John Grisham's twisted views

Sorry meant to say although I have enjoyed his books in the past I refuse to read another one.

Hi - I know I am resurrecting a Zombie thread but I see that John Grisham has a new book out and is being fawned over by the press.

I have read and enjoyed many John Grisham novels over the years

I remembered that he was a paedophile apologist and thought how can he suddenly be Mr Nice Guy. Do people have such short memories.

Not really sure why I am posting except that I am angry. Thanks for reading

"The fact that JG minimised this SO much makes me wonder what HE gets up to in his spare time." My exact thoughts different.

If he wanted to make a point about the extremely high rates of imprisonment in the US - OK

If he wanted to talk about the terrifying fact of the % of black men in the US in prison (I forget the stat now but it's just so awfully high) and flag up why that might be and what needs to be done - alright

If he wants to talk about people being imprisoned when it's not appropriate in his view - he could have used examples like people with mental health problems, people in poverty for minor drugs offences (I'm guessing here, not about to research US prison stuff but with so many people in prison there must be ones with a valid argument for a different approach) - well fine

To use the example of a man who had downloaded and shared multiple images of child abuse including child rape and young children - WTAF?

It seems to me the other way around. He was using the first few points in order to try to minimise and justify why people like his friend shouldn't be in prison. Using a "nicey compassionate" argument to try and get people like his mate out of prison which is absolutely where they should be.

Good grief.

Hope this man doesn't recover from this one and TBH I'd be wondering what he's been up to if he doesn't really see any problem with what his friend has done past a little bit of poor judgement that could happen to anyone the poor chap.

The fact that JG minimised this SO much makes me wonder what HE gets up to in his spare time.

If this was my friend, I would NOT be minimising the shit out of it, writing them a reference or publicity stating that too many men go to prison for 'accidentally' accessing this material.

Unless I had a vested interest in doing so...

Stressing, I understand your point better now. Yes, I think I agree up to a point. But I do wonder if, with a view to overall protection it is better to weed out people at lower level for a more 'rehabilitation' package than retribution one. Are children less at risk if a low level online abuser becomes a prison convict with a new social circle of other more direct abusers? I don't know.

Calling online viewing 'lower level' condones nothing btw. I am wary of calling all activity the same - but yes, I see your point.

JG was wrong and his example an appalling one. Not relevant to my point.

But actually, re Stressing's point, it is vital to differentiate between people who are attracted to children and those that act on that attraction. It's vital for society to take steps to ensure abuse doesn't happen in the first place. There is no such thing as consent - as stated elsewhere. There is no child porn, only child abuse.

Dam, have you read the further detail about this guy sharing images of 12 year olds? JG just minimised the hell out of that.

interesting that he describes the men that he is talking about as men like him, not only age but ethnic background to

any viewing of child abuse on these sites you are part of the network that keeps children being abused you are supporting those that rape these children the only importance is for the children to be protected not those who after a few drinks goes on line to view such images

some seem to feel more comfortable if the lines are blurred to justify their own desires. consenting ADULTS being filmed or photographed having sex/role play is that consenting adults children being involved is abuse/rape that is what you are viewing and that is why prison sentences are needed you have supported the abuse of children

dangerously close to normalizing pedophilia

Really? In a country where a paediatrician's house was burnt down and an innocent man with special needs was killed in a vigilante attack? Where paedophiles are hiding in every bush, according to the tabloids.

The only thing I can see being normalized is the concept that there is only one degree of appalling and any attempt to differentiate appalling is equivalent to condoning it.

I linked a document somewhere from the US legal system which covered the fact that child abuse viewers had high rates of recidivism and were likely to already be or go on to be perpetrators and that sentencing should reflect this if appropriate for a given case.

It made sense.

Jesus! I am actually even more angry about this now. People who defend that kind of behaviour should be ashamed of themselves. If JG sees what his friend did as just a little thing, it rather casts doubt on HiS moral compass as well.

sashh they weren't just naked, they were being RAPED for heaven's sake!!! As were the other children in the images, some who were under 12!!! PLus he actually SHARED the images, so bollox did he 'stumble' acorss a site while drunk!!!

However unseen newspaper reports of Mr Holleman's trial in 1997 obtained by the Telegraph from the local Sun Herald newspaper paint a far more serious picture of the case than Mr Grisham

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."

here

I have read the article in its entirety and disagree with your assessment of it sashh. It is very clear what he thinks and I'm shocked that you are defending him.

I think by saying that load of bile he has made his own noose, i dont believe him for a minute.

He would have simply said "he was looking at 16 year olds NOT 10 year olds" wouldn't he?

Not he was looking at 16 year old girls NOT 10 year old boys.

An effort was made. The way he made an effort to talk about old white gentlemen in prison. NOT the sort to actually do bad things

It does seem odd that he chose boys when the friend n question actually looked at girls.

What's "technical" about "images of child abuse"?

How about a photo of a 16 year old Sam Fox that was deemed suitable for publication on page 3 in the 1980s but is now illegal.

If you don't believe me try to find a pic of her topless on the internet - you will find them, but not the ones when she was under 18.

I agree with OP that what he said was vile, but, yes a big fat BUT he was talking about people being imprisoned for things they (in his opinion) should not have been, or long sentences that he thought should be shorter. He also talked about Martha Stewart and young black teenagers. It was also quite clear he was talking about 1 person, someone he knew.

Please read the full article.

Get angry, but do it from the entirety of what he said, either in the original article or in the video in the link. Then read his apology.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11168234/John-Grisham-apologises-for-child-pornography-comments.html

www.jgrisham.com/a-statement-from-john-grisham-2/

This is outrage over John Grishams views on sentencing of people who have accessed illegal images - not outrage over child abuse per se.

You do realise that children were abuse to create that material in the first place, right? I once read an article that stated those who watched film/viewed images of children being abused were as guilty as those who did it & filmed/took pictures of it.

I agree.