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.