Poll: Was Michael Jackson guilty?

[CrystalShadow]

Proved innocent in court? Twice?

I don't disagree with your overall point, but he wasn't proven innocent, he was merely not found to be guilty.

~facepalm~ You do realise the absurdity of that technicality right?

Not guilty = innocent. They mean the same thing, unless you get into the messy techicalities or court cases, where, yes, you can be found not guilty even though you actually did do something, equally, you can be found guilty or things you never did. (happens in about 1 in 10 cases apparently, with more serious crimes more likely to involve false convictions, unfortunately )

But was it really nessesary to go out of your way to point out what is basically a false distinction?

Someone found 'not guilty' is the same thing as being found 'innocent', even if the person isn't either of those things, and simply got lucky.

We can never establish the absolute truth. Trials are the best we've got, but if everyone questions the validity of the results constantly, we might as well not bother and just flip a coin...

 

[Petromir]

Proved innocent in court? Twice?

I don't disagree with your overall point, but he wasn't proven innocent, he was merely not found to be guilty.

~facepalm~ You do realise the absurdity of that technicality right?

Not guilty = innocent. They mean the same thing, unless you get into the messy techicalities or court cases, where, yes, you can be found not guilty even though you actually did do something, equally, you can be found guilty or things you never did. (happens in about 1 in 10 cases apparently, with more serious crimes more likely to involve false convictions, unfortunately )

But was it really nessesary to go out of your way to point out what is basically a false distinction?

Someone found 'not guilty' is the same thing as being found 'innocent', even if the person isn't either of those things, and simply got lucky.

We can never establish the absolute truth. Trials are the best we've got, but if everyone questions the validity of the results constantly, we might as well not bother and just flip a coin...

Not under any legal system I'm aware of. Innocence as a legal principle in those that relate to the UK system (which includes such small places as the USA) almost exclusively appears in criminal law as the presumption of Innocence, which means the courts do not rule on innocence only guilt. Legally a court can declare guilt, or that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a certain standard.

The main difference is that had innocence been found by a trial it would make civil cases much more legally challenging, but as the standard of proof is lower and criminal courts cannot declare innocence they have a reasonable chance of succeeding.

 

[Odbarc]

He's dead now so it doesn't matter. Let's just say he did it and got away with it and stop asking.
If your the optimist, you'll say he got away with all zero of his molesterings.

 

[ZiggyE]

I'm a pretty big believer in that he was innocent. As people have said, the claims were dubious at best and there was a lot of cash to be gained. He was found not guilty in court.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I personally think ?No? (if you had been molested and knew it, would you really drop the case just because the perpetrator offered your parents? money?), but realistically, I don?t know. The media sure did cling onto the whole ?Wacko Jacko? image, though, and some of his behaviour admittedly didn?t help dispel that image either. But ? Freudian excuse ? his father was kind of a dick to him and his brothers, depriving especially Michael (the most talented) of a functional childhood.

But let?s face it, most celebrities could be called ?weird?, to various degrees.

Anyway, as always, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. MJ was never proven guilty. (Let?s not talk about OJ Simpson, though?)

 

[MoltenSilver]

I'm leaning no, though not enough to definitely say 'no he didn't do it'. While he was found innocent that can mean as much 'they couldn't provide enough proof' as 'definitely innocent', but of course that goes the other way too of 'well are you smarter than what a court of law found?'. My view of it can be summarized by a comedian I heard once (can't remember who it was) who said "I don't know if Jackson was guilty or not, but if he had been found guilty every single one of those parents suing him should've been arrested for child neglect"

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I dont think he was, he just acted like a kid with the kids due to his up bringing. But that is still inappropriate way to act with kids when he is an adult.

 

[Lightknight]

There are a few myths that I have no desire to look up and verify but he was certainly troubled with children.

From him sleeping with a child-sized porcelain doll with hand written notes on the walls saying "Children are Sweet" and "Children are innocent":http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5929565/Michael-Jackson-slept-with-child-sized-porcelain-doll-in-dress.html

To just weird things like pictures he owned like this:

http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_SLIDESHOWS/Michael_Jackson_Auction/MichaelandKids.jpg

This link has some close ups of that picture. It's pretty weird.

I have no idea if his attraction to kids was sexual. But disturbed? Yeah, really really disturbed.

There's a non-trivial amount of evidence that would be harmful to him. Like kids describing his genitalia.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/case-against-michael-jackson

I am highly suspicious that he was a pedophile. I just have no personal evidence. I would say that at the very least he was an incredibly troubled individual and should have had some significant mental health treatments. Would you leave him alone with your children?

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

Regardless, the whole thing is just a pretty sad affair. Innocent or guilty, the man clearly had issues of his own that he needed to work out. Having everyone in his face constantly, all the time, clearly wasn't conducive to that.

He was never convicted. I suppose I have to trust the courts on that one.

Now, don't even get me started on whether or not I think his doctor should be in jail.

 

[Abomination]

I do not believe him to be guilty and to be fair it doesn't seem as though any children were "harmed" in his care.

If I remember rightly those who claim to have been harmed came out of the situation a heck of a lot richer.

 

[ZiggyE]

snip

Michael Jackson's initial claim to fame was as a child star and as a prominent member of the Jackson 5. His father also regularly beat him. Between the abusive relationship with his father and being a very famous and very overworked child, Michael didn't have a traditional upbringing. This led to him, in his adult life, romanticising the very concept of childhood, hence his obsession with it. He would regularly invite children over and play with them innocently to relive the childhood he never had vicariously through them. Macaulay Culkin was one of these children, and probably the most famous example, and he viciously defended Michael in court. My belief is that some of his stranger obsessions with childhood stem from this and not from paedophilia.

 

[VintageNHC]

I don't believe he was guilty. He was just a child in a man's body, something he never grew out of. This gave off a weird vibe, so I believe a parent used this to their advantage to get money from him. Also, I heard the father of the supposedly molested child shot himself, but they don't know exactly why. Could it be because he felt guilty of causing Michael all of that trouble, or was he just scared Jackson fans would threaten him even more harshly after Michael's death? We'll never know for sure.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I have some real doubts, for many of the reasons already stated. Also because I suspect he was a smarter man than the nature of the accusations make him out to be.

 

[freaper]

There's a non-trivial amount of evidence that would be harmful to him. Like kids describing his genitalia.

To be fair, unless he had some particularly nasty rash at the time or some kind of birthmark on his balls I'm pretty sure his junk wouldn't have looked much different from any other black and/or white dude's.

It points out that there is an actual medical difference in the brain of paedophiles[...]

Oh, no! Does that mean the people who said gays and pedophiles had the same condition were right? /inflammatory remark

The article reminded me of a talk I had with a friend of mine a while back. She is pursuing a career in pedagogy so we had a chat about the subject of pedophilia. She said that were we live (Belgium) pedophiles do get therapeutic treatment and often warn authorities of their condition so that they can be monitored.

The chat originated from an article in our newspaper that talked about a pedophile who had requested euthanasia because he didn't want to harm children, even though he had never harmed one before. He said that it killed him not to be able to act on his desires, but that he would never harm a child just to satisfy his needs.

That kind of logic seems rather flawed to me; I don't believe all pedophiles would rape a child. I haven't read anything that would suggest that people who are attracted to children somehow have a larger impulse to molest one. It's like saying all men are potential rapists; theoretically it's true, but no one (I hope) would actually write that on a T-shirt.

EDIT for clean-up

 

[Mutant1988]

Oh, no! Does that mean the people who said gays and pedophiles had the same condition were right? /inflammatory remark

The article reminded me of a talk I had with a friend of mine a while back. She is pursuing a career in pedagogy so we had a chat about the subject of pedophilia. She said that were we live (Belgium) pedophiles do get therapeutic treatment and often warn authorities of their condition so that they can be monitored.

The chat originated from an article in our newspaper that talked about a pedophile who had requested euthanasia because he didn't want to harm children, even though he had never harmed one before. He said that it killed him not to be able to act on his desires, but that he would never harm a child just to satisfy his needs.

That kind of logic seems rather flawed to me; I don't believe all pedophiles would rape a child. I haven't read anything that would suggest that people who are attracted to children somehow have a larger impulse to molest one. It's like saying all men are potential rapists; theoretically it's true, but no one (I hope) would actually write that on a T-shirt.

EDIT for clean-up

The strain compulsive thoughts put on people is well documented and it's the case there, with the guy that wanted euthanasia for his thoughts. He recognized that they were wrong, but that's rarely enough to make them go away. He very likely suffered a severe depression as a result of his compulsive thoughts, thus the request to be killed.

Treating these people aren't just a service to kids, but to them as well. If they can't live with themselves as they are, but have not done harm or in fact have made efforts to make sure they never do, who are we to say they should not exist? There's plenty of other severe harmful illnesses where the first resort isn't killing the one afflicted. The article does point out that the severe stigma of this only results in people shying away from treatment, which will deteriorate their mental health with worse results for everyone involved.

I don't know about gay people but I would assume they have some kind of difference in the brain too. I don't meant that in any negative way. We are our brains. Our differences all originate from what we have in it, physically as well as metaphorically (What we know, what we have experienced etc). My brain really doesn't like me (It) being happy, for example and I need treatment for that.

Would I consider being gay an illness? Hell no. It's harmless and doesn't concern me when it's between consenting adults. I don't understand why other people bother hating them when it doesn't impact their lives in any way. As long as no one is harmed, then I don't care. Do what you want, I have enough impulse control not to go looking for things I dislike (For arbitrary reasons).

But yeah, the article points out what you say as well, that not all pedophiles would rape a child. It also points out that all that do that aren't always pedophiles. It can just be someone with some other severe malfunction (Psychopathic, schizophrenic, etc) that just targets the easier or nearest victim. Why? Because they seek sensations or enjoy having power, causing pain and trauma and lack empathy or maybe even a sense of morality. There are many ways in which we humans can break.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

You know after all the evidence is put together, with the facts considered... Probably not. I wasn't there so I can't say for sure... But somethings stand out to me in Michael Jackson's case. First off he was a child star, that puts a huge strain on most children that disallows them from having a child hood, at the time he was a child star it meant no child hood. Aside from that some say he was molested, some say beaten, but it's absolutely certain that he was abused, if only at least mentally. What happened? Well he grew up into a person with an adult's body and a child's mind. Part of what speaks to that is that he knew he was grown up, but had an idealistic view of childhood. Those of us who had at least somewhat balanced childhoods know it wasn't a perfect time, not to mention that children can tend to be terrible, mean, and/or manipulative. Having a childhood, as I suspect almost all of us here did, gives us the image of other children as they grew up around us.

Was his behaviour questionable? Yes, it really was. Does it prove he molested children? Nope.

Also if you look at most child stars, they tend to spiral out into really unhealthy habits. For example drug and alcohol addiction. What happened when Michael had to wall him self off from kids? He turned to drugs it seems. So he went seeking a surrogate childhood, got denied, went on a downward spiral of self destruction... Kinda makes perfect sense.

Also saying men who like children are pedophiles is really fucked up.

It's like saying all gays are pedophiles.

In that same idea it's like saying AB/DLs and Adults who like to be adult children are automatically pedophiles too. When the case is they're just unusual people, who like unusual things, by wanting to give up their responsibilities and obligations as adults. I won't say weird because everyone is weird in their own ways, and normal is a rather loaded term that supports only accepted behaviours.

In summation Michael Jackson had some mental illness issues, that a psychiatrist may have been able to help with, but maybe not... This just seems to be the norm with child stars who are robbed of their childhoods.

Off-topic: Captcha: glazed donut - Damn you Captcha for making me hungry!