John Grisham: Prison penalties too harsh on guys who watch child porn

Wow. Just, wow. Really, John? Really?

Ew.

In vino veritas

I swear fame mucks with the mind to a point that you can't always trust your heroes any more...

Y'know, somewhere around the moment he typed/said "child porn," I would have thought the common sense filter would kick in.

Guess not.

I'm a little unclear why y'all disagree with the guy. From the US Sentencing Commission report mentioned in the article:

“Because of changes in the use of Internet-based technologies, the existing penalty structure is in need of revision. Child-pornography offenders engage in a variety of behaviors reflecting different degrees of culpability and sexual dangerousness that are not currently accounted for in the guidelines,” the commission’s chair Judge Patti Saris said in 2013.

Click to expand...

That would seem to support what Grisham's saying, no?

I have to admit, my first response to Grisham's comment is an "ewww."

But Michael has a fair point, here. And so does Grisham.

If they have a good computer history for the guy and it's obvious it wasn't a common thing at all, I do think that deserves a different sentence than someone with DVDs full of the stuff.

I don't know where I'd start with a minimum penalty, so I don't know that I'd argue that 10 years was too much for anyone who willingly surfed for it. It's pretty damned illegal for good reason, imho. But if programs helped the one-timers avoid recidivism more, I'd be open to that. Whatever stops it best, and huge jail terms for the lost causes.

One, Grisham's description was plural. "Websites." That's not accidental.

Two, is a pedestrian less dead because the driver was drunk, or texting? Hint: trick question. Likewise, every click on one of these sites funds a continued enterprise in child exploitation and violation.

Most of all, Grisham isn't even arguing over accidental browsing. As quoted above, it's drunken behavior, but with intent to view.

I don't have a problem with sentencing guidelines coming up for review. And I don't want to prosecute a guy who thought he was going to an otherwise legal hook-up site and got fooled. But what Grisham describes? No, I think they get exactly what they deserve.

His suggestion does glance off the notion that it's better to exploit 16 year old girls than 10 year old boys.

But, of course it is. They're only sluts after all.

I agree. The harsh penalties should be for the people who make it. I understand the arguments that it's the viewers who enable the production of it, but I just don't see that level of culpability as being equivalent to the harshness of the penalties. They're on completely different levels, IMO.

Kuwi -- it's kind of like blaming prostitutes for the sex industry, instead of their johns, without whom there would be no sex industry.

Karen Junker said:

Kuwi -- it's kind of like blaming prostitutes for the sex industry, instead of their johns, without whom there would be no sex industry.

Click to expand...

Not really. Many prostitutes are victims, and neither watching nor making child porn makes one a victim.

It's more like blaming the pimps instead of the johns. The prostitutes are the children here.

I wonder how many homemade pornographic videos of adults on the various tube sites were made and posted with the 100% consent of everyone involved and how many people watch them anyway?

Edit: In any case, I'm not saying I think it should be legal, only that I agree that the penalty is way out of proportion with the crime.

But it's also rather reasonable to blame the people who sleep with the prostitutes, without whom there would be no sex industry.

kuwisdelu said:

Not quite. Many prostitutes are victims, and watching child porn certainly does not make one a victim.

Click to expand...

Right.

The prostitutes--in many cases--are akin to the subjects in the child porn. Prostitution, after all, can be an end result of many other heinous activities, including human trafficking. Such people deserve no blame.*

The johns are equivalent to the people viewing the porn. They're the market, no question about it. And they certainly deserve some blame.

The people making the porn are more like the pimps, the sex traffickers, and others forcing people into prostitution. They are--imo--the top dogs when it comes to users and abusers. They should bare the majority of the blame.




* I think adults who engage in prostitution wholly of their own free will, who are in full control of what they are doing, is an entirely different thing. And it's not that I think they should be blamed for anything; it's more like I think there is room for such things from a legal standpoint.

robjvargas said:

Two, is a pedestrian less dead because the driver was drunk, or texting? Hint: trick question. Likewise, every click on one of these sites funds a continued enterprise in child exploitation and violation.

Click to expand...

That sounds an awful lot like the argument that anyone who buys illegal drugs is funding terrorism.

This is one of those issues where the obvious and immediate "Ewww!" reaction tends to eclipse reason.

I also fail to see where anything Grisham said implies it's better to exploit girls, of whatever age.

Amadan said:

That sounds an awful lot like the argument that anyone who buys illegal drugs is funding terrorism.

This is one of those issues where the obvious and immediate "Ewww!" reaction tends to eclipse reason.

Click to expand...

Heck, most of the stuff we buy funds a sweatshop somewhere in China.

robjvargas said:

Likewise, every click on one of these sites funds a continued enterprise in child exploitation and violation.

Click to expand...

I dunno. But apparently a lot of people who view these images do so via free file sharing. Does that fund more production as a matter of course?

I don't have a problem with sentencing guidelines coming up for review. And I don't want to prosecute a guy who thought he was going to an otherwise legal hook-up site and got fooled. But what Grisham describes? No, I think they get exactly what they deserve.

Click to expand...

Ten years seems pretty harsh to me. There are people who serve less time for much more serious crimes, imo.

Yeah, I didn't see anything in there that was endorsing child porn or even defending viewers of it. That was more a call for reasonable and appropriate sentencing.

Michael Wolfe said:

Ten years seems pretty harsh to me. There are people who serve less time for much more serious crimes, imo.

Click to expand...

What did Michael Vick get in jail time, again?

Amadan said:

That sounds an awful lot like the argument that anyone who buys illegal drugs is funding terrorism.

This is one of those issues where the obvious and immediate "Ewww!" reaction tends to eclipse reason.

I also fail to see where anything Grisham said implies it's better to exploit girls, of whatever age.

Click to expand...

It's in the Telegraph article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...watch-child-porn-are-not-all-paedophiles.html

His friend got in trouble for deliberately going to a site stating it featured minors and downloading. John Grisham adds that the 16-year-old girls "looked 30" which goes right along with those cases where girls are judged for crimes against them based on how they look, as in (trigger warning for sexual violence) this case, among others.

He also specifies that it's not like it was young boys. "He shouldn't ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys." Why the distinction? If he was making a case that exploiting teenagers is less of a crime than younger children, then why didn't he say 10yo girls? But all children should be protected from exploitation and abuse.

I'll just leave his quote without further comment beyond a "Fuck you, John Grishman."

It was 16-year-old girls who looked 30. You know, they were all dressed up and whatever. He shouldn't have done it, it was stupid. But it wasn't 10-year-old boys...

Click to expand...

Okay, I missed that quote. The distinction between 16-year-old girls and 10-year-old boys is unfortunate, but omit the gender designations and I think his point is valid.

justJM said:

I'll just leave his quote without further comment beyond a "Fuck you, John Grishman."

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really care if there was a decent point buried under all that bullshit. This was a shitty thing to say, and fuck him for saying it.