I am going to take some heat for this, probably a lot of heat for this, but I was relieved by the Michael Jackson verdicts.
To me, they were a sign that the system worked. Not because he was a celebrity. But because the prosecution had no case and were charging him because he acted in a batshit crazy manner.
I am not defending Jackson's behavior. I think the man has zero boundaries and really no idea of how to behave appropriately with children. I have no idea if he molested those boys. And face it, neither do you. Because they had no physical evidence and no credible witnesses. The family of this boy had a track record of filing false charges. The mother had perjured herself. Actually, many of the prosecution's witnesses perjured themselves.
I would not leave my child alone with Michael Jackson. I wouldn't leave my dog alone with him (though maybe the cat because Rooster can take care of herself). But being a weird ass motherfucker is not a crime. It is a cry for physiological evaluation and possibly medication. But not a cry for jail time.
And yet the whole world is acting as though he got away with something. Perhaps he did. But that is the fault of the prosecution, not Michael Jackson. The cornerstone of our system is that he does not have to prove his innocence. If the state of California is outraged about the money they spent on this failed prosecution they should not point the finger at his defense team. It should be pointed directly at the DA's office.
People criticize MJ and OJ and other wealthy people for hiring expensive defense attorneys. Completely leaving out that they would do the same thing if charged with a crime and with those financial resources available to them. The only bad thing about this is that the quality of the services of public defenders and those of private defense attorneys are so disparate.
No matter what you hear on CNN this is a victory of American justice.
It just doesn't necessarily feel that way.
2 comments:
If I just keep agreeing with you about everything, will you think I'm a crazed stalker? I swear I'm not, but, seriously, I couldn't agree with you more about the whole Michael Jackson case.
I happened to be in the car when the verdict was read, and the radio station I was listening to cut to it. When the DJ came back after the verdict was read, she said something to the effect of "Michael Jackson found not-guilty on all chargets, I guess that's the benifit of being a celebrity." Which, to me, seems totally wrong. Yeah, he's a celebrity, but he's not exactly a well-liked one anymore. Everyone seems to think he's a crazy child molester. So, for the jury to sit through the whole case, listen to the evidence and find him not guilty, that just says to me that the jury really did their job, and that maybe he really is not guilty. I think it would be mighty hard to be a juror on that case and not have any preconceived notion of who Michael Jackson is and what he has already been accused of doing. So, if all of them with their various biases can agree that the prosecution didn't prove the case, then I'm willing to believe them.
-Amy in NY
I agree. Even if each of those jurors felt in their hearts that MJ was guilty, they had to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence and testimony presented. The burden of proof was on the State, and they failed to produce.
Post a Comment