We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison whove 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.
'Weve 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 shouldnt have done it. It was stupid, but it wasnt 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 didnt 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.
Theres so many of them now. Theres so many sex offenders thats what theyre 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 theyre 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."
Weve 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.