Author John Grisham: Child Porn sentences too harsh

Discussion in 'Celebrity and Entertainment News' started by iamnotagolem, Oct 16, 2014.

  1. iamnotagolem

    iamnotagolem Active Member

    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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 pornography 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-porn/

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


  3. Teche

    Teche Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  4. Pisces Cloud

    Pisces Cloud Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
  5. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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 porn images to warrant his being "drug into" a porn 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.
     
  6. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  7. iamnotagolem

    iamnotagolem Active Member

    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Unfortunately it is too little too late for many of his fans. I don't know how you accidentally say child porn doesn't hurt anybody. Child porn is not a victimless crime, the sentences are not harsh enough IMO.

    Minimalizing a disgusting crime like child porn 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.
     
  8. iamnotagolem

    iamnotagolem Active Member

    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Also, I've never known anyone who got drunk and downloaded child porn. What kind of defense is that?
     
  9. LietKynes

    LietKynes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,018
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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:
     
  10. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  11. PrimeSuspect

    PrimeSuspect New Member

    Messages:
    8,675
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you know it's even true about the 16 yr old porn and this so called drunken 'good buddy'? For all we know, Grisham might have a gripe about men being jailed for downloading child porn, age not specific. I'm googling to find such a case where a man was sentenced to 3 yrs jail for downloading porn 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.
     
  12. looks like rain

    looks like rain New Member

    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 pornography. That is sick. IMO
     
  13. ATasteOfHoney

    ATasteOfHoney Active Member

    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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....
     
  14. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    63

    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.
     
  15. shana

    shana New Member

    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  17. Lulu14

    Lulu14 New Member

    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny how shows like "16 and Pregnant" or "Teen Mom" are popular, yet an older man seeing pictures of naked teens/teen porn is a crime punishable by jail.
     
  18. PrimeSuspect

    PrimeSuspect New Member

    Messages:
    8,675
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 porn 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
     
  19. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
  20. Cubby

    Cubby fly the W!

    Messages:
    75,231
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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 porn 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 porn.

    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.
     
  21. iamnotagolem

    iamnotagolem Active Member

    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice