John Grisham is likely to find himself treading hot water after making controversial comments about child pornography in a recent interview. Although he wasn't condoning what he called "real" pedophilia, the bestselling American author of thrillers like The Firm and A Time to Kill claims white middle-aged guys—guys like him, actually—are wrongly being jailed for looking at child porn.
"But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn," said Grisham, referring to a buddy of his who went away for three years as part of a Canadian sting operation.
To my mind, viewing child porn isn't some passive "accident" that just kind of happens once you start drunk-Googling. Viewing images of children being sexually abused is a a criminal act in and of itself. Yes, there is a difference between looking and touching. Yes, prisons in the US are overflowing. That's not to say that those guilty of downloading or viewing child porn don't deserve to be convicted for their offense. Do they deserve to be listed as sex offenders? Damn straight.
Are sentences for those who watch child porn excessive? That's up to a judge to decide, but as a mother I have no problem with the courts taking a hard line on perps. Some may be content to "just look." Others may not stop there.
Do we sit back and take a 'wait and see' approach when it comes to child pornography? Hell no. Those who look and those who touch both deserve to feel the weight of the law, though clearly their sentencing should reflect their respective crimes.
You tell me: Does the law "excessively punish" those who view child porn?
Gee, it's another white middle-aged guy excusing pedophilia.
Printer-friendly version