Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2014, 12:19 PM
 
Location: At the corner of happy and free
6,473 posts, read 6,683,034 times
Reputation: 16350

Advertisements

In an interview with U.K.s The Telegraph, Grisham said that "America's judges had "gone crazy" over the past 30 years, locking up far too many people, from white collar criminals like the businesswoman Martha Stewart, to black teenagers on minor drugs charges and - he added - those who had viewed child porn online."

He went on to cite the case of a "good buddy from law school" who was caught up in a Canadian child porn sting operation a decade ago as an example of excessive sentencing.
"His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website. It was labelled 'sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that'. And it said '16-year-old girls'. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff - it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.
"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."

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

I suppose if we were to rank the vileness of crimes, looking at child porn wouldn't be as bad as actually molesting a child, and perhaps that is the point that Grisham was trying to make. I don't know if 3 years in prison for his friend is "excessive," because I don't even know how that compares to the sentences for actual molesters, rapists, etc. I like Grisham's writing, and will probably continue reading his books, but he didn't endear himself to his fans with his comments.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2014, 12:21 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209
He wasn't arrested for going to the site. He was arrested for downloading the pics and storing them on his computer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,331,642 times
Reputation: 9789
We take child porn very seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,176,681 times
Reputation: 4233
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
He wasn't arrested for going to the site. He was arrested for downloading the pics and storing them on his computer.

The only person who committed a crime is the person who took the original photos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 12:50 PM
 
46,968 posts, read 26,011,859 times
Reputation: 29458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
The only person who committed a crime is the person who took the original photos.
How about "no" on that one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 12:57 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
The only person who committed a crime is the person who took the original photos.
Not according to the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,485,034 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Not according to the law.
That was Grisham's point; the law is not reasonable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 01:08 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
That was Grisham's point; the law is not reasonable.
I doubt he will get far with that argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 01:09 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,384,355 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
The only person who committed a crime is the person who took the original photos.
Heres the thing, if your behavior causes more of the original behavior you are aiding and abetting it.

Anyone taking the pictures of course deserves a vastly larger punishment, but those who encourage the behavior by viewing them deserve a share of it as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 01:13 PM
 
3,445 posts, read 6,068,233 times
Reputation: 6133
It's probably one of the few "crimes" that get long sentences solely for looking at something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top