Author John Grisham: Child 🤬🤬🤬🤬 sentences too harsh

[iamnotagolem]

Another author I'll never be able to read again. Sick, sick, sick.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29639956

He said a "good buddy" of his had been imprisoned for three years for viewing child on a website labelled "sixteen-year-old wannabe hookers" when his drinking was out of control.

"We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child," he told the Telegraph.

http://time.com/3511499/john-grisham-child-🤬🤬🤬🤬/

“These are people who haven’t hurt anybody. They deserve some type of punishment, whatever, but 10 years in prison?”

 

[Teche]

Sick. I would hope LE confiscates Grisham's computer. Maybe they'll find more then books in the making. I won't be reading anymore of his novels.

 

[Pisces Cloud]

It seems now that he regrets making the comments.

https://www.facebook.com/JohnGrisham?ref=br_rs

 

[tlcya]

Another author I'll never be able to read again. Sick, sick, sick.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29639956

He said a "good buddy" of his had been imprisoned for three years for viewing child on a website labelled "sixteen-year-old wannabe hookers" when his drinking was out of control.

"We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child," he told the Telegraph.

http://time.com/3511499/john-grisham-child-🤬🤬🤬🤬/

“These are people who haven’t hurt anybody. They deserve some type of punishment, whatever, but 10 years in prison?”

thank you - I just posted my similar thoughts on this author and his POV on another thread. I am disgusted by the minimization. "no one was touched therefore no harm was done" (paraphrase). The people (drunken morons or sober) who create the market are just as guilty as those coercing, forcing etc minors to participate in the creation of the images these drunken fools "accidentally" slobber over. As to his belief that his good friend accidentally downloaded enough images to warrant his being "drug into" a ring investigation. um yeah, I really should not comment further on my thoughts about that sort of blind denial on the part of Mr. Grisham.

Will never read another of his books nor view another movie based on his books. I refuse to support him continuing to have a platform for his ridiculous views on this issue.

 

[tlcya]

It seems now that he regrets making the comments.

https://www.facebook.com/JohnGrisham?ref=br_rs

I am glad he regrets his comments. But I can't unring the bell. I will never know if he regrets the comments or simply regrets the backlash that came of them.

 

[iamnotagolem]

It seems now that he regrets making the comments.

https://www.facebook.com/JohnGrisham?ref=br_rs

Unfortunately it is too little too late for many of his fans. I don't know how you accidentally say child doesn't hurt anybody. Child is not a victimless crime, the sentences are not harsh enough IMO.

Minimalizing a disgusting crime like child is deplorable. While the greatest victims are the children in the videos, the victims go much further, the perps spouse and children are also victims.

 

[iamnotagolem]

Also, I've never known anyone who got drunk and downloaded child . What kind of defense is that?

 

[LietKynes]

How would Grisham like it if someone victimized his grandkids by taking illegal photos of them ?? (assuming he has grandchildren , and assuming he cares about them) Grisham's friend couldn't view pics without some monster taking the photos in the first place. Nauseating.

I have zero respect for this author from this point on !!! :moo:

 

[Nova]

Grisham was right and I'm sorry if he is backing down in the face of public hysteria.

16 is the age of consent in Canada and half of the United States. Putting a man in prison for 3 years for viewing pictures that purport to be of 16-year-olds is ridiculous! Meanwhile, we are letting violent offenders go free because we don't have enough prison beds.

Ya'll can vent your spleens on me now, but please note I never said "child abuse doesn't matter", nor do I support the legalization of pornograpy involving younger children.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Grisham was right and I'm sorry if he is backing down in the face of public hysteria.

16 is the age of consent in Canada and half of the United States. Putting a man in prison for 3 years for viewing pictures that purport to be of 16-year-olds is ridiculous! Meanwhile, we are letting violent offenders go free because we don't have enough prison beds.

Ya'll can vent your spleens on me now, but please note I never said "child abuse doesn't matter", nor do I support the legalization of pornograpy involving younger children.

How do you know it's even true about the 16 yr old and this so called drunken 'good buddy'? For all we know, Grisham might have a gripe about men being jailed for downloading child , age not specific. I'm googling to find such a case where a man was sentenced to 3 yrs jail for downloading of the 16 yr old age variety, no luck yet.
Grisham's a story teller, he's backed out of his claim probably because he can't substantiate it.

 

[looks like rain]

How do you know it's even true about the 16 yr old and this so called drunken 'good buddy'? For all we know, Grisham might have a gripe about men being jailed for downloading child , age not specific. I'm googling to find such a case where a man was sentenced to 3 yrs jail for downloading of the 16 yr old age variety, no luck yet.
Grisham's a story teller, he's backed out of his claim probably because he can't substantiate it.

I'd like to know the true charges what his buddy was convicted of. I just can't see defending any body (buddy or not) of engaging in viewing child . That is sick. IMO

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Grisham is a fool for attesting what his "buddy" is or isn't capable of.
We can all account for our own actions but to theorize on what another person would or wouldn't do?

No way!

There have been circumstances (rare) that my own anger surprised me under unique situations: therefore I would never attest to the actions or in actions of another!

.....the stuff we learn thru life experiences....

 

[tlcya]

Grisham was right and I'm sorry if he is backing down in the face of public hysteria.

16 is the age of consent in Canada and half of the United States. Putting a man in prison for 3 years for viewing pictures that purport to be of 16-year-olds is ridiculous! Meanwhile, we are letting violent offenders go free because we don't have enough prison beds.

Ya'll can vent your spleens on me now, but please note I never said "child abuse doesn't matter", nor do I support the legalization of pornograpy involving younger children.

While I completely disagree with your opinion I respect your right to it. You will see no venting of spleen from me directed at you. I disagree. That is all.

 

[shana]

Worth a read, imo...

In defense of John Grisham

 

[Nova]

How do you know it's even true about the 16 yr old and this so called drunken 'good buddy'? For all we know, Grisham might have a gripe about men being jailed for downloading child , age not specific. I'm googling to find such a case where a man was sentenced to 3 yrs jail for downloading of the 16 yr old age variety, no luck yet.
Grisham's a story teller, he's backed out of his claim probably because he can't substantiate it.

As we all do here, I'm just discussing the facts as they are reported. Obviously, if the subjects of the photos turn out to be 10, that will be a very different matter.

Believe me, I'd rather 16-year-olds wait to have sex, but most do not wait, and I don't see what is to be gained by calling a 16-year-old a "child", particularly when s/he can legally consent to sex in 60% of the states and Canada.

 

[Lulu14]

Funny how shows like "16 and Pregnant" or "Teen Mom" are popular, yet an older man seeing pictures of naked teens/teen is a crime punishable by jail.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

As we all do here, I'm just discussing the facts as they are reported. Obviously, if the subjects of the photos turn out to be 10, that will be a very different matter.

Believe me, I'd rather 16-year-olds wait to have sex, but most do not wait, and I don't see what is to be gained by calling a 16-year-old a "child", particularly when s/he can legally consent to sex in 60% of the states and Canada.

My daughter is in a relationship which began when she was 16 and her boyfriend was 22, they are now 23 yrs , 29 yrs respectively and still together. I have to add though, they only started living with each other this last 2 yrs.
I would be a hypocrite to criticize anyone else's relationship when I condoned theirs. The age of consent in the state they began their relationship is 16 yrs, so no one broke any laws.

Back to topic, I think it's important to take into account Grisham's retraction and apology, he must have had a good reason to so. I already gave my opinion why he retracted his statement, he has to come up with the evidence. He could have even honestly made a mistake, the teen was actually 14 yr olds, which is going to bring a jail term. He's gone off half cocked, now he'll just wait for the dust to settle and move on. JMO

 

[wfgodot]

Suzanne Ost in Guardian:

John Grisham is wrong – those who watch child abuse images cause harm

• The thriller writer’s claims about sentencing in the US are simplistic, damaging and inappropriate

 

[Cubby]

Also, I've never known anyone who got drunk and downloaded child . What kind of defense is that?

search "voluntarily intoxicated defense". IANAL, but apparently it is used in some states/cases to minimize responsibility....... or at least that is my take on it. Maybe a verified attorney will come in and explain, but either way drunk or sober is no excuse. Only those interested in child are going to view it drunk or not. I'd bet there are a whole lot of people out there who could not drink enough to view child .

There are no take backs on what Grisham said. It has to be the backlash or he would have NEVER said it to begin with.

 

[iamnotagolem]

And here is one more about the conviction of John Grisham's friend http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainm...raphic-images-of-children-under-12/ar-BB9uuk6

"An undercover agent who asked for some of Holleman's pictures over the Internet earlier this year received 13 images, all of children under 18, some under 12. They depicted children during sexually explicit conduct, including intercourse," said the report from November 1997, quoting a US justice department lawyer, Kathy McLure.

The reports added that Mr Holleman, who received treatment for alcoholism and compulsive gambling after pleading guilty to the charges, had been trapped by "an officer with the Canadian mounted police, posing as someone else" who had solicited and received the images.