I’ve only seen a handful of John Grisham’s TV interviews – like, Charlie Rose and The Daily Show – and he always struck me as a quiet, thoughtful, interesting man. Grisham is a bestselling author of like a bajillion books and at this point, he really doesn’t have to get out there and hustle on crazy book tours. And he might want to consider his policy on interviews too, because Grisham just gave an interview to The Telegraph which is, at best, stupidly controversial and at worst, wildly offensive. Grisham went off and started complaining about all of the men locked up for looking at child p0rn. You can read the full piece here, and here’s what he said:
“We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who’ve never harmed anybody, would never touch a child. 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.” In a final rearguard action, Grisham added, “I have no sympathy for real paedophiles. God, please lock those people up. But so many of these guys do not deserve harsh prison sentences, and that’s what they’re getting.”
Grisham cites the case of a “law school buddy” whose porn consumption led to three years in jail.
“His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website,” he says. ”It was labelled 16-year-old wannabee hookers or something like that’. 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”.
If he had framed his argument in a different way – like, the prevalence of p0rn in our culture, the sexualization of teenage girls – I might be more sympathetic. But it sounds like Grisham is lamenting the fact that a couple of his friends are locked up because they were looking at child p0rn online. I don’t care if you’re drunk and/or stupid, it’s still a crime. And I have a HUGE side-eye for this statement: “it was 16 year old girls who looked 30… It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys.” Ah, so “looking at 10 year old boys” is less acceptable to John Grisham than “looking at 16 year old girls.” Because teenage girls deserve to be exploited but not the boys?
UPDATE: Here’s Grisham’s apology:
Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography—online or otherwise—should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable.
I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all.
Well, at least he apologized. Eh.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Shut. The. Fuc*. Up. Grisham.
•Jaderu•
Exactly. And all I could think after reading his comments was — so you like seeing/watching underage p0rn then? (I felt he doth protest too much)
Obviously he’s never been exploited sexually as a child. His thoughts might be a lot different if he was aware of the horrific consequences (hence the steep punishments!).
For whatever reason, I read the title and thought he was going to say- they don’t belong in jail. They belong in hell. Forever. Kill them all.
I am a very compassionate and caring person. Empathetic to a fault. But not in this issue. Therefore – f@ck you John Grisham you worthless POS. For so many reasons.
1- this isn’t a cause to be championed. These guys are creating the demand for child porn and they are revictimizing the children by looking.
2- this isn’t remotely something that happens. It’s just not
3- you know what group is marginalized and imprisioned at disgustingly high rate for the most minor of crimes? Black men.
So f you. F you that you think prison is filled with innocent old white guys who wanked it to kiddy pr9n.
His reasoning/defense is so flawed. The internet does NOT make it easy to even find child pr0n. If you’re looking for that stuff, you are LOOKING for it- no accidental wrong click. STFU Grisham. Sounding like he resents not having the freedom to do it himself. Ugh.
Not to mention…. If the FBI sets up an internet “sting”, they want the charges to stick and they don’t want any gray areas. I highly doubt Grisham’s old white guy friend truly went to jail for a one time click on a site that someone could argue he didn’t know was kids. Whatever he clicked, you can believe it was in no way subtle.
The FBI doesn’t take the time to set this stuff up so that thye can later go to court and have the perp argue that it was an accident and he thought he was looking at ADULTS!
He’s only looking at a sympathetic 1 side of the argument. Yes, those men locked up didn’t do anything to the child. They only viewed photos (that they hunted down and possibly paid for). Past that though they created a demand for it. And are supporting the people that have taken advantage of those children. There’s a reason why it’s illegal. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. And who’s to say those men wouldn’t go on to harm children after becoming desensetized?
This man is such a pos. I’m sure his publisher and agent are having panic attacks over this.
I agree with you 100%. Apology not accepted.
MoxyLady, THANK YOU!!!! It’s almost as if he has deemed himself the judge of which is a more severe level of child p#rn, and suggesting that they should not pay justice as well. Whether it’s a 10 year old boy or a 16 year old girl…they are victims, whose innocence are taken away and lives are changed in such a way that it’s so very hard to repair. Creating the need for such garbage is just as bad as participating in any other facet of it.
MCraw, you took the words right out of my mouth. Finding child porn isn’t as easy as he makes it sound. It’s not like you can find it by browsing legitimate porn sites that cater to non-pedophiles. Anyone who has it has taken the time to intentionally find it. His friend obviously has a thing for teen girls.
Even if a person who is found with child porn has never actually molested a child (and most of them have), he or she is still contributing to the victimization of children by seeking out this type of material. It’s a matter of supply and demand, and children had to be victimized to create those pictures.
Actually it is kinda easy to find child pornography on so-called “legitimate” sites . “Teen” is one of the most searched for tags in the world and while a lot of it is of-age women in childish outfits (which is creepy enough in its own right) there are enough videos of actual teens around the age of 15-16. It doesn’t excuse anything and his comments were awful AWFUL but “stumbling over” child porn is easier than you’d assume.
I see what he’s trying to say–that people who stumbled onto websites are not as bad as people who are actually molesting children–but he’s really missing the point. Makes him seem old and irrelevant.
You don’t stumble on such images, you have to actively seek them out. Police watches such forums and websites and tries to bust those sick assholes.
Actually, unfortunately you can.
One minute, you’re innocently looking for Jean val Jean’s goodies because – hormones, single and he’s gorgeous. The next, you’re bounced around till you land in one of those scary places that puts you right off sexy internet time for months.
Looking at and then DOWNLOADING that scary stuff is another matter, though. Not acceptable, and easily avoided.
This guy’s career should be about over now, BTW.
It’s pretty easy to end up on odd fetish sites, Babalon, but as someone who even goes looking for the more unusual stuff sometimes, I’ve never come across a site advertising minors.
Agree with Babalon.
Back in the day, me and my best friend were downloading porn from Limewire and we actually had a child porn video. That turned us off from the internet for a while. It’s really unfortunate and sadly we didn’t report it. We still talk about our stupid inaction.
Also, early in 2014, there was a Tumblr full of the grossest child porn and only after many people reported it (who surely weren’t looking for it and stumbled upon it since it was so easy to find apparently), did Tumblr take that shit down. But it took them WAY too long.
Grisham is gross.
Yup. Makes me think someone needs to check his computer.
If you are talking about today…it is very hard to stumble onto child porn, you have to actively search for it. If you are talking about 10 plus years ago, then it was most definitely to stumble upon it. But to download something you should, at the very least, know involves a person that might not be legal…..ummm..yeah, a big problem. I don’t get how anyone can honestly say someone looks 30 but is 16. I looked like I was 12 years old until I was about 25. And now people think I am in my late twenties to early thirties when I’m 43…so no.
I’m pretty sure police can search your history and tell the difference between accidentally hitting a site once and immediately backtracking vs. looking at child pr0n on a regular or even semi-regular basis. Just sayin’
@Really: it is unlikely you will encounter it if you are not searching for it, that is true. no one can know 100% whats behind a link though . you can get redirected, links can be hidden etc.
most countries therefore dont prosecute it if you get there accidentally, like open the site and close it a couple of seconds later. thats not a crime. i dont know how that is in the usa and what he is reffering to.
regarding downloading: you are downloading a lot of stuff, in your chache and in your ram. it just gets deleted very fast too. thats a grey area in law, like if you stream a movie, are you making an illegal copy? because data will be stored temporarily on your computer. but thats also nothing the authorities usually get involved.
Nah fetish stuff is one thing, child porn is a dark corner you have to pretty much be looking for.
There was one time, after I saw an acquantaince’s baby who was like 18 months old and practically bald. I wasn’t sure if that was normal and I googled something I thought was completely innocent but it had the word hairless in it and the most horrifying link came up. Obviously I didn’t click on it, but how do you report such things? I still feel awful. What if it was a child being abused and I did nothing to stop it?
I’ve seen parts of some that play with the age thing and it’s pretty gross.
The girls say they are of age but they have braces or are made up to look like they are way younger and that was gross enough for me.
The one I’m talking about had a girl named Tiny who was too short to reach a doll in a toy store.
She was buying it for her sister as “the plot” revealed.
But it was definitely playing with that little girl thing.
Dude didn’t just ‘stumble’ onto it–he downloaded it. That’s a whole lot different than clicking on a link…..
Paging Amal Clooney! John Grisham done lost his marbles!
Yep, he downloaded it and it probably wasn’t just 16 year olds but that’s just a guess.
Also he must have been on those sites repeatedly, and probably subscribed to at least one to have been on the radar of the police. And if the police were aware and monitoring these sites, they were BAD ones, not 18 year-olds dressed like young girls. John Grisham has lost his mind and he certainly needs to get a better class of friends.
You can’t really stumble onto websites like that. Child pornography and underage porn is very specific.
Also, the 10-year sentence is supposed to reflect how seriously the U.S. wants to take these crimes. Okay, maybe his friend wasn’t going to go out and molest anyone, but by clicking on that link he is supporting an illegal industry that does horrible things to children. The theory is imposing long sentences will deter others from downloading the links and hopefully erode demand and the industry itself.
+1 – he may not be molesting the children by going to the websites and looking, but those kids are being molested and coerced into doing these things by those taking the pictures and distributing the material, and that person is funding their crimes.
yep yep yep– grisham can stfu about his drunk perv buddies because they are creating the demand for an evil industry with their clicking and downloading, trying to make a distinction between 10 or 16 or boy or girl is just infuriating.
Exactly, Mira. I really disagree with his point that by looking at pictures, and not interacting directly with the child, that you aren’t contributing to the abuse of that child. People like that don’t want to own the role they play in supply and demand. Children wouldn’t be abused for online p0rn if there wasn’t demand for it, if people couldn’t make money from it.
He made it worse with that HORRIBLE justification that in cruder circles sounds like “if there’s grass on the field it’s ok to play ball”, by comparing the 16 year-olds body to a 30 year-olds. Just because a female might have reached a certain level of physical maturity does NOT make it ok to sexualize them! My friend’s 9 year old has a C-cup, does John think that would make it ok to look at nude photos of her?
You can’t accidentally download enough porn to warrant FBI attention though, can you?
Plus how can anyone think that being part of the audience and subsequent market for child porn is somehow harmless? It’s all one and the same in terms of being part of the problem.
You don’t stumble on child porn sites. You actively have to seek it . Child porn is illegal that’s why it takes some effort to find it. He is a sex offender. You look at child porn you are contributing to the demand for more child porn.
It’s simple supply and demand. His friend deserved his prison sentence. I wouldn’t be surprised if his friend was a frequent visitor to these websites. No sympathy for 60 year old white dudes who have a sexual attraction to children.
Well, I’m going to probably state an unpopular point of view, but I hope at least some here will understand. In fact I think its probably what Grisham wanted to say, though he chose an awkward way to do it with a (blazingly)-hot-button issue.
First, you can accidentally stumble on some of this stuff. Recently I read about all the celebrity photo leaks, and many of the articles about it mentioned a site called 4chan. I’d never been to that site and decided to check it out to see what it was all about. Its basically the sewer of the internet as far as I could tell. Much to my surprise as I scrolled through a few pages of the place, there were some suggestive photos of what clearly appeared to be underage girls along with a whole lot of other junk.
Should I be put in jail for having stumbled on that? I don’t really think so. I didn’t go there looking for that. I went there simply out of curiosity to see what a site was like that had been mentioned in the news. I don’t really feel I did something wrong, do you?
In terms of Grisham, my gut feeling was that he wanted to make a distinction between someone who, for whatever reason, looks at this stuff online, and someone who goes out and molests children. To some degree I ‘m in agreement with that. I don’t see the same level of harm in those 2 things. Certainly both actions are problematic, but the first strikes me more like circumstances where someone probably could use some help to straighten themselves out, while the second unquestionably merits putting someone away for a long, long time. Sure, Grisham didn’t say it very well (particularly for a writer), but I’m fairly convinced that’s the distinction he intended to make.
@ reginaQ – You write:
“Certainly both actions are problematic, but the first strikes me more like circumstances where someone probably could use some help to straighten themselves out. . . .”
What help could you use to, as you put it, ‘straighten’ yourself out? Because you are describing three circumstances:
1. The circumstance you say you found yourself in (hopefully, you aren’t just advertising for the website you mentioned);
2. The one Grisham’s friend was convicted of – downloading child pornography, drunk or not, old and white or not; and
3. Physically molesting children.
At any rate, your use of the term ‘problematic’ to describe pedophiles is certainly an understatement.
@Kate —
I’m upset to see you distort what I said so intently.
First, the thought that I might be ‘advertising the website’ I mentioned earlier is preposterous! That very website was mentioned here on CB in articles about those photo leaks. In fact, it was reading of it here that piqued my curiosity to check out that site to see what it was about.
Suggesting there’s help I need (“What help could you use to, as you put it, ‘straighten yourself out’ “) is just plain insulting. I feel for you if disagreeing with someone prompts you to become so tense. I assure you my only interest was in presenting a point of view in what is an interesting conversation here on CB. The circumstances I noted were clearly without any particular intent on my part other than to see a website mentioned right here on this website. The obvious point was that clearly someone that finds themselves in those circumstances shouldn’t be blamed or punished. As I’m sure you know, not everything that is found on the web is entirely predictable.
Further, I was not using the word “problematic” to describe a pedophile. I clearly used the word problematic in contrasting one who looks at these type of images online as compared to someone who acts on those those sort of urges with children they are actually around in the real world. I don’t see those 2 things as having the same criminality.
Now I’m sure you can find a way to disagree without putting words in someone else’s mouth. Can’t you?
@reginaQ
Read the reply on 53. below. No one has been arrested by the FBI for one click in error or interest. If so, my ass clown of a ex son in law would be in prison and the world would be a safer place. Those who are taken to trial have downloaded hundreds of images and have stashes in their closets, etc., paid subscriptions to their favorite sites, and solid proof of their deviate behavior.
Many years ago while perusing porn (i’m female), link after link after link, I ended up on a page with various photos. Amongst the adult sex pictures was a photo of a little child crying and a man with his hands towards the kid claw like, as if he was trying to scare and going to grab the kids. It was set in a bedroom. Let’s just say with all the other photos of sex, the one with the little kid made me sick, even if there was nothing sexual in the photo if it stood alone. I think there was a link but i never clicked on it. i was too grossed out. I may have reported it, don’t remember anymore.
Did you report the images of underage girls? If not then YES you did do something wrong.
That’s what I thought at the beginning of the piece, but later he says his friend looked at a site title “16 year olds…”, so that was in no way accidental. His friend wanted to look at minors and found exactly what he was looking for. He wants to blame it on alcohol or the girls themselves as if 16 year olds on Internet porn sites are more in control of their lives than 10 year old boys. He implies the teen girls “want it” or they wouldn’t be accessible via the internet. He has no idea if these girls are willing participants, forced, intimitated, drug addicts, etc.
On another note, years ago, my bar association was hosting an event and wanted Grisham as a speaker. I was put to task to locate him/his agent and invite him. I was told he would not accept the invitation unless we paid for a private jet ($5K-$10K rental). Um…We are a non-profit. They knew this. Obviously, we sought out alternate key note speakers. What a jerk!
So the website is clearly labelled 16 yo hookers (not 30 yo hookers) – underaged girls – but that’s okay because,, you know, they’re horny teen girls looking for drunken older men? He does realize you have to search a little harder for child porn than just “pressing a few buttons”? AND the lawyer friend would not have been convicted if he had just downloaded one video of what he claims were 16 yo that looked older … there had to have been more activity to put his good buddy on the radar screen. You’d think he’d know better. @ss wipe.
Actually he said old White Men who stumble on these websites are not that bad. So I guess if you are not old or white or a man then to hell with you.
My read exactly.
The article in Times states that the person he was talking about DOWNLOADED it. He didn’t just stumbled upon it.
Yes, I pretty much agree with the majority of these ladies are saying:
It was likely a sting and it wasn’t one time. FBI isn’t wasting all their time and resources trying to entrap his friend. They look for repeat offenders. I don’t care what his friend told him.
It’s pretty obvious that Grisham and his pals want to be able to look at high school girls porn without repercussion. He feels sorry for his friend because he would do it to. That’s pretty much what I took away from this.
Disgusting
Does he not understand that if “old white men” were not looking at it maybe it would stop being produced and children would stop being victimized? Inhuman animals who prey on little children should rot in jail for a lifetime.
Exactly – someone has to MAKE these child porn videos by exploiting children. By looking at them and paying for them, you are feeding the industry. His point is ridiculous. Of all the things to get outraged over in the world, he chooses this? What an asshole.
Problem is it probably would NOT stop being produced. I understand your argument, but I don’t think it really works with this subject matter. There’s really almost no place you can sell or market this sad sort of garbage. Because of that, I have extreme doubts the sort of sick human being who would produce this stuff is really motivated by money or can make much of any money by exploiting children. I think its their illness that motivates them, not the money. If the tiny illicit market for this stuff is obliterated, you would still have very sick people looking to exploit children and have them do terrible things.
It’s also homophobic and simply wrong.
Adults seeking those type of images from under 18 are damn perverts.
Nasty. 16 year olds are fair play according to this old douche. Makes me sick.
Sixty year old men need a new spokesperson. He makes it sound like this is the norm: #welcometoAARPalcoholicchildpornindulgers
Right? This is just what 60 year olds do. I don’t think so.
And viewing child pornography is not a victimless activity – you are helping some sleaze ball profit from the exploitation of children.
Is he serious?
How do you ‘accidentally’ look at child porn? I’ve watched *plenty* of porn, and none of it has ever had the ’16 and Not Legal’ tagline on it.
And the fact that he said that the guy was drunk makes it worse to me.
And you know – most of that stuffs pretty well literally labeled. It’s ______ doing ____ or sexy ____ ___ing. You don’t accidentally watch child pr0n unless you walk into a room and some other asshole is watching it with the monitor facing you. The ‘well he was drunk’ excuse enrages me. This whole attempt at justification annoys me.
Exactly. You have to know where to look for this sh*t. Perverts.
Gross John. By looking at it at all you’re perpetuating child sexual abuse. STFU
WTF
I would love the name of this friend to search for what he was charged with and what content was on his computer. Something tells me it wasn’t “just” 16 yr olds. John Grisham is a piece of sh1t and racist to boot. His wailing about white men getting locked up for kiddie porn is disgusting.
Yeah, I was going to say…to me, maybe I’m wrong, but I would think that the FBI would be too busy to go to someone’s house for one evening of ill-advised clicking around.
I have nothing against p0rn but I don’t like it and I don’t indulge. I do not judge anyone who does like it or does indulge because a lot of people do both. Just–for me–not my thing. So maybe I am innocent, but I would think that sites that advertise themselves as being directed towards fantasies of younger partners maybe would sound like they’re not legal but really they are. So a drunk guy one night could find himself looking for “horny co-eds” but end up on a bad site with genuinely younger female persons. Ok, fine. Would the FBI care if it happened once or twice? I just can’t see that.
So I think it surely must be something much more disgusting and sinister.
Either way, his buddy needs to lay off the sauce and Grisham needs to shut his own pie hole, I think.
“I would think that the FBI would be too busy to go to someone’s house for one evening of ill-advised clicking around.”
EXACTLY.
Shady-ass friend likes shady-ass things. If FBI got involved, almost guaranteed that he downloaded images too. Sick f*ck and Grisham should be ashamed—ashamed for defending this turd and ashamed about his awful books.
Bingo–that guy was doing more than downloading 16 year olds to get the FBI on his ass. What a joke.
Right. He is essentially saying old white guys are harmless and shouldn’t be sent to prison but everyone else should be there. This means I’ll have to cull my John Grisham books.
Wait, 16 yr olds that look 30? I don’t think that’s how it works seeing as there’s no market for kids that look “old”. It’s the 18-19 year olds that look 12-15yrs old that would be featured. BLECHHHHH!
Exactly. Also, if John’s defense for his friend is that the girls looked 30, then why is he clicking on a link for 16 year olds? John should know better than anyone that intent does matter!
Word salad, he shot himself in the foot. Dumbass.
Exactly and he downloaded the porn. I am really sick of people sexualizing young girls and then using the excuse they are almost legal. Even judges use this crap “older than their chronological age.”
Exactly–guys don’t seek out underaged girls for them to look 30, it’s for them to usually look 12.
What a rationalization–so as long as they aren’t too young, and the 16 year olds look like used 30 year olds(nice way to insult the 16 year olds to make a point John too), and they aren’t boys, just girls, and all you did was look not touch—it should be okay. What a way to treat your per friends like victims instead of the perpetrators that they are….his friends were doing some nasty shit to have the FBI show up, don’t believe his characterization for one second…
Its the age old excuse: if girls look physically mature it is ok to sexualize them. It is so wrong and I am glad he is getting reamed for this.
I have looked at every conceivable questionable website darn near, as a person who is interested in literally everything, and never once have I “stumbled” upon any child porn! Sure, I’ve had some weird pop-ups and such, but you can Rule 34 yourself to death online before going there. What’s so weird is that THIS is the cause he’s choosing to take up?!? Drunk, old perverts trolling online for depictions of underage strange? Sorry, John, but I doubt we’ll be seeing a telethon for this group anytime soon!
Well, there it is. The stupidest quote I’ll read all day.
Hopefully nothing will top it! I don’t even want to know what that would be.
I really am surprised he chose to go into this topic at all, and in such a bizarre fashion. It could be one of those things where the friend told him his version of events, and he chose to believe it, rather than verify what he actually pled to/found guilty of- in all probability, two very different things.
And sad to say so much easier to get convictions/pleas when it’s online, vs when someone actually does things to an underage victim, so not surprised at the sentencing discrepancy.
I know. What he is saying is such utter bullshit I’m surprised he believed it from his friend. He must really trust his buddy because its such a fake bullshit story. “The girls were 16 but dressed to look 30” Umm ok then why not look at 30 year old women if that is so hot to you? “He was drinking out of control” Umm ok, I and most everyone I know have had at least a couple black-out drunk night. Did I ever watch child porn? Hell no. “No one was touched” Umm yes the kids in the video were touched and violated and you enjoyed that and contribute to the abuse.
Those are all just crappy justifications and blaming the victim/alcohol for his friends f-ed up choices.
That was my thought, too, that he personally knew a guy arrested for it and believed his story since he thinks the guy had a drinking problem and not a pedophilia problem (it’s not pedophilia with 16 year olds, that used to be an age of consent or even younger and they can get married). I think it’s creepy for older men to go after teenagers, but in most of our history and still in many parts of the world – a girl is considered ready for marriage once she starts to menstruate and the preference has been for older husbands who had the resources to support a family. So he might have trouble thinking of images of 16 year olds as child porn or an arrestable offense even if technically under the legal age today (but not in the past).
I imagine the more clearcut child porn is better hidden to avoid arrest, except about 15 years ago a friend told me that twice a porn image popped up on his screen unbidden. If I remember correctly, once was in the library, where he (a librarian) was helping someone research something online. The other incident really shook him because it was at home, his young kids were around, and at a glance it looked like child porn involving two young boys. Not something he wanted to explain to the kids…. He actually pulled the power cord to get rid of it fast!
At that time, it was really hard to avoid porn site hits in search engines. I think they embedded a whole thesaurus in their site… Really ickily, they embedded kid-friendly search terms for popular actors and singers and video games in their source pages so their sites were pulling in the kiddos (I ran into them because of my interest in video/computer games and some Disney shows). I guess they figured it was worth it since some kids would get curious enough to fish out mom’s credit card from her purse and purchase a look at more. I also kept seeing porn hits because some of my work involves biology and medical conditions. At least the pics haven’t popped up in a long time, since I eventually could set google preferences for no explicit images (although I can’t restrict language because of my work). But the hits are no longer overwhelmingly cluttered with porn hits, so the search engines must have become diligent about identifying and isolating such things. I had complained several times about the porn hits and enough other people must have also, leading to better preference selections and parental controls. Kid-friendly search engines became an option also.
Trip on a rock, twist your ankle, then fall straight into hell.
Perhaps he’s referring to himself?
What an effing PERV!
He wants to believe his friend but his friend is a liar. Wake up guy, your friend didn’t do 3 years for peeking at women pretending to be teens.
The problem with his logic is that the children in the photos are STILL BEING EXPLOITED/ABUSED regardless of whether the looker is also touching. How can he be so stupid and clueless?!
(The shouting is toward him, not anyone here.)
So, I’m supposed to be particularly outraged because 60-year-old white men are in prison? If they’ve committed crimes, they should be. Frankly, I’m a lot more concerned about all the young, mostly non-white men and women who are in prison for relatively minor drug crimes, which do a hell of a lot less harm to society than supporting an industry that exploits and sometimes enslaves vulnerable teenage girls.
THANK YOU @ Lunchcoma
•Lunchie•
I lurve you. And totally agree. Truly gross old men should rot in jail for participating in a brutal and cruel world of p0rn — without demand there would be very little supply.
And I agree, there are plenty of people in jail (mostly non-whites) that could use a boost in order to turn their lives around and become productive members of society.
Let’s make the world a better place — keep pedophiles locked up (rapists too) and help people that could productively contribute to society (petty crimes etc.).
“Let’s make the world a better place — keep pedophiles locked up (rapists too) and help people that could productively contribute to society (petty crimes etc.). ”
THIS! So much this!!!
It is so frustrating when I read a story about some child victim that was attacked by a predator that should be in jail–but likely wasn’t because od space issues. I would rather have a pot dealer walking down my street than a child rapist.
.
Preach, lunchcoma! +1.
Well said, lunchcoma! I completely agree.
YES. His comment is so disgusting for such obvious reasons that people aren’t even talking about the subtext: that “old white men” shouldn’t be in prison unless they “really deserve it”.
Because all the non-white young men (and women) obviously belong there? WOW. His privilege is showing and it’s nauseating.
*clapping over here* Right on.
so 16 yr old girls that look 30 are fair game is that what hes saying? what a misogynistic pig
+1
And the STFU award goes to . . .
Jesus did he not stop to think that those ’16 year old girls’ were probably coerced into making p0rn?
What a stupid, horrid thing to say. He’s a f*cking idiot.
Grisham’s friend may not have touched the child, but someone did in order to take those pics. Being one step removed from violating a child is still really freaking sick.
Child porn doesn’t typically just leap into your downloads. People who find this stuff tend to be looking for it, actively. Also: these are photographs of children being exploited and sexually violated– the photos exist because there is a market for it, the money these boozy old white guys spend goes to support organized crime, and more exploitation, rape, kidnapping, and human trafficking, and……
Ready for this?
By looking at and wanking off on pictures of children being violated, these men are IN FACT violating these children. Please Google Masha’s law if you want more background on this, but the legal system and finally recognizing how damaging this is and is awarding damages to children who are victims of child porn. Those children have to wake up every day knowing that the photographs of their sexual assault are being sold and used against their will, and it causes them ongoing an lasting damage. There is nothing harmless or casual about any of this.
The literary community was recently ripped by scandal like this: a prize-winning writer was caught downloading and distributing child porn, and I was astonished at how many men came out to circle the wagons and defend his actions as “harmless,” or as only affecting him. It gives new meaning to tone deaf.
F*ck you, Grisham.
Sorry, but a 16 y.o. that looks like she’s 30 is a massive pantload. Kids who live on the street and are prostituted tend to not look peaches and cream/daisy fresh. That comes from being used, exploited and dehumanized. Inexcusable justification.
And here it is again… the contention that male sex abuse victims are entitled to more sympathy and justice than females because, well, she’s female and she’s just got to get used to such things. Regardless of the gender and age of the victim and perpetrator, the punishments/penalties shouldn’t be mitigated by societal prejudices.
•pwal•
You hit the nail RIGHT on the head.
According to male-privilege, society should sob for these poor, poor men and boys that have their lives RUINED by the fact they violated and raped another human being. This whole line of sh!t is just the crap that the male-privilege subscribers want us to buy hook, line, and sinker. We women are there for them to *use* as they see fit and be happy afterwards.
May his friend and others like him rot in jail. Women and girls are not the play things of men (nor are boys).
Agree. It was so weird that he said “it wasn’t 10 year old boys” like looking at male children is somehow worse than female children. So sick! I’m unsure if Grisham himself doesn’t look at 16 year old girls and justify it because its not young boys. UGH! Barf.
How about old non-white guys? Does he think they should be locked up?
Yeah, it is REALLY odd that he threw “white” into the description of these poor souls that were being locked up unfairly. It’s like he thought that would paint a picture of a more innocent victim undeserving of imprisonment. Very telling.
Yeah, that stuck out for me too. Disgusting.
Well, obviously if you’re not white you BELONG in jail….
(I just threw up in my mouth a little bit)
The only thing I can somewhat agree with is that some people do get caught up in the sex offender web by being drunk and peeing in public….some guy years ago was nude in his house when a women and her daughter cut through his property and saw him, called the police and he was arrested. The other a 18 or 19 male hanger out with friends in the woods, hooks up with a friend of a friend turns out after the fact she was around 13 or 14 hanging out with older kids and drinking (all underage) but now he is on the sex offender list.
There is a difference between going looking for it like azzhat friend here, it doesn’t click itself, if the website says 16 yr old hookers, you best not be clicking on it…,
Maddie,
While the instances you cited can and do happen…. it is also VERY common for people to say THAT is what happened to them when in fact, what they did to get on the registry was a lot more damaging. Cops aren’t arresting millions of guys for peeing in public, yet that is what all the people on the registry want to say as the reason they landed there. Not trying to be argumentative— just wanted to point that out as it is an important distinction.
Regardless, I think we agree Grisholm is a pig. He isn’t talking about an a8 year old that is dating a 16 year old, His friend is apparently 60–looking for teens.
YEP. People will lie about this sort of thing for sure, and depending on the state you can’t always look up what their actual crimes were.
Just like Grisham’s friend lied to him about “only looking once and then OMG the FBI just showed up at my door!”
Only looked once. Yeah, right.
No, I agree with but in NJ the Megan’s Law while good, a lot of people who shouldn’t be on the list are because NJ is hard on crime and but not on justice or corruption.
Now I will be giving the side eye to Grisham, because he is defending his gross 16 yr old loving friend….
The s/he was drunk excuse is such BS! Alcohol is not a narcotic it’s an inhibitor, so whatever happens when s/he was “drunk” was already in their head to begin with ie “The Angry Drunk”.
So if his friend got drunk and started looking at kiddie pr0n and downloaded stuff then he was already about to go there!
Also, it’ s not like anyone forced this asshole to get drunk in the first place! If an idiot gets drunk, drives and kills five people, it is anyway his or her fault. As it is looking for child(teenage porn after getting smashed!
Too late to back track buddy! As a lawyer, he knows better. As a man, well judging by his comments…I’m glad I’m not his daughter. And as an author, I wouldn’t know because I don’t read his books. I’m assuming he’s successful since I see his books everywhere and they’ve been adapted for film. I wonder how much these comments might hurt that career.
Addicts always have excuses for their behavior. They tell their friends “it wasn’t my fault”. Chances are his friend is both an alcoholic and a pOrn addict as well, which was acceptable until he stepped over the line into child pOrn and got caught. I’ve bought Grisham’s books, traded them with friends and relatives, and will never buy another. So, my guess is this will have an impact on sales. No lame apology can cover this insight into the man himself.
Exactly +1
There is no way to defend a ‘friend’ who looks at that type of material. I doubt it was a one-time wrong click of the mouse that led to the guy’s charges.
Moron.
What a despicable old pig. Truly sickening.
Some men have the mentality that just looking isn’t doing any harm. How stupid do you have to be this day and age to not understand that looking perpetuates the market? Hitting on pr0n sites is adding to the demand and somebody is making a profit. Looking is supporting. Supporting perpetuates the industry. Man! I just want to hit him on the head with a cast iron skillet!
Seriously, has he never heard of supply and demand? It’s astonishing to me the level to which many people consider themselves to be entirely blameless.
Wow. Sounds like John grisham doesn’t want a career anymore
Not only misogynistic about underage girls but also not so subtle racist? I remember reading a while ago how one of the most researched tags in pr0n is “teen”, I was totally disgusted at the creepy sexualization of teenagers in our society. And his comment about poor old white men? that was incredibile! I bet he’s one of those people who uses “thug” to replace the n-word and has never heard of the prison industry complex.
•Duckie•
Not very subtle IMO.
he’s f*cked now. as he well should be. someone should check his browser history.
MF-er needs to go DIAF. When I get home I will be THROWING AWAY every one of his books that I own.
Absolutely astonishingly disgusting.
All mine are going in the dumpster. I did debate giving them to the library for their book sales, bit I’m going with the dumpster. I probably have 20 or more of his books. I’m so disgusted and sickened by him.
Same here. Some were in the donate pile, packing for a move, but now they’re all going in the trash.
Are we supposed to read it as: “I, too, look at these sites”?.
I can see the vague point he’s trying to make behind the distinction he presented, especially that often enough pr0n in the mainstream category of ‘underage’ is indeed made with adult actresses styled to resemble children in their attire and accessories (still creepy, I know). In vast majority of cases though, you can easily tell the difference and pr0n made with actual underage people should outrage you and make you shiver with disgust for exploiters behind it.
The big problem here is he does not seem to attribute any importance to the demand that these offenders create, directly contributing to those children being harmed.
An even bigger mind bender is on its way: computer generated porn. One international sting operation generated a computer “child” to identify men looking for children on webcam porn shows (apparently a new trend in the porn industry). they couldn’t arrest anybody (is it illegal if it’s not actually human?!? Gives me a headache thinking about it). But they provided info about the perps to the appropriate law enforcement in each country, so they knew who to watch for other signs.
On the one hand, completely computer generated children at least mean no real child has to be pulled into it. The technology is advanced enough that adults can be used as models if needed and then the images can be altered. But it’s still so ick.
Sorry Johnny, child porn is child porn.
Boycotting Grisham starts now.
Ditto
Hitting the like button.
I am now glad I never purchased any of his books.
The thing that really made me side-eye the most was the “60-year-old white men who have never harmed anybody” part, as if their whiteness makes them more innocent, harmless or less deserving of punishment.
Exactly!The first part wasn’t enough…
I said something to that effect below before I saw your comment. You said it way better.
Grisham misses the point entirely. Maybe his friend isn’t a pedophile (though it sounds like he is) but viewing child porn is a choice, not an accident. If you search long enough for something online, you will find it. And maybe Grisham thinks viewing that stuff doesn’t hurt anyone, but it does. By downloading and viewing it, it perpetuates the business of exploiting kids. And even though old white dudes don’t really think so, 16 year old girls are KIDS. Maybe in their sicko fantasies, they are adults with a slightly younger body but when is the last time they’ve talked to a 16 year old? My cousin is 16 and she seems like a BABY. You don’t realize it when you are 16, but you are a child. Definitely not capable of adult decisions like starring in porn. Only a disgusting scum-bag would ignore that because he is stuck in his ‘glory days’ of high school and wants to objectify 16 year olds again.
Men can have such a disconnect when it comes to porn. They don’t understand that they are viewing REAL people with emotions and feelings, life stories and experiences. To them, the porn ‘star’ is just a body. If you support the child porn industry, you are not just messing around online, you are contributing to kids being abused. That is seriously sick and people who do that belong is jail.
Completely agree, men who view porn are disconnected from the ‘performers’ as real people, Grisham demonstrates this perfectly in his comments. It’s worrying how completely out of touch he is – and this from a writer who purports to be writing about contemporary culture.
Well, if all those studies about the super-rich lacking empathy and not seeing the masses are people (more like objects) are correct, I guess it’s no wonder Gre$ham has hit that metre.
Sixteen is just a baby. I agree that what might fuel some of this teenage infatuation is a return to their own high school days.
A guy in our community died this week, a few years after he was convicted of statutory with his wife’s teenage niece. The guy was in his 50s at the time. He lost his wife, his job and his freedom for a few years. He had been a high school jock, and I really wonder if it was some kind of high school flashback. Part of the reason he received the maximum sentence instead of probation is that he was found by the court to not be sorry for his actions (and thus a risk of reoffending). He actually blamed both his wife and the victim for HIS actions.
All of this. I wish more porn consumers would move to written porn, graphic novel porn, and animated porn–erotica in which no human actors were potentially harmed, potentially exploited in the making of.
No one hurt + rocks off = win win.
I think you should have to be 21 to do porn.
I clicked a FB ad once and was sent to a very interesting men’s underwear/fetish rubber thing site (fun).
I then went to google other fetish things because damn, I have no clue what it all is. There’s some interesting and some very strange things (to me anyway- total suits of rubber with just a mouth hole?!)
not once have I ever come across anything remotely child oriented.
Ergo, I believe you gotta be looking and know where to click.
His books have sucked for a long time, and added to this new info = no longer a fan.
This. See my comment below about the forensic IT investigator, who backs you up.
One of the problems with this country is that there are NOT ENOUGH 60 year old white males in jail, like the crooked bankers and stock brokers who steal millions and get a slap on the wrist. And why is that? Well, who do you think is making the laws??? Instead we see a generation of young black men doing hard time on drug charges…which, honestly, unless they’re selling it to kids, I would consider a victimless crime. I’m a 60+ white woman and I have seen this country destroyed by old white men. Their sense of entitlement is sickening and they protect each other. They’re deathly afraid that one day they’ll actually have to ‘share the power’ with the rest of us. I don’t doubt for a second that Grisham likes looking at those kiddies as well. Wouldn’t a ‘normal’ male be repulsed by a friend looking at child pr0n?? Instead, he’s defensive.
•Diane•
EXACTLY! I’m amazed that people tolerate the self-entitlement that old white men propagate. The Koch brothers anyone?!???
Applause. o/
I spit on this person. I cannot fathom how his “mind” came up with this sh*t. Oh, wait..yes, I can and I don’t care if it’s slander or whatever, but I’m betting this scum has done a “little surfing” himself. Molesters stick together and are constantly attempting to rationalize their disgusting behavior. Bast$rd.
Instead of berating the justice system for catching ‘old white guys’ involving themselves in the child porn industry by being a consumer, Grisham should berate the ‘old white guys’ for looking at it in the first place. He should lecture his fellow ‘old white guys’ to control themselves and practice denial of their curiosities and temptations.
It sounds to me like Grisham is one of those ‘old white guys’ that don’t like ‘old white guys’ being denied the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want. There are ‘old white guys’ that don’t like to be told not to say racist or misogynist stuff and here’s Grisham thinking ‘old white guys’ shouldn’t be told not to watch child pr0n.
In the end, Grisham needs to correct his own and try to fix his ‘own people’ instead of saying society needs to change to accommodate them. Uh no. The ‘old white guys’ are wrong here in watching child pr0n and they’re the ones whose standards need to change, not everybody else’s.
NAILED IT.
You may now drop the mic.
I think he needed to better clarify his statements. Kind of sounds like he meant its not fair for people to be charged with a crime if they accidentally ended up on a child pr0n website. Kind of like an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old who also goes to the same school and gets charged with statutory rape and register as a sex offender. But I doubt many people accidentally come across child pr0n. if you did, dont you think you would report it? Or at least get off the page. Im sure the FBI can track how long you spent on that particular website etc.
He’s just really misguided and frankly sexist with how he said it. Like, who cares if they looked 30, you knowingly clicked on a site that said “16 year old wannabe hookers”. Its not like clicking on “regular” pr0n and then finding out they were 16.
“He’s just really misguided and frankly sexist with how he said it. Like, who cares if they looked 30, you knowingly clicked on a site that said “16 year old wannabe hookers”. Its not like clicking on “regular” pr0n and then finding out they were 16.”
I agree. And the “it’s not a 10 year old boy”? I cannot believe he said that.
Yeah, its really gross that he said they were 16, but dressed like they were 30, like that makes it OK?!? The allure (for these sickos) is that the girl is a CHILD! 16 year old girl or 10 year old boy (wtf does the sex matter?) are both KIDS. There is a reason that adulthood starts at 18. Hey old white pervs, how about STOP BEING INTO KIDS!
So gross. It’s the old “dead girl or live boy found in someone’s bed” saw. Really shows you the value boys still have over girls (and the weight of homophobia thrown in).
SO GROSS.
I don’t think labeling men looking at sites called “16 year old hookers” as pedophiles is a useful strategy. It’s too countercultural to call 16 year olds children- that’s a very recent redefinition. Probably when I was a child and certainly when my mother was a child, 16 or even younger was the age of consent. You could leave school at 16, get a job, live away from your parents. 16 year olds are not fully formed but they are certainly not like 10 year olds.
Legal changes can occur because a persistent minority pushes for them, but true large-scale social changes (including attitudes) occur much more slowly. A more effective approach would be to educate people on all the real uncertainties involved in any porn video. How do you know how old they really are? How do you know they are freely participating? Are they doing it because they need money badly and don’t have other options? How do they feel about what they’re doing? Coercion, including poverty, has always been a significant element in porn and prostitution. Not all are coerced, but how do you tell? Attacking it from that angle is more likely to have an impact on attitudes toward “16 year old hooker porn” than attaching labels few will believe. Tell the stories instead.
I watched his recent interview where he talks about so many people being wrongly accused and thrown into jail for years and years. I had no idea this is what he was talking about. It’s one of the most irresponsible comments a person could make.
He lives and works among those for whom child porn is common if not the norm. There’s no ‘ewww’ factor, no empathy, very little of what you would consider a sense of decency. If your mindset is such that you believe the useless eaters are no more than expendable cattle, why stop at sexual exploitation of minors? He’s desensitized and he’s defending his friends, possibly himself.
Sad thing is, he may have started from a perfectly ok place. People with alcohol problems, mental health problems, or who happen to be poor are often locked up for long periods of time for no good reason. Like the comment above about minor drug crimes with excessive sentences.
But to use this as his example? Was he high at the time? Just boggles the mind.
And if you do find this stuff accidentally, then for the love of God report it!
Check his computer.
My first instinct too!
One of the best things I read today about this whole thing was the investigator who specializes in forensic computing in child porn cases. He said every *single* case he’s worked on and every conviction he knows of is re. computers that had THOUSANDS of kiddie porn pics on them–far far far too many to have culled by “pressing the wrong button by accident” one time, or “one drunken night of internet searching.” The men in jail over this are true enablers of a predatory industry, not dabblers.
But he did show sympathy for a bud convicted of a sex crime. He may split hairs but he has not really apologised or actually believes differently. It’s depressing. Especially because he has a platform.
•hmmm•
True. Although I’m not sure how commendable it is to empathesise with a peer that looks, talks, and probably is a mirror image of yourself.
And I totally agree. There’s plenty of people that wrongly think this way — Grisham has a tremendous platform. 😢
Let me also say: I am sick to death of the argument that if you do something while you are drunk, you are somehow less guilty or should be given a break. Haven’t we gotten past that by now?
Ugh, you have to actively search fot child pornography online. It’s hard to just stumble across it. This bothered my fave author Ilona Andrew so much she went off on a Twitter rant about it and wrote a whole blog post too criticizing Grisham.
So much wrong all over this! His general comments, all of it racially tinged to a shuddering degree.
“Sixty-year-old white men in prison who’ve never harmed anybody.”
So…if they aren’t qualified as “white,” what does that… mean? I just can’t.
Thank you! I’m surprised more haven’t commented on that. That casually racist phrase. It’s like – these men are harmless! They’re old! They’re white!
Ehh… now we might have a clue on what he does in his downtime.
Damn. Another guy I thought of as an artist has morphed into an a-hole.
I’m just so disgusted with his statement! I will never look at a Grisham novel the same way. Apologies not accepted!
There is no way in hell that his “white” friend (that bit to me was almost as bizarre as the rest) was raided by the Feds & sent to jail for years for looking at 16 year olds. In many states 16 is the age of consent. He may well have agreed to a plea deal on lesser charges and was then able to hide the worse ones from his friends or more likely, Grisham is making excuses for and down playing the sexual crimes of his friend.
Did he reaslly tack on the “white” thing too?
Shut up, sh*tty novelist, and stop delibetartely hunting “underage girls” as a tag
These comments he made are just horrendous. Unfortunately, what else he said in that interview is getting zero attention whatsoever.
In this same interview, he talked at length about prison sentencing, how blacks are unfairly treated by the system, his work with the Innocence Project, racial disparities in sentencing between blacks and whites, the need for forensics/DNA reform, etc. All excellent points, then he had to go and defend his friend for looking at child porn. Just, ugh. Way for Grisham to ruin most of his previous good works/deeds.
Going to ONE porn website with 16-year-old girls ONE time I highly doubt got his buddy three years in prison. A good lawyer could get him a much better deal than that or off or probation, and it could possibly be explained away. I think he’s sugarcoating his buddy’s involvement with underage porn or he doesn’t know everything they had on his friend to have the Feds come knocking at this door.
This is yet another typical male assertinghis superiority over tbe ‘inferior’ sex. Typical creep that thinks females are lower and even compares little boys into the equation, as if only then would it be a crime. But it’s not just men who have this outlook, society is cruel to women and girls across the board and we have a long long way to go.
The guy he was defending. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11168535/John-Grishams-friend-swapped-pornographic-images-of-children-under-12.html
I guess 12 yo are ok to him.
I have never commented on a website & not even sure how but love reading all your comments. ReginaQ’s comment…..I was abused for years as child by a man who ended up pleading guilty & going to jail. That “poor, rich, white man” spent 6 months in jail after admitting to three years of abusing a child. I am one of the very, very, very few whose rapist actually did any time & I am so grateful for that. I don’t believe this pos who said his friend did yrs for a click. It is a steep, uphill battle to get a conviction with hard proof of a crime of this nature. I know my abuser had an audio tape that was never found (or even looked for). I have always wondered if there was more & if he posted it somewhere. If some sicko (or someone just trying to look at Jlaw naked) saw, clicked, downloaded &/or “etc” to me being abused- that is not just an accident or a night of drinking too much. I know sickos are sickos but to see someone on this site try to argue differently?! It’s called revictimization…. I am baffled someone would actually post to try and agree with this enabler. Love the rest of you & thanks for making me feel I’m not alone 🙂
Love and peace to you
Makes one wonder what HE has in HIS internet history…
His friend, the one Grisham is talking about, said he should have been punished. People say it’s who Grisham is talking about because he was a drunk at the time and he did go to jail Plus he forward the images to someone else who happened to be an undercover cop. Yet he says he found them disgusting. I don’t get that part. Why was he forwarding them to someone else and downloading them?. Did he know the guy was an undercover police offer? The full article is on Daily Mail
“But compounding Grisham’s embarrassment, it emerges that he grossly understated the extent of his friend’s offences.
Far from merely looking at pictures of 16-year-olds – which wouldn’t anyway be illegal under Mississippi law – Holleman was accused of accessing sexually explicit images of children who in some cases were younger than 12.
Not only did he download them but he also sent some 13 images to an undercover police officer in Canada, resulting in a conviction for ‘sending and receiving’ child pornography.
Despite the seriousness of his crimes, Holleman agrees with Grisham on one point, he said. He doesn’t believe that anyone who looks at child pornography is automatically a paedophile and insisted he wasn’t one himself.
‘There’s no doctor in the world who would say because someone looks at something on the internet, that makes them a paedophile.
‘The pictures [he looked at] were disgusting – it’s like looking at the pictures of a horrible murder scene, which I’ve also done. But it doesn’t make you a murderer,’ he said.
‘But they were grotesque to me and I understand why it’s illegal and should be.’
Im pretty sure they guy who raped me when I was 5 got less than 10years, cant be 100% sure though because I don’t want to upset my mum by asking/reminding her (it was a male friend she had trusted to baby sit). From memory he was given 8 years and payed me $25,000 in victims comp.
I hope this harsh punishment means that they are increasing the punishment for people who commit pedophilia. I suggest reinstating the death penalty or putting them in solitary consignment for the rest of their lives.
When you are talking about people who destroy/harm children to gratify sexual needs,I ddon’t think it’s worth giving them a second chance or risking more children “just in case” they can be rehabilitated.
I’m sure the risk of 10 years jail will stop many potential perverts from looking at images of exploited children.
He was a lawyer before he became a writer, right? Although, I don’t think he worked with criminal law. Now, I am not excusing his comment, but from what I undertand the crimes in penal codes are so generic that almost anything could be consideres one thing (X type of crime) when particularities should distinguis them.
Not only FBI stings are involved. The same way a doctor has to report child abusive or more to the point suspecting child abuse,the same goes for IT guys when they fix a computer.
There was a news coverage here that a father got charged and his son even came out to say that it had been him that was looking at girls his own age. For the court it was irrelevant because the PC did not have separate accounts in order to get into the PC. So, you lend your PC think nothing of it, go to fix it, have it saved in your hard drive, you are the owner, you get charged. Now I know this was not what he said, but there are plenty of variations to the story.
Another example, you take your car to a mechanic, he fixes your car. You get into an accident. Insurance finds that a part of the car was stolen. Irrelevant if you thought the mechanic was on the up and up, it’s your car, you get charged for the crime.