John Grisham: men who watch child porn are not all paedophiles...

[~Ally~]

John Grisham: men who watch child porn are not all paedophiles - Telegraph

So John Grisham claims the USA are wrongly jailing too many people for viewing child pornography...he believes just because they watch it doesn't mean they would go as far to harm a child. Hmmm...seriously? These children are being raped/abused and the evidence posted online for other paedophiles--or should that now read "viewers"?--to watch and enjoy. Anybody who derives any form of pleasure from such videos has "issues" and most definitely should be charged with a criminal offence.

I'm actually shocked that Mr Grisham holds such views, but each to their own...any opinions folks?

 

[no bounce no play]

John Grisham: men who watch child porn are not all paedophiles - Telegraph

So John Grisham claims the USA are wrongly jailing too many people for viewing child pornography...he believes just because they watch it doesn't mean they would go as far to harm a child. Hmmm...seriously? These children are being raped/abused and the evidence posted online for other paedophiles--or should that now read "viewers"?--to watch and enjoy. Anybody who derives any form of pleasure from such videos has "issues" and most definitely should be charged with a criminal offence.

I'm actually shocked that Mr Grisham holds such views, but each to their own...any opinions folks?

I'm with you... I think that what one enjoys watching easily becomes what one enjoys doing

 

[AnnaMarie]

Also, by watching it a person is encouraging others to do it.

And isn't it a crime to know about a crime and keep quiet while getting something from that crime? For example, someone breaks into a home and steals millions of dollars. You know, they give you thousands of dollars, you keep quiet. That's a crime, isn't it?

So, by watching these videos and not reporting them, you are committing a crime.

And you are a sick pedophile, but still...you are committing a crime.

 

[Grandpa]

And isn't it a crime to know about a crime and keep quiet while getting something from that crime? For example, someone breaks into a home and steals millions of dollars. You know, they give you thousands of dollars, you keep quiet. That's a crime, isn't it?

Well, knowingly receiving stolen property is usually a crime.

However, if you just witness a crime, you generally have no affirmative duty to report it. State laws may vary on that.

Here's where Mr. Grisham doesn't get it: You're enabling the victimization of children by being a willing market to view this crap. If there weren't a market, it wouldn't be produced. The more market there is, the more it will be produced. By contributing your presence in the market, you're making more of a market.

The other part he doesn't seem to get is it's just damn creepy, sick, and wrong.

 

[Mr Nobody]

Hmm...on the face of it, from a strictly legal POV, he has a point.
But I can't think of a reason why anyone would watch it otherwise, much less claim to enjoy it*. And it's as AnnaMarie said, it encourages the 'trade' and is still a crime.

* I can't even begin to fathom what kind of person you'd have to be to enjoy it. Or worse, enjoy it without having that particular sexual...'quirk'. It's just... There are some things that are beyond wrong. That's one of them.

It's a good job Mr Grisham's already pocketed all those millions of dollars. I doubt he'll get many more after this.

 

[Moderator]

It shocks me that he is not connecting the dots about a child having been exploited in order to have that available for pedophiles to indulge in their dysfunctional behavior. Whether or not they then molest a child is irrelevant to the behavior itself in my opinion as the child is still being exploited and is very much a victim. I know there are some studies that claim that being able to look at the pictures or videos actually keeps some pedophiles from acting out on their fantasies but I've never really bought into it being true.

 

[Kurben]

Of course its wrong. No question about it. Molesting children are wrong. By being part of that market the viewer encourages such behaviour. Morally it is always wrong. Don't know enough of laws in different places to know if its legally wrong. It is here anyway but other places.. Just don't know. If it isn't it should be!

 

[Kurben]

It shocks me that he is not connecting the dots about a child having been exploited in order to have that available for pedophiles to indulge in their dysfunctional behavior. Whether or not they then molest a child is irrelevant to the behavior itself in my opinion as the child is still being exploited and is very much a victim. I know there are some studies that claim that being able to look at the pictures or videos actually keeps some pedophiles from acting out on their fantasies but I've never really bought into it being true.

I think it might act in two ways depending on how hard youre smitten by this desire (isch) It might in some cases be enough for a few so they don't do anything personally. But on the other hand i think it is more common that it triggers the urge to act what you have seen. Not meant as a defense for this kind of actions. child porn should have harsher penalties. (that said i'm not sure what the penalties are)

 

[Grandpa]

The more I think about this, the more disturbed I get. You have people who pay or go through energies to watch children get victimized and violated, and then someone steps up and essentially says, "Leave 'em alone. Nothing wrong with that." Really disturbing.

 

[Kurben]

Isn't Grisham a lawyer from the beginning?. Sure written a lot about em. I think it is even more disturbing considering that. Though i'm not quite sure why it is more disturbing...... Perhaps some naive idea that lawyers should know better.

 

[Moderator]

Okay, I should have read the entire article before weighing in as the title of it does take it out of context with what I believe he was saying. My interpretation is that he feels people who in error have child porn on their computer because they were surfing the internet and clicked on links they shouldn't have and didn't realize it was child pornography have been jailed because of it. It was not that they do this on a regular basis but get caught up in the system as a result of an innocent mistake. I can see his argument in those cases. I'd equate it with the same sympathy given to those who are placed on the sex offender registry (but probably shouldn't be) even though they had had consensual intercourse but one of the parties was considered underage. This usually is a case when it's a boyfriend/girlfriend. We had a case here with that and if I recall the guy was 19 at the time and his girlfriend may have been 16. Both consented but her parents pressed charges and he was convicted and did his time and was placed on the sex offender registry. Years later a mentally unstable person found the registry (online, I believe) and managed to kill 3 people on the list including this young man because he equated all sex offenders as having molested children.

 

[AnnaMarie]

Well, knowingly receiving stolen property is usually a crime.

However, if you just witness a crime, you generally have no affirmative duty to report it. State laws may vary on that.

Here's where Mr. Grisham doesn't get it: You're enabling the victimization of children by being a willing market to view this crap. If there weren't a market, it wouldn't be produced. The more market there is, the more it will be produced. By contributing your presence in the market, you're making more of a market.

The other part he doesn't seem to get is it's just damn creepy, sick, and wrong.

My point...they are knowingly receiving benefits from what they know is a crime.

If they are paying for watching it, that is also a crime...to knowingly purchase stolen goods, to knowingly purchase crime videos.

 

[Grandpa]

My interpretation is that he feels people who in error have child porn on their computer because they were surfing the internet and clicked on links they shouldn't have and didn't realize it was child pornography have been jailed because of it. It was not that they do this on a regular basis but get caught up in the system as a result of an innocent mistake.

 

[~Ally~]

Yeh at first I thought he was only referring to people who inadvertently access porn when they've "had a drink". Yet he clearly states his friend was an excessive drinker and knowingly downloaded pornography advertised as containing "sixteen year old girls". So his friend didn't stumble across that by accident...he took that extra step to then download the material. In his friends defence, Grisham then went on to say;

"He shouldn't ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys. He didn't touch anything. 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."

He seems to think that "he didn't touch anything" is an acceptable excuse for this type of behaviour and that attitude bothers me.

 

[GNTLGNT]

...I concur Ally, his vociferous defense of such aberrant behavior is both revolting and wrong-headed...you don't just "accidentally" stumble across child porn, you have to be looking for it...such people are baby rapers in waiting...put lipstick on a hog, it's still a hog...

 

[skimom2]

Okay, I should have read the entire article before weighing in as the title of it does take it out of context with what I believe he was saying. My interpretation is that he feels people who in error have child porn on their computer because they were surfing the internet and clicked on links they shouldn't have and didn't realize it was child pornography have been jailed because of it. It was not that they do this on a regular basis but get caught up in the system as a result of an innocent mistake. I can see his argument in those cases. I'd equate it with the same sympathy given to those who are placed on the sex offender registry (but probably shouldn't be) even though they had had consensual intercourse but one of the parties was considered underage. This usually is a case when it's a boyfriend/girlfriend. We had a case here with that and if I recall the guy was 19 at the time and his girlfriend may have been 16. Both consented but her parents pressed charges and he was convicted and did his time and was placed on the sex offender registry. Years later a mentally unstable person found the registry (online, I believe) and managed to kill 3 people on the list including this young man because he equated all sex offenders as having molested children.

I get what he's saying here, and there are certainly people in jail because of overzealous prosecution, but… damn. Then he throws himself under the bus by defending his friend. There is no defense.

My first reaction was that maybe Mr. Grisham's own computer history needs to be examined, but for a writer that could be a horrible thing. Research, man. I know mine would show in depth research into chemical fertilizer plants, their typical locations, and circumstances that can lead to explosion, white slavery, and weapons (among other scary topics). I'd hate to face a judge or jury over that.

 

[Grandpa]

Well.

I think I shall just bow out of this thread entirely until I've read the dang article. That would seem to have been the prudent thing to do from the start.

*wanders off, whistling, "I Got Plenty A-Nuthin."*

 

[hipmamajen]

He's not saying that people who accidentally and unknowingly click on child pornography are being wrongly imprisoned.

The example he gives is of a man who deliberately clicked on a link that was marked as being underage girls.

And once he was in there, he didn't just look around and say, "Oh crap, I'm in the bad part of the internet!" and close his browser window. He actually downloaded some of the images to enjoy later.

There is no way to backpedal that and claim the guy was a victim and misunderstood what he was doing. He deliberately clicked on a site that was clearly marked as kiddie porn, and once he got inside he liked what he saw enough to download it.

I don't have a problem with that behavior leading to a prison term.

 

[Mr Nobody]

...I concur Ally, his vociferous defense of such aberrant behavior is both revolting and wrong-headed...you don't just "accidentally" stumble across child porn, you have to be looking for it...such people are baby rapers in waiting...put lipstick on a hog, it's still a hog...

Yeah...taking every case on its merits and leaving the semantics aside, his friend has no defence. Whether in drink or not, this bloke went out of his way to find a type of porn, clearly 'labelled', and then knowingly downloaded. The drink also seems like an awfully convenient excuse. When I've seriously been on the stupid juice, operating a computer adequately is about the last thing I could do. Any other time, just enough to get a buzz, you're surely in control of yourself enough to recognize what it is you're doing.
Grisham makes a decent point, then blows it away by trying to condone the actions of a clearly guilty man.

 

[staropeace]

I am very disappointed to hear this. He is one of my favorite writers and he is dead wrong. Allowing access to this kind of stuff is saying that it is okay. It does not matter if it is watched privately in one's own home. You have become part of the catering to pedophilia. There are no degrees to this. If you watch it, you condone it.