John Grisham is a prat and I won't buy his books now

[Wolfbasher]

Not that I did anyway.

link

So he seems to be questioning the validity of custodial sentences for non-violent crime - not that I think viewing images of child abuse is a non-violent crime merely because the perpetrator is not the one committing the act of violence.

Less charitably he seems to be taking the view that old white guys don't belong in prison (and the US has a track record of disproportionately incarcerating black people).

Either way, he seems to have fallen into the camp of people who believe there are classes of abuse, cf 'forced rape' which became a popular term in the US with the senator who claimed pregnancy couldn't result from this, Judy Finnegan more recently with the 'non-violent rape' concept. And that merely choosing to view someone else's unspeakable crime isn't a crime that renders the perpetrator unfit to be part of society. I would strongly disagree.

I suspect Mr Grisham has some secrets on his own cookies and hard drive and this is a C.Y.A. damage limitation operation.

Personally I've never been into on-line porn (or on-line banking as warned 15-years ago from an ex government 'expert' there will always be a way in), but I suspect that if browsing relatively normal hetro or gay porn, if there are links to child sites, if at all even curious (never mind aroused), you may need some help and not realize it. IMHO

P.S. Apart from the security aspect, my non curiosity of on-line porn might stem from a band experience I had many years ago while at work, on my computer, looking for holidays via a search engine. I clicked on what I thought was specific holiday information and I was initially hit with 'tiles' of porn - but weeks later I would still get 'pop ups' of 'stuff' popping up and was scared legless for ages they would be broadcast via my email address book.

From what I heard, I don't think Grisham really understands the way child abuse is accessed online. He seemed to be saying that people might stray into it through curiosity when, in reality, it's not that easy to trip over accidentally.

However, there actually are classes of abuse when it comes to pornography. Depending on the content and circumstances of the image, they are graded in severity and the offence is calculated accordingly.

Here's what I don't get - when people seem to use 'being drunk' as an excuse or a mitigating factor. When people are tried for drunk driving the idea of them being too drunk to realise that they were doing anything wrong would (I hope) be laughed out of court. I don't see why other people would feel that's a mitigating factor in looking at child porn. All rape is violent, and there is no such thing as victimless child abuse. That's my tuppence worth.

He seems to be questioning whether sentencing is proportionate to the crime, he certainly isn't saying that abuse or making images is anything other than monstrous.

I don't think he's questioning whether there's classes of abuse but rather whether viewing an image online automatically warrants a prison sentence. To a lesser extent it's like the perpetual drugs argument, is taking illegal drugs or growing them equal? One person takes drugs and breaks the law. By doing that they're fueling a drugs trade which down the line means some farmers are being forced to grow drugs, others are forced to be mules and lives are destroyed. That person doesn't think beyond just taking the drug so should smoking cannabis land someone in prison or should that money and law enforcement time be invested in going after the drug lords?

I think he's just expressing his opinion that these crimes are not equal, people who view images need help like a drug addict while jail should be for the producers and suppliers. Indeed the cost of jailing so many people may reduce the amount of money available to pursue producers and abusers.

I don't know where I sit on this argument but I don't have a problem with him expressing an opinion. At the very least it keeps the subject in the publics eye which is never a bad thing.

It wasn't only 16yr olds that his friend looked at. He also downloaded & shared material of children under 12

And they were images of child abuse/exploration.
No such thing as child porn.

*Exploitation

But if no one can ever debate how to tackle these terrible things then the problem will never be solved.

As far as I can tell he's saying treat them as addicts, fix their problem so they learn why it's harmful which then stops them offending which helps to reduce demand and stops children being abused. Alternatively, don't educate them, lock them up for a short period of time, release them and drive the cycle of abuse on.

A drug addict who's criminalised and untreated is more likely to go on to commit more serious drug related crime. He's in that camp that argues it's better to treat them, not criminalise them and get them onto the right side of the law before a habit becomes a more serious problem.

I understand both arguments. It's an important subject with a lot of passion and underneath both camps want the same thing, to stop all abuse, they only differ in how they see it should be achieved.

Well I dunno summervacation it seems to me that he's saying that it's not on to send "Sixty-year-old white men" like his mate to jail for downloading and sharing images of child abuse inlcuding images of child rape and children under 12.

If he wanted to have a discussion about the prison population in the US, or maybe the shockingly huge % of black men in prison in the US, or something like that, then he could have done so, without appealing to us to feel sympathetic towards poor men put in prison so unfairly for viewing and downloading images of child sex abuse.

link about the crimes

It also seems, based on that, that watching 10 year old girls being abused is AOK and the type of thing any 60 year old white man might download a few of, while if it had been 10yo boys that would be an absolutely different scenario and would of course be appalling.

What a cunt he is, quite frankly.

Well if that's what he's arguing then that's different clearly.

From the bits I've heard I had understood he had been arguing that criminalisation through the prison system might not be the best way of tackling a serious problem facing the west, I didn't know that he was arguing that the system should be sympathetic because they're aging white males.

Clearly a criminal justice system shouldn't differentiate by race, religion or anything else that divides a population. Laws should be applied evenly and fairly.

For my part I view that the law should be applied to reduce crime and when it fails to do that it should be adjusted until it is effective. No crime is more terrible than child abuse and so great care needs to be taken to ensure it is effective. Sending everyone to prison might make me feel better knowing these people are being punished but if it doesn't reduce incidents of child abuse then it's only serving my sensibility, not the children who need protecting.

But it sounds like in this case it's more a race argument than anything and I have no time for racists or people who think they should get special treatment for any reason, especially if its special treatment involving anything as terrible as abuse.

"Sending everyone to prison might make me feel better knowing these people are being punished but if it doesn't reduce incidents of child abuse then it's only serving my sensibility, not the children who need protecting."

Erm people who are locked up in prison cannot molest children.
And they shouldn't be able to access images of others molesting children.

The arguments for prison tend to be 3 pronged don't they:

• Punishment
• Rehabilitation
• Public protection

And that is quite reasonable. One person might feel that it does nothing to lock up someone who has viewed images of child abuse, another might feel that is a just and reasonable punishment.

If he wants to talk about the many many issues surrounding the prison system in the US then surely he can do so without trying to drum up sympathy for his friend who went to prison for viewing, downloading and sharing appalling images of child abuse.

I agree, he shouldn't be using his position to try to drum up support for his friends in that way. If they're in prison its because the justice system rules that's where they should be.

"people who are locked up in prison cannot molest children."
That is true but people tend to leave prison at some point so if it doesn't correct their problem then it's potentially just delaying something serious. Indeed sex offenders tend to be held together so someone could go in at the early stage of an addiction, meet hardened offenders and come out with more serious issues if they don't get the treatment they need while inside.

"The arguments for prison tend to be 3 pronged don't they:

• Punishment
• Rehabilitation
• Public protection

"

I agree and I like to think that they're all applied effectively.

I'm not saying that prison shouldn't be used, I'm sure prison is the safest place for many of these offenders. My only question is whether one tool is always right for every job. If you only have a hammer then everything looks like a nail. These cases are complex and the justice system should have access to every tool and be able to use them effectively to protect the public.

I want the justice system to do whatever it can to keep my children safe and if that means treatment in the community and it works then that's what I want but equally if it means prison then do that. I don't care what age or race the person is, I just want them to get the treatment they need to stop them being a risk.

As far as I can tell he's saying treat them as addicts, fix their problem so they learn why it's harmful which then stops them offending which helps to reduce demand and stops children being abused.

Then he needs to have stated that a bit better, all he did was minimise & justify!

Yer, the guys a bit of an idiot. I just find it hard to imagine anyone believing that it isn't so bad if it's just a white guy drinking and getting kicks. I therefore have to believe he meant something more well intentioned like questioning whether treatment is better than prison but maybe he really is that shallow and doesn't see the real harm being caused.

I therefore have to believe he meant something more well intentioned like questioning whether treatment is better than prison

You know what....I am REALLY tired of giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to women's rights & children's rights. We have been doing so for years & it doesn't seem to get through to some.

People need to say exactly what they mean, or we will take them at face value. In JG's case, he is a child abuse apologiser. I am too exhausted with it all to go looking for what he might have meant! So as far as I am concerned, he is no better than his friend & those who tortured those poor children in order to provide 'entertainment' for sick twisted bastards.

what a massive fucking OWN GOAL

i think the widespread vilification he has received will hopefully harm his book sales, his reputation and how he is viewed, for defending someone that gets a kick from watching children get raped.

shame on him, and no benefit of the doubt here-whatsoever

And in any case, even if there had not been any children under 16 involved, what in the hell is a 60-year-old man doing looking for "sixteen-year-old wannabe hookers"?! Well that's understandable, perfectly mundane and harmless then. Arsehole.

yes!!!! we know alot more about John now and whats he think is aceptable dont we!!