--- title: What John Grisham Got Right About Child Pornography description: There is clearly something wrong with a justice system in which people who look at images of child rape can be punished more severely than people who rape children canonical: https://time.com/3528738/john-grisham-child-pornography/ author: Jacob Sullum article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2014-10-21T17:14:48.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-21T10:55:13.435Z article:section: Ideas og:title: What John Grisham Got Right About Child Pornography og:description: There is clearly something wrong with a justice system in which people who look at images of child rape can be punished more severely than people who rape children og:url: https://time.com/3528738/john-grisham-child-pornography/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt603853513a4d52f5/698762073c1639bb0444f2fc/494907803.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2268 og:image:height: 1276 og:image:alt: 2014 Bookexpo America - Day 3 og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: What John Grisham Got Right About Child Pornography twitter:description: There is clearly something wrong with a justice system in which people who look at images of child rape can be punished more severely than people who rape children twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt603853513a4d52f5/698762073c1639bb0444f2fc/494907803.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # What John Grisham Got Right About Child Pornography > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=d7a9b156-8756-409d-becd-77fe993f24c2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=d7a9b156-8756-409d-becd-77fe993f24c2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=d7a9b156-8756-409d-becd-77fe993f24c2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=d7a9b156-8756-409d-becd-77fe993f24c2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) by [Jacob Sullum](https://time.com/author/jacob-sullum/) ## Jacob Sullum Oct 21, 2014 5:14 PM UTC  Author John Grisham attends the 2014 Bookexpo America at The Jacob K. Javits Convention Center on May 31, 2014 in New York City. Author John Grisham attends the 2014 Bookexpo America at The Jacob K. Javits Convention Center on May 31, 2014 in New York City. Taylor Hill—Getty Images by [Jacob Sullum](https://time.com/author/jacob-sullum/) ## Jacob Sullum Oct 21, 2014 5:14 PM UTC Last week John Grisham, the best-selling author of legal thrillers, triggered a [storm](http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/17/john-grisham-on-child-pornography) of online criticism by arguing in an [interview](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11165656/John-Grisham-men-who-watch-child-porn-are-not-all-paedophiles.html) with the _Telegraph_ that criminal penalties for possessing child pornography are unreasonably harsh. Grisham, who has since [apologized](http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/john-grisham-child-pornography/), spoke rather loosely, overstating the extent to which honest mistakes account for child-porn convictions and the extent to which those convictions expand the prison population. But he was right on two important points: People who download child pornography are not necessarily child molesters, and whatever harm they cause by looking at forbidden pictures does not justify the penalties they often receive. Under [federal law](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A), receiving child pornography, which could mean downloading a single image, triggers a mandatory minimum sentence of five years—the same as the penalty for distributing it. Merely looking at a picture can qualify someone for the same charge, assuming he does so deliberately and is aware that web browsers automatically make copies of visited sites. In practice, since the Internet nowadays is almost always the source of child pornography, this means that viewing and possession can be treated the same as trafficking. The maximum penalty for receiving or distributing child porn is 20 years, and federal sentencing guidelines recommend stiff enhancements based on very common factors, such as using a computer, possessing more than 600 images (with each video clip counted as 75 images) and exchanging photos for something of value, including other photos. In a 2009 [analysis](http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/INND/110CR40.pdf), federal public defender Troy Stabenow showed that a defendant with no prior criminal record and no history of abusing children would qualify for a sentence of 15 to 20 years based on a small collection of child pornography and one photo swap, while a 50-year-old man who encountered a 13-year-old girl online and lured her into a sexual relationship would get no more than four years. Nine out of 10 federal child-porn prosecutions involve “nonproduction offenses”: downloading or passing along images of sexual abuse as opposed to perpetrating or recording it. As a result of congressional edicts, the average sentence in such cases rose from 54 months in 2004 to 95 months in 2010, according to a 2012 [report](http://www.ussc.gov/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/report-congress-federal-child-pornography-offenses) from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC). The penalties have become so severe, the commission noted, that judges frequently find ways to dodge them, resulting in wildly inconsistent sentences for people guilty of essentially the same conduct. In a 2010 [survey](http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/surveys/20100608%5FJudge%5FSurvey.pdf), 71% of federal judges said mandatory minimums for receiving child pornography are too long. State sentences can be even harsher. Dissenting from a 2006 [decision](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1058119.html) in which the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a 200-year sentence for a former high school teacher caught with child pornography, Vice Chief Justice Rebecca Berch noted that the penalties for such offenses were more severe than the penalties for rape, second-degree murder and sexual assault of a child younger than 12. These draconian sentences seem to be driven largely by the assumption that people who look at child pornography are all undiscovered or would-be child molesters. But that is not true. The [sentencing commission found](http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Full%5FReport%5Fto%5FCongress.pdf), based on criminal records and additional information in presentencing reports, that 1 in 3 federal defendants convicted of nonproduction offenses in the previous decade had known histories of “criminal sexually dangerous behavior” (including prior child-pornography offenses). Tracking 610 defendants sentenced in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for 8.5 years after they were released, the USSC found that 7% were arrested for a new sexual offense. Even allowing for the fact that many cases of sexual abuse go unreported (as indicated by [victim surveys](http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245)), it seems clear that some consumers of child pornography never abuse children. “There does exist a distinct group of offenders who are Internet-only and do not present a significant risk for hands-on sex offending,” says Karl Hanson, a senior research officer at Public Safety Canada who has co-authored several recidivism studies. Another argument for sending people who look at child pornography to prison, emphasized by the Supreme Court in its 1990 [decision](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/495/103) upholding criminal penalties for mere possession, is that consumers create a demand that encourages production. Yet any given consumer’s contribution to that demand is likely insignificant, and this argument carries much less weight now that people typically obtain child pornography online for free. Defenders of harsh penalties for looking at child pornography also argue that viewing such images imposes extra suffering on victims of sexual abuse, who must live with the knowledge that strangers around the world can see evidence of the horrifying crimes committed against them. But again, any single defendant’s contribution to that suffering is apt to be [very small](http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/12/looking-vs-touching). Tellingly, people who possess “sexually obscene images of children,” such as “a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting”—production of which need not entail abuse of any actual children—[face](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A) the same heavy penalties under federal law as people caught with actual child pornography. That provision, like the reaction to Grisham’s comments, suggests these policies are driven by outrage and disgust rather than reason. There is clearly something wrong with a justice system in which people who look at images of child rape can be punished more severely than people who rape children. _Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at_ Reason _magazine and a syndicated columnist._ ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/3528738/john-grisham-child-pornography/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/3528738/john-grisham-child-pornography/"},"headline":"What John Grisham Got Right About Child Pornography","datePublished":"2014-10-21T17:14:48.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-21T10:55:13.435Z","description":"There is clearly something wrong with a justice system in which people who look at images of child rape can be punished more severely than people who rape children","url":"https://time.com/3528738/john-grisham-child-pornography/","keywords":["Media","Crime","sexual abuse","Criminal Justice","Culture"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt603853513a4d52f5/698762073c1639bb0444f2fc/494907803.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Jacob Sullum","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/jacob-sullum/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt603853513a4d52f5/698762073c1639bb0444f2fc/494907803.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"2014 Bookexpo America - Day 3","caption":"2014 Bookexpo America - Day 3","creditText":"Taylor Hill—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/media/","name":"Media"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/3528738/john-grisham-child-pornography/","name":"What John Grisham Got Right About Child Pornography"}}]}] ```