• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Why did the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, spike its own shocking study, that during therapy, fully 85 percent of incarcerated child pornography users have reluctantly admitted to sexually assaulting children?

The BOP study by psychologists Andres E. Hernandez and Michael L. Bourke has been momentarily suppressed and tossed onto the political hot seat as “debated” and “contested.”

The New York Times recently leaked the BOP report on 155 child pornography users who were in a treatment program at the low security Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C.

At the time of their arrests, 26 percent (40 men) admitted to being child molesters. However, during therapy, 85 percent (132 men) confessed to sexually abusing children. Also at arrest, the men admitted to victimizing 75 children. During therapy, however, the 155 felons finally confessed to 1,777 young victims – and, this is what they admitted.


Why should BOP yank the Butner prisoners’ study from the peer-reviewed academic journal poised to publish it? Anyone can check the Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Statistics website for thousands of prisoner studies. Just from the top:

Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners

Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities

Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails

American Indians and Crime: A BJS Statistical Profile

Profile of Nonviolent Offenders Exiting State Prisons

Age Patterns of Victims of Serious Violent Crime

Although many readers would – rightly or wrongly – interpret the above study findings as vilifying convicts, the studies have not been publicly disputed and suppressed. Yet, scientific findings that prove pornography’s harmful effects are immediately disputed and suppressed by closeted persons and entities.

In her Culture and Media Institute essay on this scandal, legal maven Jan LaRue wonders why the BOP is hiding the study: “Are officials more concerned about misinterpretations than protecting kids?”

La Rue reports, “Judith Simon Garrett, assistant general counsel at the BOP, is heavily involved in squelching the study.” Garrett has railed against legislators, says LaRue, who want longer sentences and “restrictions on early release mechanisms.”

On point, Garrett also feels commercial “nudity or sexually explicit pictures” should be available to convicts.

La Rue observes that Garrett’s own advocacy writings are published with a BOP disclaimer.

“Why isn’t she urging the BOP to do the same here? Is it because she thinks ‘programs’ that permit prisoners access to pornography are acceptable, and the study could prove her wrong?”

These are prudent questions.

Garrett’s sexual activism exemplifies why our “adult” pornography laws are ignored by those whose special interests misdirect our justice system.

For years, I have received mail from homosexual and heterosexual convicts who claim theirs was a “soft pornography” downward spiral into abuse and prison. Did the psychologists gather embarrassing data on these hot-button political issues?

And Butner is not d? j? vu – because I have been here before.

Some brief background. In 1986, my federally funded analysis of “Images of Children, Crime & Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler,” was suppressed by Verne Speirs who was then director of the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

In 1994, after my study was endorsed by OJJDP Director Robert Sweet, in-depth investigations proved that Big Porno and the Kinsey Institute had significantly invested in discrediting our study findings. For, like Butner, our research identified a strong link between pornography and child sexual abuse.

The claim that the Butner study did not “meet agency approval” and that “the results might be misinterpreted” is suspect and does not justify BOP censorship. The pornography industry and its closet cohorts never want the public to learn that “just looking at pictures” has too often triggered serious copycat crimes against women and children.

Before leaving this subject, I must note that Dr. Fred Berlin, of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic worried that the Butner findings might actually be dangerous.

The New York Times reporters quote Berlin: “If people we thought were not dangerous are more so, then we need to know that, and we should treat them that way. But if we’re wrong, then their liberties aren’t going to be fairly addressed.”

However, Berlin has historically protected the “liberties” of convicted pedophiles who he knew were abusing children during their mandated sex therapy program at Hopkins’ Berlin/Money clinic.

Based on decades of “liberties” wrongly given to dangerous child predators, the Butner prison findings may cause such sexperts legitimate worry about future litigation.

Now, as LaRue says, after We The People study the whole, unedited report, let a real “debate” begin!



Related special offers:

Reisman’s “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences”

“The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose’ on the Most Influential Scientist of Our Time”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.