John Grisham says child porn sentences too harsh

[crimsonaudio]

I acknowledge that this point is being asserted. I simply disagree that draconian punishment for consumption is an appropriate avenue for prevention of abuse. You seem to be missing the point that prohibition does not eliminate demand for the forbidden, as been proven time and time again.

The study I linked directly contradicts your assertion that abuse happens at a greatly reduced level with prohibition.

And I simply dismiss your assertion that acceptance of an evil act somehow makes it better for those abused.

It's akin to "if we just allow some rapes, overall rapes will decline..."

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

It occurred to me that some may not realize that, in this day and time, a sex offense is a life sentence. A defendant is not free to live where he/she wants, cannot be found in certain locations and must notify the authorities of any change of address. For the rest of his/her life. There are some sexual offenses for which this is entirely appropriate. However, even given the facts of Grisham's friend, it approaches Salem witch burnings in over-kill...

I've never been a big fan of the blanket application of lifetime residential and travel restriction/registry laws for "sex offenders". My reasons for this are rooted in the fairly (in my opinion, overly) broad application of the term "sex offender".

Rather personal mea culpa (but I'll share to make a point): About 15 years ago, I was involved with a woman who was crazy. I didn't know at the time that she was crazy, even though several acquaintances had warned me that she was. According to them, they knew someone whom she had dated in the past whom she had falsely accused of sexual assault. In talking to her about the incident, she was SO convincing and seemed SO truly victimized by the man. I believed her first-hand story, not my acquaintances' second-hand story. And I paid for it. Literally 3 years after we quit dating, I was investigated for sexual assault based on her false accusation, even going so far as to establish an order of protection against me, barring me from using or owning a firearm, even though I hadn't seen or spoken with her in years. She even went so far as to try to reenforce her accusations by filing a cross-country complaint with child services against my brother and his wife, saying that they were sexually abusing their daughters (my nieces), even though she'd never met my brother, his wife, or their daughters. I guess she thought that if she planted enough smoke around me and my family, somebody would believe there was fire.

Because during the course of the investigation it became evident to everyone involved that no assault had ever occurred, charges were never brought against me and I fought off the order of protection in court. Likewise, charges were never brought against my brother, although my little nieces had to endure interviews with investigators asking if their father had ever touched them in a sexual way. It also became evident during the course of the investigation that this woman was a serial accuser with some sort of formally-diagnosed personality disorder that caused her to seek sympathy from others as a victim (which is incidentally exactly what I gave her in the beginning) by falsely accusing others. And when she is through with someone as an ally, she accuses them and moves on to the next sap. In fact, I later received a phone call from the next sap, who was currently defending himself against a protection order and sexual assault charges. It really was a Basic Instinct/Fatal Attraction sort of experience for me that stretched from 2002 to 2005. Incidentally, I'd love to hear from someone who knows - paging Stacy - because I was never informed of what this personality disorder is called, only that she was formally diagnosed with it.

Anyway, to make a long story a little less long, it was a multi-year defense to clear my name, the names of my brother and his wife, and save my military career from false sexual assault charges that, had they stuck, would have saddled me with that "sex offender" label, restricting where I can live, travel, and work, and forever publicly labeling me as a dangerous criminal pervert in every community I was in for the rest of my life.

Now in my case, justice prevailed, even though I still feel that that predator - and that's exactly what she is - still owes me and my family for costs and pain and suffering. And she still owes my nieces for planting such an ugly thought in their heads at such a young age. But I can guarantee that there are people out there, for whom justice doesn't prevail, who wrongly earn that label. And in those cases where what was accused actually did happen, but what happened was not truly sexual predator status (18yo having sexual relations with 16yo, accidental internet view, even Grisham's friend who had a momentary drunken lapse of judgement), the life sentence of residential/travel restriction and lifetime public shame in the offender registries, is unwarranted. For true predators, sure. But not for everyone who currently falls under the "sex offender" label.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Maybe I'm overly cautious, but as someone with children, I'd not want some old dude who was caught actively searching for child porn living near me without my knowledge.

There are people who are convicted or who choose pleading over the notoriety of a trial who never, ever searched for child porn, but they have a life sentence. I know of two cases. You can't presume that prosecutors are fair and honest. I've known far too many to think that. This is an area of great injustice in the system at this point (all lawyers know it) and Grisham has stuck his neck out to point it out. I appreciate it on his part, since he has nothing to gain. I guess the total extreme in life sentences must, of course, come from Florida. In the Miami area, there are a large number of men living under a bridge. Why? Because, when you diagram out the schools and other institutions they must keep a certain distance from, the bridge is all that is left. That is medieval punishment for life. It has no place in a just society...

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

Since I was composing my essay, I was unable to respond to cbi. But it looks like ca covered my thoughts pretty well.

cbi, no, your link doesn't persuade me. As ca mentioned, you seem to be saying that accepting abuse might reduce it. Perhaps. But I can't accept abuse. If you can, more power to you, but we'll have to agree to disagree. And God help us in this country if we ever adopt your position as the societal norm. Because even a "little bit" of child rape is a little bit too much. But like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[crimsonaudio]

This is an area of great injustice in the system at this point (all lawyers know it) and Grisham has stuck his neck out to point it out.

I tend to agree, as I know someone who is branded a sex offender for life for literally peeing in his backyard at night, where no child could ever see him. But I hope we can absolutely agree that Grisham chose an awful example in this case...

 

[cbi1972]

And I simply dismiss your assertion that acceptance of an evil act somehow makes it better for those abused.

It's akin to "if we just allow some rapes, overall rapes will decline..."

Nowhere have I suggested that child sex abuse is to be condoned. What I am asserting is that consumption of child porn is not actual abuse, and has been shown to actually reduce the incidence of actual abuse.

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

Nowhere have I suggested that child sex abuse is to be condoned. What I am asserting is that consumption of child porn is not actual abuse, and has been shown to actually reduce the incidence of actual abuse.

What do you think the production of the actual photo/video is? Art?

 

[crimsonaudio]

Nowhere have I suggested that child sex abuse is to be condoned. What I am asserting is that consumption of child porn is not actual abuse, and has been shown to actually reduce the incidence of actual abuse.

And I simply counter that your assertion is ridiculous - to consume child porn is to fund (or at least condone and encourage) its creation, which is abuse.

If illegal drugs grew plentifully throughout the world, the demand (and crimes associated with supplying those demands) would drop. This is a parallel - without the demand for the consumption of child porn, the creation (and abuse) would drop.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I've never been a big fan of the blanket application of lifetime residential and travel restriction/registry laws for "sex offenders". My reasons for this are rooted in the fairly (in my opinion, overly) broad application of the term "sex offender".

Rather personal mea culpa (but I'll share to make a point): About 15 years ago, I was involved with a woman who was crazy. I didn't know at the time that she was crazy, even though several acquaintances had warned me that she was. According to them, they knew someone whom she had dated in the past whom she had falsely accused of sexual assault. In talking to her about the incident, she was SO convincing and seemed SO truly victimized by the man. I believed her first-hand story, not my acquaintances' second-hand story. And I paid for it. Literally 3 years after we quit dating, I was investigated for sexual assault based on her false accusation, even going so far as to establish an order of protection against me, barring me from using or owning a firearm, even though I hadn't seen or spoken with her in years. She even went so far as to try to reenforce her accusations by filing a cross-country complaint with child services against my brother and his wife, saying that they were sexually abusing their daughters (my nieces), even though she'd never met my brother, his wife, or their daughters. I guess she thought that if she planted enough smoke around me and my family, somebody would believe there was fire.

Because during the course of the investigation it became evident to everyone involved that no assault had ever occurred, charges were never brought against me and I fought off the order of protection in court. Likewise, charges were never brought against my brother, although my little nieces had to endure interviews with investigators asking if their father had ever touched them in a sexual way. It also became evident during the course of the investigation that this woman was a serial accuser with some sort of formally-diagnosed personality disorder that caused her to seek sympathy from others as a victim (which is incidentally exactly what I gave her in the beginning) by falsely accusing others. And when she is through with someone as an ally, she accuses them and moves on to the next sap. In fact, I later received a phone call from the next sap, who was currently defending himself against a protection order and sexual assault charges. It really was a Basic Instinct/Fatal Attraction sort of experience for me that stretched from 2002 to 2005. Incidentally, I'd love to hear from someone who knows - paging Stacy - because I was never informed of what this personality disorder is called, only that she was formally diagnosed with it.

Anyway, to make a long story a little less long, it was a multi-year defense to clear my name, the names of my brother and his wife, and save my military career from false sexual assault charges that, had they stuck, would have saddled me with that "sex offender" label, restricting where I can live, travel, and work, and forever publicly labeling me as a dangerous criminal pervert in every community I was in for the rest of my life.

Now in my case, justice prevailed, even though I still feel that that predator - and that's exactly what she is - still owes me and my family for costs and pain and suffering. And she still owes my nieces for planting such an ugly thought in their heads at such a young age. But I can guarantee that there are people out there, for whom justice doesn't prevail, who wrongly earn that label. And in those cases where what was accused actually did happen, but what happened was not truly sexual predator status (18yo having sexual relations with 16yo, accidental internet view, even Grisham's friend who had a momentary drunken lapse of judgement), the life sentence of residential/travel restriction and lifetime public shame in the offender registries, is unwarranted. For true predators, sure. But not for everyone who currently falls under the "sex offender" label.

I'm just glad you made it out the other end, even with scars. I've been tied up with crazy women twice I can remember and, although it didn't go to the lengths you went through, it was enough that I empathize...

 

[cbi1972]

What do you think the production of the actual photo/video is? Art?

I'm not talking about production. I am talking about consumption.

 

[cbi1972]

And I simply counter that your assertion is ridiculous - to consume child porn is to fund (or at least condone and encourage) its creation, which is abuse.

If illegal drugs grew plentifully throughout the world, the demand (and crimes associated with supplying those demands) would drop. This is a parallel - without the demand for the consumption of child porn, the creation (and abuse) would drop.

But you are not eliminating demand by prosecuting consumers. You are making it more lucrative to produce.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I tend to agree, as I know someone who is branded a sex offender for life for literally peeing in his backyard at night, where no child could ever see him. But I hope we can absolutely agree that Grisham chose an awful example in this case...

IDK. I'd feel differently about the guy if he'd done a search for, for example, 10 year old girls. 16 is a very recent and artificial age of consent (and adulthood). There are guys under a life sentence for "abuse" of a girl when the girl was 16 and the guy was 17. That's stupid. 16 used to be an "old lady," because people rarely lived far into their 30s. His search wasn't wise and it probably was inspired by alcohol, but a life sentence for it is totally absurd...

 

[mikes12]

Because during the course of the investigation it became evident to everyone involved that no assault had ever occurred, charges were never brought against me and I fought off the order of protection in court. Likewise, charges were never brought against my brother, although my little nieces had to endure interviews with investigators asking if their father had ever touched them in a sexual way. It also became evident during the course of the investigation that this woman was a serial accuser with some sort of formally-diagnosed personality disorder that caused her to seek sympathy from others as a victim (which is incidentally exactly what I gave her in the beginning) by falsely accusing others. And when she is through with someone as an ally, she accuses them and moves on to the next sap. In fact, I later received a phone call from the next sap, who was currently defending himself against a protection order and sexual assault charges. It really was a Basic Instinct/Fatal Attraction sort of experience for me that stretched from 2002 to 2005. Incidentally, I'd love to hear from someone who knows - paging Stacy - because I was never informed of what this personality disorder is called, only that she was formally diagnosed with it.

(edited for space)

Borderline personality disorder?

 

[crimsonaudio]

I'm not talking about production. I am talking about consumption.

They are one and the same.

But you are not eliminating demand by prosecuting consumers. You are making it more lucrative to produce.

Just like most anything that's illegal. But the answer is not legalization of the abuse of minors, imo. We're at an impasse - you won't convince me otherwise.

IDK. I'd feel differently about the guy if he'd done a search for, for example, 10 year old girls. 16 is a very recent and artificial age of consent (and adulthood). There are guys under a life sentence for "abuse" of a girl when the girl was 16 and the guy was 17. That's stupid. 16 used to be an "old lady," because people rarely lived far into their 30s. His search wasn't wise and it probably was inspired by alcohol, but a life sentence for it is totally absurd...

I can see your point, but calling it 'a life sentence' is overly dramatic - one lives with the choices they make. I've (sadly) had a few too many several time in my life, but I've not desired this sort of behavior.

I know you're passionate about this, and I am as well, so I'll leave it at this - in our society, 16 year old children are called to be protected, and I believe they should be. Just as I said to CBI1972, my mind won't be changed on this ones and I've said my piece, so I guess I'll leave you guys to defend this behavior.

 

[cbi1972]

Nothing is ever going to allow us to go back in time and prevent past abuses, but the evidence is out there that drawing a distinction between committing abuse and looking at pictures of that abuse can reduce FUTURE abuses. Essentially, denying voyeurs their material turns them into predators. Seems counterproductive.

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

Borderline personality disorder?

While all of this was ongoing, I did some research to try to diagnose her myself, and BPD is what I settled on. But I don't think it quite perfectly fits. I say this because when I read about BPD, though the attention-seeking and manipulative aspects (for attention) fit, as do the wild swings between feelings of intense adoration and intense betrayal, anger and anxiety, the image I get is of someone who is generally out of control. My experience with this woman, in hindsight, is that she was very much in control, and purposefully calculating her next move most of the time. If it were chess, she's someone who was always thinking six moves ahead.

I used the word "predator" for a reason. In hindsight, she was constantly calculating, and purposefully setting up intricate manipulations in order to initially earn sympathy. And when she was finished using a person, she very purposefully and calculatingly set up intricate manipulations to burn them. She is someone who, without a college degree, spent hours upon hours upon hours researching complicated legal concepts and found ways to exploit existing systems and bend them to her uses. And it seems like her overriding goal in life was to use people to fight battles on her behalf that didn't even exist, only to turn around and use new people to fight new battles against the old people.

That whole predator aspect doesn't really fit in with the image I typically see depicted by BPD.

 

[Crimson1967]

I'm glad things worked out for you, Pacaderma, but sadly there will be people who heard of the accusations who may have some idea in their mind that something might have happened even though you were 100% innocent. Where there's smoke, there's fire. It is especially sad your nieces were forced into dealing with things they shouldn't have been exposed to at that age.

Although she never did anything that extreme, I did get involved with a crazy woman one time. I really can't go into detail, but things did get bad, though it had the potential to get much worse. Luckily, it was around this time I met the woman to whom I am now married (20 years and counting), so it was easier to break it off since there was no desire to be with her at all anymore.

 

[RedStar]

You appear to be conflating abuse with the viewing of images. These are very different things.

Also, the proposition that possession of child porn increases abuse is spurious. In nations where child porn has been legalized, there has been an observed DROP in child sex abuse. If your concern for actual children is sincere and as strong as you make out (and I have no reason to think otherwise), and not simple revulsion to the idea of child porn, this should cause you to rethink your position.

Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse: study

You seem to be willing to trade in morals for a "maybe less bad thing."

That's scary.

 

[RedStar]

I acknowledge that this point is being asserted. I simply disagree that draconian punishment for consumption is an appropriate avenue for prevention of abuse. You seem to be missing the point that prohibition does not eliminate demand for the forbidden, as been proven time and time again.

The study I linked directly contradicts your assertion that abuse happens at a greatly reduced level with prohibition.

Does the prohibition for murder make murder go away? Of course not. Nothing ever goes away because this is a broken world filled with broken people. That doesn't mean we should give up fighting for what we believe in. We're not all fatalist.

 

[cbi1972]

Does the prohibition for murder make murder go away? Of course not. Nothing ever goes away because this is a broken world filled with broken people. That doesn't mean we should give up fighting for what we believe in. We're not all fatalist.

The problem is when prohibition not only doesn't make the undesired behavior go away, it increases the undesired behavior. It is always worth reviewing whether your intentions, however well-meaning, are congruent with the outcome. If prohibition is having the effect of increasing the undesirable behavior rather than decreasing it, then it seems obtuse to me to prefer a policy which feels right than one which works.