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

[PrimeSuspect]

Rosie O'Donnell suggests police should check out Grisham's hard drive right now.

http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/20...police-should-look-at-john-grishams-computer/




(I wonder if Rosie can be accused of libel as I was in this thread for even insinuating the same? )

 

[LinasK]

This. This. A thousand times, this. Someone posted up thread that it's a moot point now, because he retracted his comments. I disagree - WS is the ideal forum to discuss controversial comments made by celebrities, or noteworthy people. And to me, Grisham was precisely that - he's an adept writer and I've read many of his books as I lay on the beach (because let's be honest, it's not like he writes thought-provoking novels that require serious contemplation. He's a paperback throwaway type author), in my opinion of couuuuurse.

But then he had to go and make this inane comment (imo, before I'm jumped on.) his buddy was roped into a child *advertiser censored* investigation, eh? Sounds like a drunk telling his wife "But I only had three beers and I got a DUI!"

Too bad, too sad, suck it up and pay the piper. If that sounds harsh, good, because it's mean to be. Child *advertiser censored* shouldn't and will NOT be minimized by anyone with the ability to think rationally. Of course his buddy claims it's a barely illegal 16 year old - much too embarrassing to admit to yearning after tots. At least I hope so. So he minimizes it to his buddy the author who spouts off about it.

Don't care either way. Child *advertiser censored* is disgusting and I hope he enjoyed his stay in the joint. Ya never come out the same, always have that haunted look. Kinda like victims of child *advertiser censored*, so maybe karma IS a b1tch. I hope so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fully agree. I own several John Grisham novels because he's a writer that keeps you reading, very suspenseful. In light of his comments, I'm so disgusted I may give them all away.

 

[LinasK]

The age of consent is not relevant. As it is illegal to photograph children under the age of 18.



In 11 states, the age of consent is 18. In nine others, the age of consent is 17. In the rest, it’s 16. Which means that in many states, it would have been perfectly legal for John Grisham’s friend to have had sex with the women he viewed online. The federal law (and several state laws that mirror it) making it a felony to photograph women under 18 was passed in 1984. The previous law had put the minimum age at 16. So in much of the country, it is perfectly legal for an adult man to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old woman, but it’s a federal felony if he records or photographs her the act, or her, in a sexually suggestive way. In fact, men have been prosecuted and imprisoned for recording sex with women under 18 but over 16, even though the sex itself was legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/16/in-defense-of-john-grisham/

There was just a case here the other day where a 41-year-old man lured a 14-year-old girl into having sex with him. He went up to Oregon, picked her up and drove her back across state lines. When the police came to his door, his daughter told them he was in the bedroom with "his girlfriend"!!!

 

[Constance]

In 11 states, the age of consent is 18. In nine others, the age of consent is 17. In the rest, it’s 16. Which means that in many states, it would have been perfectly legal for John Grisham’s friend to have had sex with the women he viewed online. The federal law (and several state laws that mirror it) making it a felony to photograph women under 18 was passed in 1984. The previous law had put the minimum age at 16. So in much of the country, it is perfectly legal for an adult man to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old woman, but it’s a federal felony if he records or photographs her the act, or her, in a sexually suggestive way. In fact, men have been prosecuted and imprisoned for recording sex with women under 18 but over 16, even though the sex itself was legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/16/in-defense-of-john-grisham/

Just a quick note to point out that Grisham's friend was not viewing photos of "women" who would have been legally sexually available to him, as this article from the Washington Post claims. (Super duper erroneous claim bolded by me.)

I'm not one to automatically believe all laws are good just because they're laws; I think history has shown us that sometimes the law is wrong.

But I do not believe that the law is wrong in prohibiting those kinds of images of anyone under eighteen. Minors deserve to be protected from predators, and this is just one way the law works to provide that protection.

I believe state laws permitting 16 year olds to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity are designed to allow the transition into adulthood. The expectation is that this way, Jr. won't be charged at 18 or 19 for having a 16 year old girlfriend. It's not uncommon for many to marry right out of high school, or for boys and girls to date within a couple or few years' difference.

Just because there are some predators (and I am sorry, but any full grown person decades older who targets those under age eighteen for "relationships" is likely a predator, if not of the textbook kind, of the less conspicuous kind...) who try to take advantage of these laws and the vulnerability of sixteen year olds doesn't mean that we should do away with the whole system of protection the feds have in place.

That's what bothers me the most about this -- it has opened the floodgates to where we're actually discussing whether or not protecting kids under 18 is a good thing or a bad thing. What the actual?!?

 

[MagicRose99]

I think there is something sick about a 60-something year old man getting kicks from watching a 16 year old having sex... legal or not.

 

[Nova]

Rosie O'Donnell suggests police should check out Grisham's hard drive right now.

http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/20...police-should-look-at-john-grishams-computer/




(I wonder if Rosie can be accused of libel as I was in this thread for even insinuating the same? )

If you can't get past it, then let's at least restate the facts: you said "birds of a feather flock together", implying that Grisham must also be a child molester because he had the temerity to question the penalties for merely viewing child *advertiser censored*. I thought (and think) that was a libelous remark.

But as I said elsewhere, Grisham is a public figure and the standard for libel is quite high. I don't think you need to worry (particularly since you politely retracted the statement almost immediately).

More alarming to me is that anyone who tries to have a reasonable discussion about how we criminalize and penalize sex with children is immediately demonized and accused of pedophilia.

 

[Nova]

Just a quick note to point out that Grisham's friend was not viewing photos of "women" who would have been legally sexually available to him, as this article from the Washington Post claims. (Super duper erroneous claim bolded by me.)

I'm not one to automatically believe all laws are good just because they're laws; I think history has shown us that sometimes the law is wrong.

But I do not believe that the law is wrong in prohibiting those kinds of images of anyone under eighteen. Minors deserve to be protected from predators, and this is just one way the law works to provide that protection.

I believe state laws permitting 16 year olds to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity are designed to allow the transition into adulthood. The expectation is that this way, Jr. won't be charged at 18 or 19 for having a 16 year old girlfriend. It's not uncommon for many to marry right out of high school, or for boys and girls to date within a couple or few years' difference.

Just because there are some predators (and I am sorry, but any full grown person decades older who targets those under age eighteen for "relationships" is likely a predator, if not of the textbook kind, of the less conspicuous kind...) who try to take advantage of these laws and the vulnerability of sixteen year olds doesn't mean that we should do away with the whole system of protection the feds have in place.

That's what bothers me the most about this -- it has opened the floodgates to where we're actually discussing whether or not protecting kids under 18 is a good thing or a bad thing. What the actual?!?

For the record, Constance, I certainly wasn't suggesting we should legalize child *advertiser censored* or the production or viewing thereof. To me, the only issue here is where and why we draw the line.

 

[Nova]

...Also, stating your own sexual abuse is worse than another persons, that's a tall claim to make and personally, I think quite unnecessary. And grading a child's exposure to abuse which takes many forms. Of course, the law takes this into consideration, like if there is penetration etc. BUT that is the law, not a child's response to the traumatic event/s. Two entirely different things....

PS, was this paragraph directed to me? I'm sure I never said my "sexual abuse is worse than another person's".

On the contrary, the personal incident I related, though surprising at the time, was not really upsetting at all. I was by no means claiming the incident made me an expert on sexual abuse of minors. And I believe I acknowledged that another kid might have a very different response.

 

[Constance]

For the record, Constance, I certainly wasn't suggesting we should legalize child *advertiser censored* or the production or viewing thereof.

I didn't think you were, Nova.

To me, the only issue here is where and why we draw the line.

I think the line's fine just where it's at. Not perfect, but nothing is.

States have the right to set their own age of accountability and the feds have safeguards in place to protect the underage from exploitation. The two really aren't mutually exclusive as the Washington Post article suggests.

It's quite simple:

States' laws allowing sixteen year olds to choose to have sex are likely designed to allow young people to engage in romantic relationships together without fear of the law branding one of them a sex offender.

Federal law prohibiting the sexually explicit filming of anyone under age eighteen is designed to protect them from being endlessly exploited by sexual predators.

The occasional overlap (and is there ever really an overlap? I don't think so. I think it's imaginary and only comes up in discussions like the one we are having here) doesn't justify the moving of any lines. JMO.

 

[Constance]

I think there is something sick about a 60-something year old man getting kicks from watching a 16 year old having sex... legal or not.

I find this aspect of the discussion interesting, but please don't anyone go getting distracted from my main message, conveyed in my first two posts in this thread.

I'm a thirtysomething heterosexual woman. As I've grown older, my taste in men has grown with me.

When I was sixteen, 18-21 year old guys were "hot" in my eyes.

When I was 21, it was the 21-30 year old guys who got a second look.

Nowadays, I like guys over thirty. The older I get, the older the guys I think are attractive get.

Is this not how most people's minds work? I'm seriously asking because I don't know...

 

[Nova]

I find this aspect of the discussion interesting, but please don't anyone go getting distracted from my main message, conveyed in my first two posts in this thread.

I'm a thirtysomething heterosexual woman. As I've grown older, my taste in men has grown with me.

When I was sixteen, 18-21 year old guys were "hot" in my eyes.

When I was 21, it was the 21-30 year old guys who got a second look.

Nowadays, I like guys over thirty. The older I get, the older the guys I think are attractive get.

Is this not how most people's minds work? I'm seriously asking because I don't know...

Well, that's certainly the healthiest progression!

But if they are honest, I think most straight men will admit their fantasy partner is in her late teens (16 and up). This makes evolutionary sense: for a man to ensure his genes are passed on, he needs a partner who will live long enough (12 to 15 years) to care for an ensuing child until it reaches adulthood.

This is in no way intended to justify 40-year-olds sleeping with 16-year-olds. We have a lot of instinctual impulses that we suppress in order to live in a civilized society. I'm just saying that for men, at least, there may be a built-in inclination toward younger partners. (Obviously this does not apply to pedophiles who prefer PRE-pubescent girls.)

FTR, I'm neither straight nor have I ever had a sexual interest in teenagers, much less underage boys.

 

[Nova]

Just a thought that hasn't been mentioned here yet: Grisham's friend may have well told Grisham that the pictures in question were purported to be 16-year-olds or even 18-year-olds.

But if the friend is hoping for early parole, he will have to admit his crime and demonstrate contrition. Claiming he thought the girls were 16 and older might be enough for the parole board to keep him locked up.

So I think it's possible Grisham's friend told him one thing in the past and now is saying another in order to get early release.

 

[ttcRider]

Well I'm knocking on 50 and am starting to make my way back down in age. Now 35-40 seem appropriate.

I find this aspect of the discussion interesting, but please don't anyone go getting distracted from my main message, conveyed in my first two posts in this thread.

I'm a thirtysomething heterosexual woman. As I've grown older, my taste in men has grown with me.

When I was sixteen, 18-21 year old guys were "hot" in my eyes.

When I was 21, it was the 21-30 year old guys who got a second look.

Nowadays, I like guys over thirty. The older I get, the older the guys I think are attractive get.

Is this not how most people's minds work? I'm seriously asking because I don't know...

 

[Constance]

Well, that's certainly the healthiest progression!

But if they are honest, I think most straight men will admit their fantasy partner is in her late teens (16 and up). This makes evolutionary sense: for a man to ensure his genes are passed on, he needs a partner who will live long enough (12 to 15 years) to care for an ensuing child until it reaches adulthood.

This is in no way intended to justify 40-year-olds sleeping with 16-year-olds. We have a lot of instinctual impulses that we suppress in order to live in a civilized society. I'm just saying that for men, at least, there may be a built-in inclination toward younger partners. (Obviously this does not apply to pedophiles who prefer PRE-pubescent girls.)

FTR, I'm neither straight nor have I ever had a sexual interest in teenagers, much less underage boys.

Woo-hoo! Check me out, healthily progressing and stuff

I've heard that evolutionary theory before and while it seems to almost make sense, to me common sense goes against it -- like the fact that the whole "cougar" phenomenon (which is not new by any means) is a thing, which seems to defy the idea that youth=fertility/longevity=sexual attraction. If all or most straight males would prefer the company of younger females by nature, younger men being sexually attracted to older women would be much more rare, or so it seems to me.

It doesn't seem to make evolutionary sense, either, that someone whose brain is not yet fully formed would naturally be the best choice to nurture and protect one's offspring. Teenagers are notoriously self-centered, impatient, and require more sleep than any other segment of the population save newborns. While I was a teen mom and a damn good one, I don't pretend that it's the ideal situation.

That said, sex is nice; I don't necessarily believe that all human sexual urges do or have to make evolutionary sense. Sometimes we just want to get it on, amiright?

I think it's much more likely that this "it's natural, evolutionary" idea is something that some few with less than honorable intentions (not you, Nova!) have latched onto and repeat enough times, hoping it will stick and excuse their own twisted desires -- much like the "it's messed up that you can sleep with a sixteen year old but can't look at/take/share explicit photos of them" thing. Fallacies? IDK; I feel like that word should be in this paragraph somewhere.

As always, JMO, and I ain't nobody!

 

[Constance]

Well I'm knocking on 50 and am starting to make my way back down in age. Now 35-40 seem appropriate.

I'll surely die before I hit 50...I just realized I'm actually already getting the hots for a guy in his sixties. I'll have to die before 50 or become a necrophiliac if I keep progressing all healthily like this. Thanks a lot, Putin!

 

[Ballerina]

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 *advertiser censored* 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-*advertiser censored*/

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

You know, I almost wonder if Grisham made the first statements about his "good buddy" out of denial (not wanting to accept the reality that a friend may actually be a very sick pedophile) and because that same "good buddy" fabricated what he had actually done when relating the story to JG.

Speaking from experience.. I had a friend who dated a man that is currently serving hard time for child *advertiser censored*. This man, after posting bail, while waiting for sentencing, lied to his friends about what happened to him. He claimed he had gotten involved in selling drugs (marijuana) and had been involved in a heavy drug bust. He then said that during the drug bust, he had been watching *advertiser censored*, so the police seized his laptop. Apparently, little did he know, one of the girls in the video was 17, not 18.

Everyone sympathized for him. We were all 19 or 20 then, young and naive.

Then the local news broke the real story upon the day of his official sentencing. He had been charged with downloading child *advertiser censored* and inappropriate conduct with a minor, and he would be in prison for a long time. Nothing about drugs. None of this "she was almost 18 and it was one time!" BS. The FBI had been tracking him for a while. We were shocked, disgusted, and betrayed.

So maybe it's a similar situation for JG? Comments made because he didn't know the real story?

What's really cringe-worthy, despite whatever the good buddy told him, is that prison comment. Yeah, okay, I can make that argument for lower level, non violent drug offenders. But I can't attest those thoughts to pedophiles and child pornographers. The FBI doesn't bother with anyone who "accidentally" views child *advertiser censored* (don't ask me how THAT happens, but whatever) one drunken night.

Just a discloser... I don't condone child *advertiser censored*. But I can definitely understand if his first comments were made by someone who is just trying to process what happened to a friend that was once held to a much higher standard. And with that being said, he may have made the latter comments about the punishment for child *advertiser censored* in a way to justify what he thought his friend did.

I'm not excusing his behavior, his friend's behavior, or his comments. If anything, I'm one of those people who thinks the punishment for pedophilia should be way, way higher. :jail:

 

[Nova]

Woo-hoo! Check me out, healthily progressing and stuff

I've heard that evolutionary theory before and while it seems to almost make sense, to me common sense goes against it -- like the fact that the whole "cougar" phenomenon (which is not new by any means) is a thing, which seems to defy the idea that youth=fertility/longevity=sexual attraction. If all or most straight males would prefer the company of younger females by nature, younger men being sexually attracted to older women would be much more rare, or so it seems to me.

It doesn't seem to make evolutionary sense, either, that someone whose brain is not yet fully formed would naturally be the best choice to nurture and protect one's offspring. Teenagers are notoriously self-centered, impatient, and require more sleep than any other segment of the population save newborns. While I was a teen mom and a damn good one, I don't pretend that it's the ideal situation.

That said, sex is nice; I don't necessarily believe that all human sexual urges do or have to make evolutionary sense. Sometimes we just want to get it on, amiright?

I think it's much more likely that this "it's natural, evolutionary" idea is something that some few with less than honorable intentions (not you, Nova!) have latched onto and repeat enough times, hoping it will stick and excuse their own twisted desires -- much like the "it's messed up that you can sleep with a sixteen year old but can't look at/take/share explicit photos of them" thing. Fallacies? IDK; I feel like that word should be in this paragraph somewhere.

As always, JMO, and I ain't nobody!

Thanks, Constance, for recognizing that I am NOT saying statutory rape should be LEGAL because it is an evolutionary urge. We have lots of primal urges (I've listed a couple) that should be and are illegal. Hell, killing a romantic rival is certainly an ancient urge, but I think we all agree it should not be allowed.

As for brain development among adolescents, I think we're talking about instincts and, since animals without higher cognitive abilities function instinctively, I don't believe instincts require the same time to develop.

I was just saying that when life expectancy for women was 25 or 30, it didn't make instinctual sense to reproduce with a 28-year-old woman--she wasn't going to be around long enough to raise the child. Also, childbirth was a common cause of death for females, so it made sense to choose a partner who was young enough to withstand the strain.

As for the "cougar" phenomenon, I still haven't seen many studies as to how common it is to marry a woman 10 or more years the man's senior. But let's say it's quite common for the sake of argument: (a) we now have surgical procedures that make death in childbirth rare, even for older women; and (b) with life expectancy for a woman at almost 80 years, bearing a child when she is 40 means she is likely to be present until the child is fully raised and out of the home.

This changes the "evolutionary" equation.

 

[Nova]

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.

 

[Constance]

Thanks, Constance, for recognizing that I am NOT saying statutory rape should be LEGAL because it is an evolutionary urge. We have lots of primal urges (I've listed a couple) that should be and are illegal. Hell, killing a romantic rival is certainly an ancient urge, but I think we all agree it should not be allowed.

As for brain development among adolescents, I think we're talking about instincts and, since animals without higher cognitive abilities function instinctively, I don't believe instincts require the same time to develop.

I was just saying that when life expectancy for women was 25 or 30, it didn't make instinctual sense to reproduce with a 28-year-old woman--she wasn't going to be around long enough to raise the child. Also, childbirth was a common cause of death for females, so it made sense to choose a partner who was young enough to withstand the strain.

As for the "cougar" phenomenon, I still haven't seen many studies as to how common it is to marry a woman 10 or more years the man's senior. But let's say it's quite common for the sake of argument: (a) we now have surgical procedures that make death in childbirth rare, even for older women; and (b) with life expectancy for a woman at almost 80 years, bearing a child when she is 40 means she is likely to be present until the child is fully raised and out of the home.

This changes the "evolutionary" equation.

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:

 

[iamnotagolem]

My only issue with Grisham being told one thing by his buddy is that Grisham testified on behalf of his friend, he is a lawyer and probably reviewed the case long and hard before staking his reputation on his buddies word for it.

Sorry but if I was going out on a limb for a friend of mine I'd double check the facts before I stuck my neck out.