Author John Grisham: Child *advertiser censored* sentences too harsh

[LinasK]

Ballerina, I tried to say above that I think there's a good chance the "friend" told Grisham one thing at first and then was advised that his remarks could be seen to indicate a lack of contrition. So the "friend" turned around and gave a much more candid and apologetic interview to the press.

Hanging Grisham out to dry in the process. I don't think it was ever Grisham's intent to complain about penalties for those who molest 12-year-olds.

Maybe so, but that's a bell you can't unring-being a pedophile apologist.:snooty: I've conclusively decided to give away anything John Grisham I own, which is several novels and an audiobook and I will never buy his works again. That's the price you pay for defending pedophilia!

 

[Nova]

No problem, Nova -- I was hoping I could reply meaningfully without sounding accusatory.

I think it's a common mistake to assume that a past life expectancy rate of 25 or 30 means that most people only lived 25-30 years or so. If I'm not mistaken, though, the life expectancy rate is actually a measure of infant mortality and doesn't mean that at all.

When they do the numbers on infant mortality (oh man am I ever bad at math!) they average out to 25, so therefore, the life expectancy is 25. So people didn't actually grow old and die at what we now regard as young (for dying!) ages back then.

If a person survived the dangerous childhood years of disease & accidents, they could and did live to ripe old ages. It's weird how they mathematically figure it all out, I don't get it, but I'm into history and remember learning that at some point. Someone with a better grasp on mathematics might be able to better explain it. I missed that day in every math class I ever took :blushing:

No, you're right and you don't need any help. If 6 infants die at age 1, and 1 survives and lives to be 60, then the "life expectancy" of the group will be the average, or a little over 9. It doesn't mean everybody (or anybody) died at that age.

And you are right that we have individual specimens that lived to be age 70 or so. But nothing I've read has ever suggested it was the norm.

Even if the average woman survived until age 40 or 50, the evolutionary odds were still in one's favor if you mated with her when she was 15 rather than 50. (And in fact, science has now found all sorts of health problems in the children of older parents (male and/or female.) It probably didn't take advanced calculus for Cro-Magnon man to figure this out.

I'm open to other explanations, but I'm sorry to report that most men--when their wives and girlfriends aren't around--will admit to each other than they prefer girls aged 16-19. There are exceptions, of course. And we are talking about a sexual fantasy. The same men might well prefer a woman their own age as a companion.

(I didn't think you were accusatory at all (or verbose).) Posters have been very good about letting Ballerina and I discuss this issue without assuming we are "soft" on pedophiles.)

 

[Nova]

Maybe so, but that's a bell you can't unring-being a pedophile apologist.:snooty: I've conclusively decided to give away anything John Grisham I own, which is several novels and an audiobook and I will never buy his works again. That's the price you pay for defending pedophilia!

But, Linas, he didn't defend pedophilia. He merely questioned whether three years hard time was an appropriate sentence for having sex with someone he thought was 16. The majority of states agree with him (or would if the victim were indeed 16).

 

[Constance]

No, you're right and you don't need any help. If 6 infants die at age 1, and 1 survives and lives to be 60, then the "life expectancy" of the group will be the average, or a little over 9. It doesn't mean everybody (or anybody) died at that age.

And you are right that we have individual specimens that lived to be age 70 or so. But nothing I've read has ever suggested it was the norm.

Even if the average woman survived until age 40 or 50, the evolutionary odds were still in one's favor if you mated with her when she was 15 rather than 50. (And in fact, science has now found all sorts of health problems in the children of older parents (male and/or female.) It probably didn't take advanced calculus for Cro-Magnon man to figure this out.

I'm open to other explanations, but I'm sorry to report that most men--when their wives and girlfriends aren't around--will admit to each other than they prefer girls aged 16-19. There are exceptions, of course. And we are talking about a sexual fantasy. The same men might well prefer a woman their own age as a companion.

(I didn't think you were accusatory at all (or verbose).) Posters have been very good about letting Ballerina and I discuss this issue without assuming we are "soft" on pedophiles.)

Thanks for helping me understand the math better! I see numbers and my mind goes...somewhere else!

I didn't and ain't even about to ask the straight men in my life about this, but as a woman, my experience has been the opposite of what you're saying. I attract far more younger men now than I did older men as a teen, and I wasn't an ugly duckling or, God knows, isolated or surrounded by saints or anything like that.

Maybe because it's more socially acceptable? I don't know, but I do think that you're using way too wide of a brush when you say that most straight men would prefer a certain age of woman.

Now, that most straight men have fantasized or will fantasize about younger women, I believe. I would say the same is true for older women. And same age women. But I'm having a really hard time taking your word for it that almost all straight men would, by nature, desire teens over adult women.

I've been a lot of places and seen a lot of things, and one thing I can say with 100% certainty is, people are sure different. To me, this idea of Everyman yearning after Lolita is an offensive stereotype that isn't based in reality.

As not-most-straight-men-on-earth, it's probably only safe for us to say that most straight men prefer women. I think it's disrespectful to project anything more than that onto an entire group of people, and in this case, even dangerous. The propagation of ideas like this could very well validate child abuse in some pervert's screwed up mind.

JMO!

 

[southernmimi]

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

A man who looks at child *advertiser censored*...drunk or sober. I imagine the *advertiser censored* was already downloaded. Grisham gave us a glimpse into who he really is. As they say....believe him.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Massive creep factor playing into this whole thing, imo

 

[Nova]

Constance,

I'm only going by what straight men say. (I'm gay, myself, and though members of my community have our own youth preferences, I don't happen to share them.) And of course I'm speaking in generalizations.

But you are comparing a recent development (the desirable "cougar") to the almost world-wide practice of older men marrying teenagers and even pre-teens. This isn't some sort of stereotype I invented for this thread.

And as for "disrespecting" anyone, I'm just reporting what I've heard men say. I didn't say most men (at least not in the U.S.) WOULD have sex with a 16-year-old; I merely said the late teens are mentioned as a sexual ideal.

 

[Constance]

You needn't explain yourself or your position, Nova. My apologies if my use of the term "disrespectful" offended. I meant it only in a very general sense and hope you didn't take it personally, as it wasn't intended that way.

One of my hobbies is reading old newspapers. Some months ago, I was amused to run across an article from the 1920s asking what they referred to as an old-age question: Why do so many young men fall for older women?

It's hardly a new phenomenon, and I'm not comparing the two at all. While I find the "cougar" thing laughable, I find the sexual exploitation of teens to be anything but amusing. I merely used the older women/younger men thing as an example of why the whole "biology makes men desire sex with teens" myth is unlikely to be based in fact.

It's clear that we disagree on this part of the conversation, and that's okay. But do you not see how this idea of average straight adult men naturally (because biology) sexually desiring teens could lead to some abuser justifying their sexual abuse of a child?

If you only read one line of this post, please let it be the bolded one above. This is what it boils down to.

 

[tlcya]

OT but I see Steven Powell has had his child *advertiser censored* charges reinstated yet again.

 

[Nova]

A man who looks at child *advertiser censored*...drunk or sober. I imagine the *advertiser censored* was already downloaded. Grisham gave us a glimpse into who he really is. As they say....believe him.

Mimi, I oppose the death penalty but it doesn't mean I'm pro-murder. (I'm not even particularly soft: I think all murder sentences should be LWOP except in cases of extreme provocation.) I think our drug laws are insane, but I've never even tried heroin or meth.

How does it make sense to release violent offenders while warehousing kids who smoke a couple of joints? How does it make sense to force a college girl who pees behind a bush to register as a sex offender for life (real-life example from a WS member)?

Grisham has long worked for reasonable and fair sentencing laws. Child *advertiser censored* is defined rather widely in some places. Three years' hard time for looking at a computer image (which may or may not have been real) is overly harsh, if you ask me--BECAUSE one year or six months would have the same deterrent value at a fraction of the cost.

Now it turns out Grisham may have been misled as to what his friend actually did (or the friend may be backpedalling to prepare to show "contrition" before a parole board), but either way, I don't see why we make assumptions about Grisham's sexual proclivities just because he questions the severity of the law.

*I* think we apply the label "sex offender" far too widely, but I have never been sexually attracted to children nor even looked at sexualized images of same!

 

[Nova]

You needn't explain yourself or your position, Nova. My apologies if my use of the term "disrespectful" offended. I meant it only in a very general sense and hope you didn't take it personally, as it wasn't intended that way.

One of my hobbies is reading old newspapers. Some months ago, I was amused to run across an article from the 1920s asking what they referred to as an old-age question: Why do so many young men fall for older women?

It's hardly a new phenomenon, and I'm not comparing the two at all. While I find the "cougar" thing laughable, I find the sexual exploitation of teens to be anything but amusing. I merely used the older women/younger men thing as an example of why the whole "biology makes men desire sex with teens" myth is unlikely to be based in fact.

It's clear that we disagree on this part of the conversation, and that's okay. But do you not see how this idea of average straight adult men naturally (because biology) sexually desiring teens could lead to some abuser justifying their sexual abuse of a child?

If you only read one line of this post, please let it be the bolded one above. This is what it boils down to.

No need to apologize, my friend. Neither you nor anyone else has been unkind to me here. And, again, I didn't say the majority of men (straight or gay) were actually trying to have sex with 16-year-olds, just that I hear that age mentioned as an ideal. (In practical terms it has become harder to achieve, since more women continue their education through college and know full well it will take two incomes to support a family. That doesn't mean young women have stopped having sex, obviously, just that they are less likely to set up housekeeping with an older man.)

*advertiser censored* sapiens have been around for 100,000 years, so 100 years is barely a blip on the evolutionary timeline. And the fact that a 1920s article felt it necessary to write about the issue suggests the older woman/younger man couple was seen as an oddity even then!

Yes, I see how an individual might claim he was propelled by evolutionary urges in pursuing a teen, but he might claim about the same about rape. After all, most species (including primates and other large mammals) breed in brief, fairly anonymous encounters which may require some force from the male. Yet no court in the land would accept that as a legal defense!

Human society today is not what is was 100,000 years ago. For their own good and the good of the offspring, we need most women to finish their education and establish themselves in the job market before they begin to reproduce. Even if morality weren't an issue (and it certainly is), we would be right to discourage girls from procreating too early.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Mimi, I oppose the death penalty but it doesn't mean I'm pro-murder. (I'm not even particularly soft: I think all murder sentences should be LWOP except in cases of extreme provocation.) I think our drug laws are insane, but I've never even tried heroin or meth.

How does it make sense to release violent offenders while warehousing kids who smoke a couple of joints? How does it make sense to force a college girl who pees behind a bush to register as a sex offender for life (real-life example from a WS member)?

Grisham has long worked for reasonable and fair sentencing laws. Child *advertiser censored* is defined rather widely in some places. Three years' hard time for looking at a computer image (which may or may not have been real) is overly harsh, if you ask me--BECAUSE one year or six months would have the same deterrent value at a fraction of the cost.

Now it turns out Grisham may have been misled as to what his friend actually did (or the friend may be backpedalling to prepare to show "contrition" before a parole board), but either way, I don't see why we make assumptions about Grisham's sexual proclivities just because he questions the severity of the law.

*I* think we apply the label "sex offender" far too widely, but I have never been sexually attracted to children nor even looked at sexualized images of same!

Could you provide a link to the facts and figures of these 'wildly' inappropriate sentences given to offenders and what offense they're charged with? It would back your argument up a lot better than making vague accusations that no one can verify.

The three year sentence for Grisham's 'buddy' which is linked in this thread was fair, the video and pics were of children between 12 yrs and 16 yrs. In his drunken state he also shared these images with a undercover cop, as if an intoxicated person could manage to share files, lol, but obviously, it makes the guy feel better that he was 'drunk' at the time, no one can back him up on that claim. Whatever helps him sleep at night I suppose, while those poor kids being abused in those vids he masturbated over and shared for popularity will never really sleep soundly again.

 

[hambirg]

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

I'm not sure what's worse, implying that people who watch child *advertiser censored* aren't harming anybody or his indignantion that old white men would be actually sent to prison for their crimes.

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 *advertiser censored*.

I've been online after drinking and never once have I ever "pushed the wrong buttons" and "got into child *advertiser censored*." Grisham is trying to justify a behavior that can't be legitimized. That speaks volumes.

'We’ve gone nuts locking up sex offenders': Celebrated author John Grisham, 59, has claimed that some men who viewed child *advertiser censored* online are ‘not real pedophiles’ and ‘would never harm anybody’, but are still called sex offenders and sent to prison.

Again with the no harm thing. And I can't think of any good reason why a non-pedophile would be watching child *advertiser censored*, let alone sharing it with others. Just how does a non-pedophile go about finding pedophiles (or maybe they're non-pedophiles too) to share their child *advertiser censored* (that they accidently found online) with?

‘His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website,’ Grisham told The Telegraph.

‘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.

But it wasn't 16yr old girls who looked 30. And Grisham would know this because he's a lawyer and an author of legal thrillers. He testified for his "buddy" so he surely was familiar with the case. Authors usually research their stories.I'm not buying that he didn't know the facts while he was telling his "story" during the interview.

‘He shouldn’t have done it. It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys. I'm not sure if I even believe that, but it's not lost on me. . .12 yr old girls, okey dokey. . .10 yr old boys, baaaad.

‘He didn’t touch anything.

Again, I'm not buying that at all. I assume he means his friend didn't directly molest a child, but I bet he touched something while he was watching the child *advertiser censored*.

‘And God, a week later there was a knock on the door: ”FBI!” and it was sting set up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to catch people – sex offenders – and he went to prison for three years.’

Yes, the authorities try to catch criminals, even sex offenders. When they do catch them, sometimes those criminals go to prison.

‘There’s so many of them now. There’s so many ”sex offenders” – that’s what they’re called – that they put them in the same prison.

Yes, people who get caught downloading and sharing child *advertiser censored* over the internet are called "sex offenders." Grisham seems outraged by that. Btw, the same prison as who . . .other criminals . . .non- "old white men?"

‘Like they’re a bunch of perverts, or something.

Pretty much. The definition of a pervert is "a person whose sexual behavior is considered not normal or acceptable."


‘We’ve gone nuts with this incarceration.’

I wonder what he considers nuts? Is it that we incarcerate sex offenders . . .or old white men sex offenders. . .or only old white men sex offenders that watch child *advertiser censored* with girls instead of boys?

I'm glad I don't own any of his books. I won't be buying any in the future. He really dug himself into a hole that no flippant apology can dig him out of.

 

[Constance]

Good morning! Yes, I'm talking about someone justifying it in their own mind, ie. "Oh, it's biological, natural, most men want to do it..." and then, bolstered by claims like the ones you've made in this thread, acting on it.


(Respectfully snipped by me.)

Yet no court in the land would accept that as a legal defense!

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, though, by that time, the crime would have already been committed.

IDK about all that there evolutionary stuff, but I do know that a lot of people are extremely susceptible to suggestion. That's why propaganda works. The less that we as a responsible society attempt to explain away or normalize urges that can and do lead to sexual crimes, the better, IMO.

I stand by my belief that nothing good can come from perpetuating this theory, but frankly, I'm tired of talking about it.

More on-topic, perhaps: I never could get into a Grisham book, and I love to read. To me, he's like the Toby Keith of writing. Mainstream, pop stuff, could have been produced in a factory. And now he's just...icky.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

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

I'm not sure what's worse, implying that people who watch child *advertiser censored* aren't harming anybody or his indignantion that old white men would be actually sent to prison for their crimes.

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 *advertiser censored*.

I've been online after drinking and never once have I ever "pushed the wrong buttons" and "got into child *advertiser censored*." Grisham is trying to justify a behavior that can't be legitimized. That speaks volumes.

'We’ve gone nuts locking up sex offenders': Celebrated author John Grisham, 59, has claimed that some men who viewed child *advertiser censored* online are ‘not real pedophiles’ and ‘would never harm anybody’, but are still called sex offenders and sent to prison.

Again with the no harm thing. And I can't think of any good reason why a non-pedophile would be watching child *advertiser censored*, let alone sharing it with others. Just how does a non-pedophile go about finding pedophiles (or maybe they're non-pedophiles too) to share their child *advertiser censored* (that they accidently found online) with?

‘His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website,’ Grisham told The Telegraph.

‘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.

But it wasn't 16yr old girls who looked 30. And Grisham would know this because he's a lawyer and an author of legal thrillers. He testified for his "buddy" so he surely was familiar with the case. Authors usually research their stories.I'm not buying that he didn't know the facts while he was telling his "story" during the interview.

‘He shouldn’t have done it. It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys. I'm not sure if I even believe that, but it's not lost on me. . .12 yr old girls, okey dokey. . .10 yr old boys, baaaad.

‘He didn’t touch anything.

Again, I'm not buying that at all. I assume he means his friend didn't directly molest a child, but I bet he touched something while he was watching the child *advertiser censored*.

‘And God, a week later there was a knock on the door: ”FBI!” and it was sting set up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to catch people – sex offenders – and he went to prison for three years.’

Yes, the authorities try to catch criminals, even sex offenders. When they do catch them, sometimes those criminals go to prison.

‘There’s so many of them now. There’s so many ”sex offenders” – that’s what they’re called – that they put them in the same prison.

Yes, people who get caught downloading and sharing child *advertiser censored* over the internet are called "sex offenders." Grisham seems outraged by that. Btw, the same prison as who . . .other criminals . . .non- "old white men?"

‘Like they’re a bunch of perverts, or something.

Pretty much. The definition of a pervert is "a person whose sexual behavior is considered not normal or acceptable."


‘We’ve gone nuts with this incarceration.’

I wonder what he considers nuts? Is it that we incarcerate sex offenders . . .or old white men sex offenders. . .or only old white men sex offenders that watch child *advertiser censored* with girls instead of boys?

I'm glad I don't own any of his books. I won't be buying any in the future. He really dug himself into a hole that no flippant apology can dig him out of.

:goodpost:

‘He shouldn’t have done it. It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys. I'm not sure if I even believe that, but it's not lost on me. . .12 yr old girls, okey dokey. . .10 yr old boys, baaaad.




So glad you picked up on that, explains a lot about Grisham and his views.


JMO

 

[believe09]

I think Grisham's mea culpa was pathetic,tbh. You cant be a responsible, thinking person and legitimize that behavior in any way. The Pete Townsend defense...head shaking....did John's buddy pay for the images with a credit card too?