General Chat / Michael is not-guilty

if he was guilty what would they do?lock him up at home?doesn't he do that anyway...

Maybe next time they'll have enough.

Or maybe he didn't do it? I'd really like to a civil case brought againt him, and for him to go to trial with that, because the standard of proof is lower. I think it's just that you need more evidence to reasonbly suggest he did it than you have to reasonbly suggest he didn't. Frankly, I think that should be the standard of proof for everything, but, at the same time, our system is so fucked that we're "punishing" people, rather than trying to actually change them, and their life, so, perhaps it should be higher.

if he was guilty what would they do?lock him up at home?doesn't he do that anyway...

No, they would have locked him up in jail for 10-20 years. Jail being different from home, since there's no roller coaster in jail (he has one at Neverland Ranch; insert "must be this tall to ride this ride" jokes here).

Oh come on, people are actually buying the shit that he doesn't have money to bribe anymore and that he's completely innocent of EVERYTHING? come on, there's always a ring of truth. and money? there are enough supporting fans, and his sister janet could surely spare some. And when you look at his videos they always always had tons of children in them, quite sickening. I still believe he's a pedofile, child mollester or not.

I disagree WME. i think hes childish and has his (many) problems. but i dont think hes a phedophile.
Hes deffinetly a freak, but thats not illegal

If mj was really guilty... it would be the stupid parents fault anyway. Everyone has known about the suspicisions for the last few years. If anything the parents were pimping off there kids to jackson so they could get a nice cash reward.

I don't know if agree with the final verdict here or not.
But the jury said he's innocent so he must be innocent.
I still think MJ is still fuckedup and freakish.

Gutterflower, he could still be a paedophile. Just being one isnt illegal.

But the jury said he's innocent so he must be innocent.

That must mean OJ is innocent too then. And that must mean that there are no innocent people serving time right now. The jury is made up of "people", and "people" are generally ignorant.

I have heard several interviews with jurors, and it seems that most of them believe that he has molested children, especially in the case that was settled out of court, but they felt that the mother wasn't credible because of her shady background and that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him on these charges. So, although I think MJ is a pervert and that he messes around with children, I can understand the dilemma the jury faced this time.

The first time I ever saw the footage of the accuser and MJ holding hands and practically making out during that interview, I said to my boyfriend, "Those two are totally fucking".

If I was videotaped acting creepy with a twelve year old and proclaiming my joy of sharing my bed with numerous children, and then if one or two of those children said something bad happened...I would be in jail right now.

Amen!

MJ? I don't see why we have to bring Jordan into this. I like Mike.

The jury is made up of "people", and "people" are generally ignorant.

Or at least fallible. And I don't think it's really fare to pin this on the jury, if you think he got away with it. I'm sure his being Michael Jackson played some role in their decision, whether they intended it to or not, but there may just not be enough evidence to convict him. The reason why people with money get off more than people without money is that they can afford a good lawyer. And by good lawyer I don't mean morally upright, I mean able to manipulate the law to win a case. There's lots of holes in the legal system because it's gotten needlessly complex over the years. If there isn't DNA evidence and a picture of the murder suspect holding a bloody knife at the crime scene, there's a good chance a skilled defense team can create a reasonable doubt. There's also a good chance a poor black person with a previous record and a state appointed lawyer isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt. Really I think they should all be state appointed lawyers not private businesses so that money doesn't play a role in the quality of the justice system. But then people love their "free market" capitalism and that's just what goes along with it.

But none of that means he's guilty. None of us really know. And the whole point of the 'innocent until proven guilty' approach to law is that we don't stone people in the streets because it appears they did something we don't approve of. Appearances can be deceiving. I know very little about Michael Jackson's private life and I doubt any of you know much more. As far as I'm concerned, there's a 50% chance he's guilty and a 50% chance he's innocent. The court ruled that he's innocent. If anything, I'm happy he wasn't convicted even if he was guilty because I really don't think 10-20 years in jail is going to help him any. That isn't really an appropriate punishment for child mollesters. Sure they need to be seperated from society for a time. But I don't think jail really helps anyone. All it does is put the "undesireables" somewhere where we won't have to see them. There's this scene in the movie 'The Beach' where one character gets mauled by a shark and his leg is going to get infected and he's probably going to bleed to death. Obviously he needs to go to a hospital but none of the people on this island want to take him there. So instead they drag him out into the jungle, away from the camp, and they leave him there. And they all forget about him. Problem solved. I think that's kindof what jail is like.

I'm happy he wasn't convicted even if he was guilty because I really don't think 10-20 years in jail is going to help him any. That isn't really an appropriate punishment for child mollesters. Sure they need to be seperated from society for a time. But I don't think jail really helps anyone. All it does is put the "undesireables" somewhere where we won't have to see them. There's this scene in the movie 'The Beach' where one character gets mauled by a shark and his leg is going to get infected and he's probably going to bleed to death. Obviously he needs to go to a hospital but none of the people on this island want to take him there. So instead they drag him out into the jungle, away from the camp, and they leave him there. And they all forget about him. Problem solved. I think that's kindof what jail is like.

I agree, except, we don't leave them there until they die, we leave them there for a few years and then let them out, and all they are now is a child mollestor who's been repressed and forgotten for 10 years. So, not only does it ignore the problem, it also makes it many times worse than just simply ignoring the problem would, I think. Sad, really.

But the jury said he's innocent so he must be innocent.

Glad supertrooper got to this. It's opinions like that that are easily molded. If people (or Americans) are to improve in general, then they should not accept generalizations like that. Instead, look into the case and come up with a conclusion based on your own critical thinking, where you ask questions and form you own conclusion instead of accepting a "truth" to be true.

Honestly... so many of life's problems would be solved and society would be so much better if more people utilized critical thinking.

Otherwise, we have ignorant (not stupid, mind you, ignorant, as in you don't know better, and it's not your fault) statements like that. And stuff like that honestly worries me.


Given the rest of the context, I don't think you were being sarcastic, btw Inversed. Altho I kinda hope you were.

Well, maybe if we'd seen all the evidence the jury has then we could be expected to make an educated decision. But all we've heard is what the media's told us. So...I'd say I trust the jury. They looked like pretty sane people to me.

You can't say he must be innocent, but you can say that he was found to be innocent in the court of law. It'd be a pretty sad state of affairs if simply being accused of something makes you guilty wouldn't it? But you make a good point there Corky. It's unfortunate that people don't always think rationally. It's unfortunate because of how much trouble we get into needlessly. But then acting irrationally from time to time is what makes us human right? It's part of our charm. It's only about the really serious things that we should always insist on rational solutions. When people's lives are at stake.