Michael Jackson NOT GUILTY!

[dogspot]

absolute wild speculation!

 

[zacdl]

Isnt that horrible?

 

[JG]

Having sat on a jury last summer for a child molestation case, I can tell you that is is a very difficult verdict to reach. Jurors are instructed that if there is reasonable doubt you must come back with a verdict of innocent.

Believe me, a lot of sleep is lost by the jurors on child molestation cases and it really comes down to whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lando]

Unbelievable. I thought for sure he would get what was coming. Just remember, there is a huge difference between not guilty and inocnet. What can I say...He is one SMOOTH CRIMINAL and it was a THRILLER of a trial. You can SAY, SAY, SAY,what you want. It is HUMAN NATURE to be upset about this. YOUR NOT ALONE. I guess to me it is OFF THE WALL, he has too many SKETETONS IN THE CLOSET already. It seemed so BLACK OR WHITE it made me want to SCREAM. Sorry, this is really BAD, I better BEAT IT. I am heading over to Neverland for a sleep-over

 

[JG]

Ohh... You're Bad - You're bad ......

 

[fishyrican]

JG, very well put. The bottom line is that the prosecution has charged someone with a horrible crime. The prosecution is proposing that the legal system take away the freedom of a defendant, in this case Michael Jackson. Therefore, the prosecution has the burden to prove their case. In seeking this great punishment, our legal system requires that the prosecution jump a very high hurdle. When the prosecution misses, no matter how close they get, the defendant walks.

In the business of incarceration, there should be little margin for error. If there is error, then we err on the side of letting someone free. Otherwise the prosecution is rewarded for sloppy work and we lose the safeguards built into the system.

RR quoted William Blackstone: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." That is the price we pay to be able to walk free. Yes, I agree that Michael Jackson is not what we would consider normal. But if I were judged by what others think about me, I would have a rough life to live.

Regardless of our opinion about what happened, Michael Jackson was found "not guilty," he was not declared "innocent." That just means that the prosecution failed to carry its burden of proof. As to whether he did it, few people actually know. The rest of us just speculate.

 

[JG]

Very well put. We have to have faith in our justice system while realizing that it will occassionally make mistakes. Mistakes and all - it is still a better system than other countries have in which you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[reefrunner69]

"not guilty," he was not declared "innocent."

If Jesus Christ were tried in our court system he would not be declared innocent either....

 

[dralarms]

And speaking of that, IF he is guilty then we don't need to worry, he will get it in the end, we ALL have to stand in judgement and answer for our sins and crimes. So even though there was not enough to convict him (if he was guilty) he will answer for his crimes. (that's IF he is guilty).

 

[DeFeKt]

I was brought up in a religious community, my query is..

end, we ALL have to stand in judgement and answer for our sins and crimes.

I thought thats why 'The son of God' died, to forgive our sins...
Another question:
If a person is deemed a child molester wether he/she repents or not, all religions I know of will condem him/her and pretty much, 'ignore' them as a part of reality..
If a priest or a Minister of religion commits such an offence and repents, all is forgiven.
Why is that?
Not only that, but how come a minister of religion is seen as the "head of the flock"
As much as he/she is guiding the people, he also commits the offence of being a hierarchial figure.. Why is that justified when 'God' condones any act of heirarchy.
ie. The Pope.
Don't get me wrong, I respect all religions and their people, or 'cults' as I prefer to call them, I'm just wondering how all these things can be justified before God when he has specifically had it written as opposed to such.

 

[krazymom]

RR quoted William Blackstone: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

That sounds true for the truely innocent, except when the guilty 'innocent' hurts another person again when if they were in jail they wouldn't be able to do it again. I think it just goes to show that celebrities get off easier than the average joe. Think OJ, Robert Blake and who else????

 

[dralarms]

'The son of God' died, to forgive our sins

True, but you have to accept that and change from your "old ways"

If a person is deemed a child molester wether he/she repents or not, all religions I know of will condem him/her and pretty much, 'ignore' them as a part of reality..

That's cause we are human, we are brought up holding grudges and keep on doing it even though we don't reliase it.

If a priest or a Minister of religion commits such an offence and repents, all is forgiven.
Why is that?

That I don't understand either, but I'm not catholic either. To me if you commit that sin and are a "religous leader" then it should acutally be harder on you.

but how come a minister of religion is seen as the "head of the flock"

he is supposed to be our guide, teacher, prop, shoulder to cry on, you name it. Very few actually qualify as "head of the flock"

Why is that justified when 'God' condones any act of heirarchy.
ie. The Pope.

Again I don't understand the catholic religion. of most of the others either.

I'm just wondering how all these things can be justified before God when he has specifically had it written as opposed to such.

The fact is God dosen't condone it, man does.

I did not make my comments to spur a religous debate, I will simply say this if I READ it in the bible (yea I know, a man translated it) the I will try and follow it. If a man says it and can't back it up with the afore mentioned Bible the I'll ignore it. If a man sins and truly repents (not just says he dows to get back in the "flock" then to me he is forgiven, (I may not be able to, but then again I am human).

Since I don;t want to be the reason this thread is locked I'll say no more.

 

[captivereefs]

The fact that he would even releate to kids like that is wrong. Anyone with kids would tell you that if the neighbor guy kissed there son or tried to lay in bed with them there would be an old school butt kicking on the block. Why should michael jackson be any different. People just judge celebrities different and it is sad. I do think the family did set him up but the fact is he has a problem that cannot be helped with anythng but isolation from society.

 

[reefrunner69]

RR quoted William Blackstone: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

That sounds true for the truely innocent, except when the guilty 'innocent' hurts another person again when if they were in jail they wouldn't be able to do it again. I think it just goes to show that celebrities get off easier than the average joe. Think OJ, Robert Blake and who else????

So...you would rather have 10 innocent men punished than one guilty man go free...well, unless it's you or yours that are wrongfully convicted....


I did not use the name Jesus Christ to start a religious debate, simply to show a point about the semantics of the "not guilty" vs "innocent". This is not a thread about religion or religious ideology, keep it on topic.

 

[zacdl]

DeFeKt,
Thats what is messed up with some of the religious things. The pope is chosen by man, and is a man, yet what he says is infoulable.

THAT is the answer to that, you cannot have a man at the top of things.

 

[reefrunner69]

Keep it on topic, if you want to discuss religion, take it to another thread.

 

[zacdl]

Actually Kevin, you were the one that went OFF topic in the first place. Even if you wernt meaning to start a religius debate, you knew it had to be coming.

 

[reefrunner69]

Actually, I didn't go off topic, I used a religious figure to demonstrate a point that was on topic. Now, this is the last warning, keep it on topic or watch this thread die.

 

[Rach101]

It probably isn't a very easy thing for the jurors to make a decision upon however when they were being interviewed it seemed that most of them were half in love with him. Or in particular a few of the women. Either way, I think that the jury was looking for a smoking gun. But really, all of the evidence was he said, she said. What else could it really be.
And another question I still have.. What kind of fan would send MJ a book like that?
Then again, its not the Defenses job to prove him innocent, just to prove that he isnt guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[DeFeKt]

then move it to another thread. I would if I could. but i can't so i wont.