Reoffending after convictions related to child sexual exploitation material: Data from the German Federal Central Criminal Register.

BACKGROUND: As digitalization has made it easier to produce, copy, and distribute child sexual exploitation material (CSEM), the possession and distribution of child sexual abuse images has become more widespread. Thus, the need to assess the risk of subsequent sex offenses - above all, sexual abuse of children by individuals who have been convicted of CSEM offenses - becomes more and more important. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the respective size of two groups of offenders: first, offenders who commit CSEM offenses without ever crossing the line to sexual abuse of children, and second, so-called crossover offenders, that is, individuals who commit CSEM offenses and engage in child sexual abuse. Identification of differences between these two groups facilitates analyzing the risk that someone convicted of a CSEM offense might in the future sexually assault children. METHOD: We used data from the German Federal Central Criminal Register (Bundeszentralregister), a data set that includes information about all persons convicted of any criminal offense, including "child pornography" offenses, by a court in Germany. RESULTS: For persons convicted of CSEM offenses only, with no additional concurring sex offenses, the rate of subsequent convictions for child sexual abuse is very low (1.1 % after a six-year follow-up period, adult offenders). This risk is even lower if offenders are older than 30 years of age, and it is slightly higher for offenders with previous offense-specific convictions (i.e., previous sex offenses). CONCLUSIONS: The mere existence of a conviction for a CSEM offense is not an indication that the convicted person poses a significant risk of committing child sexual abuse. To pinpoint such a risk more accurately, the following factors should be examined: the existence of offense-specific prior records, the presence of crossover-offending in the form of concurring offenses, and the age of the offender.

[Prioritizing the vaccinated?] / Priorisierung von Geimpften?

Definition of the problem: The article asks whether vaccination status could become relevant if it is unavoidable to prioritize between patients in intensive care units during a pandemic. The aim is to analyze different approaches and arguments in favor of and against the inclusion of vaccination status. Arguments: The following arguments are assessed: First, it has been argued that it is unnecessary to open this discussion. Second, one could make the point that public debates about touchy subjects should be avoided. A third, frequently expressed opinion claims that physicians must never discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, either because this is in conflict with human rights or because this is incompatible with the general principle that patients' prior conduct does not matter. Fourth, behavioral economists argue that intensive care medicine should take vaccination status into account with the goal to improve the overall numbers of vaccinations. A fifth line of thinking argues that it is more just to take vaccination into account. Conclusion: The author concludes that the omission to get a necessary and recommended vaccination may be taken into account if patients' prospects to survive are similar. She points out that lotteries would be worse.