Home / Guilty By Opinion

Guilty By Opinion

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

After obsessively watching the Michael Jackson trial, it’s coverage and the aftermath, I find it interesting how it seems that, despite being found not guilty, the general public opinion is that Michael is a molester. (I’m fishing for a “Billie Jean is not your molester” joke but it’s not coming to me.)

Anyway, you would assume that if a jury who heard all of the evidence and testimony in the case found enough doubt to not convict, we should all agree with the verdict. After all, it is a jury of community peers. Yet instead, you hear anyone with access to a microphone suggesting that he should have been found guilty. This also happened with O.J. nearly 10 years ago.

The fact remains that to convict a person, there can’t be a shred of doubt and that standard of certainty was always lacking in this case. It’s easy to buy into all the jokes and media slants that seemed to paint Michael as guilty. While Michael is guilty of being weird and having poor decision making abilities but that isn’t enough to send him to prison.

Basically, while this trial has provided the world with plenty of fodder for humor, you have to assume justice prevailed and in this particular case, it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael committed any crimes. It’s that assumption that makes democratic justic systems so formidable.

– Hardy

Powered by

About Hardy

  • […] we should all agree with the verdict.

    Oh, right, just because a jury makes a decision, that means it must be correct. Like no one has ever been wrongfully committed of a crime. Likewise, I’m sure no one has ever walked away from a crime that they should have been convicted of. It’s good to know that you look at things with such an uncritical eye that you’re willing to accept whatever verdict is handed down.

    It’s that assumption that makes democratic justic systems so formidable.

    But isn’t the right to dissent or disagree also a part of what makes democracy a powerful force of covernment?

  • Mihos

    Throughout the trial, bloggers and news pundits railed against jackson with a tar and feather mentality. When interviews or testimony from his former wife Lisa Marie or surrogate mother Debbie Rowe were hyped in the “news” just about everyone weighing in an opinion was certain that the two women would have nothing but negative things to say about the icon. When neither women lived up to these expectations both were written off as freaks, liars or lunatics. These two women know jackson than he knows himself. The prevailing bias is so stacked against jackson an entire symposium will be offered next year in fifteen different colleges and universities. Participants will be provided with the raw data feeds from news media and internet blog resources and the actual testimonies and make their own determination what form of discrimination jackson suffered from the first moment in the 93 extortion case.

    Americans have a deeply disturbed puritanical foundation. Why is it so difficult for people to imagine a grown man spending time with young boys and not molesting them?
    The fact that no child has ever claimed of any sort or sexual intercourse with jackson is telling and the behaviors and testimony of those who claim they were tickled or moklested over their clothes or jerked off are transparent in my opinion.
    I was not interested in jackson his music or celebrity in general before the responsibility was left with me to help teach a course that studies media and civil rights.
    Now Ive come to the conclusion that this country is deeply racist and cruel.