograph tests. They often feign religious transformations and plead for mercy from the court while privately
mocking the justice system and re-offending.

Your Honor, if you viewed the images in this case you may share my feelings and you may also have empathy for the victims. While I am anguished, I am also fortunate because unlike the victims depicted in the images, I am able to obtain counseling for my woes and I can use stress management techniques for my problems. I can turn my sadness into a strengthened resolve to continue to bring offenders to you for justice.

In the interest of protecting the public, I request that you impose the longest possible period of incarceration in this case along with lifetime probation and lifetime sex offender registration status for the defendant. In my humble opinion, a long period of incarceration is the best way to prevent the offender from victimizing others.

Thank you for considering my statement.

Kindest regards,

Frank Kardasz

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

References

Child pornography and pedophilia: Report made by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. (1986). 99th Congress, Second session. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.1986. iii. 54: 24 cm.

Douglas, J. and Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's elite serial crime unit, New York: Pocket Books.

Hatcher, C. (1997, October). Cited in: Armagh, D. A. Safety net for the Internet: Protecting our children. Juvenile Justice Journal (on-line) Volume V, Number 1, May 1998. Retrieved March 15, 2003. From http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjjournal/jjjournal598/net.html

Hernandez, A. E. (2006, September 26). Statement of Andres E. Hernandez before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/HernandezTestimonyCongress.pdf

Klain, E.J., Davies, H.J., & Hicks, M.A., (2001, March). Child Pornography: The criminal justice system response, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf

State of Arizona Division One Court of Appeals. (2004, December 14). Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. 1 CA-CR 03-0243. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.cofad1.state.az. us/opinionfiles/CR/CR030243.pdf