Do you think Jackson is guilty?

[Chanak]

While Michael Jackson might seem highly unusual to most, I believe it to be highly unethical to *assume* guilt on his part simply because one does not like the way he appears, behaves, etc. This kind of thinking is the root of prejudice of the worst stripe, and while most human beings harbor prejudices of various sorts (either knowingly or unknowingly), one must draw the line when they are confronted with a prejudice that can directly impact the life/freedom of another. In this case, Michael Jackson simply cannot be judged by his appearance or alleged behaviors. He must be judged by the evidence presented to a court of law. As it stands, the court found him "not guilty" of all charges against him. If an injustice was done, there are appeals processes which can be utilized.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not an inconvenience to justice, nor is it a laughable concept. I realize that some may hold this in contempt, but I for one am glad that the courts do not. In order for there to be true justice - that is, the most justice that is humanly possible - the law must view all in the same light, and the same regard. While no system is perfect, it can strive for excellence, and "innocent until proven guilty" is a great stride in that direction.

For those who scoff at the jury's verdict, I can only say this: what if it were you on trial? Would you want others to base your guilty verdict for some crime you were accused of based on how you appeared and acted in life? Or, would you rather an impartial body decide your fate according to evidence presented in court? This will probably be lost on some, who might be too callous in their self-interest and overall disregard to even step outside of themselves for but a moment to consider the plight of another. That's too bad.

[rebel3_6_1]

I didn't mean to come off so harsh towards Micheal Jackson and our legal system. I was in no way scoffing at the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." I understand and respect the fact that we would rather let a guilty criminal go free than convict an innocent one. I too agree that it is a far greater offence to punish the innocent than to let the guilty go free. The intent of my prior comment was to state my belief that it is quite possible the ladies and gentlemen of the jury "believed" he was guilty, but could not rightfully hand out a guilty verdict with the doubts in their minds.

I also did a poor job explaining myself when I simply stated that I would believe a bunch of kids over a "weirdo" like Micheal Jackson. What I meant to say was that I believe his eccentricities may be only the tip of the iceberg of deeper problems, which would make me call into question his character. As far as I know, this is essentially a "he-said-she-said" situation, where the children claim he did and Jackson claims he did not. If I had to pick who I thought was telling the truth, I would feel around 70 - 75% confident in believing the 10 or so children. However, I understand that many children are not yet aware of the consequences of their actions and may lie just because their friends are, or because their parents told them to. If the testimony had been the only evidence, I myself would be forced to find him not-guilty, as I would have doubts, so just because I do believe Micheal Jackson is guilty, does not mean that I disagree with the jury's verdict.

Chanak, you stated that "the law must view all in the same light, with the same regard." I whole-heartedly agree with you, but that is clearly not the case with our legal system. How many high profile cases have their been where the rich and famous get off because they were able to higher the best lawyers? Once again, I'm not questioning the juries that found them innocent, as I believe they performed their duties to the best of their abilities. I'm merely suggesting that there have been many cases with evidence strong enough to convict most people, but the best lawyers are able to put the perfect spin on it to create enough doubt in the jurors minds to force the to find their client not-guilty. While it is not the only factor, or even the most important, the amount of money the defendant has could make the difference between conviction and acquittal. However, I understand that with something as complex and delicate as a justice system, nothing is perfect and that our legal system is one of the best in the world.

And lastly, I do not believe that I am callous or self-absorbed. I am well capable of sympathizing with the plights of others. However, in this situation, I find myself much more sympathetic towards the children who I believe have been molested. Micheal Jackson is a grown man, and most of his views of the world have been set. If he is innocent, I wish him the best of luck in recovering from this scandal. If he is not, however, think of the impact his actions could have on these young boys. This could indeed cause much mental anguish for years to come in every child he's ever touched. For this reason, I hope that he is innocent as he claims, but I fear that if he is guilty, he may continue to molest children as he has apparantly been able to get away with it with his only damage coming in the court of public opinion.

[rebel3_6_1]

And Chanak, I would just like to say that I find you very articulate and enjoyed reading your response.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]I've said this before, but I'll rephrase it in a simple manner: If it walks like a child molester, talks like a child molester, and acts like a child molester, then it must be a child molester. Aside from that, I'll believe a little kid who says he was molested rather than believe Jackson's attorney. And I'll also say this again: the kid's mother is irrelevant because it was the kid who made the allegation, NOT THE FRIGGIN MOTHER.[/QUOTE]

In fact, when the kid did that, a strange thing that happened is that the mother went looking for lawiers, and not for a psychiatrist to take care of her kid...

[Krystian]

no i don't think he was guilty this time... although i do believe he was guilty of previous offenses it's just how the family kept getting caught lying and everything i think they just wanted money...