mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006795.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "452-1",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 3 of 43\n958\nN. Bennett and W. O'Donohue\nbefore abuse has actually taken place the abuse may be prevented. Second, in a forensic context, sexual abuse allegations might be partially substantiated when it is established that grooming did indeed occur. However, without a clear grooming definition and a valid way of measuring grooming, this judgment that a behavior constitutes grooming becomes problematic. For example, a recently convicted sex offender in Las Vegas, Nevada, is seeking to appeal his conviction on the grounds that the testimony provided by a psychologist regarding his grooming behavior is unreliable (Mower, 2012). His defense attorney claimed that \"[Grooming] is not a proven science. It's a behavioral thing. . . . How can you tell that this was in the mind of this guy?\"\nThere have been attempts to criminalize grooming in several countries. In the United States, a federal law (18 USC § 2252A(a)(6)) has made it illegal and thus adds years onto a sentence for people who knowingly offer child pornography to a minor to persuade the minor to participate in an illegal activity such as adult-child sexual contact (18 USC § 2252A, certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography). In the United Kingdom, Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has covered \"the behavior of an offender who meets, or seeks to meet, a child with the intention of committing a sexual assault, if he has met or communicated with that child on at least two earlier occasions\" (McAlinden, 2006, p. 342). However, as Gillespie (2004) noted, definitional problems with the construct of grooming limit the use of this law, as grooming is \"a transient feature that is difficult to capture and virtually impossible to decide when it begins and ends\" (p. 586). McAlinden also described another law designed to criminalize grooming in the UK:\nSections 123-9 introduce the risk of sexual harm order—a new civil preventative order which can be used to prohibit specified behaviours, including the 'grooming' of children. . . . This order effectively criminalizes acts which may be carried out for the purposes of sexual grooming, but only after an individual had been identified as posing a risk to children. (p. 342)\nO'Callaghan (2011) described that in Wales a man pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for one count of meeting a child following sexual grooming that consisted of inappropriate communication via Facebook. In addition, Vance (2012) described a proposed law in New Zealand that provides a sentence of three years in prison for anyone who participates in online \"indecent communication with anyone under 16.\" This law is aimed at sexual offenders who use Internet chatrooms or other social media websites to find victims.\nIt is evident that these legal definitions of grooming are both varied and limited. The sorts of activities that these laws target do not actually\nDOJ-OGR-00006795",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 3 of 43",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "958",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "N. Bennett and W. O'Donohue",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "before abuse has actually taken place the abuse may be prevented. Second, in a forensic context, sexual abuse allegations might be partially substantiated when it is established that grooming did indeed occur. However, without a clear grooming definition and a valid way of measuring grooming, this judgment that a behavior constitutes grooming becomes problematic. For example, a recently convicted sex offender in Las Vegas, Nevada, is seeking to appeal his conviction on the grounds that the testimony provided by a psychologist regarding his grooming behavior is unreliable (Mower, 2012). His defense attorney claimed that \"[Grooming] is not a proven science. It's a behavioral thing. . . . How can you tell that this was in the mind of this guy?\"\nThere have been attempts to criminalize grooming in several countries. In the United States, a federal law (18 USC § 2252A(a)(6)) has made it illegal and thus adds years onto a sentence for people who knowingly offer child pornography to a minor to persuade the minor to participate in an illegal activity such as adult-child sexual contact (18 USC § 2252A, certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography). In the United Kingdom, Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has covered \"the behavior of an offender who meets, or seeks to meet, a child with the intention of committing a sexual assault, if he has met or communicated with that child on at least two earlier occasions\" (McAlinden, 2006, p. 342). However, as Gillespie (2004) noted, definitional problems with the construct of grooming limit the use of this law, as grooming is \"a transient feature that is difficult to capture and virtually impossible to decide when it begins and ends\" (p. 586). McAlinden also described another law designed to criminalize grooming in the UK:\nSections 123-9 introduce the risk of sexual harm order—a new civil preventative order which can be used to prohibit specified behaviours, including the 'grooming' of children. . . . This order effectively criminalizes acts which may be carried out for the purposes of sexual grooming, but only after an individual had been identified as posing a risk to children. (p. 342)\nO'Callaghan (2011) described that in Wales a man pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for one count of meeting a child following sexual grooming that consisted of inappropriate communication via Facebook. In addition, Vance (2012) described a proposed law in New Zealand that provides a sentence of three years in prison for anyone who participates in online \"indecent communication with anyone under 16.\" This law is aimed at sexual offenders who use Internet chatrooms or other social media websites to find victims.\nIt is evident that these legal definitions of grooming are both varied and limited. The sorts of activities that these laws target do not actually",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006795",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "N. Bennett",
      "W. O'Donohue",
      "Mower",
      "McAlinden",
      "Gillespie",
      "O'Callaghan",
      "Vance"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Las Vegas",
      "Nevada",
      "United States",
      "United Kingdom",
      "Wales",
      "New Zealand"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2012",
      "2006",
      "2004",
      "2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "18 USC § 2252A(a)(6)",
      "18 USC § 2252A",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006795"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving child sexual abuse and grooming. The text discusses various laws and legal definitions related to grooming in different countries."
}