John Grisham is wrong – those who watch child abuse images cause harm

The thriller writer’s claims about the severity of sentencing in the US are simplistic, damaging and inappropriate

- Suzanne Ost
- theguardian.com, Thursday 16 October 2014 12.35 EDT
- Jump to comments (…)

In promoting the publication of his most recent thriller, the author John Grisham has courted controversy by offering a critique of the American criminal justice system’s response to those who view images of child sexual abuse online, in particular the tendency, as he sees it, for viewers to face excessive prison sentences.

One of Grisham’s main objections is that there are “60-year-old white men in prison who’ve never harmed anybody, would never touch a child”. There are two main points to take issue with here. First, the interesting reference to age and race. The current research reveals that those who access such images online are not a homogenous group. A viewer may be a 60-year-old white male or a 25-year-old black male and there is no evidence to suggest that law enforcement officers are targeting a particular sub-group in tackling criminal behaviour related to images of child sexual abuse, or that a 60-year-old man is less likely to engage in such behaviour.

Second, it is far too simplistic a claim that those who view images of child abuse online have never harmed anybody. While they themselves may never have touched a child, they contribute to the harm caused to children involved in the creation of such images in numerous ways. For instance, seeking out these images can encourage the market and thus the abuse of more children to fulfil demand. Viewers also underwrite and take advantage of the sexual abuse of the children who feature in the images. Studies involving counsellors and trauma therapists who have treated victims have shown that awareness that their images have been made available for others to view causes the child further mental suffering: their abusive experience has no end because at any time someone could be receiving sexual gratification from viewing their abuse. Other studies have identified a tendency for viewers to downplay their role in causing children harm. Such a perception, which mirrors that expressed by Grisham, could lead to an individual continuing to view these kinds of images. Thus, one particular message that must be conveyed is that this behaviour contributes to victims’ ongoing abusive experiences.

Grisham’s comments suggest that, like his “good buddy from law school”, individuals can stumble across images of child abuse on the internet when searching for (lawful) pornography. However, increased use of online filtering means that it is very difficult to find child sexual abuse images from legitimate websites and the vast majority are exchanged through peer-to-peer networks, where there will be a greater realisation of what the images contain. He states that his friend found material labelled as “16-year-old wannabee hookers or something like that”. The implication here is that such material is less harmful and should not be given the label of images of child abuse. If this is the impression Grisham intended to give, it is a dangerous one. Just because a child is 16, this does not make him or her immune from being sexually abused and exploited.

One of Grisham’s contentions may be more accurate. In his view, the current sentencing policy in the US does not draw a distinction between those who sexually abuse children and those who view images. A recent report from the US Sentencing Commission revealed that average sentences for those who possess images continue to increase. Of course, sentencing has to be proportionate. It should reflect the seriousness of the crime committed and the magnitude of the harm suffered by the victim, and it is specious to argue that the child is not damaged most by the sexual abuse that took place in order for the image to be created. That is why, in England and Wales, downloading indecent images is commonly treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing and possession attracts a lower sentence than creating or distributing such material. Problems exist in this jurisdiction too, however. For example, only those sex offenders who receive a sentence of at least three years imprisonment are automatically enrolled on sex offender treatment programmes. Thus, an individual who has accessed images of child abuse online and is given a 12-month sentence (which is common for this type of offence) will not receive any help with the aim of preventing re-offending. The question that needs to be asked is whether it would be better for this person to be managed in the community rather than serve a prison sentence.

Grisham’s abilities when it comes to spinning stories and master plots to grip his fans are undeniable. There is room (and something of a licence) in works of fiction for some inaccuracies and misleading statements. But when it comes to the real harm suffered by victims involved in images of child sexual abuse, downplaying the contribution that viewers of such images make to the harm they suffer is damaging and inappropriate.