Normal in California

[David]

I was on a child molestation jury last year. On that case it was the word of a 7 year old girl. No other evidence, none. It was difficult for me to convict this man, her father, and send him to prison on a child's testimony. Fortunately she was very believable and her story never strayed in two days of testimony. It she had made one mistake, I doubt we would have convicted. I can see how if there was reasonable doubt that his accusers were not telling the truth that they would aquit him.

I never heard anyone say he performing sexual acts with these boys. Only that he gave them alcohol, showed them girly mags, slept in the same bed with them, and maybe was naked in their presence. Not that that's acceptable behavior, but there are much worse things that people are doing to kids, like the father raping his 7 year old daugter in the case I was on. I think the prosecuter got overzealous with trying to get too many counts against him and it backfired.

[FrayAdjacent911]

I for one will be glad when this MJ crap is forgotten, when his ugly ass-face is not on the front page of every news site, and no one cares what that wierd ass guy does. As long as he doesn't hurt anyone, screw it. Leave him the **** alone.

I agree with Steve on one point but not another. Yeah, the prosecution has to present it's case and provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's American jurisprudence. However, just because a prosecution can't/didn't provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not make the alleged actions of the accused 'acceptable'.

Sure, Kalifornistan is so 'progressive' that, even in that same state, 40 years ago, many things that are acceptable would have been considered absolutely reprehensible. 'Progression' can go too far and too fast.

Look at where being so 'progressive' has gotten 'em. Kali is now (particularly SoKal) probably THE most expensive place to live. Sure, the geography is great. I'd love to live out there... if it weren't for the society and nanny-state government. Huge deficits, energy crisis, smog, gang related crime...

Sure, Kali has a large economy, and the US would be quite different without it... but that doesn't make it's society, social practices and government RIGHT. It's obviously not working too well there. My problem with it comes when they try to export it, or live by the 'if it's OK HERE, it should be OK everywhere else, too!' attitudes.

Now don't get me wrong. Most of the people in Kalifornistan are great people. It's a place that helps make America what it is, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all. I don't hate Kali, I just think it's been misled by idealistic 'progressives' that do things because they seem good, but don't think about the long term consequences.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911

I agree with Steve on one point but not another. Yeah, the prosecution has to present it's case and provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's American jurisprudence. However, just because a prosecution can't/didn't provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not make the alleged actions of the accused acceptable.

Not sure where you are going on this. As most posts state, his behavior is out of normal acceptance, but it has to cross the illegality line to be punishable.

I think the other generalizations of California might be applied to any populous state with major cities. Sounds more like a city vs country argument which we have within CA by the way. CA is not unlike the US as a whole, there are areas of great divergence of social, and ethnic backgrounds and gives rise to friction and misunderstandings among all of us, even down to our neighborhoods.

[EdT82SC]

It's sad that the jury was manipulated this way. If you think about it for just a moment the mother had to seriously f'ed up in the first place to allow her son to sleep with Jackson. No normal parent would allow that. I'm sure she was after money when she let Jackson sleep with her son, and after money again when she took the case to the police. She's a bad person. That doesn't make what Jackson did OK. But the defense showed how f'ed up the mom was, and because of that they found Jackson not guilty. The evidence in the case was more then adequate to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. But the defense did a good job of distracting the jury from the evidence, and placing their attention on the mother. Now who suffers? The boy does. And all the other boys Jackson has molested suffer. And all the boys that other f'ed up parents will give him in the future will suffer.

[pbs911]

I really could;nt care less either way. If you want to find the "norm" or any area look beyond the MJ, Cobi Bryants, OJ's, Blakes, ect. You have to look at the lifestyle felons who walk out of prison or the court house every day. Therein lies your problems. I think it's pretty pathetic for people to gain interest in the "legal" system just because a celebrity is involved.

[M.D. Holloway]

Consider it a perfect storm - flakey jury, hack prosecutors, all sorts of hype, tight defense team, and an entertainment icon (unfortunately). I would have bet 10000 to 1 that he was gonna be cleared of all charges.

But for once, I would really like to see something in the news that makes us say - Dang! they finally got it right. Sadly, it won't happen...

[450knotOffice]

LA county and the Bay area are similar in terms of being "liberal" The rest of the state is basically rural in nature, with small towns scattered about. People in these small towns tend to be more "conservative". Santa Maria would fall into the latter grouping.

[Superman]

That's really coincidental. We have a New Orleans and a Chattanooga right here in the United States of America. And we have a judicial system where certain standards of evidence must be met in order to achieve a conviction. Apparently, those standards were not met.

But unfortunately, we also have citizens who feel they can reach a verdict without even having been in the court room. Indeed, some of these people can reach a verdict on matters not even introduced by the prosecution. Sodomy, for example.

This ability to reach around the evidence and glom onto what they want to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is how we are able to connect, for example, Saddam Hussein and 9/11. It's an interesting dynamic to watch. Let's call it the Hans Christian Anderson / KKK school of "moral values."

[Mule]

To Steve & Superman: If I'm on a jury & the guy is charged with raping & killing your wife or mom or sister, and it's obvious even to the most brain dead, haight ashbury refugee that the guy did it, do you want me to make a stand on technical issues in the case or convict the guy?

[skipdup]

Originally posted by Mule
To Steve & Superman: If I'm on a jury & the guy is charged with raping & killing your wife or mom or sister, and it's obvious even to the most brain dead, haight ashbury refugee that the guy did it, do you want me to make a stand on technical issues in the case or convict the guy?

Exactly. The court system is not the final determiner of right and wrong. Don't get me wrong, for the legal system in this country, it is. But, if someone murdered a family member, then beats it in court, does that mean they are innocent? No! It just means they aren't going to jail.

People need to get a grip.

- Skip

[Superman]

Originally posted by Mule
To Steve & Superman: If I'm on a jury & the guy is charged with raping & killing your wife or mom or sister, and it's obvious even to the most brain dead, haight ashbury refugee that the guy did it, do you want me to make a stand on technical issues in the case or convict the guy?

If it;'s obvious to even the most brain dead that the accused is guilty of the charge, then guess what happens. Aquitals occur when this standard is not met. Like this week. Let's flip your example around.

Let's say you are accused of raping my family member. And the prosecution shows the jury that you like to jack off, wear lipstick and expose yourself in public. Let's say you keep pet snakes, cross dress and hang out with neo-nazis. Should you be convicted based on that evidence?

Steve (I think) posted a very good illustration of what probably happened. You can call it a "technicality," but in reality MJ was charged with certain CRIMES for which there was insufficient evidence to convict, but not charged with some misdemeanors for which there may have been enough evidence to convict. Again, call it a "technicality," but in my country there are things that a jury lacks the power to decide. They include:

"Your Honor, we find the defendant not guilty of murder as charged, but we are pretty sure that he is guilty of treason, so lock him up."

"Your Honor, we don't have enough evidence to know that the defendant committed the crimes charged, but we think he's creepy and we all feel he probably did it, even though we don't know that with certainty, so we find him guilty."

I chuckled last night as I considered my literature reading, this thread and my remark about Hans Christian Anderson / KKK school of "moral values." You see, I'm reading The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Pretty funny.

[Superman]

Here's another thing. While I rarely focus on the areas in which I agree with the cons here (that'd be boring, wouldn't it?), they do exist. I think MJ is creepy. Sick. I'd never let my child out of my sight in his company. Not a chance.

Some family members mentioned that in America you don't get thrown in jail for being a weirdo. My comment was that in America, you don't get thrown in jail for being a weirdo if you've got lots of money. If you're poor and weird, your chances change considerably.

[stevepaa]

Mule
Well, if it was clearly the case then you convict. Juries work on reasonable doubt as they did here, and if there is no reasonable doubt, you convict.
The appeals courts rule on technicalities.

So what does that "what if situation" have to do with this case?
Do you have evidence the jury in this case didn't get to see?

This is a group of relatively conservative people from a rural section of CA , but found that the evidence was just not there.

(Santa Maria is an old Spanish land grant, ranching, farming, little town which was not much more than gas station stop on the way to LA via the coast route and has been basically bypassed in the last 20 years since I5 is a more direct route to LA for all the truckers. They have a very conservative background)

And as someone else has pointed out, not guilty does not mean innocent. No one disagrees with that. But the evidence was not there to convict.

[M.D. Holloway]

The whole thing is a *****'n sales pitch! - we wish the legal system was blind, it isn't. It would be nice and cozy if it was black and white but there are colors in this spectrum that have yet to be defined.

The ones that find freedom may not be innocent, but the dynamic swings in there favor. The only true and just system would be based on a huge freakin algorythm that defines the human condition and sets up parameters to behave - no one wants that so the price to pay for liberty is a system that will let scum slip through from time to time - any other way would smack of a constrained society. I just wish the guy could spend a few years in a cell. We all know he is deserving of it...

[vash]

i am with sup on this one. and not because i live in california. there is a very fine line in the legal system. and i sleep better knowing that the this line exist, and the police cannot kick in my door without reason. in order to protect the innocent, you have to protect everyone. MJ is easily the freakiest freakshow of our generation. but i feel that i still dont have enough information to formulate a verdict. hell, what i hear from TV and the news in general isnt schit.

what happened to roman polanski? he was a pedephile right?

[M.D. Holloway]

I change the radio station anytime his songs play - I can't even bear to have the kids listen to an old mix tape with ABC123 by the Jacksons.

I'm sure if you turned up the lights on other performers you wouldn't like what crawls out eighther - this is too obvious to ignor.

[stevepaa]

Mike
Yeah, his conduct was bad. Why not charge him with contributing to delinquency of minors when he gave them booze? I think the DA just stretched his case. Get convictions on sure things and work up. The DA made the big pitch and it was ball four. We, the public, were not very well served here.

[Mule]

Steve said:
"This is a group of relatively conservative people from a rural section of CA , but found that the evidence was just not there."

So since you live in the same state you know how these people think? You have no clue as to the conservative or liberal leanings of any of these buffoons, unless you know 'em.

Any one of you defenders of the legal sytem that aquited OJ, Baretta and now MJ can answer this: If a 46 year old guy gives your 12 yr old daughter some liquor, shows her some porno & takes her to bed, do you believe it's innocent?

I can't wait to see one of you making up some "if the glove don't fit you must aquit" answer to this one.

[M.D. Holloway]

Hang'm High Roscoe...

[juanbenae]

i am glad someone mentioned so cal as the location. we in no cal put scott peterson away dint we?

and by the way, mule we are happy to have you stay put.