Jackson trial begins and the US justice system

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

You guys fans of Michael Jackson? I'm not particularly a fan, but i do enjoy some of his older hits like his album 'Thriller'. So now he is finally put in trial. No wonder because it is probably pretty difficult to set up a jury with individuals who are not biased in some way. Here in the Netherlands it is done differently. We dont have a jury that will ultimately determine the subjects guiltiness or innocence. We have a Judge that does all that. I know very little else about various justice systems around the world. I did hear on the news that in America if someone you know gets convicted, then you, as an acquaintance are 'required' to be part of the jury and you can actually lose your job because of it. That's pretty crazy IMO.

Anyways, if i think Jackson is guilty of giving alcohol to a kid and having had an 'affair' with another (or was it the same) kid? I dont know. :ninja: I do know that it's apparently a big deal in America, which frankly doesnt surprise me. But that is the way of celebs ha ha. I hope i'll never become one :biggrin:

[jkrzok]

I did hear on the news that in America if someone you know gets convicted, then you, as an acquaintance are 'required' to be part of the jury and you can actually lose your job because of it.:

Huh?

Jury:
1. a group of persons sworn to render a verdict or true answer on a question or questions officially submitted to them.
2. such a group selected according to law and sworn to inquire into or determine the facts concerning a cause or an accusation submitted to them and to render a verdict to a court.

Once a conviction is handed down a jury is dismissed, unless it's a death penalty offense, in which case the original jury (and this varies from state to state) will determine the punishment. The only way family or friends of the convicted are involved at this point might be as character witnesses in the penalty phase. They would never be part of the jury at any time; the aim when picking jurors is to have them be as nonpartial as possible. As for friends and family losing their jobs, it's nothing official. But would you want a kiddie rapist's sister working for you? (Sorry Janet)

Jurors can't really lose their jobs because of jury duty. Many employers actually continue to pay their employees as they fulfill their civic duty.

The whole point of jurors is to allow the common citizens to act as a check on government power. Prior to the Patriot Act the US government had to prove to a small cross section of citizens that it was just to imprison someone accused of a crime. The jury acting in a public trial is the ultimate check on unbridled government power.

I understand the point of a Judge-based system. A judge should be better educated and better able to resist public passions in determining the proper course of justice. But a judge is still after all a government employee and thus not above suspicion.

Law education brought to you by endless 'Law and Order' repeats. God bless cable TV.

My last jury duty was actually fun. I ran into 5(!) friends I hadn't seen in years and we sat around and played poker (for money no less. In full view of a Sheriff's Deputy) until called further along in the jury selection process. I was dismissed when they found out I was a recent victim of a violent crime. I went back to the jury pool. There was $$$ just waiting for me on a table. ;)

[madjo]

I get my knowledge on the US court system through books by Grisham and the newsletters like "True Stella Awards (http://stellaawards.com/)" ;) (I tell ya, not very rose-colored.. d*mn frivolous lawsuits ;) )

I wouldn't want to be on a jury, don't think I'm capable of sending someone to prison...

[Todd The Kiwi]

jackson is one sick puppy and needs to be neutered.
even if billie jean is a good tune.

[Aaron]

jackson is one sick puppy and needs to be neutered.
even if billie jean is a good tune.

Come now Todd he's innocent until proven guilty....

...but saying that when he's found guilty hope he enjoys his stay in jail (and makes friends with his cell mates). Damn crotch-grabbing, moon-walking, chimp-owning, pasty-faced freak!

:evil:

Aaron

[fatal error]

in 6 months he'll be playing golf with O.J.

[Todd The Kiwi]

in 6 months he'll be playing golf with O.J.crikey, is that what they call it in jail? golf

[hedge]

crikey, is that what they call it in jail? golf
Nope thats what they call the US justice system...

[Todd The Kiwi]

aaaah, i get it now.
that's not what i was thinking at all :depressed

[rorythedog]

I don't think he's guilty.

[Todd The Kiwi]

I don't think he's guilty.
it'll be hard to prove what really happened aye.
the dude is just so friggin' weird i reckon we all just want him to be guilty.
i'll bet you 5 virtual bucks he is guilty though.
i also bet he would 'mysteriously disappear' or 'die' before going to jail :ninja:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

If he is guilty he'll probably pay his way out of jail. Still you are right Todd. This guy is a plastic puppet. His face is horrible, i cant believe kids and fans alike admire him so much.

Btw. Who agrees here that the US should abolish the death penalty? You know that is one of the things stopping Turkey from joining the EU, go figure. I'm totally against the death penalty. It's a wicked form of justice that doesnt do justice at all.

[hedge]

If he is guilty he'll probably pay his way out of jail. Still you are right Todd. This guy is a plastic puppet. His face is horrible, i cant believe kids and fans alike admire him so much.

Btw. Who agrees here that the US should abolish the death penalty? You know that is one of the things stopping Turkey from joining the EU, go figure. I'm totally against the death penalty. It's a wicked form of justice that doesnt do justice at all.
Hmmm in extreme cases i think theres still a point in it. Like for instance the massacre in tassy here in aus years ago. That guys in jail for the rest of life, doing nothing for the community apart from costing a fortune to keep in high secturity. He killed so many, whats so bad about taking his life and taking away that burden on society?

[rorythedog]

There's been a Scot on death row in the states for the past 18 years! Now, they've decided his conviction was unsafe and the authorities have 90 days to either retry him or release him. Discuss.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Im not saying that a mad individual on a killing spree should be released. Im just saying that the death penalty goes too far IMO. To lock him up and isolate him from the outside world for the rest of his life is punishment enough.

[Todd The Kiwi]

Who agrees here that the US should abolish the death penalty? not me man, if someone raped my sister i would want the c**t put to death, not put in jail for free food and a roof over his head until he was eventually "rehabilitated" costing us money and with evey chance of reoffending.
the parents of the kids associating with jackson need their heads read, you don't let your kids stay with a 40 year old bachelor, full stop.

what's your take on euthanisation?
it's illegal here, i reckon that's just cruel, there is a man here at the moment starving himself to death because he's not 'allowed' to be 'put to sleep', he's very sick and has no will to live, his quality of life is so low man he deserves to die.
anyone who helps him die goes to jail too.
SIGH...

[rorythedog]

not me man, if someone raped my sister i would want the c**t put to death, not put in jail for free food and a roof over his head until he was eventually "rehabilitated" costing us money and with evey chance of reoffending.
the parents of the kids associating with jackson need their heads read, you don't let your kids stay with a 40 year old bachelor, full stop.

what's your take on euthanisation?
it's illegal here, i reckon that's just cruel, there is a man here at the moment starving himself to death because he's not 'allowed' to be 'put to sleep', he's very sick and has no will to live, his quality of life is so low man he deserves to die.
anyone who helps him die goes to jail too.
SIGH...


If a psycho was to rape someone, and there was a death penalty for that, wouldn't the psycho just kill the victim. Rape and murder are not the same thing.

[fatal error]

yup, ride the lightnin' in ol' sparky is just the ticket

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

not me man, if someone raped my sister i would want the c**t put to death, not put in jail for free food and a roof over his head until he was eventually "rehabilitated" costing us money and with evey chance of reoffending.
the parents of the kids associating with jackson need their heads read, you don't let your kids stay with a 40 year old bachelor, full stop.

what's your take on euthanisation?
it's illegal here, i reckon that's just cruel, there is a man here at the moment starving himself to death because he's not 'allowed' to be 'put to sleep', he's very sick and has no will to live, his quality of life is so low man he deserves to die.
anyone who helps him die goes to jail too.
SIGH...

Im pro-Euthanism (spelled correctly?) and Pro-Abortion. Not a surprise really because both practices are legal here in the Netherlands. Now there is even a tendency here to legalise all drugs. Anyways, i find it hard to believe you guys are all pro-death penalty. Ever wondered why all the European nations governments are against it?

EDIT: ha ha Just found this: Turkey agrees death penalty ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3384667.stm)

[hedge]

Its obvious that the death penalty can only be pulled out when the crime fits the punishment, what I'm saying is that there are crimes warranting it. Why the hell would ya want to keep a mass murderer alive?????

Edit: "abolishing the death penalty in all circumstances, including during wars."
Now this I can hardly believe either. Say another hitler steps out (or any of the dozens of other military leaders that have killed innocents purely cos they could), I can't understand why the hell you wouldn't want to kill these sort of people. There is absolutely no advantage to keeping them alive, in fact by doing so you would only keep the supporters of these guys thinking they had a chance again.

[krazyd]

The only problem with capital punishment is the not insignificant rate of wrongful conviction...

[Roj]

I don't think he's guilty.

Neither do I. I also think that if they really had anything concrete on him, they'd have pulled the trigger long ago.

I think the prosecution is blowing smoke.

[Roj]

There's been a Scot on death row in the states for the past 18 years! Now, they've decided his conviction was unsafe and the authorities have 90 days to either retry him or release him. Discuss.

If you're going to end someone's life, you'd better be damned well sure that you've got it irrefutable. That doesn't include testimony by any human in my book. I want video, DNA - hard concrete evidence. In my opinion, someone's word will never be good enough in those circumstances. We've had a few interesting miscarriages of justice here in Canada (one guy was sent away for several decades), enough to have me never support a death penalty.

As to your Scot on death row, if they can't prove it then they have no choice but to release him. And if he's right, I hope he sues the living hell out of them.

[Hanzo]

I do believe in the death-penalty, here in Panama there is no such thing and it doesn't matter how many times you murder / steal / rape you will never get a death-penalty (which doesn't make me specially proud)

I believe a criminal is someone that willingly deviated from the right path and chose to do whatever he did to become a criminal and thus depending on the crimes should pay back what he did, I wish there were forced work penalties here in Panama, think of it as free labor. Here it would be so awesome that the criminal comunity in jail would fix roads, would clean parks and buildings, also pick up the garbage and do all those tasks for free for either penalty reductions or as part of their penalty.

Now what really pisses me off is that a criminal in prison costs (here in Panama) about 35.00 dollars a day, it's like their in a cheap hotel, get 3 meals a day, with gym access and water and electricity service. Man I only live with 10.00 a day and even less sometimes, not counting the bills!

Our justice system sucks big time. How come a criminal is worth more money than a citizen in terms of daily expenses?

About MJ, well I used to be a fan, about 4 years ago when the first scandal about his affairs rose, from that point I listen to his music only, which still remains and has set the path for many other artists (incluiding his moves which are imitated by many) But I don't think he's going to jail anytime, there are rumors that he's broke, if that is so, the guy still has a lot in assets which can become cash easily.

Does anyone remember when he married Elvis daughter? Can't remember the name now... they shot the video 'you're not alone' together if I'm not mistaken. It was pathetic. I think he did that to try to make people forget about his first scandal with kids... he divorced pretty quickly so I don't think that was anything else but an arrangement.

[Roj]

Hey, I'm all in favor of labor. However, I would rather it be more humane than "Cool Hand Luke"-style labor.

As to MJ, I do believe the man has issues stemming form his childhood (one has only to look at what he has done to his personal appearance to see that), but I can't see him as a being a child molester. If anything, I'd see him more as totally asexual - neuter by choice.

BTW, several of his siblings have also gone under the knife, some more drastically (Latoya!) than others (Janet).

Edit:

There is one offense that I could be persuaded to go with the death penalty because it's irrefutable and as far as I know, San Salvador already has - drunk driving on the first offense.

[Todd The Kiwi]

There is one offense that I could be persuaded to go with the death penalty because it's irrefutable and as far as I know, San Salvador already has - drunk driving on the first offense.i'm SO anti drunk/drink driving man, i reckon people should be tried for murder if any loss of life occurs from their stupidity.yup, ride the lightnin' in ol' sparky is just the ticket
you're so offensive :laugh:Now what really pisses me off is that a criminal in prison costs (here in Panama) about 35.00 dollars a day, it's like their in a cheap hotel, get 3 meals a day, with gym access and water and electricity service. Man I only live with 10.00 a day and even less sometimes, not counting the bills!
it's insane aye man, a bullet or an axe swing costs so much less.
at least they all make each other suffer in jail, i don't know about you guys but if i was raped by a dude i would kill myself.

[Hanzo]

it's insane aye man, a bullet or an axe swing costs so much less.
at least they all make each other suffer in jail, i don't know about you guys but if i was raped by a dude i would kill myself.

I so much agree with you. About being raped, that has not passed thru my mind... don't know what would I do in such situation, however some friends of mine have and they say they would become a mixture between Lorena Bobbit and Monica Lewinsky... go figure...

:ponder:

[jkrzok]

Two reasons why I'm against the death penalty.

1) People have been released from death row after all legal challanges have failed based on new evidence, most often DNA. This tells me that the system we once trusted with a man's life was wrong and this same system, despite some scientific advances can be wrong again..

2) I don't like what state sanctioned death says about my society. Government should reflect the best of us whenever possible. When killing anyone, even if he deserves killin' government reflects the worst of us.

[Roj]

Two reasons why I'm against the death penalty.

1) People have been released from death row after all legal challanges have failed based on new evidence, most often DNA. This tells me that the system we once trusted with a man's life was wrong and this same system, despite some scientific advances can be wrong again..

2) I don't like what state sanctioned death says about my society. Government should reflect the best of us whenever possible. When killing anyone, even if he deserves killin' government reflects the worst of us.

I had a teacher in Florida once who had to witness an execution. He described it to me. One thing is for sure - humanity is NOT civilized. Also, your first point is why I am in most cases not for the death penalty. Besides, better to let them live and suffer in perpetuity (while working it off of course). :)

[hedge]

(while working it off of course). :)
Ya can't exactly do much with a killer. Mass murderers and others which could have gotten the death penalty get solitary anyway, so its not like the other big fella's are gonna get their hands on em guys too quick. It also means they aren't exactly gonna be allowed outside for any really useful labour... I reckon if anything leave em sitting there for 50 years with absolutely nothing to do, send em right insane.

[gsb521]

If someone did something terrible to society and makes many people feel vulnerable or something like that, the only things that would work are long-term jailing and the death penalty.
I think that it should be very difficult to prove someone guilty of a big crime; one that would cause a death sentence. However, abolishing the penalty may send a bad message to a (very) small crowd of people. If a person is having serious problems (mentally / with their lives), knowing that they will be adequately fed and housed for the remainder of their lives if they do something definately seems like a step backwards. I think that the penalty should remain, but there should be many more levels of cautions taken before he is proved guilty on that level.
It would be nice if these convicts had an opportunity for community service (obviously in a controlled way). For life sentences, this may not accomplish much, but for smaller amounts of time, having an optional session to leave the jail and give back to the community you have harmed may be positive. So, for lesser sentences, having community services may make a criminal's mentality change. This might be a good reason to allow trading in of sentence time for community service.

[rorythedog]

If the death penalty is so good why does the US have such a high serious crime rate? It certainly doesn't seem to be a detterent.

[hedge]

If the death penalty is so good why does the US have such a high serious crime rate? It certainly doesn't seem to be a detterent.
Theres always gonna be pyscho's out there, death penalty or no. But would you prefer them left alive and burning money in jail once they have already gone out and killed?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Two reasons why I'm against the death penalty.

1) People have been released from death row after all legal challanges have failed based on new evidence, most often DNA. This tells me that the system we once trusted with a man's life was wrong and this same system, despite some scientific advances can be wrong again..

2) I don't like what state sanctioned death says about my society. Government should reflect the best of us whenever possible. When killing anyone, even if he deserves killin' government reflects the worst of us.

Thank you man. After all we are talking about human rights. A death penalty doesnt exactly belong in that category.

To Hedge, even if we are talking about a psycho, then there is still no justice in killing him in return for the acts he has committed. Hey for all you know, this individual is a victim of his own DNA, he/she may be suffering from some disease, or has complications in the brain. Fine, it costs money to keep these people alive, but i believe it is worth it. And in some cases these people can actually be cured in a mental hospital. No offense mate, but wishing someone dead is pretty much a sin to me, even though im totally not religious.

[Todd The Kiwi]

rotting in jail costs the very people they are threatening money, lots of it.
i would quite happily spend $50 a year on bullets or contribute to the electricity bill.
moving target practice for new cops even.
this is one thread that's going to rark us all up, i'm creating an anonymous poll...

[rorythedog]

Yes I would prefer them to be burning money in prison. It's about human RIGHTS. The clue's in the title. It's what (allegedly) makes us better than animals. Do you think that if your government had the death penalty that all the money saved would be spent on hospitals, schools or whatever. Not on your life.

[Todd The Kiwi]

the money wouldn't've left my pocket...
good point though, we are only better than animals because we think we are.
"i think therefore i am" is more like
"i can let it be known to others of my kind that i think, therefore i can say i am"
what that has to do with this thread i don't know.

Ed Gein - "you are who you eat" :skull:

[hedge]

Yes I would prefer them to be burning money in prison. It's about human RIGHTS. The clue's in the title. It's what (allegedly) makes us better than animals. Do you think that if your government had the death penalty that all the money saved would be spent on hospitals, schools or whatever. Not on your life.
Nope twould be spent on war products. And guess why these war products are needed? Because some leader somewhere has gotten the bright idea to threaten other people. Kill that pyscho, and hey maybe all the killing caused by that pyscho might not be needed (and the money might actually be able to go somewhere good).

Come on guys, ya can't be saying you actually want shit like this left alive. If these people are so disturbed that they go around killing, maybe its best they're killed.

And the thing bout us supposedly being different from animals... Yep quite true, animals kill for a purpose, humanity doesn't in many (most) cases. Ya know what might improve this? Remove the people that do go around killing without purpose.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Come on guys, ya can't be saying you actually want shit like this left alive. If these people are so disturbed that they go around killing, maybe its best they're killed.


You have to draw the line somewhere. Imagine a complete psycho who is on a killing spree and is basically addicted to killing. Right, those kind of people no one wants to have around, hence they are locked up for all eternity and i dont care if they are dead or alive. BUT there are also other type of people that have killed one or two other people but are definitely not mad. It would be unfair to have these people executed just because they took the life of someone else but maybe because he/she was drunk or something. These people need help and it is a great achievement if they can be put back into society as a better individual. Like i said, humans have and should have their rights.

Here in the Netherlands you might recall that Pim Fortuin was killed, a dutch politician. The killer should have gotten life long imprisonment IMO, but only got 20 years. I have my doubts about this type of justice system too, because attorneys (or lawyers whatever you called em) can make a significant difference here. Still, to have him executed? No, i just cant agree that the death penalty is the solution. :skull:

[Hanzo]

I agree with the death penalty, if you have a serial killer, serial rapist, or psycho that is doing severe nasty stuff, like killing newborn babies or brutal murders or several assasinations at the same time, I mean severe life-taking or damaging crimes, that person should be given death penalty.

If for stealing, and other 'minor' stuff the system should make the criminal payback the damage that he did to the society, free labor so our taxes don't go feeding and mantaining criminals.

That's my opinion, I do realize that it might not be the most civilized, but war isn't civilized either and yet many people embrace war as a good thing in order to mantain a so called 'peace'. Now terminating a person that has killed several people brutally and is by all means guilty, I think that is truly mantaining 'peace'. But that is another discussion...

[Roj]

These people need help and it is a great achievement if they can be put back into society as a better individual.

I have a problem with drunnk driivers because of the following:

We had a case here in Ottawa where a diplomat (a repeat drunk driving offender) killed a young mother. We've had other such occurrances. I personally have had a friend crippled for life by such a miscreant - he was under the age of 20 when it happened and riding home on his bicycle.

I find drunk driving particularly reprehensible (and thus eminently punishable) because one makes a conscious effort to either pick up a glass or not. It is not a crime of passion. It is not a result of psychopathic behavior. It is not mental insanity, temporary or otherwise. It is a deliberate decision to drink and then get into a killing machine made of steel and plastic weighing several tons against which mere flesh and bone has absolutely no defense.

I said elsewhere that I would cndone capital punishment the first offence of such a mindlessly criminal act a la San Salvador. I will concede that this was a bit extrme. However, for a second offense (drunk driving - not killing someone while under the influence)...

[hedge]

What i was trying to say earlier (a wee bit under the weather today... :P ) was that for extreme cases (like the serial killer, rapist, war leader leading his troops into killing innocents...) the death penalty is warranted. I'm not trying to say that every single murderer should get the ol' zap... There are times when a person is pushed to the limit... hell if someone pushed me too far, I could very well snap, and if theres a weapon nearby, who knows what would happen.

In these cases the circumstances would obviously have to be taken into account. I'm also not condoning killing someone when there is really minimal and coincidental evidence. But some cases, when theres absolutely NO way this person was not the killer (like tasmania...), fry em. Its a waste of resources keeping em alive rotting in a cell.

[matty28carter]

I don't believe Whacko Jacko is guilty, I think he's just a big kid inside. Doesn't really see what he is doing in anyway wierd, or wrong even.
I don't believe in capital punishment either, like's been expressed already in this thread what if your wrong? What would you do if you realised that the man or woman you'd sent to their death was innocent? Theres a reason people who goto prison get TV's, Radio's... jobs even some of them - that is because in prison they're stipped of everything, possessions, rights etc. There is nothing else to take away from them, you can't punish an inmate further. There only there to provide further punishment ie. it all gets taken away. I think on a level of petty crime - theft etc, I think most people, all they need is a short sharp shock to the system, 2months in prison with nothing, and to be removed from the system before they get a chance to adjust themselves to it.

[gsb521]

I don't believe Whacko Jacko is guilty, I think he's just a big kid inside. Doesn't really see what he is doing in anyway wierd, or wrong even.

Being a big kid in life presents some problems though. Here we have someone, a multi-millionaire, loved by many (not me tho), and if he is going to act like a kid, then he definately has problems. If he will go far enough to break the law and destroy a kid's life, then he is responsible. The wealth someone has should never determine how guilty they are. Nor should it be a cause of speculation on the media's side to call him guilty before he is proven to be.
If Jackson is truly a kid, and thinks he is, then he has bigger problems. He has to grow up and face the facts. I remember watching a 60 minutes interview where he said that he thinks that there is nothing wrong with having kids sleep in his bed. That is so wrong. If society and the government set those guidelines, his personal opinion can't interfere. If he is a kid, he may apply his personal opinion to anything, which could potentially make him or any of his die-hard fans dangerous to society.

[Aaron]

I don't believe Whacko Jacko is guilty, I think he's just a big kid inside.

I had to read that sentence twice. I had misread it the first time and it fitted the accusations levelled against him quite aptly (rearrange the words in the second part) :shocked:

Anyway...

I think with these discussions you have to consider whether the penalty of the crime is an effective deterrant as well as a fair punishment.

In the case of drunk driving I think the penalty should be *permanent* loss of licence on the first offence. Since driving is important for people's livelihoods then hopefully it is a stronger deterrant.

I'm not sure about the death penalty. Obviously its not an effective deterrant if there are lots of people of death row.

Certainly the cost of housing someone in prison is expensive. Prison may be a bit cushy. Ever read the novel "Count of Monte Christo" by Alexander Dumas? (the movie was good but the book is so much more detailed - and a fair bit different). The Le Château d'If is what a prison should be like...probably a bit cheaper to run than modern ones. A sadistic warden is a pre-requisite.

Aaron

[Roj]

I remember watching a 60 minutes interview where he said that he thinks that there is nothing wrong with having kids sleep in his bed. That is so wrong.

Why?

If society and the government set those guidelines, his personal opinion can't interfere.

Sure it can. We call that "progress". If we did it your way, it would still be considered incest to marry your sister-in-law, even though she was in no way, shape or form related to you by bloodline. We would still be burning "witches" at the stake. We would still have homosexuality classed as a criminal offense. We would...

Get the picture yet?

The point is that morals change from generation to generation.

If he is a kid, he may apply his personal opinion to anything, which could potentially make him or any of his die-hard fans dangerous to society.

Gawd save us from sociologists and moral majority fans. :) :) :) Eccentric does not equal harmful. The guy is indisputably dancing to his own drummer but that doesn't make him a menace. You want fans who were dangerous to society? Try Charlie Manson's "family". I hardly place Mr. Jackson in the same category.

[gsb521]

I forgot to mention in my post:

The problem with being a kid can be serious. In America, there was a serial killer a few years ago (I forgot his name and I can't find it) who pleaded that he was under the influence of The Matrix. If someone is a kid and not fully matured, they can be quite stupid.

So calling him a big kid doesn't seem like a good defense to me.

[rorythedog]

Most of the idiots and morons i know are fully paid-up adults. As are almost all murderers and rapists. I don't think he's guilty because I don't think he looks at things in the way an adult would. I've got a feeling he probably doesn't even like sex. Period. Therefore it would seem unlikely that he could be guilty of rape.

[Roj]

I don't think he's guilty because I don't think he looks at things in the way an adult would. I've got a feeling he probably doesn't even like sex. Period. Therefore it would seem unlikely that he could be guilty of rape.

You and I are definitely on the same page with this one - as I said: "asexual by choice".

[matty28carter]

didn't he have children with that woman, but he sent her the sperm and had it artificially inseminated? (can't rememeber if thats what they call it)

[Todd The Kiwi]

he sent her the sperm
french letter ha ha ha ha ha :biggrin:
lucky lady :cheeky:

[matty28carter]

french letter ha ha ha ha ha :biggrin:
lucky lady :cheeky:

you can just imagine her openening the lid to the jar (or whatever) and hearing billie jean blasting out

[gsb521]

Sure it can. We call that "progress". If we did it your way, it would still be considered incest to marry your sister-in-law, even though she was in no way, shape or form related to you by bloodline. We would still be burning "witches" at the stake. We would still have homosexuality classed as a criminal offense. We would...

Get the picture yet?

The point is that morals change from generation to generation.

If we did it you way, there'd be total anarchy everywhere. Ok, times change, but that doesn't say that whatever is being done should be defended. If a crime is done, then the guy pays the punishment. Especially if it harms others. In two of your examples, the former crime involves no outsiders. In the witches example, it eventually became illegal to kill others for that reason.

I think I'm missing how your examples are supposed to make me say that it is fine for someone to do a crime to someone else since that is how the world becomes perfected.

[Roj]

If we did it you way, there'd be total anarchy everywhere. Ok, times change, but that doesn't say that whatever is being done should be defended. If a crime is done, then the guy pays the punishment. Especially if it harms others. In two of your examples, the former crime involves no outsiders. In the witches example, it eventually became illegal to kill others for that reason.

I think I'm missing how your examples are supposed to make me say that it is fine for someone to do a crime to someone else since that is how the world becomes perfected.

The punishments of earlier times were decidedly barbarous in nature (cutting off miscellaneous body parts, killing a 12 year old boy because he stole bread to feed his family, torturing someone to death because they had an alternate religious belief). I'd like to think (hope?) that as time passes, our so-called "moral" attitudes change and with them the way we punish offenders.

[gsb521]

The punishments of earlier times were decidedly barbarous in nature (cutting off miscellaneous body parts, killing a 12 year old boy because he stole bread to feed his family, torturing someone to death because they had an alternate religious belief). I'd like to think (hope?) that as time passes, our so-called "moral" attitudes change and with them the way we punish offenders.

I was only saying that I thought he was guilty. I thought you were defending him. If thats a misunderstanding, then I want to clarify what I am saying. If he has done a crime, he is guilty. I am not discussing the punishments that it deserves.

It sounded to me like you were trying to prove his innocence. That's all I was commenting on.

[Roj]

It sounded to me like you were trying to prove his innocence. That's all I was commenting on.

If he's guilty then he should get what he deserves. I just don't think he is. So yes, I think he's innocent. As I said earlier, if the prosecution had anything concrete on him I think they'd have moved a lot faster and more forcefully.

[rorythedog]

It's just a media circus. Lots of money will be made on the back of this. If he's guilty I'll eat my hat.

[Todd The Kiwi]

you want gravy with that? :biggrin:

true, somebody has to be making a million bucks from this aye.

[Todd The Kiwi]

no more posts in almost a week, what's the story?
is he going to fry like a chicken or what? :gasmask:

i saw something interesting in a girlie mag yesterday, New Idea 5th feb ;)
some kid (Omer Bhatti) has 'owned up' to being wackos son
the kid is about 15 and looks just like him, this is the bit i have a problem with
wouldn't the kid look like wacko looked before surgery? :skull:

[Willow of Oz]

Is Michael a little whacko? Sure.
Is he some sort of person living a nonstop childhood? Apparently so.
But that doesn't mean he abuses children.

Here's a link to the story that went around sometime last year, I believe, commenting on the fact that one of the boys (an alleged victim) was a few years ago charged with shoplifting. The result? The mother won a lawsuit for > $100K. Hmmmm.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4448227/

In other weirdness, he had a 'real' shopping trip:
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/showbiz/articles/6250372?source=Metro#top

But last time I checked, being weird wasn't a criminal offence.

[Todd The Kiwi]

true man, being weird isn't criminal offence.
all his eccentricities* (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eccentricities) just make him a huge target for scams and the like
i reckon he likes it though,the attention, not the fact that he could go to jail.
it seems like every six months or so (at least since i've been alive)
jackson does something 'news worthy' :globe:


*this is for people whos first language isn't english.

[Aaron]

wouldn't the kid look like wacko looked before surgery? :skull:

But I saw Jackson interviewed on TV a couple of years ago and he denied that he had surgery. It's all the result of a "skin condition". :ponder:

I wonder if he gets asked anything on this subject at the trial.

Aaron

[Todd The Kiwi]

"skin condition" is the nickname of his surgeon ;)

i reckon it's all pertinent information, i mean, why leave any stone unturned as it were ?
i'm sure these (sick) kids would be happy just to recieve the medical care with or without his 'friendship', the not so sick kids would almost certainly enjoy the money just as much without him around, befriending him is just a token gesture of thanks i reckon...
i mean what could you offer jacko that he doesn't already have?
...oh riiight :gasmask:

[rorythedog]

Has anyone seen the CAST LIST (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050214/325/fcgrc.html)

This is a media farce, IMHO.

[jkrzok]

Making up a witness list does not mean that everyone on that list will be called to testify. The two sides are required to produce a witness list at the beginning of a trial (this requirement is much more stringent for the prosecution) so that the other side can prepare for the cross-examination, should that witness actually testify.

That said, both sides will make any witness list as large as possible for a number of reasons.

First the trial may not go as well as you planned so you'll need to call additional witnesses to counter damage the other side did to your case.

Secondly, a large witness list creates busy work for the other side. Say the defense puts Prince Charles on the witness list. The prosecution will have to wonder what if anything the Prince knows about the case and will waste valuable time, money and effort trying to determine just that. The defense is hoping meanwhile that this additional busy work will make the prosecution miss some more critical point.

Finally, a large witness list will make it more difficult for the other side to determine just what you'll be arguing. by making it difficult to see any pattern to your witnesses and the thrust of your case the opposition will have to prepare for every possibilty, thus making their job that much harder.

Legal education broght to you by "Law and Order" U. :cool:

[Willow of Oz]

what's the down side?
Can they just go through the electoral roll and list everyone? Or is there some sort of pay-per-name?

[jkrzok]

what's the down side?
Can they just go through the electoral roll and list everyone? Or is there some sort of pay-per-name?

The list can be challanged for relevance whith a possibilty of facing contempt of court charges. But unless it's obvious, a judge won't do much for fear of the case being reversed.

[Aaron]

Michael Jackson's Favorite Things!

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5367/mjs_fave_things01.swf

[Todd The Kiwi]

good god man, how did you find that, i dread to think what your bookmarks are :cheeky:
i saw on the news at lunchtime today jacko has the flu, and it's so bad he can't go to trial? :ninja:

[Aaron]

good god man, how did you find that, i dread to think what your bookmarks are :cheeky:
i saw on the news at lunchtime today jacko has the flu, and it's so bad he can't go to trial? :ninja:

I guy I know from Dunedin sent me the link. The pick a nose thing in the middle was inspired :nervous:

Good trick throwing a sickie but didn't know it applied to court cases...

Aaron

[Todd The Kiwi]

funny though, i mean, we already knew he was sick :cheeky:

he's fully piking out (this should go in the "what you say" thread...)
does he not realise this sort of shit just makes him look worse.

[matty28carter]

Michael Jackson's Favorite Things!

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5367/mjs_fave_things01.swf

http://www.neowin.net/forum/fun/oh_god_why.jpg

Thats nearly as disturbing as this website...

Not for the faint hearted!!!!!!! (This guy deserves to be shot...) :grimreape
Peter Pans Website (http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/)

[Aaron]

http://www.neowin.net/forum/fun/oh_god_why.jpg

Thats nearly as disturbing as this website...

Not for the faint hearted!!!!!!! (This guy deserves to be shot...) :grimreape
Peter Pans Website (http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/)

Haha that is something else again.

Would I get in trouble by saying "Only in America..."? :)

Aaron

[Todd The Kiwi]

i know this is a bit old now (about 3 days)
but the weirdo has 'scored' a sore back and can't go to court yet (again)
if he's not guilty why is he procrastinating so?

although i've used this pic before i reckon it's worthy of another submission... :bandit:

[Roj]

i know this is a bit old now (about 3 days)
but the weirdo has 'scored' a sore back and can't go to court yet (again)
if he's not guilty why is he procrastinating so?

although i've used this pic before i reckon it's worthy of another submission... :bandit:

Jackson is notoriously shy. Court is going to be a spectacle and he surely knows that. In his shoes, I'd avoid it too.

[madjo]

hasn't his bail been revoked? I believe I heard something about that today on the radio. That if he wasn't in the courtroom by some time, his bail would be revoked, and he would have to sit the rest of his trial time (and perhaps longer after that) in jail.

[acushla]

Jackson is notoriously shy. Court is going to be a spectacle and he surely knows that. In his shoes, I'd avoid it too.

Sorry Roj but ANYBODY who for one moment thinks Jackson is not guilty does not understand or know how the laws which he is now being prosecuted by came into existence. Briefly...after Michael was able to pay off the family of the boy who, among other things, was readily able to identify Michael's privates in a police line up of photographs...the State of California immediately passed a series of laws that would specifically prevent Michael from ever being able to do that again. In essence that is what has happened here. The moment an accusation has been made and there is reasonable evidence to back that charge up it is now entirely in the State's control. A situation created solely by what happened the last time Michael stood accused of this. I hope he gets a cell with Bubba.

[rorythedog]

Sorry Roj but ANYBODY who for one moment thinks Jackson is not guilty does not understand or know how the laws which he is now being prosecuted by came into existence. Briefly...after Michael was able to pay off the family of the boy who, among other things, was readily able to identify Michael's privates in a police line up of photographs...the State of California immediately passed a series of laws that would specifically prevent Michael from ever being able to do that again. In essence that is what has happened here. The moment an accusation has been made and there is reasonable evidence to back that charge up it is now entirely in the State's control. A situation created solely by what happened the last time Michael stood accused of this. I hope he gets a cell with Bubba.

Well I still think he's innocent, so there.

[jkrzok]

hasn't his bail been revoked? I believe I heard something about that today on the radio. That if he wasn't in the courtroom by some time, his bail would be revoked, and he would have to sit the rest of his trial time (and perhaps longer after that) in jail.

A bench warrent for MJ's arrest was issued by the trial judge when MJ failed to show for the trial on time. He was given a time limit by that judge to appear which he missed by four minutes. The judge decided to not to revoke bail.

Not that I'm watching the trial or anything. ;)

[acushla]

Well I still think he's innocent, so there.

Really! So if he came over and wanted to take your young sons out to a movie and a sleep over at his house...I assume you'd let him. With no second thoughts. Glad your not my father.

[carbonize]

I believe the saying is innocent until proven guilty. Latest news is he is bankrupt.

[acushla]

I believe the saying is innocent until proven guilty. Latest news is he is bankrupt.

Interesting that you didn't answer my question. Given your logic then I guess you think that O.J. really didn't do it. Rumours of Jackson's impending bankruptcy have been circulating for years...not sure what that has to do with his guilt.

[carbonize]

Call me a sceptic but I find it funny that this is meant to have been going on for years with quite a few children and yet it's only just come out? I think the only way the truth would ever be known is if the judge makes it so that if found guilty he can only be sued for a maximum of a million in damages. Even thats a bit high but American legal system has always been stupid.

[acushla]

Call me a sceptic but I find it funny that this is meant to have been going on for years with quite a few children and yet it's only just come out? I think the only way the truth would ever be known is if the judge makes it so that if found guilty he can only be sued for a maximum of a million in damages. Even thats a bit high but American legal system has always been stupid.

Call me a cynic but 'going on for years' just illustrates what being in a privileged position with tons of money can do for you. I believe a number of people have known for some time and they wanted to be absolutely certain they had an air tight case against him so he wouldn't escape justice. I'm not sure what passes for justice in a case like this but I'm willing to bet that my justice would be considerably different from whatever justice is going to be dealt to him. Does anybody recall it being reported that he spent a lot of time in Thailand where access to his little friends was very easy and beyond the bounds of American law?

[rorythedog]

Really! So if he came over and wanted to take your young sons out to a movie and a sleep over at his house...I assume you'd let him. With no second thoughts. Glad your not my father.

Well I don't have any kids but you're right, I wouldn't let him near them. I'm not saying he isn't a weirdo, he surely is. I just don't think he's guilty of child molestation, that's all. I don't think he has it in him.

[Inthewoods]

OK, I've read the thread quickly for the first time, and given that this has been supposedly going on for years and has been well publicized for years, somebody needs to be prosecuting some PARENTS for knowingly putting their kids in harm's way (or not caring enough to keep them away from him).

[acushla]

Well I don't have any kids but you're right, I wouldn't let him near them. I'm not saying he isn't a weirdo, he surely is. I just don't think he's guilty of child molestation, that's all. I don't think he has it in him.

So when he paid of his accuser over a decade ago (the one who identified Jackson's privates in a Police photo line up) and prompted California to immediately legislate a series of laws that would prevent Jackson from employing the same tactic twice...YOU don't think he has it in him. If you didn't think he had it in him then what would be wrong if your non existent kids hung out with him? Is it possible that somewhere inside you there is a doubt?

[rorythedog]

So when he paid of his accuser over a decade ago (the one who identified Jackson's privates in a Police photo line up) and prompted California to immediately legislate a series of laws that would prevent Jackson from employing the same tactic twice...YOU don't think he has it in him. If you didn't think he had it in him then what would be wrong if your non existent kids hung out with him? Is it possible that somewhere inside you there is a doubt?

Of course I have doubts. I don't know the guy personally so it could be true. I wouldn't let my kids hang out with him because he's weird. He's not well adjusted, as they say. But then I wouldn't want my kids to hang out with adults generally. Kids are sexualized way too early these days anyway. Cases like this don't help.

Man, when I was young I didn't even know what a paedophile was. I'd never even heard the term until I was about 20 or something. Now all kids know about this kind of stuff. If he was known to have been "at it" years ago, why wasn't it dealt with then?

Which reminds me of a recent occurence in the Scottish Parliament. It would seem MSP's have been "debating" whether or not adults "grooming" young kids for sexual purposes should be made illegal or not. What?! You mean it isn't already? Seems everybody's too damned concerned with making money to give a damn about their kids.

This is probably for another thread so I won't go on.

Rant over.

[acushla]

Of course I have doubts. I don't know the guy personally so it could be true. I wouldn't let my kids hang out with him because he's weird. He's not well adjusted, as they say. But then I wouldn't want my kids to hang out with adults generally. Kids are sexualized way too early these days anyway. Cases like this don't help.

Man, when I was young I didn't even know what a paedophile was. I'd never even heard the term until I was about 20 or something. Now all kids know about this kind of stuff. If he was known to have been "at it" years ago, why wasn't it dealt with then?

Which reminds me of a recent occurence in the Scottish Parliament. It would seem MSP's have been "debating" whether or not adults "grooming" young kids for sexual purposes should be made illegal or not. What?! You mean it isn't already? Seems everybody's too damned concerned with making money to give a damn about their kids.

This is probably for another thread so I won't go on.

Rant over.

I understand what you mean in regards to the Scottish Parliament. If there is one thing about Canada that disturbs me the most it is the way our courts dispense justice...or lack thereof. There are many examples to choose from but one that ties in with this thread can be viewed here: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/07/16/544798.html

[rorythedog]

And his perversion is referred to as an "aberration"!

Do you know of any good Canadian forums? Particularly Ontarian? Ones with a political bent?

I'll be damned if I can find any.

[acushla]

And his perversion is referred to as an "aberration"!

Do you know of any good Canadian forums? Particularly Ontarian? Ones with a political bent?

I'll be damned if I can find any.

Not only an aberration but with a million images (the majority of which were the 'worst' kind of sadistic use of babies) dating over 20 years locked in a steel bunker...he is at low risk to re-offend! Who is making these decisions?

Onto your request...

Here's one that looks as it might fill the bill: http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4473&start=0

I entered Ontario forums+Politics into GOOGLE and a number of sites popped up. You might check some of those. Good luck.

[rorythedog]

Thanks for the link. I'm on it. Seems at first glance to be the usual Canada v USA flame war. I'll watch it for a while though.

My mate caught me completely off guard today with this.

Q. How do you know when it's midnight in Neverland?

A. When the big hands on the wee hand.

Boom Boom!

[acushla]

Thanks for the link. I'm on it. Seems at first glance to be the usual Canada v USA flame war. I'll watch it for a while though.

My mate caught me completely off guard today with this.

Q. How do you know when it's midnight in Neverland?

A. When the big hands on the wee hand.

Boom Boom!

I know what your friend means...and I know it was well intenchened...but I am going to tell you...I consider myself a very liberal type of person but I truly believe there are one or two things that are beyond the scope of comedy. In other words...by their very nature they preclude humour. Can you guess what one of them is?

[Todd The Kiwi]

i'd better not tell the file joke then... :paranoid:

[acushla]

I don't believe Whacko Jacko is guilty, I think he's just a big kid inside. Doesn't really see what he is doing in anyway wierd, or wrong even.
I don't believe in capital punishment either, like's been expressed already in this thread what if your wrong? What would you do if you realised that the man or woman you'd sent to their death was innocent? Theres a reason people who goto prison get TV's, Radio's... jobs even some of them - that is because in prison they're stipped of everything, possessions, rights etc. There is nothing else to take away from them, you can't punish an inmate further. There only there to provide further punishment ie. it all gets taken away. I think on a level of petty crime - theft etc, I think most people, all they need is a short sharp shock to the system, 2months in prison with nothing, and to be removed from the system before they get a chance to adjust themselves to it.

I lived my life for many years thinking jail was an option. The I spent one night in jail...guess what? It was no longer a option. Trust me...you DO NOT want to find yourself inside.

[acushla]

Eccentric does not equal harmful. The guy is indisputably dancing to his own drummer but that doesn't make him a menace. You want fans who were dangerous to society? Try Charlie Manson's "family". I hardly place Mr. Jackson in the same category.

If Mr. Jackson is molesting children then you are correct in your assertion that that doesn't place him in the same category as Charlie.

I'm curious as to whether you'd let your youngsters go and spend an unsupervised weekend at Michael's Neverland Ranch?

[acushla]

You and I are definitely on the same page with this one - as I said: "asexual by choice".

I guess you haven't heard ANY of the transcripts from the trial.

[acushla]

The punishments of earlier times were decidedly barbarous in nature (cutting off miscellaneous body parts, killing a 12 year old boy because he stole bread to feed his family, torturing someone to death because they had an alternate religious belief). I'd like to think (hope?) that as time passes, our so-called "moral" attitudes change and with them the way we punish offenders.

Intuitively I am aware that I need to be very, very careful when I read your posts in this forum. Careful because it would seem to me that you are often addressing larger issues which I consider a brilliant use of this thread. If we insist on talking about Jackson then lets at least use the opportunity to learn something about the world and ourselves. There was a certain relief when I read that as time passes our 'moral' attitudes change...hopefully that would include how we view persons who choose young children as their sexual partners.

[Todd The Kiwi]

i worked with a dude who went to jail once (for drugs i think)
he said the first thing you do when you get inside is single out a kiddie *ucker
and smash him, smash him so hard he thinks he's going to die from his injuries
and keep wasting the piece of shit until you get taken away.
when you return from solitary, it's common knoweledge that you are a scrapper
not a kiddie *uckers friend.

"There was a certain relief when I read that as time passes our 'moral' attitudes change...hopefully that would include how we view persons who choose young children as their UNWILLING sexual partners."

not me, a fork is a fork, a drunk driving idiot is a drunk driving idiot
and a child molesting piece of shite is exactly that.

phew, textual lividity is difficult!

[acushla]

[QUOTE=Todd The Kiwi]"There was a certain relief when I read that as time passes our 'moral' attitudes change...hopefully that would include how we view persons who choose young children as their UNWILLING sexual partners."QUOTE]

I cannot think of ANYTHING that is more reprehensible than the type of adult we are discussing. I think what is being suggested here is that we begin to view these individuals as 'sick' rather than criminals. My response to that is...too bad. I do not care what the 'reason' is...at the very least it should be treated exactly the same way sex with an underage minor is handled. Here in Canada if the minor is one day prior to their legal birthday...you might as well pull your tongue out of your mouth. The police and courts do not want to hear anything you have to say...the person was a minor...end of story. You abuse a child...there is NOTHING to say, there is no 'excuse'...end of story.

[Shadowraven]

I know I'm entering this thread rather late, and I apologize for the length, but...

I personally believe that he is guilty as hell and it's not just because he's a freak. I've heard what investigators have had to say about him and witnessed his own words and behavior. To me it all adds up that he probably IS guilty. However, I'm not in the courtroom and able to hear all the testimony and evidence. But, just because nothing has happened to him before now doesn't mean there was no evidence of guilt. Prosecutors will often hold back cases for years just to collect enough evidence for a solid conviction, especially against a celebrity like MJ with money to burn.

One thing I can caution you about though is don't judge by appearance. Someone said that they don't think MJ has it in him. It's my job to watch inmates all day long and I can tell you that alot of the people that molest children don't look like they would. If you were to meet a child molester, you would probably never know it. The same can be said for some psychotic killers. It takes alot of contact with both types to begin to get the feel that there is something unpleasant about them, and that doesn't always happen. I get that feeling with MJ. Now I'll be the first person to tell you that there is nothing wrong with being weird or different, but I feel he's beyond that. To inmates the lowest form of life is a sex offender (they'll beat the tar out of them) and the lowest sex offender is the child molester (they have NO mercy on them, we must keep them separate)

I personally see nothing wrong with parents occasionally letting THEIR kids sleep in THEIR bed with THEM. However, I would NEVER let MY kids sleep even with my friends, much less a stranger.

I know I'm dredging up a subject already discussed here but...
I think there is nothing wrong with executing a murderer, with one caveat, you better be damn sure that they are guilty BEFORE you do it. The problem is that it is hard to be 100% sure of a killer's guilt. There have been too many false convictions (and executions) when a prosecutor or judge refused to look at new evidence because they couldn't admit that they might have been wrong. When you execute an innocent person it's impossible to take it back. I've seen enough injustice, stubborness, and plain stupidity in the system to believe we can ever be that sure of a conviction.

As for making inmates work, there are instances where it is feasible to do so. However, some present such a security risk or are such a behaviorial problem, you can't get anything worthwhile out of them. Many of them are like big kids, and like kids, have no sense of responsibility. I hear stories all day about how THEY are not guilty, it was someone else's fault, or they were in a bad situation. Many of them seem believe it too. They simply refuse to take responsibility for their own actions or situations. It's easier to blame someone else or even society. It's the rare inmate I hear tell me it's their own stupid fault that they are there. MJ may feel the same way, that he is misunderstood. It doesn't make him any less guilty.

And acushla's right. Jail IS NOT a happy or a nice place, and I can guarantee that we do not go out of our way to make it one. I treat everyone like a person, but I make sure they know that they ARE NOT at the Mariott.

[Shadowraven]

If I have offended or upset anyone here with my last post here, I would like to apologize. I assure you that that was not my intention and I didn't mean to put anyone off their stride. I do generally enjoy debate, but I try not to actually offend anyone while doing so. I just wish I could have got in on the Iraq/Bush debate. I do so dislike that man!:gasmask:

If I did offend anyone, I am sorry.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

No worries mate ha ha. We're all fed up with Jackson probably anyways, hence no response.

About the death penalty (once again ;)), i heard a story not so long ago of a dutch woman who was to take interviews with convicted prisoners and happened to fall in love with one of the captives (an American) after some exchange of letters. What she then did, even though this man is facing a death penalty because he killed 2 people when he was in a drunken state, she married him. The man was allowed to be in touch with her for half an our during the ceremony and was then put behind glass again. Can you guys believe this? So these people are in love, married, yet knowing that the man will be dead in two years time. Doesnt this injustify the death penalty? I mean, how cruel can you be? This man, from what ive seen on the telly would never kill again.

Okay, so there are other cases where a mindless killer just tries to buy his way out of prison via meeting a girl and 'faking' affection to her. Of course, this will never work. But it does go to show how easily it can be do get the death penalty in the US, where as in Europe the individual would maybe not even get life sentence.

Funny enough there is this other incidence in the prison of Alcatraz (i think) where foreign people were kept who were thought to be linked to the 11/9 disaster in Manhattan. There was no evidence that these inmates actually were responsible yet were treated worse than convicted US citizens. And then i am talking about real bad treatment, like leaving an inmate in a cell with the light on 24/7. Who believes that the US justice system is ideal, is out of his mind. (I wonder how many people i have offended now ;) Don't take my point of view personally :) )

[acushla]

No worries mate ha ha. We're all fed up with Jackson probably anyways, hence no response.

About the death penalty (once again ;)), i heard a story not so long ago of a dutch woman who was to take interviews with convicted prisoners and happened to fall in love with one of the captives (an American) after some exchange of letters. What she then did, even though this man is facing a death penalty because he killed 2 people when he was in a drunken state, she married him. The man was allowed to be in touch with her for half an our during the ceremony and was then put behind glass again. Can you guys believe this? So these people are in love, married, yet knowing that the man will be dead in two years time. Doesn't this injustify the death penalty? I mean, how cruel can you be? This man, from what ive seen on the telly would never kill again.

Okay, so there are other cases where a mindless killer just tries to buy his way out of prison via meeting a girl and 'faking' affection to her. Of course, this will never work. But it does go to show how easily it can be do get the death penalty in the US, where as in Europe the individual would maybe not even get life sentence.

Funny enough there is this other incidence in the prison of Alcatraz (i think) where foreign people were kept who were thought to be linked to the 11/9 disaster in Manhattan. There was no evidence that these inmates actually were responsible yet were treated worse than convicted US citizens. And then i am talking about real bad treatment, like leaving an inmate in a cell with the light on 24/7. Who believes that the US justice system is ideal, is out of his mind. (I wonder how many people i have offended now ;) Don't take my point of view personally :) )

I personally am in favour of the death penalty although I qualify that statement that it be administered for heinous crimes involving children, death or mutilation and ONLY in those cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT whatsoever. At least this is a starting point.

Since you yourself open the door to '...Don't take my point of view personally' I am going to tell you the same thing...'Don't take my point of view personally'

Are you out of your mind?' Doesn't this injustify the death penalty? I mean, how cruel can you be? This man, from what ive seen on the telly would never kill again. I could write a chapter on these three sentences! Some crazy woman marries this guy while he is in jail so this is reason enough to set him free?

Killed not one but two people while he was in a drunken state... but you've seen him on the 'telly' and say he will never kill again. First of all...what does killing again have to do with his current situation? Secondly...you seem to suggest that one is not really responsible for one's actions when one is drunk. You are not only responsible for your actions when you are drunk you are responsible for your action of getting drunk. Never kill again? Do you have any idea how many people, recognizing a drinking 'problem' join AA and vow never to drink again who do not even make it through the first 30 days'?

No justice system I am aware of is ideal but I do believe you have it right on this point. A lot has gone on in the American justice system since 9/11 and although I do not excuse it...I do understand it. 9/11 was a horrific act of drastic proportions which have given rise to vigilance of drastic proportions. The US would rather err on the side of caution than to have to deal with the consequences of not acting at all. What we don't hear are the success stories of suspects taken into cusody...for obvious reasons. No, it is not right, unless of course you consider that means justify ends.

[gsb521]

I have actually softened up quite a bit in terms of the death penalty. While I think it should be used, I understand all against it. (As I said before, read The Chamber by Grisham.)

I understand that people do horrible things. I understand that others may have had their lives ruined, destroyed, or otherwise taken as a result of the crimes. I understand that it costs an enormous amount of tax dollars to keep people in jail.

I also believe that it is wrong to use the death penalty in many of the cases it is being used. I personally believe that a sentencing should not include a death penalty, but rather some sort of trial that is scheduled x years from the actual sentencing. (Joe gets life sentence, and a death penalty examination after 15 years.). If a person has changed in that span of time, they should certainly live. Their families shouldn't suffer the loss of a changed man, that many wouldn't even know as the murderer that he once was. Guys learn. And if they don't, by all means, do what you need.

[Shadowraven]

Thanks Rex Mundi I appreciate that. Usually when people learn what I do for a living I get that frozen smile and the "isn't that nice" comment. Then they become all nervous around me and act like I'm venomous or something. My wife thinks it's funny, I myself am not so enamored of it. I'm glad I didn't offend anyone.

As for the death penalty itself, I agree with it in theory. We don't need to allow some of these people to live after what they've done. However, I've seen too much stupidity in the court system to feel 100% comfortable enough to actually execute someone. If you execute a man you better be damn sure he's guilty, you can't take it back if you're wrong. If even one innocent man is executed for a crime he did not commit, then that is one too many. And so far there has been much more than one innocent man executed. If we can't fix that, then we have no business killing anybody. You might say there are some where there can be no doubt of guilt, but I've seen one like that that turned out to NOT be guilty. There may be some where guilt CAN'T be doubted (large number of witnesses), but there certainly aren't many like that. How would you like to be executed for a murder you didn't commit? The problem is that there is too much personal interest involved in some convictions to completely trust them.

If we want to punish murderers there may be better, but less humane, ways to do it. We can certainly make their stay as miserable as possible (which we can't do now in the USA) without torturing them (NEVER an option, it's barbaric). We could remove many of the priviledges and entertainment outlets that they get now and separate them from normal interpersonal contact. That is REAL punishment to them, I assure you. The problem is that it also requires more security and personnel to watch them under those circumstances, since they will act out more often.

What do you guys think may be good options for punishment, besides the Death Penalty? Or do think that is the best and ONLY option?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

What do you guys think may be good options for punishment, besides the Death Penalty? Or do think that is the best and ONLY option?

Well, simple really. If the individual committed numerous crimes including killing people, he/she should be locked up forever.

I've been wondering about war criminals. Generals who commanded a whole force to massacre whole villages (cf Kosovo, Tjetjenia,...), if they were by chance in the US, would they recieve the death penalty? Or is it because of their enourmous wealth, they can buy their way out? It would already seem a whole task for the The Hague tribunal to get these 'monsters' locked up for the rest of their lives. The procedure is endless.

[acushla]

I know I'm entering this thread rather late

I do not believe there is such a thing as entering a thread (of this nature) too late...not if you have something worthwhile to contribute to it. Which you did.

[acushla]

Usually when people learn what I do for a living

I believe that one of the greatest enjoyments and gifts/advantage a forum of this nature offers is that it brings together a group of people from every corner of the world who share one thing in common, namely an (excellent) audio player named QUINTESSENTIAL. Apart from this there is really nothing else we share in common…except for our humanity and uniqueness and, most importantly, our desire to share and exchange ideas, thoughts, feelings and opinions with people who enjoy doing the same. I suspect that many of you are in the same position I am in as much as few of my friends (of which I have even less!) really want to discuss the wide range of topics presented to us everyday. So…when I find out what you do for a living I am fascinated and pleased…and before I can ask some of the questions I want to ask…you have already answered them. Why pleased? Who is better equipped in experience and exposure to make some of the observations and conclusions than somebody in your position? Certainly not me! Not Rex. (Hell...not even Roj...this time :ponder: ) Where else might Rex Mundi or myself have been able to meet somebody who does what you do? As a result you bring a certain authority to this discussion…and that makes it even more interesting. Never be afraid to be who you are..

I'm glad I didn't offend anyone.

You know…you can’t please all the people all...well, you know the rest. Sometimes you will offend people but I believe that it always comes down to ‘it’s not what we say…it’s how we say it!’ Following that line of thought…if somebody is offended that’s his/her problem…not yours.

I've seen too much stupidity in the court system to feel 100% comfortable enough to actually execute someone.

Herein of-course lies the root of the problem. It is a huge problem. It is, for the time being, a problem that has no solution.

If we want to punish murderers there may be better, but less humane, ways to do it. We can certainly make their stay as miserable as possible…

If you subscribe to your first point of not executing a prisoner on the possibility that he might be innocent…’how would I like to be executed for a crime I didn’t commit?’…well…I also wouldn’t like to have my stay in prison to be made as miserable as possible if I was innocent. God…you know with all the advances in the world and modern medicine in particular, you would have thought that somebody would have come up with some type of serum (like in the movies) that, once administered, would establish guilt or not. Perhaps science would be doing ALL of us a favour if they made this a priority. Knowing that everybody who was going to the electric chair now was guilty…what say you?

What do you guys think may be good options for punishment, besides the Death Penalty? Or do think that is the best and ONLY option?

This would be my choice. It was devised in the (I’m guessing) middle ages and involved keeping the prisoner chained to a wall for approximately 5 days with no food or water. At the same time there was a type of face mask made of iron strips put together in a criss cross manner creating square holes in which he was able to see out This mask extended about 12" from his nose. In the middle of the mask was a sliding door. On the other side of the door were 6 rats. 6 rats that had been put in the cage the same time the prisoner was chained to the dungeon wall. On the 6th day the door separating the rats from the face was removed.

The moral of this story of course is...DON'T MESS WITH ME! :evil:

[Todd The Kiwi]

To inmates the lowest form of life is a sex offender (they'll beat the tar out of them) and the lowest sex offender is the child molester (they have NO mercy on them, we must keep them separate)
now wouldn't that be a 'fair' punishment...

practically though i think public flogging would be the best
or castration with a sledgehammer.

[acushla]

or castration with a sledgehammer.

OUCH!!! I wish I hadn't read that. That's just gotta' hurt. You know what I mean?

[Shadowraven]

if somebody is offended that’s his/her problem…not yours.

That's true and I couldn't agree more, but my belief system (Wicca) requires that I at least try to not purposely give offense. I'm not a lunatic about it, but neither do I go out of my way to piss someone off.

I also wouldn’t like to have my stay in prison to be made as miserable as possible if I was innocent.

That's understandable, but at least you could be partially compensated in that case. But how would we make it up to you if you were dead? Also making life hard for the convict would be restricted to truly serious crimes, not run-of-the-mill types. I suspect in your case it wasn't a violent crime. That's what I had in mind.

Knowing that everybody who was going to the electric chair now was guilty...what say you?

I'd say damn the appeals. Send them straight from the courtroom and light 'em up. We can let them ride the lightning straight to hell. I've been told that in Russia they execute you within 48 hrs of your conviction (Lich would probably know better than I). I have no problem with actually doing it, so long as we can be absolutely SURE. Unfortunately it's unlikely we would be able to do this through biochemistry as I understand it. However, technology and computers may hold an answer. My wife would at this point remind me that I'm an incurable computer geek.

On the 6th day the door separating the rats from the face was removed.

While entertaining in a macabre fashion, that would hardly be an option (or civilized) in today's societies. Even if it would be HIGHLY satisfying to the injured parties.

practically though i think public flogging would be the best
or castration with a sledgehammer.

I'd say that would be a fair enough treatment for the rapists and molesters out there. By the way that reminds me of a discussion I had with a Mexican inmate one time. He said that when they caught a child molester, they wouldn't bother to call the police right away. Instead they would tie him to a pole in the middle of town and let anyone do anything they liked to him. This would of course include the parents and the use of hammers, fists, machetes, baseball bats, etc. By the time the police arrived there wouldn't be much left. Needless to say, he said that they had little trouble with molesters. Now that could have been just a story, but from what I know of the culture, it is also likely to be the case.

[acushla]

if somebody is offended that’s his/her problem…not yours.

That's true and I couldn't agree more, but my belief system (Wicca) requires that I at least try to not purposely give offense. I'm not a lunatic about it, but neither do I go out of my way to piss someone off.

I did try to qualify that statement as best I could by pointing out that often times 'it is not what we say...it's how we say it.' I To express ourselves through the written word...which does not have the benefit of gestures, body language, facial expressions and intonation...coupled with the luxury of the instant retort or qualification...not only is this method of discussion difficult...it is hard work!

I personally take the position that nobody is out to offend me (or whatever) and if I read something that I think is that, I look at myself...not at the person writing. I ask myself 'why do I think that since I know it isn't true.' How can I interpret this the way it was really intended. Failing that...I'll ask. I know I am naive but it is hard to believe that anybody who is a member brought together by the love of music is going to purposely waste not only our time but theirs as well. How sad if that was the case. I always maintain that we would be able to zero in on that individual fairly quickly...and hopefully show him/her how they could participate in a meaningful way.

What is Wicca?

[Roj]

I've purposefully stayed away formt his thread because the whole 'trendy media conjecture" thing is tiresome as far as I'm concerned. That being said...

It's my job to watch inmates all day long and I can tell you that alot of the people that molest children don't look like they would.

It's currently part of my job to track those same people in an Internet setting and I have to agree with you. Personally, while I do think MJ is seriously twisted inside (that much is obvious if only from what he has done to his appearance over time), I somehow don't think that he does "have it in him" - at least not on a conscious level. Dual personality? Who knows - but I don't think that if he is indeed a sex offender that it's something that lies within his control to initiate or stop. As far as judging by appearances, do note that Janet and Latoya have also gone under the knife in a similar way, albeit in a much less drastic fashion. In fact at one point in time you could have put Michael and Janet on opposite sides of the same coin, flip that coin and... You see what I mean. While Latoya is a rather obviously shallow creature trying to ride on the fame of her siblings, the other is quite a bit different.

Thus far I haven't seen anything in the media that goes beyond the circumstantial - unless the prosecution is planning a "big surprize" for us all. Mind you, I haven't really been paying much attention to the media coverage either. Witch hunts and what has become the de riguer sensationalist media feeding frenzy of a psuedo-journalistic industry utterly devoid of ethics and responsibility doesn't appeal to me.

Just my two cents, seasonally adjusted for inflation.

[Shadowraven]

Roj I have to say I agree with you on one thing. The media is great for concentrating on non-issues to the exclusions of the real ones. American media in particular seems overly fascinated with what celebrities are doing. I myself could care less about them. I've got enough to concern me in my own life, without worrying about someone I don't even know.

Lately, I've started believing that that concentration of attention is NOT accidental. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything like one. However, I do believe that they are trying to divert attention away from the real issues this country faces internally. After all, who owns the media? Corporate conglomerates who own a lot more than just media companies. Their primary goal is to make money and they have no real interest in showing us what is really going on. We may object if we did. I say this because I've seen several important stories either missed or merely glossed over by our news. Look at what happened in the 2000 election with Dubya. From what I've seen, there is enough evidence for a serious investigation to be conducted. Maybe even an impeachment or prosecution. He has certainly done enough since then to BE impeached. But my government, along with the media, have managed to lull the American people into believing nothing is wrong! I only know about these other stories because I listen to the BBC and read foreign news outlets. The conservatives here have done a great job with the media in getting people to believe just what they want them to. Too many people in the U.S. are willing to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the problems. It's more comforting to believe nothing is wrong. I CAN'T do that. That is why I'm politically active in trying to make a change. (Steps down off soapbox and thanks audience)

[rorythedog]

Welcome to the fold.

For the record, I'm not a conspiracy theorist either, but...

[Roj]

Welcome to the fold.

For the record, I'm not a conspiracy theorist either, but...

...when you have a pathetic domestic policy and you need to divert the rubes, er, public from scrutinizing too closely the too-close-for-comfort business dealings with Saudi oil families that your family participates in and the carnage happening in a country that's supposed to be amazingly free and democratic because of one's decision to intervene...

Then of course you have the wonderfully interesting laws being passed to take away the rights of consumers in terms of fair use of (guess what!) media-giant owned products like CDs and DVDs...

"Quick!!! Divert Them!!! Don't Let Them Look At The Man Behind The Curtain!!!!!!!!!!!! If they see him, they'll advance on our infrastructure with pitchforks and torches and we won't have the placid and docile sheep that we can milk at our liesure for power and money!!!!!!!!!! It could ruin our whole day!! AAAAAUUUUGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Nah - FAR too obvious, no? It couldn't possibly be. Not In The Land Of The American Dream.

NopeNopeNopeNopeNope.

[rorythedog]

I agree, but i'd go easy on the "...american Dream" part. This shit is comiing your way soon. Mark my words. We have exactly the same problem here. Even when I' ve known of a big story here in the Uk for some time, our "media" (and I include the BBC) are covering some ridiculous, pointless story about Paedophiles, Illegal software, the HUGE dangers of going at more than 10mph on a loch in the middle of England.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I really don't think they're clever enough for that. But it's got a lot to do with, as you say Roj, people burying their heads in the sand. I don't know about you, but most of my aspirational friends are so busy trying to make ends meet that they don't even really attempt to keep up to date with World Affairs. So if the News media are going to do a show, why not do it about something that's cheap. Something easy.

Nevermind though, the Chinese are coming to the party. They'll save us. :carrot:

[Roj]

I agree, but i'd go easy on the "...american Dream" part. This shit is comiing your way soon. Mark my words. We have exactly the same problem here. Even when I' ve known of a big story here in the Uk for some time, our "media" (and I include the BBC) are covering some ridiculous, pointless story about Paedophiles, Illegal software, the HUGE dangers of going at more than 10mph on a loch in the middle of England.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I really don't think they're clever enough for that. But it's got a lot to do with, as you say Roj, people burying their heads in the sand. I don't know about you, but most of my aspirational friends are so busy trying to make ends meet that they don't even really attempt to keep up to date with World Affairs. So if the News media are going to do a show, why not do it about something that's cheap. Something easy.

Nevermind though, the Chinese are coming to the party. They'll save us. :carrot:

I know it's coming our way soon - there's a post from acushla detailing how our House is about to try and pass a law on the whole file sharing thing after a judge had already ruled it legal. That ass-kiss to the entertainment industry was directly sponsored by Warners and the other media thugs, er, conglomerates. And I am saying they're that smart - where money is involved, inordinate amounts of intelligence congregates. And there is a LOT of money at stake. The entertainment conglomerates stand to lose control, something they've had since the beginning. That alone is cause for some major use of Depends in that camp.

The funny thing is that they can't win - they just don't know it yet.

And yes, if you're being taxed out of existance, you're too busy trying to stay afloat to worry about silly insignificant things like your total loss of freedom and self-determination and fair use.

As to the Chinese coming to the party, from a techie perspective all I can do is shudder violently. Now THAT would hurt.

[madjo]

I agree, but i'd go easy on the "...american Dream" part. This shit is comiing your way soon. Mark my words. We have exactly the same problem here. Even when I' ve known of a big story here in the Uk for some time, our "media" (and I include the BBC) are covering some ridiculous, pointless story about Paedophiles, Illegal software, the HUGE dangers of going at more than 10mph on a loch in the middle of England.
Indeed... I feel quite the same.. I guess it happens in most if not all of the "western" countries.. It is most disturbed to see that the discussion about e-patents is being hushed in the Dutch media... but I'm getting off topic. :)

[acushla]

I've purposefully stayed away formt his thread because the whole 'trendy media conjecture" thing is tiresome as far as I'm concerned. That being said...

It's my job to watch inmates all day long and I can tell you that alot of the people that molest children don't look like they would.

It's currently part of my job to track those same people in an Internet setting and I have to agree with you. Personally, while I do think MJ is seriously twisted inside (that much is obvious if only from what he has done to his appearance over time), I somehow don't think that he does "have it in him" - at least not on a conscious level. Dual personality? Who knows - but I don't think that if he is indeed a sex offender that it's something that lies within his control to initiate or stop. As far as judging by appearances, do note that Janet and Latoya have also gone under the knife in a similar way, albeit in a much less drastic fashion. In fact at one point in time you could have put Michael and Janet on opposite sides of the same coin, flip that coin and... You see what I mean. While Latoya is a rather obviously shallow creature trying to ride on the fame of her siblings, the other is quite a bit different.

Thus far I haven't seen anything in the media that goes beyond the circumstantial - unless the prosecution is planning a "big surprize" for us all. Mind you, I haven't really been paying much attention to the media coverage either. Witch hunts and what has become the de riguer sensationalist media feeding frenzy of a psuedo-journalistic industry utterly devoid of ethics and responsibility doesn't appeal to me.

Just my two cents, seasonally adjusted for inflation.

So...is that a yes...I DO like the Daily Show and Lewis Black?

[Roj]

So...is that a yes...I DO like the Daily Show and Lewis Black?

LOL!

Oh, and delete some of your private messages - I can't answer you until you do. :)

[acushla]

LOL!

Oh, and delete some of your private messages - I can't answer you until you do. :)

Gee...nobody told me there would be so much to learn when I joined QUINTESSENTIAL!!!

Empty.

[Shadowraven]

acushla said:
What is Wicca?

I'll start a new thread to deal with that question.

[Todd The Kiwi]

looks like jacko could go down big time.
if i believe what i saw on tv lastnight... :apple:

[acushla]

looks like jacko could go down big time.
if i believe what i saw on tv lastnight... :apple:

I think you're right on this one. I have a question though. Should the jury find him guilty on any of the counts in this trial...everybody knows there will be an appeal. My question is this. During the time that the appeal winds its way through the halls of justice...does he remain out on bail or does he start serving time?

[Shadowraven]

Usually it means that the defendant will be serving time, because even though they are putting in an appeal, they've been found guilty of the crime. But they may delay sentencing, or any other number of things, in his case. I certainly wouldn't want to make a bet that he will serve time before an appeal is over with. After all, he's got money.

[acushla]

Usually it means that the defendant will be serving time, because even though they are putting in an appeal, they've been found guilty of the crime. But they may delay sentencing, or any other number of things, in his case. I certainly wouldn't want to make a bet that he will serve time before an appeal is over with. After all, he's got money.

Unfortunately, I think you are right again. We'll just have to wait and see. Perhaps there will be some startling revelations that will prove beyond a doubt that he is guilty of being a child molester and any basis to appeal will have been eliminated. One can only hope.

One consolation to all this is the realization that if he is 'guilty' then, if he escapes a guilty verdict now, it only means that it awaits him somewhere further down the line.

[Shadowraven]

Well acushla that certainly has been par for the course so far in the U.S. The justice you get is directly proportional with how rich (or influential) you are. Look at OJ Simpson, or Enron. Both guilty as hell and both still free. As far as I'm concerned I live in a Plutocracy, not a democracy. For one thing the way the electoral college is set up, you're pretty much guaranteed not to get what you voted for if someone with power and influence wants to change it. Not to mention the way they can rig an election if they want to. I know the 2000 election was rigged and I suspect the 2004 election was too. So much for the land of the free. The only we we'll get a say is when people here get good and fed up and FORCE a change. God, I hope we can change it soon!!!

[acushla]

Well acushla that certainly has been par for the course so far in the U.S. The justice you get is directly proportional with how rich (or influential) you are. Look at OJ Simpson, or Enron. Both guilty as hell and both still free. As far as I'm concerned I live in a Plutocracy, not a democracy. For one thing the way the electoral college is set up, you're pretty much guaranteed not to get what you voted for if someone with power and influence wants to change it. Not to mention the way they can rig an election if they want to. I know the 2000 election was rigged and I suspect the 2004 election was too. So much for the land of the free. The only we we'll get a say is when people here get good and fed up and FORCE a change. God, I hope we can change it soon!!!

I have some glass bottles, various types of liquid, rags and matches I can give you...if that would help.

[Shadowraven]

I have some glass bottles, various types of liquid, rags and matches I can give you...if that would help.

Don't give me any ideas. It's bad enough I know how to make one with simple everyday kitchen supplies. Up The Revolution!

[rorythedog]

Unfortunately, I think you are right again. We'll just have to wait and see. Perhaps there will be some startling revelations that will prove beyond a doubt that he is guilty of being a child molester and any basis to appeal will have been eliminated. One can only hope.

One consolation to all this is the realization that if he is 'guilty' then, if he escapes a guilty verdict now, it only means that it awaits him somewhere further down the line.

I see you're "hoping" they find some "startling" evidence then. I don't sense much "presumption of innocence" in your remarks. That's a shame.

[acushla]

I see you're "hoping" they find some "startling" evidence then. I don't sense much "presumption of innocence" in your remarks. That's a shame.

You are absolutely right...I am 120% convinced that Michael is guilty. I've expressed earlier that 'innocence or guilt' do not a verdict await...he is innocent or guilty before the trial even begins.

I have the luxury to decide which camp I firmly plant my feet in and make my case for simply because it makes not one iota of difference what I think. Should I be sitting on the jury...well...that's an entirely different matter.

Personally I think that there is too great a pattern to ignore...and obviously so does the State of California...considering the fact that Michael is now being tried under laws that, in effect, he created, so he wouldn't be able to simply use his wealth to pay of victoms...as he did in the past.

I was having a discussion with my lady friend about this (she thinks he is innocent) and I asked her...all right...let's assume for a minute he is innocent of the worst of the actions he is on trial for...he has 13 year old boys running around the house drinking and viewing restricted material...is he guilty of anything here? Last time I viewed an art film it clearly states at the beginning of the film 'Not To Be Shown To Drunk 13 Year Old Boys In Neverland.' If he is guilty of this...well...what's up with that? Why is it that he has 13 year old boys in his mansion, drunk watching art films or looking at art magazines? Nobody seems to be making the case that this didn't go on. Just whether of not Michael was sitting next to them leafing through the same magazine.

Where there is smoke...there is fire.

[acushla]

Anybody still think Michael is innocent?

[Shadowraven]

Anybody still think Michael is innocent?

I know, I for one, almost never have. Why do you ask? Did something change recently? I haven't been paying much attention to him. Last I heard, things weren't looking too good for him.

[Todd The Kiwi]

Jackos opinion... :ninja:

[Roj]

I was having a discussion with my lady friend about this (she thinks he is innocent) and I asked her...all right...let's assume for a minute he is innocent of the worst of the actions he is on trial for...he has 13 year old boys running around the house drinking and viewing restricted material...is he guilty of anything here? Last time I viewed an art film it clearly states at the beginning of the film 'Not To Be Shown To Drunk 13 Year Old Boys In Neverland.' If he is guilty of this...well...what's up with that? Why is it that he has 13 year old boys in his mansion, drunk watching art films or looking at art magazines? Nobody seems to be making the case that this didn't go on. Just whether of not Michael was sitting next to them leafing through the same magazine.

Where there is smoke...there is fire.

Given that I originally come from a country that at that time didn't have an age limit for drinking (I have no idea about today), you might say I don't subscribe to tight-assed North American mores. I don't believe that kids running around drinking or watching so-called "restricted" material (restricted? Who defined the restriction? Some typical North American 90-year-old-professional-virgin of a censor?) constitutes a crime - and I'll never consider it one. Unwise? Perhaps. An indictable offence? Never. As to why that situation is the case I have no idea. As far as I'm concerned, it's just more grist for the mill in a witch hunt.

Anyone willing to convict on that flimsiness alone should be ashamed of themselves and if that's the best the Prosecution can muster, might I refer them to the Salem Trials as an example of a code of ethics and the National Inquirer as a viable source of evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty - and unless a lightning bolt strikes the Prosecution on the way to Damascus, they have nothing.

[acushla]

[QUOTE=Roj] I don't subscribe to tight-assed North American mores. I don't believe that kids running around drinking or watching so-called "restricted" material (restricted)?

No offence Roj, but I hardly feel Jamaica is a country we should be looking towards in order to determine codes of behaviour.

Using your logic of not subscribing to 'tight assed North American mores' ...I don't believe driving down a major freeway at 100km per hour makes any sense...I'm going to do 150km.

Who defined the restriction? Some typical North American 90-year-old-professional-virgin of a censor?) constitutes a crime - and I'll never consider it one. Unwise? Perhaps. An indictable offense? Never. As to why that situation is the case I have no idea. As far as I'm concerned, it's just more grist for the mill in a witch hunt.

Whatever governing body determined these laws, I can assure you the were not the product of a '90 year old professional virgin'...you have my word on that. The truth is that whoever defined this restriction of km per hour or the criminal code we are discussing...it certainly wasn't you or me...and the fact that it IS THE LAW...means it really doesn't matter what you or I think of it. Of course, more is known since these revelations...showers together...sleeping naked in bed with some of the boys...etc. etc. Not to mention the testimony of several boys, the former maid, and perhaps most damaging of all...the maids son.

I really want to say 'Get Real' Roj :disappoin ...the persecution bring ALL these accusations together to show a pattern of abuse. I don't have any problem at all of 13 year old boys running around a house drinking and watching restricted material. That's me at 13. I'll tell you this though...there wasn't any 40+ year old man pouring me the drinks and sitting leafing through the magazines with me. That, my friend...is a HUGE difference. That might be OK in your world...but it sure as hell isn't OK in my world. It would seem that this time I am in the majority.

You need to go back 12 or 13 years ago to truly understand this case. At that time Jackson was able to buy his way out of certain jail time (23 million dollars Roj)...what do you think? He gave the money so the kid could go out and buy himself anything he wanted? The state of California vowed that this would NEVER happen again, and immediately passed a series of laws which have been referred to at one time or the other as...The Michael Jackson Laws.

Innocent until proven guilty...

No Roj, wrong again...a man's true innocence or guilt have nothing to do with a courtroom. He is one or the other when he first walks into the courtroom. If the jury are right...then they'll get the innocence or guilt correct...but if they get it wrong then that in no way alters the FACT of a man's innocence or guilt.

Surely we learned something from the Simpson trial!

[Roj]

No offence Roj, but I hardly feel Jamaica is a country we should be looking towards in order to determine codes of behaviour.

Neither is a society run by 90-year-old-professional-virgins - what's your point?

Using your logic of not subscribing to 'tight assed North American mores' ...I don't believe driving down a major freeway at 100km per hour makes any sense...I'm going to do 150km.

I generally do 140 - 160 if I'm in a hurry. :)

Whatever governing body determined these laws, I can assure you the were not the product of a '90 year old professional virgin'...you have my word on that.

And as just one example, gay marriage is now law in North America with the US poised to adopt it widely at any second. Yup, all's well.

The truth is that whoever defined this restriction of km per hour or the criminal code we are discussing...it certainly wasn't you or me...and the fact that it IS THE LAW...means it really doesn't matter what you or I think of it.

Wrong.

We make and change laws.

Those laws and mores change from generation to generation.

That's A Good Thing.

Or would you rather we went back to stoning people to death for marrying their brother-in-law?

Of course, more is known since these revelations...showers together...sleeping naked in bed with some of the boys...etc. etc. Not to mention the testimony of several boys, the former maid, and perhaps most damaging of all...the maids son.

So let them get up on a stand and have the kangaroo court cross-examine them. I mean, we waited long enough for the show to begin and for the prosecution to dig all of this up, so send in the clowns! It wouldn't be the first time someone tried to discredit him - who knows, this one might actually be rooted in fact for a change.

I really want to say 'Get Real' Roj :disappoin ...the persecution bring ALL these accusations together to show a pattern of abuse. I don't have any problem at all of 13 year old boys running around a house drinking and watching restricted material. That's me at 13. I'll tell you this though...there wasn't any 40+ year old man pouring me the drinks and sitting leafing through the magazines with me. That, my friend...is a HUGE difference. That might be OK in your world...but it sure as hell isn't OK in my world. It would seem that this time I am in the majority.

Could be - until of course the NEXT generation comes along and it all changes yet again.

Regardless of what you may or may not think, NONE of the drinking and viewing is an indictable offence as far as I know. Unusual? Assuredly. Indictable?

And that would make all of it...

...irrelevant.

You need to go back 12 or 13 years ago to truly understand this case. At that time Jackson was able to buy his way out of certain jail time (23 million dollars Roj)...what do you think? He gave the money so the kid could go out and buy himself anything he wanted? The state of California vowed that this would NEVER happen again, and immediately passed a series of laws which have been referred to at one time or the other as...The Michael Jackson Laws.

The State of California getting morals suddenly?

What a freaking JOKE!!!!!!!

More likely he made a fool of them last time and the bureauocrats never forgot or forgave the embarassment.

No Roj, wrong again...a man's true innocence or guilt have nothing to do with a courtroom.

I'll drink to that.

However, the mindset behind a courtroom and the proof contained therein is what we aspire to. Pity it so often fails.

If we don't have those aspirations however, we have...

...you guessed it...

...WITCH HUNTS!!!!!!

YEAH!!!!!!

GET THE PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES AND LET'S HAVE A PARTY!!!!!!!!

He is one or the other when he first walks into the courtroom. If the jury are right...then they'll get the innocence or guilt correct...

I'd LOVE for you to explain that little point to the guy who went to jail for 20+ years in Canada and then was proven innocent. The case was prominently in the newspapers - you must remember it.

but if they get it wrong then that in no way alters the FACT of a man's innocence or guilt.

No - just the results which may alter his life or, if you live south of the border, take it away completely via lethal injection / frying with electricity / choking on poison gas / burning at the stake...

Big Consolation Prize, eh?

Surely we learned something from the Simpson trial!

Yeah - Johnny C is one hell of a shyster lawyer and dresses real nice.

Edit:

Please don't take the tone of the above as being directed at you. I'm just sick and tired of the whole damned mess and what the media does with it. I'm also sick of the hypocrisy of the so-called justice system and the holier-than-thou mucky moralistic attitude of those who love to claim to uphiold it and in fact are worse than some of those they prosecute. Most of all, I'm sick of the politicans who help make some of these laws. That was the politically correct and sanitized version, because this is after all a family oriented board.

Peace...

[acushla]

No offense Roj, but I hardly feel Jamaica is a country we should be looking towards in order to determine codes of behavior.

Neither is a society run by 90-year-old-professional-virgins - what's your point?

Using your logic of not subscribing to 'tight assed North American mores' ...I don't believe driving down a major freeway at 100km per hour makes any sense...I'm going to do 150km.

I generally do 140 - 160 if I'm in a hurry. :)

Be flippent...it saves having to think! Trust me...I employ this tactic myself...so when I see it used by others...I KNOW...:cross-eye

Whatever governing body determined these laws, I can assure you the were not the product of a '90 year old professional virgin'...you have my word on that.

And as just one example, gay marriage is now law in North America with the US poised to adopt it widely at any second. Yup, alls well.

The truth is that whoever defined this restriction of km per hour or the criminal code we are discussing...it certainly wasn't you or me...and the fact that it IS THE LAW...means it really doesn't matter what you or I think of it.

Wrong.

We make and change laws.

We certainly do...but until those laws are changed and become law, ...then we are under an obligation to obey them. Unless you are advocating outright Anarchy. Make your choice...it's one or the other.

Those laws and mores change from generation to generation.

That's A Good Thing.

It's a good thing if we think it is. Might end up being a bad thing...restrictions of privacy come to mind. Not to mention 'now it's legal to download...now it's not.'

Yup...change.

Or would you rather we went back to stoning people to death for marrying their brother-in-law?

Let me think about this.

Of course, more is known since these revelations...showers together...sleeping naked in bed with some of the boys...etc. etc. Not to mention the testimony of several boys, the former maid, and perhaps most damaging of all...the maids son.

So let them get up on a stand and have the kangaroo court cross-examine them. I mean, we waited long enough for the show to begin and for the prosecution to dig all of this up, so send in the clowns! It wouldn't be the first time someone tried to discredit him - who knows, this one might actually be rooted in fact for a change.

Roj...this I really don't understand. Consider for one moment how this would read IF in fact he really is guilty of having inappropriate behavior with young boys...specifically the fondling of genitals? Are you suggesting that THIS is alright? If it's not all right then what would be an appropriate response from society?

I really want to say 'Get Real' Roj :disappoin ...the persecution bring ALL these accusations together to show a pattern of abuse. I don't have any problem at all of 13 year old boys running around a house drinking and watching restricted material. That's me at 13. I'll tell you this though...there wasn't any 40+ year old man pouring me the drinks and sitting leafing through the magazines with me. That, my friend...is a HUGE difference. That might be OK in your world...but it sure as hell isn't OK in my world. It would seem that this time I am in the majority.

Could be - until of course the NEXT generation comes along and it all changes yet again.

This is now becoming surreal...we're talking sexual activities between boys as young as 8 and a grown man. You think we're going to say OK to that anytime soon?

Regardless of what you may or may not think, NONE of the drinking and viewing is an indictable offense as far as I know. Unusual? Assuredly. Indictable?

In a word YES...the law says you cannot serve liqueur of show pornography to a minor. End of story. Right? Wrong? You can discuss it all you want...right now...against the law. Imagine if you or I were doing the exact same things Michael is accused of to 8 year old girls? Hell, we make love to a girl who is 13 years, 364 days old (I checked)...there is nothing we can say to a court that they are even going to listen to. Why is this different? You do agree we should all obey laws (or be willing to face the consequences if caught not obeying them) until such time as the law changes?

This might be a lot of things...but irrelevant is NOT one of them.



You need to go back 12 or 13 years ago to truly understand this case. At that time Jackson was able to buy his way out of certain jail time (23 million dollars Roj)...what do you think? He gave the money so the kid could go out and buy himself anything he wanted? The state of California vowed that this would NEVER happen again, and immediately passed a series of laws which have been referred to at one time or the other as...The Michael Jackson Laws.

The State of California getting morals suddenly? Better late than never...and we're talking about CHILDREN here...not people who are old enough to make they're own informed choices.

What a freaking JOKE!!!!!!! This is most assuredly NOT a joke.

More likely he made a fool of them last time and the bureaucrats never forgot or forgave the embarrassment. Or he made a fool of them last time and concerned adults were determined that nobody would be able to make fools of them in the same way again.

No Roj, wrong again...a man's true innocence or guilt have nothing to do with a courtroom.

I'll drink to that.

However, the mindset behind a courtroom and the proof contained therein is what we aspire to. Pity it so often fails.

I was not referring to consequences...that is a separate issue. I simply stated that a man's true innocence or guilt is a fact before the trial begins.

If we don't have those aspirations however, we have...

...you guessed it...

...WITCH HUNTS!!!!!!

YEAH!!!!!!

GET THE PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES AND LET'S HAVE A PARTY!!!!!!!!

Of course, we do have those aspirations...the unfortunate reality is that all the good indentations in the world can sometimes go for naught.

He is one or the other when he first walks into the courtroom. If the jury are right...then they'll get the innocence or guilt correct...

I'd LOVE for you to explain that little point to the guy who went to jail for 20+ years in Canada and then was pr oven innocent. The case was prominently in the newspapers - you must remember it.

It is very simple Roj,there is nothing to explain. Even the guy who is found guilty and then is found innocent 20 years later understands that. Nothing that happened to him affected the basic truth.

but if they get it wrong then that in no way alters the FACT of a man's innocence or guilt.

No - just the results which may alter his life or, if you live south of the border, take it away completely via lethal injection / frying with electricity / choking on poison gas / burning at the stake...

Big Consolation Prize, eh?

That wouldn't be the same as murdering several people and being found innocent because 'the glove doesn't fit' and then being able to go home and stand around you mother's piano with close friends and sing 'Amazing Grace'.
Once again...I am not talking about consequences...that belongs in another conversation. We are dealing with the absolute truth of whether one is innocent or guilty. Period.

Surely we learned something from the Simpson trial!

Yeah - Johnny C is one hell of a shyster lawyer and dresses real nice.

THIS part you got right.

Edit:

Please don't take the tone of the above as being directed at you.

The gun is at my temple...

Peace...[/QUOTE]

[Shadowraven]

As far as Michael Jackson is concerned I'd have to say that the preponderence of evidence would say that he is guilty. Especially of inappropriate behavior with young boys. I know that greedy, vicious people can come out of the woodwork to attack celebrities. Not only for the money, but for the attention it gives them. However, I think more than that is going on here and I don't completely agree with the witch hunt analogy in this case. At least not totally.

Roj, while I definitely agree with you on the media circus part, and I don't like the Witch Hunts that are so popular in the media, I doesn't mean that he is innocent. I always say that we are not in the courtroom and can't decide how relevant the evidence presented there is. We hear it secondhand from the media. OK, I agree that that right there could mean we have a problem, if the media has an agenda to sell ads or commercial time. However, I still believe that there is punishable conduct here and his past behavior is suspicious. Like acushla said, it's hard to believe someone would pay 23-million just to stay out of court.

I'm equally tired of people taking a stand on shreds of information and in people's joy in tearing a person to pieces. I don't think the U.S. legal system is perfect, or the best available, but I still get the feeling he's guilty. He gives me the feeling that other molesters I've met have. Admittedly I've never met the man, but what I've seen of him tells me the man has some serious issues. I don't make snap judgements about ANYONE. I have always believed in arriving at a conclusion after I've seen some evidence. I give everyone a chance, even O.J. at first.

I understand and agree with what you're saying in general, but not completely in this instance.

[acushla]

As far as Michael Jackson is concerned I'd have to say that the preponderance of evidence would say that he is guilty. Especially of inappropriate behavior with young boys. I know that greedy, vicious people can come out of the woodwork to attack celebrities. Not only for the money, but for the attention it gives them. However, I think more than that is going on here and I don't completely agree with the witch hunt analogy in this case. At least not totally.

Roj, while I definitely agree with you on the media circus part, and I don't like the Witch Hunts that are so popular in the media, I doesn't mean that he is innocent. I always say that we are not in the courtroom and can't decide how relevant the evidence presented there is. We hear it secondhand from the media. OK, I agree that that right there could mean we have a problem, if the media has an agenda to sell ads or commercial time. However, I still believe that there is punishable conduct here and his past behavior is suspicious. Like acushla said, it's hard to believe someone would pay 23-million just to stay out of court.

I'm equally tired of people taking a stand on shreds of information and in people's joy in tearing a person to pieces. I don't think the U.S. legal system is perfect, or the best available, but I still get the feeling he's guilty. He gives me the feeling that other molesters I've met have. Admittedly I've never met the man, but what I've seen of him tells me the man has some serious issues. I don't make snap judgments about ANYONE. I have always believed in arriving at a conclusion after I've seen some evidence. I give everyone a chance, even O.J. at first.

I understand and agree with what you're saying in general, but not completely in this instance.

Roj...I think what Shadowraven is trying to say here is that I am right and you are wrong. (no, no, no,...I can't believe I have to do this...oh...I want you to know this pains me...but OK...hahaha...there. Doesn't change anything.)

[Shadowraven]

Roj...I think what Shadowraven is trying to say here is that I am right and you are wrong. (no, no, no,...I can't believe I have to do this...oh...I want you to know this pains me...but OK...hahaha...there. Doesn't change anything.)

Nyah, nyah, nyah. So there!

I guess we told you Roj!;)

[madjo]

still I will say "innocent until proven guilty"... I have not followed the case, (it is barely making the media in The Netherlands, unless you count our Shownieuws as a valid newssource and even in that program it is barely an item) but unless the jury or judge decides that he is guilty, he is 'innocent' in the eyes of the law.
Of course money talks, whoever has the sharpest lawyer wins, so the term innocent is somewhat poluted...

[acushla]

Of course money talks, whoever has the sharpest lawyer wins, so the term innocent is somewhat poluted...

This, more or less, is precisely the point I am making. Forget the lawyers. forget the judge, forget the courtroom...forget the trial. Jackson is either innocent or guilty. Period. Everything else is just a puppet show.

[Roj]

Nyah, nyah, nyah. So there!

I guess we told you Roj!;)

ROFL!!!

I haven't read the rebuttal yet (I'm picking up more damage in my personal existance than my support systems can cope with so I'm spread pretty thin right now) but I assure you, I won't be upset, even if you told me to go to Hell. :) :) :)

I'll get back to you...

[acushla]

ROFL!!!

I haven't read the rebuttal yet (I'm picking up more damage in my personal existence than my support systems can cope with so I'm spread pretty thin right now) but I assure you, I won't be upset, even if you told me to go to Hell. :) :) :)

You would have to do something pretty extreme and out of character for me to even consider such a response.

I would simply attribute your action to be the result of missed medication.

BTW...you have an e-mail.

[acushla]

crikey, is that what they call it in jail? golf

It's what they call it in England...where O.J. resides.

Golf is one thing I can guarantee you Michael will not be doing.

Spending time in Thiland...or Prague perhaps...but not on the golf course.

[acushla]

not me man, if someone raped my sister i would want the c**t put to death

In my world 'want' wouldn't even be a consideration. If you know what I mean. I've held a knife to a man's throat...the next step is pretty easy.

[acushla]

Im pro-Euthanism (spelled correctly?) and Pro-Abortion.

I am 100% with you on the Euthanasia issue...and although I personally think of life as beginning at conception and do not believe in abortation...I am nevertheless Pro-Abortion. Why? Simply because I do not believe I have the right or obligation to impose my beliefs on others. What's right for me is right for me...and what's right for somebody else is right for them. Obviously this thinking has limited application...but in matters of this nature I think it is valid.

[Shadowraven]

I am 100% with you on the Euthanasia issue...and although I personally think of life as beginning at conception and do not believe in abortation...I am nevertheless Pro-Abortion. Why? Simply because I do not believe I have the right or obligation to impose my beliefs on others. What's right for me is right for me...and what's right for somebody else is right for them. Obviously this thinking has limited application...but in matters of this nature I think it is valid.

I agree with you on this, acushla. I don't like abortion either, but that is my personal belief. I don't have the right to impose my morals on other people though. Too bad more people don't see it that way. The fundies here are too used to pushing their ideas on other people. Their religion encourages it.

[Roj]

Roj, while I definitely agree with you on the media circus part, and I don't like the Witch Hunts that are so popular in the media, I doesn't mean that he is innocent.

He may be. He may not be. At this point it's going to be difficult for anyone to be objective about it.

I always say that we are not in the courtroom and can't decide how relevant the evidence presented there is. We hear it secondhand from the media. OK, I agree that that right there could mean we have a problem, if the media has an agenda to sell ads or commercial time. However, I still believe that there is punishable conduct here and his past behavior is suspicious. Like acushla said, it's hard to believe someone would pay 23-million just to stay out of court.

I could. If one was termninally afraid of media coverage in that light, one might. One thing aobut Mr. jackson that is known is that he is "eccentric" to say the least.

He gives me the feeling that other molesters I've met have.

That by itself is dangerous. Is that trained instinct or bias based on appearances and circumstances? How can you be sure?

Admittedly I've never met the man, but what I've seen of him tells me the man has some serious issues.

No offense SR but that one is telgraphed in huge honking waves of incandescent light. :) It STILL doesn't mean guilt.

I don't make snap judgements about ANYONE. I have always believed in arriving at a conclusion after I've seen some evidence. I give everyone a chance, even O.J. at first.

Ditto.

We'll just have to wait and see - but thus far I don't yet see an official smoking gun, so to speak.

[acushla]

- but thus far I don't yet see an official smoking gun, so to speak.

That's simply becaus all that smoke is obscuring the gun. Don't worry though...it's there. I know it and the jury are going to know it.

[Roj]

That's simply becaus all that smoke is obscuring the gun. Don't worry though...it's there. I know it and the jury are going to know it.
As long as the Prosecution has what in the business is known as "best evidence" (irrefutable physical evidence - not testimony), then I'm satisfied. Thus far I haven't seen any, though.

[Shadowraven]

Roj said:
That by itself is dangerous. Is that trained instinct or bias based on appearances and circumstances? How can you be sure?

I can't be really, but I don't have to be. That's the thing, I'm not on the jury so I don't have to be. I can only state my opinion on the subject. I never claimed that what I was saying was anything else but. What I say isn't dangerous, because it doesn't matter what I think.

For myself I think it is instinct, I not sure if it is trained, learned, or inherent. I've learned to trust that, and so far it has served me well. My impressions have, so far, been right about 90% of the time. So, I've learned to believe in them, regardless of their source. That doesn't mean that my mind can't changed. I'm certainly not perfect and could always be wrong. That's the thing with me though, just because I say I believe a thing to be true, doesn't mean my mind is closed to other possibilities. If you have a logical, and reasonable, enough arguement, I will always consider what you have to say. I follow your arguement completely, and agree with it. I just don't agree with you where it comes to MJ.

I don't believe weird/eccentric=guilty, but I think he's gone a little beyond that here. It's one thing to be eccentric. It's quite definitely the other to take that into breaking the law.

[acushla]

As long as the Prosecution has what in the business is known as "best evidence" (irrefutable physical evidence - not testimony), then I'm satisfied. Thus far I haven't seen any, though.

Since you seem to be eliminating testimony after testimony of both abuse and people who witnessed the abuse...what exactly do you define as 'irrefutable physical evidence.?' Perhaps a video tape of the goings on. Would sets of fingerprints belonging to Michael and a underage child suffice? Perhaps if one of the boys was pregnant with Michaels child? What if God was to appear and say...'He Did It.' Would that count? What 'irrefutable physical evidence' do you foresee there being?

While I think of it...I'd be curious as to your spin on the $23 million.

[Roj]

Since you seem to be eliminating testimony after testimony of both abuse and people who witnessed the abuse...what exactly do you define as 'irrefutable physical evidence.?' Perhaps a video tape of the goings on. Would sets of fingerprints belonging to Michael and a underage child suffice? Perhaps if one of the boys was pregnant with Michaels child? What if God was to appear and say...'He Did It.' Would that count? What 'irrefutable physical evidence' do you foresee there being?

While I think of it...I'd be curious as to your spin on the $23 million.Best evidence is hard physical evidence - like DNA samples, for example. I normally wouldn't discount testimony to that degree (it's still not considered best evidence) but in this case the accused has been the target of unscrupulous individuals for monetary purposes in the past. If you're going to nail him, nail him with the real deal - then no one can argue.

[acushla]

Best evidence is hard physical evidence - like DNA samples, for example. I normally wouldn't discount testimony to that degree (it's still not considered best evidence) but in this case the accused has been the target of unscrupulous individuals for monetary purposes in the past. If you're going to nail him, nail him with the real deal - then no one can argue.

I edited in after I had posted (as opposed to editing in BEFORE I posted) this:

While I think of it...I'd be curious as to your spin on the $23 million.

[Roj]

While I think of it...I'd be curious as to your spin on the $23 million.
basically a "leave me alone - I don't like the hoopla that will involve me going to court ans squashing your little scam so just take a hike".

I think the media circus involving the current court appearance is evidence enough that such an attitude would be justified.

[acushla]

basically a "leave me alone - I don't like the hoopla that will involve me going to court ans squashing your little scam so just take a hike".

I think the media circus involving the current court appearance is evidence enough that such an attitude would be justified.

So why not this time?

[Roj]

So why not this time?
Too much of an outcry and his PR specialist advised him to do it?

[acushla]

Too much of an outcry and his PR specialist advised him to do it?

These are the same people who advised him to pay last time.

Listen...in case you are not aware of this...in the case 12 years ago the boy who received the money was only paid AFTER he went to a police station and shown 8 photos of a man's jewels. Apparently without any hesitation at all the boy immediately identified Michaels.

There is just too much accusations...this is not a conspiracy to simply choose a celebrity and bring them down...and the wheel stopped and it was Michaels name that the needle was pointing to. These accusations and testimony's are often gut wrenching, emotionally draining confessions by people whose life's have been irreparably damaged...people who are emotionally scared for the rest of their lives. It is the responsibility of a civilized society to stop this type of aberration and send a message that it will not be tolerated.

HE IS GUILTY. There is no simplier way of saying it.

[Roj]

Listen...in case you are not aware of this...in the case 12 years ago the boy who received the money was only paid AFTER he went to a police station and shown 8 photos of a man's jewels. Apparently without any hesitation at all the boy immediately identified Michaels.

*I* - after 44 years - couldn't identify *my* own jewels. Could you? I'd say this boy is quite unusual. And yes, I recall something to that effect in the press at the time.

HE IS GUILTY.

If he's guilty, he's guilty. I'll believe it when I see Real evidence. The various types of evidence are:

Real - physical
Direct - eyewitness testimony
Documentary - records, printouts, manuals, etc.
Demonstrative - models, charts, diagrams, simulations, animation, etc.

Obviously, the one that carries the most weight is the first type since it is much more difficult to repudiate than the others.

I also must remain impartial, something that others have the luxury of avoiding. As a professional investigator, I can take no other viewpoint, regardless of what you or anyone else says. Furthermore, your attitude alone is one that may get the ENTIRE case thrown out of court because finding an impartial jury at this point is all but impossible thanks to the press, Jackson's celebrity and the rampant opinion out there (see the bolded type above for a prime example).

So far, I've seen Direct evidence but no Documentary, Demonstrative or most importantly of all Real evidence.

Perhaps the Prosecution yet has some to unveil.

[acushla]

*I* - after 44 years - couldn't identify *my* own jewels. Could you?

Oh yeah...no problem. Mine's the one that resembles a chipmunks.

HE'S GUILTY.

Furthermore, your attitude alone is one that may get the ENTIRE case thrown out of court because finding an impartial jury at this point is all but impossible thanks to the press, Jackson's celebrity and the rampant opinion out there (see the bolded type above for a prime example).

I thought they already have a jury. Furthermore, whatever this jury decides is going to be the basis of appeals.

Hey, while I think of this...did you know that Donald Trump (who is quickly headed down the road to Bankruptcy) has negotiated with Michael that he perform daily in Vegas a la Celine Dion? Meaning an auditorium made especially for him etc. etc.

Perhaps the Prosecution yet has some to unveil.

We can only hope but I think it highly unlikely. It seems that the trial is nearing the end now...anything they had that would have impact has already been used. I think the jury will find a pattern...and conclude that it just isn't likely that ALL these people are making it up as they go along. I appreciate what you are saying about evidence...but sometimes we just need to use common sense and look at the picture. Michaels picture is not a pretty one. (Maybe he needs some BOSE speakers...to pretty it up. (hahaha)

[Roj]

I thought they already have a jury. Furthermore, whatever this jury decides is going to be the basis of appeals.

Juries can be prejudiced by the media.

Hey, while I think of this...did you know that Donald Trump (who is quickly headed down the road to Bankruptcy) has negotiated with Michael that he perform daily in Vegas a la Celine Dion? Meaning an auditorium made especially for him etc. etc.

He's gonn abe bankrupt AGAIN? Kind of undermines the whole concept behind that POS reality show he's on, doesn't it?

As to MJ and Celine - Oh Gawd!!!! i hav eno words for the disdain.

We can only hope but I think it highly unlikely. It seems that the trial is nearing the end now...anything they had that would have impact has already been used. I think the jury will find a pattern...and conclude that it just isn't likely that ALL these people are making it up as they go along. I appreciate what you are saying about evidence...but sometimes we just need to use common sense and look at the picture. Michaels picture is not a pretty one.

Common sense can be wrong though - and it has been in the past in the absence of conclusive evidence.

(Maybe he needs some BOSE speakers...to pretty it up. (hahaha)

[runs screaming into the night, acushla's maniacal laughter echoing wildly behind him]

[acushla]

acushla's maniacal laughter

That about sums it up. You have to laugh because the alternative is not very pretty.

[Shadowraven]

Too much of an outcry and his PR specialist advised him to do it?

I believe that California passed a law after that incident that made it more difficult for him to do that again. They felt they had a good case against him last time, but no one would press the charges. That definitely pissed them off.

Roj, if you say that eyewitness testimony is valid, then why is the testimony they have now, not so? I see what you are saying about how evidence can be misleading. I definitely understand with how being an investigator means you must remain impartial. Been there before, more than once. But there does come a point where the evidence you see, leads you to believe something is wrong. You begin to see a pattern. This builds a larger picture as each piece falls into place. I personally don't care about his life, but my wife does. That is because it was a crime against a child. She is very passionate about that. Consequently, I end up seeing most of what there is to know, past and present. I know how to be impartial, but with him, I'm past that and see guilt.

As I said, I may be wrong, I hope I am. I hate to any child being abused that way. But I'm afraid I'm not, and a monster with his kind of money, must be stopped! It is intolerable to think that he may get away with it again.

[Todd The Kiwi]

*I* - after 44 years - couldn't identify *my* own jewels. Could you?i hope that wasn't an offer ha ha ha :o

[Shadowraven]

i hope that wasn't an offer ha ha ha :o

You sir, definitely have some issues.:ponder:

I knew there was something I liked about you!;)

[Todd The Kiwi]

ha ha ha classic.
hey while we're talking about knobs - do you guys really want to click this (http://www.knobsnknockers.co.nz/) link ? :ermm:
you have been warned...




go on, you know you're curious

[acushla]

ha ha ha classic.
hey while we're talking about knobs - do you guys really want to click this (http://www.knobsnknockers.co.nz/) link ? :ermm:
you have been warned...




go on, you know you're curious

Based solely on the 'you have been warned' quote, I'm going to wait until I read some comments.

Considering from whom this was offered, I can be reasonably assured that it will be interesting if not just a little bit twisted.

[Shadowraven]

ha ha ha classic.
hey while we're talking about knobs - do you guys really want to click this (http://www.knobsnknockers.co.nz/) link ? :ermm:
you have been warned...




go on, you know you're curious

Ohmigod! You guys have got to check this site out. It is so awesome. Talk about knockers!

All I can say is wow, Todd. Reference the comment above.

[Todd The Kiwi]

:o what can i say, i just like this kind of thing.
at least i posted a link and not images... :cheeky:

[acushla]

Ohmigod! You guys have got to check this site out. It is so awesome. Talk about knockers!

All I can say is wow, Todd. Reference the comment above.

Based on the word 'knockers' I will respectfully decline.

I am still recovering from a post earlier this year advertising a truck that could handle a 'heavy load'.

Besides...as I've mentioned before...the only breasts I am interested in are the ones I can touch.

[Todd The Kiwi]

prude :ponder:
i suppose you don't look at young white chicks breasts and thighs either...? yes, pun (http://www.kfc.com/default.htm)

[acushla]

prude :ponder:
i suppose you don't look at young white chicks breasts and thighs either...? yes, pun (http://www.kfc.com/default.htm)

Well...it would be more accurate to say I 'notice'...which is slightly different from 'look'.

At the core of my philosophy regarding women is the notion that reduced to it's essence everything culminates in the common denominator of 'pink'. (Sorry.)

We have a shopping complex in the center of the city which has 5 levels of shopping and takes up an entire (long) city block.

I swear that every time I find myself inside I am convinced that there is a contest going on to see which 14 year old girl can dress the nastiest in order to win the title of "Slut of the Mall'. It is unreal. Where are the parents?

The only thing I think of (well...not the only thing) is how grateful I am that they didn't dress like that when I was that age. I would still be in Grade 8 with 3 young boys calling me Dad.

[Roj]

Roj, if you say that eyewitness testimony is valid, then why is the testimony they have now, not so?

Because it's too easy for someone to get up and say "I saw him do this" and have no real proof other than their word. That's an open invitation to legalized extortion. With Real evidence, there's physical evidence to back that up.

[jkrzok]

ha ha ha classic.
hey while we're talking about knobs - do you guys really want to click this (http://www.knobsnknockers.co.nz/) link ? :ermm:
you have been warned...




go on, you know you're curious

That site takes ALL the fun out of knob polishing
:mad:

[Shadowraven]

Roj, if you say that eyewitness testimony is valid, then why is the testimony they have now, not so?

Because it's too easy for someone to get up and say "I saw him do this" and have no real proof other than their word. That's an open invitation to legalized extortion. With Real evidence, there's physical evidence to back that up.

That is what I thought that you would say, and I agree, to a point. The problem is, as I understand it, is that there is a lot of it. I thought I heard there was some more concrete evidence as well, but I don't try that hard to keep up on it.

[Roj]

That is what I thought that you would say, and I agree, to a point. The problem is, as I understand it, is that there is a lot of it. I thought I heard there was some more concrete evidence as well, but I don't try that hard to keep up on it.
Hey, if they have concrete evidence then fine - string the lad up by his gonads. I have three kids and TRUST ME, I'd have NO problem doing uniquely nasty things to a child molester. I'd just like to see the hard evidence and not just someone's say-so before I break out the cramprings, electric cattleprods, two-foot-long lengths of rubber hose and rawhide thongs.

[acushla]

That site takes ALL the fun out of knob polishing
:mad:

I saw this after it was posted...didn't have any idea what it meant...then saw the image in Matt's birthday thread (not to self: No more wishing anybody Happy Birthday)...and still didn't know what this meant.

Today...going to reply to a post and seeing this again...oh...NOW I know what it means!!!

Couldn't agree more.

[o2xygen]

Huh?

Jury:
1. a group of persons sworn to render a verdict or true answer on a question or questions officially submitted to them.
2. such a group selected according to law and sworn to inquire into or determine the facts concerning a cause or an accusation submitted to them and to render a verdict to a court.

Once a conviction is handed down a jury is dismissed, unless it's a death penalty offense, in which case the original jury (and this varies from state to state) will determine the punishment. The only way family or friends of the convicted are involved at this point might be as character witnesses in the penalty phase. They would never be part of the jury at any time; the aim when picking jurors is to have them be as nonpartial as possible. As for friends and family losing their jobs, it's nothing official. But would you want a kiddie rapist's sister working for you? (Sorry Janet)

Jurors can't really lose their jobs because of jury duty. Many employers actually continue to pay their employees as they fulfill their civic duty.

The whole point of jurors is to allow the common citizens to act as a check on government power. Prior to the Patriot Act the US government had to prove to a small cross section of citizens that it was just to imprison someone accused of a crime. The jury acting in a public trial is the ultimate check on unbridled government power.

I understand the point of a Judge-based system. A judge should be better educated and better able to resist public passions in determining the proper course of justice. But a judge is still after all a government employee and thus not above suspicion.

Law education brought to you by endless 'Law and Order' repeats. God bless cable TV.

My last jury duty was actually fun. I ran into 5(!) friends I hadn't seen in years and we sat around and played poker (for money no less. In full view of a Sheriff's Deputy) until called further along in the jury selection process. I was dismissed when they found out I was a recent victim of a violent crime. I went back to the jury pool. There was $$$ just waiting for me on a table. ;)
is death penalty still used?
I thought that it was on eastern countries only...
its a big joke, because someone is convicted to a death and then after time,in some particular cases, they realize that he is not guilty

[jkrzok]

is death penalty still used?
I thought that it was on eastern countries only...
its a big joke, because someone is convicted to a death and then after time,in some particular cases, they realize that he is not guilty

Sadly, the nation that likes to think of itself as a beacon of light and goodness and human rights shining upon all the evil-doers of the world,

kills people.

In the name of Justice.

Mostly poor blacks.

But they got it coming. Don't they?

Now can someone get that light out of my eyes?

[acushla]

because someone is convicted to a death and then after time,in some particular cases, they realize that he is not guilty

Whoops.

Er...sorry.

[Todd The Kiwi]

because someone is convicted to a death and then after time,in some particular cases, they realize that he is not guiltyi reckon only religious people should get the death penalty, all others can just stay in jail for a while.



yes of course i'm joking, it'll be interesting to see who takes it to heart though...

[acushla]

i reckon only religious people should get the death penalty, all others can just stay in jail for a while.



yes of course i'm joking, it'll be interesting to see who takes it to heart though...

Todd The Kiwi...it's always better in cases where you want to see 'who takes it to heart' to not give away the fact that you are joking BEFORE you've given them a chance to respond.

Your're welcome.

[Todd The Kiwi]

Your welcome:P

they're going somewhere better anyway, why wait.
living on false hope must be so sweet :cheeky:
many a truth is spoken in jest... :cross-eye

dang, and i was baptised :o

[Willow of Oz]

Your're welcome.

Third time's a charm! http://quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/cheeky.gif

[acushla]

Third time's a charm! http://quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/cheeky.gif

I think it's why the 'edit' feature exists!

[madjo]

I think it's why the 'edit' feature exists!but I still think there is something wrong with that little sentence ;) something about an 'R' too much. :cheeky:

[acushla]

but I still think there is something wrong with that little sentence ;) something about an 'R' too much. :cheeky:

You're correct.:apple:

[Shadowraven]

:P

they're going somewhere better anyway, why wait.
living on false hope must be so sweet :cheeky:
many a truth is spoken in jest... :cross-eye

dang, and i was baptised :o

Makes sense to me though.

If they love the idea of execution so much, they can participate. What happened to "turn the other cheek"?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

i reckon only religious people should get the death penalty, all others can just stay in jail for a while.



yes of course i'm joking, it'll be interesting to see who takes it to heart though...

The death penalty has nothing to do with religion, but since you're joking... :apple:

All i can say is, im happy it is forbidden in Europe.

[Zayoos]

All i can say is, im happy it is forbidden in Europe.

Sure, you can kill 100 people and everything what The LAW will do to you, is close you in a room with TV :cheeky:.

Death penalty maybe isn't the right option...

Where the tortures go?... THAT was a punnishment. :devil:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Sure, you can kill 100 people and everything what The LAW will do to you, is close you in a room with TV :cheeky:.

Death penalty maybe isn't the right option...

Where the tortures go?... THAT was a punnishment. :devil:

We are civilised yes? And i dont recall any mass murderer to have roamed thru Europe in the recent past. So why keep practising the death penalty?

Check out this (http://www.newsbatch.com/dp-international.html) map.

[Zayoos]

That was just my humour ;)
But if someone murders another person, is he civilised? :cross-eye

I'm just saying, that the punnishment isn't adequate to the actions in these days.

[Todd The Kiwi]

The death penalty has nothing to do with religion, but since you're joking... :apple:yeah :cheeky:
all i really mean is that if a religious person is going to go somewhere better upon death why wouldn't they want to get there as soon as possible, we can help speed them along :P

only if zayoos was in charge though aye ha ha ha :robot: :bandit:
hellish-torture = :biggrin:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

yeah :cheeky:
all i really mean is that if a religious person is going to go somewhere better upon death why wouldn't they want to get there as soon as possible, we can help speed them along :P


Is Hell a better place? hmm, maybe it is if it at all exists ha ha. If hell is like it is in Southpark, then i dont see whats wrong with it except that you'll eventually meet Saddam.

Im joking now, sometimes i cannot resist. :cross-eye

[Zayoos]

Don't mind if I do :D

aahh, good old wheel breaking (rack?) :cheeky:

see some torture equipment here (http://www.rumburak.website.pl/artykuly/obluda/narzedzia.html) (inne zdjecie = another photo)

btw here in Cracow we have a Museum of Torture ;)

[Willow of Oz]

Makes sense to me though.

If they love the idea of execution so much, they can participate. What happened to "turn the other cheek"?
What happened to "an eye for an eye"?

[Todd The Kiwi]

torture alright, i don't know what any of it says ha ha ha :o
i've been to madame tussauds waxwork museum in london
the london dungeon is worth a look too so i've heard
and the tower of london is just wicked (i've been in there too)

[Zayoos]

That link was only for viewing the pictures.
Especially for you Todd, a link (http://www.angelfire.com/darkside/forgottendreams/Tools.html) with even more "cool" pictures and in english language.

I like very much this Chair OF Spikes and a Judas Cradle :knocked-o . Oh God, it had to be soooooo painful :dead: :devil: :silly:

just kidding ;) I am a really nice and quiet fellow...

[madjo]

That link was only for viewing the pictures.
Especially for you Todd, a link (http://www.angelfire.com/darkside/forgottendreams/Tools.html) with even more "cool" pictures and in english language.

I like very much this Chair OF Spikes and a Judas Cradle :knocked-o . Oh God, it had to be soooooo painful

just kidding ;) I am a really nice and quiet fellow...
slooowly stepping away from Zayoos...
I don't like pain. :)

(silly board, had to remove a few emoticons.. otherwise it wouldn't post it :( )

[Shadowraven]

Now we all know that if we see Zayoos approaching wiith any kind of tools in his hand, it's way past time to leave.

Never mind the maniacal laughther...

[Todd The Kiwi]

i really like the word DISMEMBERMENT it just sounds cool
thanks for the links zayoos mate.
by the way, what are you studying for again? not something grim i hope ha ha ha

disastrous link (http://www.disastrousmurmur.at/) check out the track listing for folter and where the blood forever rains... frightful :nervous:

[Zayoos]

Haha I'm studying... geodesy :foureyes: :silly:

I just found few links... not that I'm enjoying the pain or something... :cheeky:

/me hiding a knife behind his back...

[Roj]

Well, I think it's blatantly obvious by now that the prosecution never did have anything and fell flat on its face - yet again. The whole "let's bring up the dangling incident" rubbish is the classic example of a weak case grasping at straws, even those best described as "whisps of air".

To those who were prepared to summarily convice=t Mr. Jackson based on their "impression", let's just say that I'm glad that the legal system / law enforcement takes the viewpoint of "innocent until proven guilty" rather than such spurious rattle-shaking.

If they didn't, we'd all be in trouble.

[acushla]

Well, I think it's blatantly obvious by now that the prosecution never did have anything and fell flat on its face - yet again. The whole "let's bring up the dangling incident" rubbish is the classic example of a weak case grasping at straws, even those best described as "whisps of air".

To those who were prepared to summarily convice=t Mr. Jackson based on their "impression", let's just say that I'm glad that the legal system / law enforcement takes the viewpoint of "innocent until proven guilty" rather than such spurious rattle-shaking.

If they didn't, we'd all be in trouble.

Well...I will readiatly acknowledge that THIS time, it would appear, that the prosecution certainly does not appear to have the 'nail in the coffen' evidence one would have thought they had or why else initiate the charge.

And I am even willing to admit to a 'lesson learned'...although very, very reluctantly Not reluctant becuase I don't like to admit I'm wrong...that feeling dissappeared decades ago...I have had to admit being wrong so many times that I even think I'm wrong when I open my mouth to voice any opinion before it has been judged by others.

I do question such faith in a legal system that managed to find OJ innocent. Do you really think he was innocent?

I stand by my original statement...you know if you are guilty or not the moment you walk through the doors into the courtroom. Everything else is just show.

[Roj]

Well...I will readiatly acknowledge that THIS time, it would appear, that the prosecution certainly does not appear to have the 'nail in the coffen' evidence one would have thought they had or why else initiate the charge.

...and the last time, and the next time and the next...

Let's see - nice opportuinity to grandstand, "redeem" the debacle that occurred last time, get brownie points for bringing down a celebrity...

Perhaps a way to launch a political career - "let's do a media circus!!".

The best thing I have to say about this is:

Give it up - the guy is undoubtedly strange but also harmless. last time I checked, strange was not a crime, raucous cries of "HE IS GUILTY" to the contrary.

It should be obvious now why I prefer a well-balanced approach - time bore me out.

Sugarcoat it any way you like; my point's made and I'm out.

[rorythedog]

And that's the point, really. The guy is undoubtedly a weirdo, but being weird isn't illegal. He may be guilty of the crimes you say he is Acushla, but there appears to be no evidence.

Actually, being weird can be illegal, but I'll post that in it's proper place. :carrot:

[Shewolf]

Whether he's guilty or not he definately needs help of some sort.
He goes beyond weird.

[Todd The Kiwi]

hmmm can we still electrocute him just a little bit :bulb:

who's starting a poll for how long it'll be until he makes news again.
1 week1 month6 months1 yearhe will always be in the news

[Shadowraven]

Well...I will readiatly acknowledge that THIS time, it would appear, that the prosecution certainly does not appear to have the 'nail in the coffen' evidence one would have thought they had or why else initiate the charge.

...and the last time, and the next time and the next...

Let's see - nice opportuinity to grandstand, "redeem" the debacle that occurred last time, get brownie points for bringing down a celebrity...

Perhaps a way to launch a political career - "let's do a media circus!!".

The best thing I have to say about this is:

Give it up - the guy is undoubtedly strange but also harmless. last time I checked, strange was not a crime, raucous cries of "HE IS GUILTY" to the contrary.

It should be obvious now why I prefer a well-balanced approach - time bore me out.

Sugarcoat it any way you like; my point's made and I'm out.

I definitely agree with the points you made above. It's good the legal system is set-up the way it is. However, that said, I believe that Michael Jackson is innocent just the same way O.J. Simpson was. Just because the prosecution flubbed up it's case doesn't mean it didn't have one. The man's relationship with boys is unnatural and questionable, say whatever you like, I believe there is a problem there.

[Roj]

He's been declared innocent.

No surprise here - I didn't htink he was guilty.

End of discussion.

[Shewolf]

End of discussion.

Ah, but I think he still needs medical and professional help.

[biggman15]

Ah, but I think he still needs medical and professional help.
Not to Forget Psychological..... (did I spell that Right?)

[Roj]

Ah, but I think he still needs medical and professional help.
Oh assuredly - the man definitely has demons. But he's no pedophile.

[biggman15]

Oh assuredly - the man definitely has demons. But he's no pedophile.

Are you certain He's still a He????????? :cross-eye

[Roj]

Are you certain He's still a He????????? :cross-eye
I think he's completely asexual.

[biggman15]

I think he's completely asexual.
Not what I meant..... He looks like a She.....

With a wierd nose.......

[acushla]

He's been declared innocent.

No surprise here - I didn't htink he was guilty.

End of discussion.

OJ Simpson was declared innocent.

No surprise here.

End of discussion.

[Roj]

OJ Simpson was declared innocent.

No surprise here.

End of discussion.
True enough.

However OJ didn't have a blatantly obvious bunch of money abnd fame mongering politicians, prosecutors and so-called "plaintiffs" trying repeatedly to do him over a ten year period.

Also, he didn't have self-righteous self-appointed vigilante villagers with pitchforks and torches advancing on him screaming shrilly "HE IS GUILTY" (see earlier in the thread) without a shred of solid REAL evidence to stand behind their claim.

Apples to oranges, doncha know.

[Toe]

Innocent until proven broke.

[Shadowraven]

Like Acushla said, that verdict is meaningless. If you have enough money you can get out of anything in this country. Lord knows there have been enough cases of that here recently. It's a generally accepted rule that it is VERY hard to convict celebrities of a crime.

From what I've heard there was some very convincing testimony given in the trial, which was ignored by the jurors when given (some were talking and laughing during it). The defense attorney came out early and put the mother on trial to discredit all other testimony given. From what I've heard he was very successful at that too. The comments I've seen from the people there says that MJ was found innocent only because of his attorney's skill.

I'd say that he is at least as innocent as O.J. Simpson or Kenneth Lay. Funny how the mothers in the jury say how good they feel about the verdict, and in the same breath say that they'd never leave their kids alone with him. Makes you think, eh?

[Toe]

Headline:Enchanted By Own Innocence, Michael Jackson Molests Self

[Shadowraven]

Headline:
ROFLMAO :laugh:

[Todd The Kiwi]

ha ha ha funny man, yeah i know this is bad but dang it's funny :cross-eye

[acushla]

True enough.

However OJ didn't have a blatantly obvious bunch of money abnd fame mongering politicians, prosecutors and so-called "plaintiffs" trying repeatedly to do him over a ten year period.

Ever ask yourself what happened over 10 years ago that gave motive to 'fame mongering politicians and prosecutors' to repeatedly do him over?

Which is really beside the point. The point here was that the courts found Michael innocent...so he is innocent.

Just like the courts found OJ innocent...thus he is innocent.

Apples to apples.

[jkrzok]

Ever ask yourself what happened over 10 years ago that gave motive to 'fame mongering politicians and prosecutors' to repeatedly do him over?

Which is really beside the point. The point here was that the courts found Michael innocent...so he is innocent.

Just like the courts found OJ innocent...thus he is innocent.

Apples to apples.

There is a HUGE difference between 'Not Guilty' and "Innocent.'

Juries are asked to determine if the prosecution proved whether the accused did the crime. They are not asked if the accused did the crime. The judgement they are making is really about the prosecutions case, NOT the actual guilt or innocence of the accused.

All a jury does in a not guilty verdict is declare a negative: the prosecution did not meet the legal standard of guilt. The jury, and everyone else in the world, may believe that the accused did the crime. But if the prosecution doesn't deliver the proof necessary to establish guilt, the accused goes free.

Juries never declare someone innocent. Innocence would mean that the the accused definitely did not do the crime and that there's no room for doubt. The defense does not have to prove innocence. The defense does not have to provide an eyewitness as an alibi, for example. All the defense has to do is show the jury that the prosecution did not prove guilt, perhaps by showing that the prosecution's eyewitness is questionable, for example.

So it may well be that the jury in the Jackson case believes that MJ diddles little boys. All they said is that the prosecution didn't prove it to their satisfaction.

[jkrzok]

Another thought about juries: their real purpose is not to determine the guilt of the accussed, it is to act as a brake on governments ability to imprison people.

In a jury system the government is supposed to prove to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens that it should be able to lock someone away. Without that proof and the consent of a jury the government is not allowed to lock that person up.

Unless you live in the Patriot Act era.

[acushla]

There is a HUGE difference between 'Not Guilty' and "Innocent.'

Juries are asked to determine if the prosecution proved whether the accused did the crime. They are not asked if the accused did the crime. The judgement they are making is really about the prosecutions case, NOT the actual guilt or innocence of the accused.

All a jury does in a not guilty verdict is declare a negative: the prosecution did not meet the legal standard of guilt. The jury, and everyone else in the world, may believe that the accused did the crime. But if the prosecution doesn't deliver the proof necessary to establish guilt, the accused goes free.

Juries never declare someone innocent. Innocence would mean that the the accused definitely did not do the crime and that there's no room for doubt. The defense does not have to prove innocence. The defense does not have to provide an eyewitness as an alibi, for example. All the defense has to do is show the jury that the prosecution did not prove guilt, perhaps by showing that the prosecution's eyewitness is questionable, for example.

So it may well be that the jury in the Jackson case believes that MJ diddles little boys. All they said is that the prosecution didn't prove it to their satisfaction.

I was expressing, more or less, exactly what you are saying...I was just being sarcastic.

[Shadowraven]

I could tell by your periods that that is what you meant Acushla. Still I think that jkrzok's post was a good clarification of the theme just the same.

The test in the courtroom is for the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". If any reasonable doubt exists, you can't convict. Unfortunately this often means that by the use of legal tricks, the guilty can go free. Still it's a better system than one where you need to prove your innocence (Indonesia). From what I heard of the testimony and evidence, MJ is likely guilty. At least some of the jurors felt that way too. It's just the prosecution couldn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. It didn't help that the Defense muddied the waters to the point it was hard to see the truth.

Now I hear MJ is moving to Europe to avoid further trouble in the U.S. Better lock your kids up folks. :ermm:

[acushla]

I could tell by your periods that that is what you meant Acushla. Still I think that jkrzok's post was a good clarification of the theme just the same.:

Believe me when I tell you I would give my, what is the expression, eye/teeth to be able to express myself the way jkrzok does. It has just occurred to me that, speaking for myself, perhaps it is a result of my inability to do so gives rise to the sarcasm and 'humour' that I use to attempt to convey my thoughts.

Perhaps if I spent more time actually trying to clarify my thoughts...my posts would be less sarcastic...or whatever.

[Shadowraven]

Believe me when I tell you I would give my, what is the expression, eye/teeth to be able to express myself the way jkrzok does. It has just occurred to me that, speaking for myself, perhaps it is a result of my inability to do so gives rise to the sarcasm and 'humour' that I use to attempt to convey my thoughts.

Perhaps if I spent more time actually trying to clarify my thoughts...my posts would be less sarcastic...or whatever.
You did fine by me. i understood immediately what you were doing. It was no harder to understand than my sarcasm in the Corby thread was. It was good that jkrzok decided to chime in though. He provided some needed expansion on the subject.