On guilty, not guilty, and presumptions of innocence ....

[H2O Man]

Mark Twain used to say that the problem in the world was not one of ignorance, but rather was one of people knowing so darned much that just wasn't so. And in few areas in the wisdom of Mark Twain more apparent than in the discussions of the Michael Jackson case in the hours since a jury returned the "not guilty" verdicts.

In order for people to be able to engage in an intelligent and possibly meaningful discussion about what this verdict means -- and what it does not mean -- it is necessary to have a grasp of two concepts. The first is the presumption of innocence enjoyed by those accused of a crime; and the second is that a verdict in a criminal trial determines only if a prosecutor has met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase that separates (at least in theory) the United States from totalitarian states where an accused criminal must prove his/her innocence. It refers only to the rights of a defendant within the legal system, however. As noted by Vincent Bugliosi in his book "Outrage," which examined another controversial case, "Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. .... Actually, even in court there are problems with the presumption of innocence. ...Conviction rates show that it is ridiculous to presume that when the defendant is arrested, charged with a crime, and brought to trial, he is usually innocent. But obviously, the converse presumption that a defendant is presumed to be guilty would be far worse and, indeed, intolerable. ... The solution would seem to be to eliminate the presumption-of-innconce instruction to the jury, keeping those two necessary corollaries of presumption which do have enormous merit: first, the fact that the defendant has been arrested for and charged with a crime is no evidence of his guilt and should not be used against him; and second and more important, under our system of justice the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt. The defendant has no burden to prove his innocence." (pages 21-3)

A citizen has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to assume a person accused of a crime is "innocent until proven guilty." If, however, a person who has formed a belief of either guilt or innocence is called for jury duty, the court is obligated to reject them. This is the clearest proof that the concept is only used within the court system. Further, to eliminate any lingering doubt about this issue, if a person is charged by their employer of theft, the employer has no legal obligation to wait until there is a court verdict before firing the accused thief.

Bugliosi wrote an article in 1981 titled "Not Guilty and Innocent -- The Problem Children of Reasonable Doubt." He covers the same general information in the book "Outrage," which deals "with the critical distinctions between the terms 'not guilty' and 'innocent.'"(pg 319) He writes that, "In ordinary lay usage, the term 'not guilty' is often considered to be synonymous with 'innocent.' In American criminal jurisprudence, however, the terms are not synonymous. 'Not guilty' is simply a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof, not that the defendant is innocent. .... a jury does not have to believe in a defendant's innocence in order to return a verdict of not guilty. Even the jury's belief in his guilt, if only a moderately held one, should result in a not guilty verdict. To convict, their belief in his guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt." (pages 320-321)

These are the actual meanings of guilty, not guilty, and innocent until proven guilty within our justice system. It does not matter a bit if you or I agree with the system or the definitions: they are what they are. When we think of the jury verdict in the case involving the police officers who were filmed savagely beating Rodney King, the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" may come into focus in the context of the legal definitions.

I would hope that rather than having a continued "debate" on what the jury verdict means as far as Michael Jackson as an individual is concerned, we might move into other areas. I think that there is an undercurrent of race involved. That does not mean that people with any one opinion are "racists." Rather, it means that we might discuss what this type of case represents for different people. I hope that we can do that without pointing fingers or assuming guilt.

[Hand]

1. Scottish legal system had an extra verdict category.

"Not convicted", which means basically "We all know the bastard's guilty as hell, but the dumbass prosecutor blew the case". I guess that's a more explicit finding of the nuanced "Not guilty" that this author explicates. Presumably a "Not guilty" verdict would be a clear declaration of innocence. I don't know if it's still in use.

Clever lot, those kilties. More countries should follow this example.

[H2O Man]

4. Interesting.

I was involved in the defense effort for Rubin "Hurricane" Carter from 1973-1985. One of the things that stands out is though both of the two convictions for a triple murder were overturned on appeal, and even though the federal judge who finally released him has said numerous times that evidence not allowed into the appeal showed Rubin was innocent, the legal system is not geared in a way that fully clears a person. When a case is overturned in either a state or federal appelate court, it is based on procedure alone.

[Hand]

57. Well, good on ya!

Thanks for helping the Hurricane finally go free. :yourock: :toast:

You probably know that he lives up here in Canada now and is actively working on innocence issues.

[H2O Man]

60. Well yes.

I've visited. And we talk from time to time on the phone. A good man.

[Hand]

67. Well, that was less than brilliant of me...

Of course you'd stay in touch. What could I have been thinking. Gad. I'm an IDIOT! :banghead:

[H2O Man]

72. He tends his garden ....

Some nights we talk about flower gardening. Who would have thought it? Have you read the most recent book about him?

[Me.]

6. "Not Convicted"

would be a wonderful option. For as far as I am concerned, Sneddon's case was flawed from the beginning and perhaps should never been tried. I've heard him say that you can't pick and choose who walks in your office with a complaint. I feel he was being disingenuous in that. Cases are tried at the discretion of the prosecutor, based on the merits of the case and whether the prosecutor feels he/she can get a conviction. Not all complaints see the inside of a courtroom. And when I heard the verdict my thought was that it wasn't a win for MJ but a loss for Sneddon

I pooh poohed when the Jackson family claimed it was a witchunt but now, given the merits of the case and his reliance on a family of grifters, I question Sneddon's motives and intent.

As for MJ...there certainly seems to be a pattern there and the old adage of smoke/fire may be in play. I say this knowing full well that given his "eccentricities" he's ripe for a shake-down. However one thing gave me pause. When they found all those magazines at Neverland, it seemed ( or was given out?) or the impression raised was that they were of little boys. Then I read a thread on DU that said that in fact they were magazines like Playboy. If so, it leads me to once again question the DA's motives and his choosing to prosecute this case.

[Marnieworld]

26. well you see

Pedophiles often use magazines and mainstream adult porn to titilate the children they want to molest in order to make the molesting easier due to their physical arousal. It's part of the "grooming" process of surrounding yourself with stuff that the one you are trying to seduce likes rather than what the pedophile would like. A poor pedophile gets games, toys and swing sets to attract kids, a rich one would perhaps build a theme park. It's just degrees of the same M.O.It was damning that he showed this to kids because why are you trying to turn these kids on you know? Clealry I believe he is a child molester but I concur that the accuser's family left too much doubt legally. I can forgive the prosecutor though. I'd be pretty anxious to stop a serial pedophile with so much access and resources in my community. It's understandable that they'd try a case just in hopes to stop him.

[Extend a Hand]

33. I don't know if MJ is guilty or not

but MJ has been sooooo weird for so long that it seems at least possible to me that he is not a pedophile.

[JRob]

30. LOL!!! One faction of my ancestry...

Fortes Fortuna Juvat
Fortune favors the brave

Veritas Vincit
Truth Conquers

[AirAmFan]

48. What socio-ethnic groups are there in Scotland? Was "not convicted"

a much more common outcome of trial when members of some minority groups were accused of crimes against members of the dominant group?

If US courts had this third option, do you think they'd use it much more often when African-Americans are accused of crimes against whites than in other cases? See post #46 below.

[Hand]

59. Umm...

My answer to both your questions would be a definitive "I dunno..." :dunce:

[wuushew]

49. An interesting historical oddity

The prosecution of Fatty Arbuckle in 1921, resulted in several trials the final of which of resulted in a complete apology by the judge to Arbuckle after being found not guilty.

"We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgment of
fourteen men and women who have sat listening for thirty-one days to the
evidence that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame."

The first celebrity trial of the 20th century has numerous parallels to modern yellow journalism, Hearst = Murdock? This article written during the O.J. trial none less is even more relevant today. It really is a fascinating read without directly dealing with the guilt or innocence of Michael Jackson.

http://www.phenry.org/text/arbuckle.txt

[wtmusic]

2. I hope people take the time to read this

some of the best posts sink because unfortunately, um, people have to think...

When you say you think there is an "undercurrent of race" involved, are you referring to the trial or the discussion?

[H2O Man]

3. Both.

I think that this nation has unresolved issues with race. It would be wrong to expect these issues not to show up on DU. At the same time, I don't think that this makes people "bad." We can't possibly know that which we haven't learned, so to speak.

I used Vince Bugliosi as a resource in part because he has a well-documented history of taking strong but fair stances on most cases. His book "Outrage" makes clear that he has felt frustration from the number of cases where white police officers have used violence against non-white citizens and suspects. He goes so far as to say that he believes almost every black adult in America has either had first-hand experience, or has a relative or friend who has had first-hand experience with a racist white police officer. The significance of that statement -- which I believe -- should not be underestimated.

Regarding DU, I have read numerous posts that I interpret as showing a lack of insight regarding racial issues. I do not think any of those from actual DUers show a racist intent per say; rather, I think there is a serious need for a frank and open discussion of some of the issues that face us as a country.

[Me.]

7. When The Jackson Family Started "Playing" The Race Card

I was annoyed and dismissed it out of hand. However, on the day of the verdict I heard Sneddon's press conference. When asked if he thought the trial had gone on too long, his reply was no and then when answering the question further he laughed and said it certainly would have gone a lot faster down south. Now what the hell did he mean by that?


edited to add missing words.

[H2O Man]

9. Sneddon .....

Much like in the OJ case, I think that if there was a single weakness, it likely was in the prosecutor's office. I did watch the OJ circus much closer than this one. The judge was an ass, and the DAs were not the most capable of prosecutors.

From the few clips I've seen of Sneddon, he seems far less talented than Marcia Clark or Chris Darden.

[linazelle]

12. The race thing....The Today Show yesterday said "60% of white

people think Jackson is guilty"--this was after the verdict. If that's not a race thing, I don't know what is. It becomes an even stronger case when you look at t he reaction to, "Baretta" who murdered his wife, vs. to Jackson. Why ARE they hounding Jackson so much when Baretta slipped under the radar screen practically? There's more to it than meets the eye here. Some people seem to be obsessed with/have a vendetta against Jackson. The punishment (above and beyond the trial) does not fit the crime IMHO.

[mondo joe]

14. Oh come on - Blake is not a big star and doesn't have the drama

going on.

But I'll bet most white people think HE was guilty too.

[wuushew]

16. They would be justified in thinking so

the case against Blake was much more compelling.

[Tomee450]

53. So what if Blake was not a big star.

Fair people will not hound one murderer and forget the other. When a black person is the defendant certain people become outraged when he is acquitted. People will still bring up OJ while ignoring Robert Blake the white guy who was just found not guilty. If you're a fair person and not outraged when a white person is acquitted you would also accept the acquittal of a black person, that is, if racism is not involved. We have people on this forum who always bring up OJ even though two white men were also acquitted of murder and recently.
Simson's was acquitted over ten years ago and people are still talking about it but not about Blake or Robert Durst. But of course they are white.

[H2O Man]

17. I'm not clear on something:

Do you think it is impossible for white folks to think Michael is guilty, unless they base it on racism? Does the percentage play a role in convincing you of this? If say 30% of white folk felt Michael wqas guilty, would they be half as racist as the 60% you note? Equally racist? I am not trying to put you on the spot -- you are bringing statistics the media reports to the table. I appreciate that. I'm just not sure what they mean.

I have no doubt that racism plays a role in some white and some black peoples' views. But how about Asians? American Indians? Hispanics?

These are questions that we might consider. I do not pretend to have the answers. I doubt any one person here does. So I think it's good to examine different opinions, and even statistics like you mention.

[linazelle]

18. I'm presenting stats because that's the way it's being framed--

why do you think they are framing it that way? I really don't know why they are taking such polls, but the fact they are says there are some racial undertones.

I see parallels between the racial divide of the OJ case and this one. I, for one, knew OJ was guilty. This time, I choose to let the jury verdict stand for itself. In both instances, however, the similar reactions by whites has been overwhelming in opposition to the verdict. Of course, OJ was justified. But I'm not getting the MJ outrage--I think too many worse crimes have been/are being committed.

At the same time, it doesn't seem to matter what the verdict was, since the jurors are being retried by the media. And one says he thinks Jackson was guilty--the media chooses to echo that, as opposed to a verdict reached by a group of people.

[H2O Man]

20. I think there are

a number of possibilities. First, I think that many people in the media have some racist beliefs. Second, I think that the media far too often attempts to fan the flames of public passions.The media attempts to appeal to the most base level of viewer. Third, if Michael has five "strange" behaviors, and one hundred and five "normal" behaviors, the media will focus on the five oddities, in order to sell their product.

The media is funny. I've spoken before about my nephew being viciously assaulted by a racist gang. Even after one member of the gang pled guilty to calling him a "dumb nigger," the justice of the peace who sentenced him was quoted in a newspaper as saying, "I don't know if the event was racially involved from what I have read. I hope not." (Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin; Tuesday, Sept 29, 1998) More, four newspapers and two tv stations reporting on the case continued to refer to "alleged" racism. Alleged? What does "dumb nigger" mean? Where is the confusion?

I will say that I spoke to literally hundreds of people about the case of my nephew, including a year later when the same gang assaulted Asian-American students at SUNY-Binghamton (NY). In that case, racial slurs were also used. Anyhow, most of the people I spoke to who were white had no questions about if racism were involved in the assaults. Nor did they express any doubts about the racism on the part of the court system, including DAs and J.P.s that treat violent white folks very differently when they attack people of color, than violent folks in any other circumstance.

The case involving Robert Blake would seem related in the sense that I do not believe the media polled people based on race. I think that alone speaks loudly. The media clearly creates an atmosphere where race is considered primarily when it might separate people. We need to keep that from occuring.

[linazelle]

24. I don't get people's reactions...my very good friend (black) who

also thinks Jackson is guilty talked about her boss (white) being enraged by the verdict. Then I hear the barely concealed anger in the quivering voice of a Katie Couric, or see a Nancy Grace basically advocating jury activism--saying that the jury should have decided on what they personally thought Jackson did because that constitutes reasonable doubt.

I don't know if it's me or "them" (the overly enraged)that are wrong. I think too many have bought into the sensationalism and, as I said the day of the verdict, they need to get a grip--too many more important things are happening.

[mondo joe]

25. There may be a lot of rage but it may not be racism.

I think a lot of women (and some men too!) are enraged about acts of violence against women and children, who are so often the victims of this sort of thing.

A lot of white people felt the same way about Laci Peterson or those kids snatched from their homes by white men.

Racism exists. But it isn't the root of every reaction.

[linazelle]

29. I agree and yet, the rage seems to be one-sided, racially.

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

34. How so? Was Laci Peterson not all over the news?

Were those child molestors who took girls from their homes not all over the news? Isn't there an Amber Alert in response?

I think if you're seeing outrage around MJ and OJ it has more to do with them perceived to be "getting off".

[linazelle]

41. Point taken. nt

[H2O Man]

31. I saw a few moments

of Bill O'Reilly last night. (I used to watch his show. I no longer do. The truth is he made me feel physically sick with some of his nonsense.) He was pressuring a juror about his decision. I note that this is common among "law & order" republicans: they blast the democratic left for a lack of respect for the legal system, then do exactly what they accuse others of.

The system is not perfect. It is sad but true that some guilty people will get off. As it is said, however, it is better to have guilty people go free than to have innocent people incarcerated.

I have now heard -- and I assume it is true -- that in his summery, the DA noted that if the jury believed Jackson had abused children in the past, they had to convict in this case. I suspect that if Michael had been convicted, that would have been the #1 grounds for appeal.

Ben Franklin said that when passions drive, we must let reason hold the reins. It strikes me as an appeal to emotion, even though it may have some merit. As a general rule, if the appeal to emotion outweights the value as evidence, something is kept out of a trial.

It's a strange case, and I think that the emotional aspects will more likely serve to divide people on the democratic left, rather than unite them. I appreciate that people are making important points without losing track of respecting other points of view.

[H2O Man]

5. Bugliosi on the Rodney King case ....

"As most know by now, the jury that heard the King case had no blacks on it. In fact, only one black was called to the jury box for questioning during the entire jury selection process. Predictably, the defense immediately excused her, using a peremptory challenge. ...In light of the dynamics at play and the probable stereotypical perceptions by the conservative Simi Valley jury, the roles of the trial participants were reversed. To the Simi Valley jury, the man on trial was Rodney King, and the main lawyer arguing on his behalf, the prosecutor, was another black man. Assisting the black man was his co-prosecutor, who is Jewish. To many white conservatives, Jews are liberal, left-leaning ACLU types who deep down are really on the side of the criminal. The four white defendants, on the other hand, had four white, Christian, God-fearing lawyers defending them. ...

"The not-guilty verdicts called up memories of the Deep South in the last half of the nineteenth century and the first half of this century, where white defendants were almost invariably acquitted by all-white juries when charged with crimes against blacks, no matter how strong the evidence of guilt was. The verdict of the jury in the King case clearly appears to have been wrong, occasioning a miscarriage of justice which produced momentous consequences. So the jury system is not infallible. No system, in any field of human endeaver, is." (pages386-8)

I think this gives a good example of how people can question the decision of a jury without necessarily being racist; in fact, Bugliosi points out the potential for juries to err when racial prejudice infects their thinking.

[Karenina]

8. Having personally heard the "testimony"

of a sobbing El Savadoran domestic while trolling a kitchen for tasty treats after having been privy to the MANY open secrets in Hollywood DECADES AGO, I have NO DOUBT of the King of Pop's predilictions.

Did they have the wherewithall to convict in THIS case? NOT.

It only became a problem once his hue reaached that of his little "friends." :eyes:

[H2O Man]

11. My concern is that

the publicity may make victims and their families less likely to come forward. It is sad but true that many people form their opinions of the justice system based on the media.

[wuushew]

10. The opponents of Jackson on this board are not interested in truth

the rationalization being that if something might be true it is justified being acted upon because the threat to children is in their view paramount to the proper execution of justice.

[H2O Man]

13. I've seen a wide range

of opinions, both in favor of the verdict, and opposed to it. There are a number of insightful people on both sides. There are also a few that are less than insightful, on both sides.

I'm hoping that a basic understanding of concepts such as guilty, not guilty,and innocent until proven guilty might help move the discussion forward. I think that people can have rational beliefs that include thinking Michael is guilty, as well as thinking he is innocent. Concluding that one side is not able to be rational seems to move away from meaningful discussion.

[mondo joe]

15. The worshippers of MJ are not interested in truth or justice.

Just any defense of MJ, the same as Freeper defense of GWB.

[Me.]

21. I Am Not An Opponent of MJ

nor an advocate. But I do think allegations of child abuse always need to be investigated. But it should be done in full, by credible investigators, before indictments are brought. Child abuse is a terrible problem in this country, and the entire world, and cannot be dismissed.

[wuushew]

23. I agree that child abuse is very serious

but at least with murder the body is a large part of state's evidence. Criminals accused of serious felonies can later be exonerated by new or more accurate ways of viewing tangible evidence.

The reverse is also true, such as in the case of the 80 year old racist killer who is being tried in Mississippi. The documentation and facts of that investigation have been preserved for 40 plus years. I don't view testimonial evidence as lending itself to prolonged examination, rebuttal or having the ability of allowing the the accused to press for his innocence after conviction. If MJ had been convicted the only way he could of reversed his sentence was an admission of fraud by the victim.

The closer criminal justice embraces the science of criminology the less room there will be for subjective guilt or innocence. This topic could be expanded into a larger debate and how we perceive and know our physical reality.

[H2O Man]

27. Interesting.

I think that Barry Scheck's performance at the OJ trial demonstrated that science is still a tool that is used subjectively in determining guilt or, as the case may be, "not guilty."

Actually, an "admission of fraud" does not necessarily reverse a conviction. Appeals relate to the process, not innocence. A witness who recants can, in certain circumstances, be the foundation of an appeal. But recantations are not looked upon favorably in many circumstances.

[wuushew]

36. Well I don't think that diminishes the usefulness of DNA testing

Barry Scheck certainly uses it to great effect freeing wrongfully convicted persons.

Quite frankly it would be very difficult to completely contaminate ALL the evidence used by the prosecution. If blood samples left by O.J. at the request of the police were used it would require a vast conspiracy of lab technicians who misreported volume and mass measurements during the case. Mark Furman is a racist but baring any sort evidence of a conspiracy O.J. was a more plausible explanation for the origination of physical evidence in the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Did the existence of a plausible method of evidence tampering lead to meaningful procedural changes at the L.A.P.D.?

[H2O Man]

40. I agree that DNA testing

is a potentially good thing. And Barry Scheck certainly uses it for good purposes most of the time. However, in the OJ trial, it would seem that his testimony was contaminated. Some people associated with the defense noted that he felt guilty about misrepresenting what he knew to be true.

[Me.]

32. If They Are Credible

I think eye witnesses can be an important factor. Not all criminal cases have hard physical evidence to back them up and what is presented is circumstantial, especially in situations where there is no body.

The issue, I think, is credibility, and whether or not the witnesses have a vested outcome in the result. Fortunately, in cases where the defendant has been convicted by bad witnesses, DNA, has proved to be a lifesaver. But even if certain witnesses recant, that doesn't always mean a person will be exonerated, The Hurricane being a good example of that.

[sweetheart]

19. MJ was convicted of "media crime"

Its the problem today, that the loose definition of liabel and greedy
journalists allow a media trial above and beyond a court trial. Its a
sort of virtual colonial "stocks" where we all toss vegetables and
rotten eggs at the person based on whether we like them. Its mob
justice, and has so infected the public mind, they believe that the mob
and its appearant majority should overrule justice itself. As much has
been said by the congressional republicans in this regard as well.

When the media decide to hit you, they control the frame, and leave
nothing but pain in the wake of an attack. There is no justice with the
media, just a feeding freinzy of people objectifying "evil" and
externalizing it on entertainment, much like christians being fed to
lions for bored citizens.

The tragedy is this witch hunt, obviously legitimized by folks here on
the left as well, against persons who are on the fringe. All it takes
is an accusation to destroy a reputation, dodgey dealing, tax fiddling,
touching the baby the wrong way, drugs, and we run ahead and lynch
the person as who needs a court when we've got television. And then
when the witch hunt focuses its eyes on our own, like it did with
john kerry during the last election, or whitewater or any other case
where the accusation itself was the conviction, we pay for being
party to this mob injustice.

It makes me sick that persons here on DU give in to this mob injustice,
but such is the deplorable aspect of the democratic party, that it
has lost its way championing real justice for the all-to-roman
pasttime of watching people killed and eaten by beasts.

[H2O Man]

22. There is a lot of truth

to what you are saying here. It is made all the more powerful a message, because you have a talent with words.

Yet I suspect that a rational person, who does not subscribe to a mob mentality, looking at the circumstances involved in this case,might be convinced that Jackson is indeed a person who poses a risk to children.

I'm less interested in if people think him guilty or not guilty -- or indeed innocent -- than I am in having people remove the emotional aspects, and attempt to discuss this solely on the merits of the case .... and to discuss some of the other very important issues involved, including racism, child abuse, the media, and the very important issue of the mob mentality that you note. And so I thank you for making an important point, and hope you continue to add to this discussion.

[Toots]

28. I guess this is how they get away with allowing civil suit after acquittal

Not guilty does not mean innocent. I still am very troubled by what I consider to be Double Jeapardy. It would seem to be a case of trying a person twice for the same crime.

[H2O Man]

35. Interesting point.

Very, very important. It does seem like a person is tried twice for the same crime. Yet I think that there is another side to the issue.

Let me take a second to give one example. In June, 2001, a person was chatting on a cell phone, failed to see two stop signs and a red light, and hit my vehicle at 55mph. When I say it changed my life, believe it.

He was issued at ticket as I was being taped to a stretcher. I saw it. Later, the deputy who issued the ticket came to the ER, and gave a copy of the ticket to my wife.

However, the other fellow was a VP at the largest local bank. I suspected he would be treated differently that say I would had I done the exact same to him. So I called the DA's office. The DA said don't worry, he can't have any plea heard without the DA's okay, because of the personal injury. Yet the VP's lawyer had the local justice of the peace drop the ticket, without checking with the DA.

Now, should I have been denied an opportunity to take my case to civil court? I'm glad I made it to court. I was unhappy that my attorney could not introduce the fact the VP was issued a ticket -- it would have resulted in a mistrial if I even mentioned it whiole testifying. (Meanwhile, I was grilled about everything I ever did, including swimming in a public pool "after hours" twenty years before.)

It's a complicated issue. I can see both sides.

[Toots]

47. Not quite what I was referring to but I see your point

I was referring to a person being charged for a crime and tried in a court of law and found not guilty. He was legally found not guilty of committing the crime. Then that person gets sued in civil court for the exact same crime he was just found not guilty of. Going right back to court for the exact same thing with another jury except this time he can not be imprisoned. He can lose everything else he has except his freedom. Not Double Jeapardy?

[mondo joe]

37. But it's not double jeopardy.

The double jeopardy clause is intended to protect citizens from abuse BY THE GOVERNMENT in repeated prosecution for the same offense.

The 5th Amendment applies only to the federal government but the clause has been applied to the states as well (thank you 14th Amendment!)

But Double jeopardy is not a defense from separate offenses arising from the same act. It furthermore does not apply to civil charges.

A civil case may meet your personal standard of double jeopardy - but it does not meet the LEGAL standard.

[Tigress DEM]

38. I used to admire Michael, but I think he is guilty and fame bought him out

To me this isn't about black or white, it's about children being abused and I have zero tolerance for that regardless which color of skin the abuser wears.

I suppose in an age where we have finally decided to make lynching a felony and when so many whites have skated on their crimes, one could say that OJ or Michael are a drop in that bucket of payback.

I don't think the whites should have skated nor should famous blacks who can afford crafty attourneys be allowed to avoid facing their real consequences, but that is the price we pay so that worse abuses can't happen.

If being arrested and charged with a crime was enough, than that would give way too much power to arresting officers and as stated in this thread before, there is already a tendency to abuse that power.

[H2O Man]

45. The aspects of celebrity

clearly impacts many of the cases that the media has turned into circuses. It is one of the most troubling aspects of the case to me.

[grace0418]

39. Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.

My own personal feeling is that Sneddon just didn't have proper evidence. If the jury HAD convicted on some flimsy evidence and dubious (even contradictory) testimony, I would've been outraged. Not because I'm a huge MJ fan who thinks he can do wrong, but because I happen to believe that conviction needs to be based on the facts overcoming all reasonable doubt.

As far as MJ is concerned, I think he's a freak. Is he a child molester? I can't say with any certainty, and neither can anyone else who wasn't physically there (either to witness the crime or to find irrefutable evidence such a crime took place). I've been involved in a few situations where I was physically present when something newsworthy happened and, when I heard how it was portrayed on the news, I was totally shocked. Details can be so skewed by the media that I really caution anyone who has decided that MJ is guilty to think about how they made that decision. If it is from the reports in the media, please remember how much the media distorts the truth. Any liberal democrat should know that by now. Again, I agree with anyone who feels MJ is a mentally ill person who has some bizarre behaviors, but that's not enough to convict someone.

Additionally, any mother who willingly puts her child in a situation where he or she is in close and private contact with someone who appears to be mentally ill and quite bizarre should bear some responsibility if the child is traumatized in any way. Especially after that person has already been investigated for child molestation. Even if you can't say for sure whether or not MJ is a guilty of such a heinous crime, anybody with eyes and two brain cells to rub together can tell he's a few sandwiches short of picnic. So why even take the risk of leaving your precious child with him? That automatically makes me question this woman's motives and wonder "Is she trying to blackmail him because she's heard of his strange behavior?"

[H2O Man]

43. Good points.

I'm impressed with the number of important issues being raised here today. I think it shows that DU, far more so than any other public forum I am aware of, is capable of rising above emotions and focusing on that which is most important.

A couple of thoughts: I am going to say that a parent who purposely or negligently exposes their children to harm's way is responsible for that action. However, this needs to be kept separate from the harm that an offender may do. For example, if a parent allows a tiny child to enter deep water unsupervised, and the child drowns, the parent is responsible. But the deep water is not, as it is distinct.

Likewise, if the parent exposes the child to a dangerous adult, the parent is responsible for that. However, if a potentially dangerous adult abuses that child, that adult must be held 100% responsible for the abuse. The parent is 100% responsible for the neglect; the pervert is 100% responsible for the abuse.

In the past couple of days, some well-meaning people have said on DU that the young lady who was apparently murdered while vacationing with her class on a resort island is "partly to blame" for her bad judgement. One also noted her parents "share the blame." This is not true: only the individual or individuals who killed her are responsible for her death. Both she and her parents may have made errors in judgement, but they share no responsibility or "blame" for her death.

Similarly, the case of Emmitt Till is in the news. Years ago, a group of people said that Emmitt was partly to blame for his being lynched, because of his behavior. I am hoping that DUers will agree that while he may have made an error in judgement, he is in no way responsible, nor does he "share the blame" for being lynched.

Now this brings me back to the point of this case: indeed, whatever has happened, the kid is a very real victim. Surely of a negligent mother, and possibly by an adult who preys upon vulnerable children who lack the parental supervison to keep them safe. Again, you are right that we don't know what really occured. But the focus on the mother by the jury raises an important question: in such a case, does having a negligent, even criminal mother trump any question of abuse by another adult? Or are we as a society able to separate the issues?

[sweetheart]

54. I knew sneddon had a dodgey case all along

I saw him on camera back when he was brining the case, and there was
a distinct ego-drive behind it, not a public-will, or a fact-based
coldness i expect from a prosecutor. The musk of sneddon-ego was stinking
up the press conference, and i "knew" that he was not bringing a sound
case.

Mr jackson has sown bad judgement as much as we all do from time to time,
and god help us, if all those circumstances where we got lucky were to
turn against us. Imagine if EVERY time you've ever been alone in a
room with a member of the opposite sex, you were accused of sexual
impropriety. Imagine if every child you've ever loved was deemed a
perverse relationship for what were genuine healthy gestures.

The crime is in the mind of the reader and ghandi himself used to sleep
with underaged kids in his bed. If Ghandi were alive in america today,
he would have been accused and destroyed much as MJ has, without any
substance, just by the merit of accusation, circumstance and the dirty
minds of so many newscasters and the porn-watching public.

[spooky3]

42. Thanks for a thoughtful start to an interesting thread.

A few observations that I hope aren't redundant with others':

(1) I think part of the difficulty the more thoughtful people who think MJ is "guilty" are having is separating the decision on this particular case with the notion that molestation may have occurred with other children whose cases were not brought to court. Now, one could ask why they weren't and reasonably conclude that maybe the evidence was even weaker. But one could also speculate that maybe the child and his family did not have the wherewithal, gumption, lack of worry that the trial might further harm the child, etc., to push that charges be filed. This was reinforced by a few of the jurors in the present case saying that they believed MJ may have molested other children, but that did not speak to the evidence in the present case.

(2) If we assume that white males are a generally privileged group in society, I am not sure what questions of race SHOULD be raised in the Blake case. Is it that he got off when he was really "guilty" because of being in this privileged group? But I don't follow this reasoning if it is in the context of the Jackson and OJ cases, since they also were not convicted.

(3) I agree with the poster who said that most white people who thought MJ was guilty would probably think Blake was guilty too, if they paid any attention to the Blake case at all. Another key difference between the Blake and MJ cases (besides the vast difference in their celebrity as someone else pointed out) is related to (1). What basis is there to think Blake is going to shoot his next girlfriend/wife or that he "got away with it" with previous companions other than the last wife? So, if he did "get away with it" this time, maybe the risk/cost of being wrong in letting him go free doesn't seem as high as for someone believed to be a child molester.

(4) As your opening quote implies: It is always amazing to me how many people are so sure about things they don't really know about. None of us were in the courtroom or deliberation room. So I don't understand the 60% who are either critical of the jury or are really convinced they know what the right thing was in the MJ case. I have seen several of the studies of juries' behavior in the recent past, and most of them are consistent in showing how seriously most juries take their responsibilities. I would not want to second guess them without pretty strong evidence suggesting they behaved poorly, which does occasionally happen, but there seems to be little or no evidence of it in the MJ case.

[H2O Man]

44. Very good points.

Again, people with very different views are able to present them in an impressive manner. This thread has avoided the emotionalism that has damaged some of the others I have read. And, happily, there is none of the confusion about "he was found innocent" .... even though he may very well be innocent of every charge brought against him.

[AirAmFan]

46. Statistics suggest far lower prosecutor burdens of proof when African-

Americans are on trial, much higher tendencies for police to arrest African-Americans than whites under exactly the same circumstances, much more frequent decisions to prosecute blacks than whites when evidence is not clear-cut, and severe racial disparities in every other phase of "justice" in this country.

For example, at any moment in time, the rate of incarceration for African-American men is 3.4 percent, 7.3 times the rate for white men! There is a similar racial disparity among women, and rates for Hispanics fall between those for blacks and whites. See the official DOJ statistics at http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t627.pdf .

As the high number of Senators who opposed apologizing for lynching demonstrated this week, this country's views about criminal justice are extremely "loaded" racially, and there are continuing legacies of slavery that Americans are very unwilling to discuss openly.

The undeniable facts are consistent with subconscious stereotypical views by many whites that the justice system is supposed to protect whites from "them", that any African-American is very likely to be guilty of SOMETHING, and that when minorities are acquitted of crimes against whites, something in the system has gone horribly wrong.

Racism is at the rotting CORE of "justice" in the USA, always has been, and will continue as long as people still ignore the huge elephant in the middle of our living room.

[H2O Man]

50. True. Without a doubt.

I'm from rural upstate NY. In 1999, a young black man was convicted of having sex with an underaged white girl. Though she was 16, and very close to 17, and though he was just a few weeks into his 18th year, he was convicted of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child.

The fact that she initiated the event did not matter, because he was an adult and she was a minor. However, although he had no history of violence, and had only had a legal history that included alcohol and pot, he was sentenced to 14 years in state prison.

Members of his family contacted me, and I called Myron Beldock, who had represented my friend Rubin Carter. We reviewed the case: the kid had plead guilty; there had been no psychiatric evaluation to determine if he posed a serious risk to re-offend, or if he might benefit from treatment; no determination to see iof he understood his plea (English was his second language, and his trial testimony indicated he believed he was clearing his name); and there were numerous other cases heard by the same judge where repeat offenders against even young children received probation, or short jail terms, but not prison.

On December 7, 2000 the Appellate Division of the NY State Supreme Court modified the decision, and released this young man from prison. The sodomy conviction was "reversed and that count of the indictment dismissed." The court refused to grant the kid youthful offender status on the other charges because "(t)here is absolutely no evidence to support defendant's contention that County Court abused it's discretion in this regard (see, People v Cambell, 245 AD2d 983)."

I think the judge, the prosecutor, and the original defense attorney all abused their "discretion." I think it's more common than most people realize.

[AirAmFan]

51. That's outrageous! What's really tragic is the lack of publicity

these miscarriages of justice get. If Americans were polled about how big they think racial disparities in incarceration are, very few would get even close to the sevenfold to ninefold truth, because the police state in black communities is kept very hush-hush.

Even in supposedly progressive forums like DU, it is very rare for these racial justice issues to be discussed. This seems to be one of those issues where African-Americans are told to "STFU" and silently sacrifice their young men as the Democratic Party seeks "swing voters".

[H2O Man]

52. At the time

we decided it was better to get the young man out of jail quietly. The Rubin carter retrial in 1976 had shown us that there are times when the glare of publicity causes the true criminals to fight that much harder to cover their deeds.

(Carter and codefendant John Artis were reconvicted in their 1976 retrial. The second trial saw the prosecution introduce their "racial revenge" theory. A black man had been murdered by a white man earlier on the June 1966 night that Carter and Artis were accused of killing three white people in Paterson, NJ. Although the prosecution offered no foundation that either defendant knew the black victim, had any dislike of white people, or had expressed any thoughts about "revenge," they argued that as black people, Rubin and John were prone to racial violence. The defense attorneys fought tooth and nail to keep this "theory" out of the courtroom. The DA told the judge he could not win without it. In 1985, a federal judge threw the convictions out, ruling they were based on a "grave constitutional error.")

The young man has been out for four and a half years, and hasn't posed any danger to the community. I see him now and then, when I travel into the town where he lives (or lived). He always thanks me, and assures me that he is doing well. I can't help but think of how 14 month in prison impacted him.

[Me.]

55. Hey What Gives?

I come back to see if the discussion is still going and find this heading to page three.

[H2O Man]

56. We were all waiting

for your thoughts on these topics.

[Me.]

58. Since You Asked

My thoughts on MJ are above. As for Robert Blake, well let me just say that maybe, when the next high profile case in Ca., comes up, maybe they should either bring in some outside talent or hire a big gun like Mesereau. Seriously, I don't know what to think about Ca. prosecutors. I tend to think that just like everywhere else the work-a-day lawyers work hard and try to do a decent job. It's at the top of the food chain, where the "Hollywood Jinx" kicks in. It would be great if Buliosi would do a book on why it happens. I thought the OJ prosecutors were a wreck and gave the game away. With Blake, piss poor witnesses and circumstantial evidence. As for Scott Petersen, if he hadn't acted like such a narcissistic psycho and told provable lie upon provable lie, he probably would have gotten off too.

[H2O Man]

61. Any time there is a jury

certain dynamics come into play. And one of the most important tends to be does the jury like the defendant? Do they like the defense attorney? The prosecutor? Or, if it is a civil case, you can fill in the same general blanks.

In the Blake case, it was easy to make the jury dislike the victim. She was more repulsive than the mother in the Jackson case. The jury had no trouble finding "reasonable doubt" (a concept never really defined to anyone's satisfaction) that Blake killed her. After all, the fact that Blake had tried to hire a couple friends to kill her was no biggie: his best friends were creeps. And the fact he was there didn't mean anything.

It's like the old lawyer's joke about a husband coming home early from a business trip, and finds a man hiding in his closet. "What are you doing here?" he demands. "Well, everyone has to be somewhere," the fellow answers. And Blake had to be somewhere, after all!

In that case, the jury's dislike of Blake's wife was sufficient to bring about a "not guilty" verdict.

[Me.]

62. I Agree That Misdirecting The Eye Is An Effective Strategy

when witnesses and victims are vulnerable, but that plays both ways. The mother in the MJ thing was suspect. Should he have been convicted on her say so? As for Blake, again, given her history, it's quite possible that someone was gunning for her. But I don't really believe in co-incidences. She just happened to be shot the moment he went inside to get his gun...

It's my feeling that the prosecutors had better try for an airtight case (I know easier said than done) the next time a high profile case pops up, otherwise it's likely to be another waste of taxpayer money and time.

[H2O Man]

63. There are never airtight cases.

The legal system is not geared to deal with the truth, in many cases, due to the rules of evidence, which restrict what can be introduced. Without commenting directly on the Jackson case, I would think it is worth considering: what type of child is at higher risk of being victimized by an adult offender? One with a nurturing, watchful eye, who would remind the jury of a cross between Betty Crocker & Mary Tyler Moore? Or a "street kid" with a mother who makes Courtney Love look wholesome and pure?

[H2O Man]

65. Continued .....

Now that the girls are on their way to school, I can get back to this. There has rightfully been a good deal of attention given to the jury's reaction to the mother of the kid who claimed to have been molested. I would hope that people would tend to agree that a kid with a parent who is not in the Mary Tyler Moore-mold (discussed in the previous post) is more at risk of being targeted by a predator.

When we consider the parent's role, I think we need to be able to separate it from the behavior of the (potential) predator. For example, if a parent exposes their child to a "high risk" adult, that parent's degree of negligence is not dependent upon if the adult offends or not. Either way, the parent has exhibited a high degree of negligence. And that negligence is distinct from the predator's behavior.

However, studies of negligent mothers show a tendency for the mother to have some type of personality disorder. (I have a copy of the best study I came across somewhere in my files; I'm not able to find it this morning, but I think other folks on here might link us to similar studies.) And where do personality disorders tend to show up? In interpersonal relationships.

Thus, not only in a mother-child or therapist-client relationship: no, the glare of personality disorder will also shine brightly upon the witness stand. So, as we look at a couple quotes from an educational seminar held at Lourdes Hospital on 10-25-96, presented by Gregory W. Lester, Ph.D., we can apply them to the courtroom context.

"4.Be aware of and responsible for your own 'counter transferences.' Personality disorders operate in such a manner that they create around theman environment that, in reacting to them, ends up 'justifying them.' As a result, you may 'play right into the hands' of someone with such a disorder if you are unaware of and covertly express your own difficult feelings, including anger, guilt, resentment, and fear. Be aware of your feelings so that you can have flexibility and options instead of being driven by them without your knowledge.

"6. Think 'de-escalate.' The more matter-of-fact you are in dealing with sticky issues with someone with a personality disorder, the better. If they have a severe impairment you might get escalation from them no matter what you do, so it is all the more important you do what you can to avoid being provacative, coverty hostile, or otherwise inflammatory. It is certainly OK to be direct and firm when such is required, but avoid covert expressions that can escalate the situation from your end.

"12. Beware the perennial victim. There is a difference between being a victim and approaching a situation from a 'victim stance.' If someone is using the stance of victim in their life, you are likely to be the next accused of being a victimizer. ....

"14. If you anticipate escalation, get it now. With personality disorders, limits and confrontations can result in escalations. If you suspect this is the case, postponing or procrastinating will likely just make it worse. ...."

Is it not obvious that the jury found themselves reacting to the mother's severe and escalating personality disordered behaviors? And that their emotional reaction to her repulsive behavior resulted in their holding her responsible for the situation in its entire madness? Rather than viewing her as responsible for her negligence, but separating her role from the alleged crime, they judged her? And little else could possibly follow?

[H2O Man]

66. One example:

At the press conference after the verdict was read, an elderly female juror was speaking about her views on the trial. Her focus was the mother. She told of the mother snapping her fingers at the jury, and said something like, "And it was then that I said, 'Don't snap you fingers at us, lady!'"

Now, in the context of the previous post on personality disorders, was this juror {1} reacting entirely to the character disorder shown by the mother; or {2} recognizing that the mother snapping her fingers was absolutely without value in determing if a crime had been commited?

[sweetheart]

64. All souls are innocent

The soul of a person, their innermost heart and core is sacred and
profound, something that is beyond the justice of men. In that sense,
I find the presumption of innocense to be an issue of integrity, that
one's actions in this world are bound to be misguided, but that the
heart of a man or woman can never be judged.

A person is not evil, their actions may be. A person may be bent and
pursue a life of evil actions, unrepentent, and we may use a slang to
call them an evil person. Dick Cheney is a good example of this. His
life is centered on evil actions, and he is a sort of demon in a human
form. But that is judging his soul, something that the justice system
and our society should not be doing. He should be tried only for
his actions.

At any time in life, you have the free will to change. Michal Jackson
may have made indescretions in the past, and it is judging his soul to
presume he will make those in the future. He is not a child molester,
rather he was molested as a child and may have acted questionably, but
that is to judge his actions, and not his person.

The law of man has no place making judgements about a person's future,
and in this regard, the 3 strikes laws and many laws that seek to
enshrine a false truth that people do not have free will, and cannot
change, are themselves a violation of innocent until proven guilty.

The fact is, that we are all guilty of conscience, as we all can
understand the dark side of humanity, being human. Then we are
punishing "acting on it", but not knowing it... and in this regard,
the witch hunt externalizes human dark sides on to others, brands them
as evil and fails to recognize the fact that evil is within all of
us, and that we have the free will to become awake, now; to shed our
past entirely and never look back.

[mondo joe]

68. Get off it. No one's "heart" is being judged - just their actions.

"Heart" as you use it is meaningless in the same way it iswhen Bush says he "has a good heart" when asked about his positions or actions.

[sweetheart]

69. It seems rather not

People have gone ahead and judged MJ irrelevant to any decision. He's
been labelled a paedophile, a molester and cast in the stocks of a
judged person, as if people know what he's about by their media exposure.
This seems to disprove your thoughtful response indeed, sir joe.

His heart IS being judged and his actions are not. Given his actions
raising big money for charity and other causes, he could just as well
be spun up, as much as the great hero clinton took advantage of a girl,
yet is forgiven by his other merits. MJ is no different except that
the public eye has forgotten his other acts, choosing instead to judge
his heart.

PS. Shove your "get off it" tone, and get more polite, please.

[mondo joe]

71. Critical thought is the highest human faculty. It's being used.

Fuck his heart.

No one cares about his heart.

People have critically considered the known facts and have made conclusions. Some conclude one way, some another.

What he may have done for charitable causes (and that is questionable) is irrelevant to whether or not he molested children.

[sweetheart]

73. Mob rule is hardly the highest human faculty

People are unaware of ontological manipulation in propaganda. They
fail to see what they are not shown, and are led to conclusions based
on what they "are" shown. As much as this is "rational" it is hardly
a highest facility. It is the grunts of the heard when they are shown
food.

We experienced the same with years of whitewater nonsense where critical
rational people insisted despite facts, that guilt was present because
there was no evidence... a clear sign of guilt. As much as micheal
jackson has been tried without evidence by the public media based on
heresay from gold diggers. I'm shocked you call that "critical".

The public is collectively insane and has repeatedly demonstrated this
throughout history from re-electing george bushfuck to so many other
critical rational silly things. The media lies, and that is the only
real truth we can ascertain from the MJ case.

[mondo joe]

75. So people concurring is mob rule? Precisely where did the "mob"

demand an extralegal punishment?

When did this "mob" demand or do anything at all?

Funny how you have JUDGED the accusers "gold diggers".

Were you on the jury at their trial?

You've done a nice job of MJ worship.

[sweetheart]

76. Only the threads here, sir

There are many here on DU who have proclaimed MJ guilty regardless of
the evidence of a jury finding him not-guilty.

The gold-digger claim fits the bill given their history, as you know,
and you just like picking a fight... you fighter you.. ;-)

Had you read my own review of the trial, i could give a flying toss
about MJ. It merely distracts the public mind from mass murder and
serious crimes, high crimes against the constitution. The media
trial has convinced the witchhunt they've seen justice when nothing
of the sort has been achieved.

MJ is screwed. He is permanently branded as a molester by millions
who will never forget the witch hunt, as much as monika lewinsky surely
gets lewd comments every time she wears a blue dress, or smokes a
cigar... once you're done in the media, there is no fair trial, no
justice and the branding of "criminal" is permanent and wrong by
the presumption of innocense.

[mondo joe]

77. I like how you judge the accuser while admonishing others to not judge

MJ.

But the fact is we know much more about MJ, including facts OUTSIDE THIS CASE, and can make a reasonable determination.

The accuser never even HAD a trial much less a defense. But somehow you have no problem judging her "heart".

If MJ is screwed he screwed himself by indulging in activities that give the appearance they have.

You maynow say you don't care about MJ, but your words speak for themselves - you consider him beyond reproach, beyond judgment, even as you gleefully judge the accuser.

[sweetheart]

78. That accuser has fucked MJ beyond any reach of the law

and I've my own sense of justice... as i note who is the attacker and
who is the victem in this. MJ is broke and fucked and the accuser,
between this woman and a whole lotta folks who've all sold their
stories to the media (hardly a sign of impropriety) now walk off in
to the sunset.. oh well, we failed to fuck him... as of course the next
step would have been suing him in civil court for whatever they could
get.

So hmmm... it looks like media rape to me, and you've got it in for
the "alleged" molester, whilst the proof of the case seems that somebody
got fucked and somebody got away with bringing a malicious case.

And all along, mass murder is OK as long as republicans do it.

Yes, i have a real problem with using the media to try a crime, and i'm
really down on the people who do that, as i consider the very act of
bringing the media in to it, to try somebody in public, the real crime,
uncharged.

[mondo joe]

79. Your "own sense of justice" is a sham.

MJ is broke? Whose fault is that?

Who decided to have little boys sleep in his bed even after he paid off one other boy for the same issue?

You say you have a problem with the media trying a crime - but you render a verdict based on it. Nice.

[sweetheart]

80. I've had my own experiences with media abuse

and I've had to move away to get justice after just such a media attack,
one that was entirely devious and based on persons making spurious
claims to settle a score.

A media attack works with peripheral consciousness. It is not the direct
agents who are attacked or who know anything about the claims. Rather
the media presents a story that is known only in passing, and because
there is not a full discovery, because all the facts are not known, a
media attack results in a mass hypnosis is permanent.

Michael Jackson will be that singer who molested boys 40 years from now,
but that mother and her kid will be long forgotten. The media hit was
on michael jackson for being weird, and you are naive about the serious
impact that having 50 million persons hypnotized about your alleged
impropriety can have on a persons life.

I merely state that over the long haul, the victem of the media attack
is MJ and not the accuser. Were this a soccer game, and i a referee,
i'd red-card the accuser for unsportsmanlike conduct. MJ has taken
a painful tumble, and those who did the dirty are scot free. I hope
MJ sews the lot of them for spurious claims and extracts a civil
revenge on those who've set about destroying him.

As the recent situation with Du's "andy" has proven, there are people
out there who live only to destroy things, and Michel jackson has had
an encounter where, unlike with DU where we know the bad guy's are
running a scam against andy, the bad guys in the MJ case are sneddon
and a lot of liars who have all the karmic liability and no legal
liability. The framers of the cosntitution did not preconceive of
a sort of abuse like this, and had they, i'm sure that there would
be an amendment covering media abuse.

[H2O Man]

74. A couple (strange) things.

And these aren't entirely related to either the Jackson case, or the less pleasant conversation that this follows .... but: there are a significant number of offenders who think that they are acting with "pure motives." Certainly, they are aware that society frowns upon their actions, but they see things in very different terms. I think that this is the best reason to avoid attempting to frame these cases in terms of a person's "heart."

Again, I do not know the circumstances in the Jackson case well enough to make any guess about what happened. But I do know of plenty of cases where the offender felt justified in their behaviors. I'm thinking of the case of the female school teacher as an example. The judicial system has to take the exact same stance in these cases.

[Me.]

70. kick