mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006806.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "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 14 of 43\nGrooming in Child Sexual Abuse 969\n1. Minimize false negatives. Thus, we wanted the definition to be sensitive to all occurrences of grooming.\n2. Minimize false positives. Thus we also wanted the definition at the same time to be specific and not overinclusive (including perfectly appropriate behaviors as invalid examples of grooming).\n3. Be capable of providing the basis for a valid assessment procedure.\n4. Not include constructs that in themselves bring about further definitional problems.\n5. Minimize judgment, although not completely avoid it as we believe that determining a behavior to be grooming essentially requires some complex judgments regarding appropriateness.\n6. Show interrater reliability (have a high degree of agreement across raters).\n7. Allow the rater to have multiple choices regarding final decisions given the complexity of individual cases, such as clearly grooming, probably grooming, uncertain, or not grooming.\n8. Allow a third party to understand the logic of these judgments and conclusions by explicating the decision pathway for these final judgments.\nWe propose that grooming be defined as \"antecedent inappropriate behavior that functions to increase the likelihood of future sexual abuse.\" There are no stages of grooming as there are in some definitions as proposing stages necessitates additional definitions and demarcations of each stage. Therefore, there are two individual criteria that must be met to consider a behavior to be \"grooming:\" (a) the behavior being evaluated must in and of itself be inappropriate and a case for this inappropriateness must be made, and (b) a sound argument must be presented that the behavior or behaviors increases the likelihood of future sexual abuse. The definition is further elucidated by providing a number of exemplars of grooming:\n1. Any sexualization of the relationship such as talking about sex in a way that is not permissible given the adult's relationship with the child (e.g., it is permissible for parents to provide sex education to their children) or exposing the child to sexually explicit materials such as R rated movies (showing the child pornography would be abusive in and of itself and therefore not grooming).\n2. Inappropriate gift giving (developmentally or socially inappropriate, such as bikinis or bras purchased by a neighbor or teacher).\n3. Inappropriate nonsexual communication with the child (e.g., telling the child she is the only one who understands the offender, or telling her \"I love you\" when the social role is not appropriate for this type of communication), particularly when an adult uses these statements to manipulate the child to do something (e.g., \"I love you and people who love each other touch each other\").\nDOJ-OGR-00006806",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 14 of 43",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse 969",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Minimize false negatives. Thus, we wanted the definition to be sensitive to all occurrences of grooming.\n2. Minimize false positives. Thus we also wanted the definition at the same time to be specific and not overinclusive (including perfectly appropriate behaviors as invalid examples of grooming).\n3. Be capable of providing the basis for a valid assessment procedure.\n4. Not include constructs that in themselves bring about further definitional problems.\n5. Minimize judgment, although not completely avoid it as we believe that determining a behavior to be grooming essentially requires some complex judgments regarding appropriateness.\n6. Show interrater reliability (have a high degree of agreement across raters).\n7. Allow the rater to have multiple choices regarding final decisions given the complexity of individual cases, such as clearly grooming, probably grooming, uncertain, or not grooming.\n8. Allow a third party to understand the logic of these judgments and conclusions by explicating the decision pathway for these final judgments.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We propose that grooming be defined as \"antecedent inappropriate behavior that functions to increase the likelihood of future sexual abuse.\" There are no stages of grooming as there are in some definitions as proposing stages necessitates additional definitions and demarcations of each stage. Therefore, there are two individual criteria that must be met to consider a behavior to be \"grooming:\" (a) the behavior being evaluated must in and of itself be inappropriate and a case for this inappropriateness must be made, and (b) a sound argument must be presented that the behavior or behaviors increases the likelihood of future sexual abuse. The definition is further elucidated by providing a number of exemplars of grooming:",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Any sexualization of the relationship such as talking about sex in a way that is not permissible given the adult's relationship with the child (e.g., it is permissible for parents to provide sex education to their children) or exposing the child to sexually explicit materials such as R rated movies (showing the child pornography would be abusive in and of itself and therefore not grooming).\n2. Inappropriate gift giving (developmentally or socially inappropriate, such as bikinis or bras purchased by a neighbor or teacher).\n3. Inappropriate nonsexual communication with the child (e.g., telling the child she is the only one who understands the offender, or telling her \"I love you\" when the social role is not appropriate for this type of communication), particularly when an adult uses these statements to manipulate the child to do something (e.g., \"I love you and people who love each other touch each other\").",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006806",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "452-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006806"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document discussing the definition of grooming in child sexual abuse cases. The text is well-formatted and clear, with numbered lists and examples. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}