John Grisham says sentencing for child porn offenders is too harsh

[Kittylady]

In the words of my son ... Dude, stop talking. Just stop talking.

No, keep talking. Let everyone know what kind of thoughts you have going around in your head so we can choose to spend our money on anything other than your next novel.

[SHELLEE]

How long until he starts backtracking?

[idunno]

And the requisite apology. Doesn't make him less of an asshole, but at least it's a strait forward apology, and not a non-apology apology. Also, if his commets weren't intended to show sympathy for the 60 yo white male who watches online child porn, what were they intended as? That, I'd like to know.


A statement from John Grisham | John Grisham
What John Grisham Doesn't Understand About Mass Incarceration

A statement from John Grisham

October 16, 2014 Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography—online or otherwise—should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable.

I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all.

ETA: Apparantly the "friend" is a real person seperate from Grisham. Go figure.
http://jezebel.com/the-case-against-...rie-1647275519

In 2002, Grisham wrote a letter recommending that his friend Michael B. Holleman be reinstated to the bar after Holleman was convicted of viewing child pornography. And it seems that Holleman's case (or at least his explanation of what happened) is very similar to what Grisham was describing.From Findlaw:

"In late 1996 or early 1997, Holleman, while drinking heavily at his office, accessed some publicly available computer images of child pornograpy on the internet. Holleman did not print any of the computer images, and after briefly viewing some of these images, he believed that he had deleted them from his computer. Following a seizure of Holleman's computer in February 1997, federal agents recovered these images from his computer hard drive."

Well, as long as he didn't print them.
While Holleman was arrested and pled guilty, his prison sentence was nowhere near the three years Grisham described. He was sentenced to 18 months and served 15 and a half, according to Salon. Furthermore, with the help of his friends and colleagues, Holleman was able to file a petition to be reinstated to the bar and is now practicing in Mississippi.

Yeah, he's still a jackass.

[crayzeehappee]

I'm not an expert at viewing porn on the internet (I've never seen a porn movie my whole life, believe it or not), but to say that someone could accidentally view child porn by clicking a few wrong buttons is so stupid, I don't even have the words for it.

[Kathie_Moffett]

Fuck you Grisham. It's not a victimless crime.

EXACTLY. He sure missed that point, didn't he? Those aren't life-sized dolls, Mr. Grisham, they're real children.

where the fuck do you even find child porn? it's not like it's lurking behind google, waiting for you to make the wrong search. i'm pretty sure you have to know exactly what you're looking for, and where to find it, and you probably have to be in touch with other pervs that give you access.
grisham is making it sound like there's a youporn for paedophiles, just waiting for someone to get drunk and accidentally browse.

"YouPerv"? "YouPedo"? I'm sure they exist somewhere....

Snippets of it are scattered by trolls all over the web, especially at more high risk sites like the 'chans, and it's clear when you go there that you might need the eye bleach.

Point is, to get arrested for child porn you have to download it, collect it, and do it a lot. One pic emailed you by a nasty ex-bf or angry co-worker (that one happened to a female friend whose prowess in sales pissed off an older male salesman) is not going to get you arrested.

Grisham is either lying or a real idiot if he thinks a little drunken websurfing is all that friend of his did.

In the words of my son ... Dude, stop talking. Just stop talking.

He rather pointed a finger at himself, actually. He needs to stuff that mouth with toilet paper.

[aabbcc]

I'm not an expert at viewing porn on the internet (I've never seen a porn movie my whole life, believe it or not), but to say that someone could accidentally view child porn by clicking a few wrong buttons is so stupid, I don't even have the words for it.

When it comes to computers, I'm the dumbest person on the planet. I point and click and that's about it. In my entire Internet lifetime, I have never once clicked on anything that has brought up child porn (or any other kind of porn). Of course, I've never been drunk while surfing ...

[NickiDrea]

Google and other mainstream browsers have software that blocks child porn images. To get them, you have to be in what I call the underworld of the internet. Much of it is encrypted and traded between viewers, or is homemade. You do not just stumble across child porn.

I refuse to handle child porn cases and the things I've heard my colleagues talk about regarding those cases make me sick to my stomach. All those poor, innocent children, some only weeks old, screaming in terror and pain. They will never completely recover from that kind of abuse. Anyone looking at those disgusting images is a pervert, needs to be locked up and most importantly absolutely plays a huge a part of damaging these kids. If people weren't looking at it there wouldn't be a market for it. These children are victims of one of the worst crimes imaginable and the punishment needs to be MORE severe for possessing it. And for me of all people to say that is huge.

I will get rid of any John Grisham book that I own and I will never buy anything he writes in the future. I will not support his disgusting views in any way. And I don't buy his bullshit apology either.

And I agree, I'm curious to see what's on his hard drive.

[stef]

^^ what she said, plus:

“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 said. “But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn.”
He recounted the story of his “good buddy from law school” who got caught up in a Canadian sting operation as an example of judicial excess: “His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website. It was labelled ‘sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that’. And it said ’16-year-old girls’. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff — it was 16 year old girls who looked 30. He shouldn’t ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys. He didn’t touch anything.”


WTF does that have to do with anything? the fact that he had to include that says a lot about what he really thinks.

[Novice]

Basically he knows someone who got caught who is really good at hiding their perv, and thus he believes that all offenders, real offenders, that look like Igor or something deserve prison but "nice people" who are able to evade the law (with their lawyer training anyone???) are really just decent people that had an accident or slipped....

And this is is why child molesters get away with it. *facepalm*

[Kittylady]

“But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn.”

I'm sorry but how can you accidentally "get into" child porn? A normal person surfing the net for something to get their jollies off to will do a sharp about turn and GTFO of there should they come across anything that looks like it could contain images of children being abused. There's also organizations that you can report the dodgy URL to, should you so wish.

Oh and in years of web mooching for everything from general smut to really awful shit to freak out people on GR I have never, ever come across anything of that nature. As NickiDrea points out, it's a closed underground world that is incredibly difficult to "stumble" into. Accident my pale age-appropriate arse!

[Palermo]

When they get caught so many of them use the excuse "doing research for a book I am writing". Screw him and that will be the end of my reading any Grisham books.

[chartreuse]

What I read that non-apology as:

"I'm sorry you didn't like what I said."

[SoCalMarie]

He recounted the story of his “good buddy from law school” who got caught up in a Canadian sting operation as an example of judicial excess: “His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website. It was labelled ‘sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that’. And it said ’16-year-old girls’. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff — it was 16 year old girls who looked 30. He shouldn’t ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys. He didn’t touch anything.”

So, his friend downloaded content that was labeled "16 year old hookers", because he was expecting the girls in the video to look 30?
No. I think not. He downloaded the content to view "16 year old girls".
And, "it wasn't boys or anything?"... As if that would be "worse", as opposed to underaged girls?

His responses make me want to punch my computer screen.

And, although I'm not familiar with Canadian law, I highly doubt your friend is in jail because of "one drunken night of clicking on a few things". With stings, they usually watch/track people's activity over a period of time, until enough evidence is gathered to charge the people involved.

Like others pointed out - people searching for this kind of content is blocked by search engines like google. But there are specific browsers out there, that you can download and search with - coded to search the depths of the internet, illegal content, illegal social networking, illegal transactions (porn, drugs, etc.) ...I read TechCrunch daily, there's always articles about stings and busts going on with the people that use these browsers and sites...

God, What a jacka**

[sluce]

I do not buy the argument that just looking doesn't hurt, because the sick need to look fuels the industry that harms children. I disagree with his bullshit 100%, but will say sentencing guidelines are a cluster fuck in the US. A person can get 10 years for viewing child porn, when they have never touched a child, yet a rapist may walk in a year, etc. Plus we throw these people in prison, but still do not require they get any treatment.

[NickiDrea]

I do not buy the argument that just looking doesn't hurt, because the sick need to look fuels the industry that harms children. I disagree with his bullshit 100%, but will say sentencing guidelines are a cluster fuck in the US. A person can get 10 years for viewing child porn, when they have never touched a child, yet a rapist may walk in a year, etc. Plus we throw these people in prison, but still do not require they get any treatment.

Since I don't handle these cases I have no idea- people convicted of possession of child porn don't have mandatory SO treatment? That's very odd and a loophole that clearly needs to be closed. I don't think a child porn conviction requires SORNA/Megan's Law registration either. Whether it should is debatable I guess.

You make a good point about the disparate sentences for child porn vs. a "violent crime" such as rape. I was recently reading an article from the Boston Globe that said that, at least in 2010, federal judges deviated from the guidelines for child porn cases in 43% in cases (gave a lesser sentence) than in non-child porn cases (18%). The judges have opined that the penalties are unduly harsh when you look at the sentences for many other federal crimes (I'm guessing that exempts drugs because those mandos are outrageous).

I assume that if the state handled more of the cases we'd see shorter sentences but it's problematic for states to handle child porn cases because the investigations are often multi-jurisdictional or even international.

I am usually so pro-defense that my feelings about child porn feel alien to me. I just feel so strongly about these cases that I almost want to leave our side to prosecute them. I can't because I just couldn't stomach the visuals. I was reading an article about a federal prosecutor's unit that handled these cases. The prosecutors were talking about not being able to sleep without seeing the children in the videos and pictures in their dreams and that they have become bitter, cynical people due to what they've seen. Their jobs have caused divorces, severe depression, etc. I certainly applaud the work they do. They really are getting the bad guys. I just love children so much and the thought of someone harming them is unbearable to me... ok. Off my soapbox now.