John Grisham Thinks We Should Cut Old Dudes a Break For Looking at Underage Porn

By Dustin Rowles | Miscellaneous | October 16, 2014 |

By Dustin Rowles | Miscellaneous | October 16, 2014 |

We’ve all been there, right? Surfing the Internet when we see a big flashing ad with an alluring, mostly undressed vixen beckoning us to click with the promise of naked underage women sitting on cream pies(?) And then you get there, and all these “16 year olds” look twice that age, and then you spend an hour downloading pictures and videos onto your hard drive because you don’t understand what streaming is, I guess, and because you’ve never heard of Red Tube. Suddenly, a week later, the FBI shows up at your house and throws you in prison with a bunch of perverts, which you obviously are not because you thought those girls being advertised as underage were really 30.

That’s the, uh, scenario that John Grisham described in decrying harsh penalties for actions that he believes doesn’t rise to the level of other sex crimes for which people are convicted. He described to the Telegraph a situation with an old buddy of his in Canada who was caught up in an FBI sting:

‘His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website,’ Grisham told The Telegraph. 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 have 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. There’s so many of them now. There’s so many ”sex offenders” - that’s what they’re called - that they put them in the same prison. Like they’re a bunch of perverts, or something. We’ve gone nuts with this incarceration.’

Grisham was sure to clarify that he thinks pedophiles should face harsh prison sentences, but those that only look from their homes and do not touch in person shouldn’t face sentences equal to or higher than the sentences actual pedophiles receive (which is apparently what is happening, according to the publication, Reason).

Personally, he’s right about one thing. The sentencing for those caught with child pornography should not be shorter, but the sentences for actual pedophiles should be considerably higher: Like, 50 years to rotting corpse.

Otherwise, certainly Grisham should know that viewing child pornography, in effect, makes you a goddamn accomplice, because if you didn’t pay for it, then assholes wouldn’t take advantage of underage women by exploiting them for your sexual goddamn pleasure.

In a related story, the smile that John Grisham is flashing in the header picture above looks like it’s beaming out of a rape van like the goddamn bat signal.