The perpetual condemnation of Michael Jackson

[flakban]

It just goes to show the epic effect of the indoctrination campaign against the concept of men sexually molesting children. Under the guise of promoting a protective and moral safeguard, such indoctrination has, more than anything, served as a tool for politicians to win support, and for the media to impassion their consumers with rage.

In our society when an individual is accused of inappropriate acts towards children, that individual is immediately suspected by the masses of harboring sexual motives and of thus having perpetrated the acts for which he's been accused. Irrespective of whether those motives existed, much less of whether the acts were truly perpetrated, the accused individual's life becomes indefinitely thereafter regarded by society with suspicion and disdain. We are a bloodthirsty people. We're prone to publicly humiliate and ask questions later (if at all). Our arrogance leads us to grant absolute validity to our personal conclusions of guilt based upon pure speculation. The concept of 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' is a farce. The bandwagon to 'get the child molesters and make them pay!' has become so large that its gravity hurls us aboard. We want a villain, so we manufacture one whenever opportunity presents. We are a huge tribunal instilled with preconception. We want revenge, not accuracy... we want example, not justice.

Ironically, however, many of us persist to ignore those credible allegations of brutality, including various acts of horrific sexual abuse against children, perpetrated in our name during 'war on terror' interrogations. A just society would stand against efforts to cover-up such unconscionable crimes. But more of us than not are prone to waste mental energy on speculation-driven accusation, than on compelling justice for well-evidenced atrocities. Go figure.

[MilesColtrane]

1. You have to admit that he didn't help his case any by paying out millions to prevent a trial.

[KittyWampus]

2. you have to admit, no matter what he did Jackson was screwed.

[MilesColtrane]

4. Yes, sleeping with other peoples children is just too weird for most people to...

...not raise questions about criminal activity.

[Frank Cannon]

112. He was a fucking idiot for continuing to do it after there were questions

Flame me if you must, but after he decided to continue to share his bed in private with these kids, he deserved every bad thing that happened to him over it. That is just undeniable.

[noiretextatique]

7. yep...that kind of allegation never goes away

even if you're acquitted.

[Critters2]

124. Especially of you've publicly admitted that you enjoy sleeping with

other people's children. Hard to ignore that kind of thing.

[noiretextatique]

3. if it was cheaper to pay than to go to trial

why wouldn't he pay? i don't think that proves guilt or innonence.

[MilesColtrane]

12. The only reason I can think of for him to pay more for a trial would be so that...

...he could completely clear up any lingering doubts about his actions in the court of public opinion.

[noiretextatique]

26. bad publicity

people pay to avoid it all the time. i don't think that alone is an indictment or and indication of guilt.

[spoony]

39. Then he was terribly counseled.

Because being seen as paying hush money to make charges of child molestation disappear is...fairly bad PR.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

96. Going on what I've gathered

It was draining him emotionally and physically to the extent taking an immense toll on his health and state of well-being. His friends and family were concerned that he may not survive the long drawn out process of a trial and they urged him to settle and enter into rehab, which he promptly did. I agree that it didn't look good for him to settle but I think he and his family/friends thought it was a price that had to be paid for his long-time survival

Indeed they may have been correct. From what I've heard and read, the second round of allegations and subsequent trial absolutely destroyed his already frayed physical and emotional state of mind and contributed significantly to the downward spiral that ultimately consumed him over his last years.

[cornermouse]

107. Stop and think about that court of public opinion thing for a

moment. There is a significant portion of public opinion that still thinks we invaded Iraq because bin Laden had connections to Saddam. There is a significant portion of public opinion that believes global warming and extinction of wildlife species is a boy crying wolf. There is a portion of the public who still thinks Bush was a great president. I wouldn't put any stock in the court of public opinion. I would have settled too.

[Confusious]

17. 20 Mill is a lot of lawyers

5 top lawyers for 4 years.

[noiretextatique]

28. dupe

[noiretextatique]

29. 20 million was probably peanuts to him at that time eom

[JuniperLea]

6. That interview...

Where he spoke about how it's ok to sleep with little boys was pretty damning too.

[noiretextatique]

8. i don't know who thought that interview was a good idea

but it wasn't.

[JuniperLea]

14. MJ admitted... no, he took pride...

In things that the general population find disgusting and disturbing. Yet so many here want it all forgotten. Weird.

[noiretextatique]

25. MJ never grew up

and he clearly need psychological help a long time ago.

[JuniperLea]

30. That doesn't excuse him...

It's more to pity, but it doesn't excuse him. There are hundred or thousands of men who belong to NAMBLA, but that doesn't make it right.

[noiretextatique]

33. excuse him from what?

it's pretty obvious that micheal had a lot of problems that should have been addressed a long time ago.

[EFerrari]

58. Excuse him from what? Rumors? Allegations?

[JuniperLea]

60. Sleeping in the same bed with little boys...

It's wrong.

[EFerrari]

61. You weren't there. No one who knows the man believes he hurt anyone.

And he was not found guilty in court.

[JuniperLea]

67. No, he wasn't...

There was no trial, no case, no court. The parents of the two boys were paid a sum of money by MJ, at the urging of lawyers and other counselors.

Believing that one is guilty of a sin is not a prerequisite for actually being guilty.

Jackson was clearly passing on a legacy... a horrible one. I've no doubt he thought it was perfectly appropriate for him to sleep with little boys, because I heard him with my own ears, and saw him with my own eyes, saying just that... as a little boy cuddled against him. The video is very well known, and available on the youtubes.

[EFerrari]

71. And those parents are not credible.

And the pay out is what any sane person would have done.

[JuniperLea]

82. I think there are plenty of people...

Who would have rather had justice served than to take the money.

Do you not remember the police interview with the boys? The complex detail with which they described MJ's genitalia? They were spot on, including birth marks. The day after that report was released was the day the money changed hands.

How would those boys be able to describe in such vivid detail something they never saw?

[EFerrari]

84. Those justice seeking people were apparently not those parents. n/t

[JuniperLea]

86. That's what I'm saying...

After all the interviews, police questioning, solid photographic evidence, they took the money and ran. Exactly what I would expect from idiots who would allow their little boys to sleep over with an adult man for no other purpose than fun and games.

[EFerrari]

87. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Too much going on today. n/t

[Critters2]

121. Of course, he grew up. That's just a nonsensical way to excuse

his unhealthy behavior. He was an adult, and therefore responsible for his actions.

[niceypoo]

135. But, but...

...what about all the Peter Pan statues and stuff???

[flakban]

9. His career was being destroyed and he may have gone to prison....

He had the means to make the accuser go away, and he did. You or I may do the same thing given the same circumstances. America's jury pool is contaminated from indoctrination as well.

[JuniperLea]

16. Innocent people tend to fight to the bloody end...

to preserve their reputation.

[flakban]

21. I disagree...

When one is facing total loss of reputation and livelihood for losing in court, as well as a potentially long prison term, and when one has the means and is advised by his attorneys to settle, one would be a fool not to do so. Innocent people are convicted quite frequently... why risk it? It's easy for one to make the statement that he or she would personally choose the fight option when he or she is not locked into a similar situation.

[JuniperLea]

23. He risked loss of reputation and livelihood...

By not clearing his name. Are innocent people convicted quite frequently? Got link to that statistic?

[Hepburn]

42. Look up "THE INNOCENCE PROJECT."

There is a very interesting list ~~ particularly of those who were put to death and later were found to be innocent of the crime of which they were convicted.

Don't ever forget that the power of the state is fucking awesome and if they want to get someone, they will ~~ innocence be damned.

[EFerrari]

48. Bingo. I recently saw a panel of exonerated men

that were helped by the IP. They served DECADES for crimes they didn't commit.

[Hepburn]

50. The decades in prison are bad, but....

...the list of those put to death for murders they did not commit? Boy, is that sickening!

[EFerrari]

51. Yes. And once one really understands that innocent people are killed

for crimes they didn't do, it's just stupid to ask why someone would pay anything not to be grabbed up by our criminal justice system.

[flakban]

54. You got it! (nt)

[Hepburn]

55. Amen, brother or sister as the case maybe.

I am of the opinion that I would rather see 100 guilty persons go free than one innocent person convicted. The power of the state and how they can rape a person in a criminal trial is frightening.

JMHO

[flakban]

76. I absolutely concur! (nt)

[noiretextatique]

34. it happens all the time

i don't know why people are making such a big deal of it because it was micheal jackson. lawsuits are settled out of court all the time and innocent people are convicted all the time.

[noiretextatique]

35. it happens all the time

i don't know why people are making such a big deal of it because it was micheal jackson. lawsuits are settled out of court all the time and innocent people are convicted all the time.

[earth mom]

38. Exactly. If MJ was innocent, why didn't he do everything he could to clear his good name? nt

[treestar]

74. Not in a civil context

In fact one is unlikely to risk that outcome of a civil trial.

There are settlements in the criminal courts as well. People plead to lesser charges all the time, even if they feel they did nothing, because they don't want to risk it. You can end up in jail for things you did not do. This is a real possibility.

[quiller4]

129. I disagree. I say that as somebody who worked with offenders.

My late brother-in-law, who spent 30+ years on the bench, would also disagree.

[Shell Beau]

132. On the opposite of that, most mothers would want someone

who molested their child to be put away forever. Not to be able to hurt another child. But they took the money. What does that say?

[malaise]

The insurance company insisted that he paid n/t

[BuelahWitch]

20. Why didn't the family insist he be put away? Why wouldn't THEY take it to trial?

If it really happened, why did they allow him to stay free to possibly molest more children? That's what's fishy.
If that were MY KID there's no way in hell I wouldn't want the person who molested him behind bars.

[JuniperLea]

22. $$$

They were given money to shut up.

[BuelahWitch]

66. Well then perhaps that's all they were after was the money in the first place?

Why wouldn't you want your son's molester in jail?

[JuniperLea]

69. Exactly my point...

Most people would... people who wouldn't exchange that for money, anyway.

[treestar]

75. In a civil trial the only end result is a money judgment

That's what the plaintiffs in a civil trial "win." A money judgment.

Getting locked up is only the result of a criminal trial. The state, not the victims, controls that.

[quiller4]

130. They didn't want to go to trial. They knew that there were inconsistencies in

their story. Besides they had an income opportunity they didn't want to lose.

[Hepburn]

40. You have to admit that the insurance company who advised this settlement....

...really molested those kids, right?

What...they insisted he pay and settle this case and not take it to trial ~~ so they are the real perverts, right?

:eyes:

The above makes about as much sense as what you wrote.

BTW: People pay out millions and millions of dollars every day to prevent trials. It's called an out of court settlement. The courts in fact in L.A. County insist that ADR is used. What is ADR? "Alternative Dispute Resolution" which is a mediation process which leads to settlement and no trial. Disposes of a case on the court docket and frees up courtroom time. It is MANDATORY that the ADR packet is served with the Summons and Complaint in an L.A. Super Ct case. Without this mandatory arbitration, in some cases the wait for a trial in L.A. County would be longer than the approx 28 months it now is. Cases are absolutely jammed up in the civil case load in L.A. Criminal cases have priority ~~ can you imagine being a plaintiff and having to wait 5 to 10 years, assuming your case had no priority, to get to trial. That really, really helps with the present day damages an injured plaintiff is experiencing.

So just because a case is settled ~~ that does not mean there is any liability. The pressure from judges to settle a case is HORRENDOUS at times.

[TahitiNut]

59. The fact that the parents making the allegations accepted MONEY seems to show their false claims.

I can't imagine a parent taking money from someone who actually abused their child. No way. No how.

[Lilyeye]

105. Agreed.

You can say "why would an innocent man settle?" But you could also ask "why would parents settle with a guilty man?" I wouldn't take a dime from the man who molested my child.

[quiller4]

131. You do know that the child left his parents and called them liars, don't you.

[flakban]

134. That's a very good point!

[treestar]

73. You'd have to have an amazing faith in jurors

How many crazy verdicts are out there? Who would trust civil juries that much? How many times have there been posted examples of "outrageous" verdicts?

The burden of proof is lower, too.

Settling a civil suit is an acceptable way of avoiding taking a chance on a civl jury verdict.

[JI7]

100. and many people say Clinton made a mistake by not settling the Paula Jones Case

because of all the shit that happened afterwards. it's always easy to say something afterwards about whether it was the right thing to do or not.

Michael did go to trial when he was accused again and he was found not guilty, but that didn't seem to help him among many who continued to accuse him.

[Critters2]

120. Or publicly admitting he slept with little boys and saw nothing wrong with it.

His attitudes toward children were not healthy.

[yodoobo]

5. 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' is legal doctorine

Its not a personal requirement for any of us as private citizens.

I am quite free to make any judgment I wish about any person I wish, based on any evidence I see fit. Its only when I am asked to step into the Jury box that I am required to embrace 'Innocent until Proven Guilty'.

Take for instance George W. Bush. How many of us embrace the concept of his innocent at this very moment?

Personally, in the case of M. Jackson. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. Will never know for sure. But I do know that there was FAR more than enough evidence to make me suspicious of him, and far more then enough that I would have never left young children with him.

[Hepburn]

43. Clue: It is "PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."

It is part of the U.S. Const ~~ not merely some throw-away legal doctrine as you seem to think. That's what makes us different than places like Iran. It's a rebuttal presumption ~~ which MUST be overcome by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Your opinion is not evidence. When you get some solid evidence ~~ not mere opinion ~~ let us know, OK?

:eyes:

[yodoobo]

63. I was merely quoting the OP

But obviously you were able to deduce the mystery of what is being discussed. Good work!

The US Constitution is a structure of the powers and limitations of the government. It does not place a requirement on our thoughts and opinions as free individuals. I am not required to assume anyone is innocent.

Yes it IS legal doctrine. Its also a very important part of legal system. I have no idea why you discuss it as "merely some throw-away legal doctrine" as I never stated, nor implied it.

Go ahead and roll your eyes.

But the right to an opinion is a freedom that we enjoy in this country and its protected by the very same Constitution. When I form an opinion, or the masses form an opinion, "PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY." is irrelevant. This doctrine is only relevant in the justice system.


Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
OJ Simpson killed his wife.
George Bush is a war criminal.
Sam Sheppard was innocent.

Don't like those opinions? Sue me.

(If you still believe that we are required to believe M.J. is innocent, perhaps you could tell us what the criminal or civil penalty is for assuming him to be guilty)

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. And it's not part of the US constitution

as this page points out: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

[glinda]

10. I think he was hounded for money. I don't think he molested children. I don't think

it is fair to deny what the Courts had found which is total lack of proof. RIP. MJ.

[CoffeeCat]

11. It's nearly impossible to talk seriously...

...about the issue of childhood sexual abuse, when it comes to Michael Jackson--because we will NEVER know what the truth
was.

As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I think that if someone wants to have a serious discussion about the trauma and untold
damage of these crimes---just leave Michael Jackson out of the discussion--unless of course your goal is to cloud up the
epidemic that is childhood sexual abuse.

We'll never know if he did molest children. Never.

Everyone has an opinion, but no one but Michael and those children know for sure. Maybe the children involved in the initial
suit (that was settled) and the child involved in the trial will come forward some day.

[JuniperLea]

19. So, you think it's ok that he slept in the same bed with little boys?

Because I can separate the two issues... sleeping with and molesting. In a videotaped interview, he spoke about how he felt about sleeping with little boys. In his own words. With a young boy cuddling up to him at the time. I have to assume you are cool with that too.

[CoffeeCat]

24. Again...we'll never know what all of this meant...

The problem with all of this is---one could make a rational, intelligent argument for Jackson's behavior pointing
toward molestation. You could also do the same and argue that he wasn't a molester.

It's possible that Jackson is a stunted child--who never grew up and is the emotional equivalent of an eight year old. He
was abused as a child, never had a loving parent--and it's obvious with his backyard zoo and amusement park that he yearI wined
for all of that--because he was still a traumatized child in a grown man's body. It is perhaps arguable--that Jackson didn't
see children as sexual, but as his equals. So, to him--sleeping with them, was innocent.

It's also possible that he was a pedophile and that he did molest children.

I never said any behavior was "ok"---but it's impossible to know what most of the behavior means, because of Jackson's complexity
and the complexity of his own abusive childhood.

[JuniperLea]

27. I pity him...

But that's not good enough.

"So, to him--sleeping with them, was innocent."

What he thinks doesn't make him innocent either. Ever heard of NAMBLA? There are a lot of men who think it's ok... but I'm here to tell you, it is NOT ok for grown men to sleep with little boys. Never has been. Not a good thing. Not by any stretch of the imagination an innocent thing.

[CoffeeCat]

36. I don't think adults have sex with children is ok...

i just want to be clear that I think any adult who has any sexual contact with children---is horrendously vile and that
they are committing the worst crime imaginable.

When Jackson said he "slept" in the same bed with children--he said it wasn't sexual. My comments were based on the
notion that Jackson was a stunted child having a slumber party and that no sexual behavior AT ALL happened.

You're so right...NAMBLA is disgusting, and the sexual abuse of children is horrific and causes untold damage that
often never goes away.

[Hepburn]

44. I sleep with my dog every night....

...does that prove to you I am into beastiality?

:eyes:

[RobinA]

13. Condemnation

As far as the condemnation is concerned, his fatal mistake was to be rich and weird looking. Not to mention some of his rather intemperate remarks. The remarks indicated to me that he had never been in the same room with normal. He was a child star from an abusive background who apparently had a severely disfiguring skin disease and from a very young age had the responsibility for supporting a rather large network of adults by working in an industry that is dysfunctional and crazy-making in and of itself. Horrible. He had no chance. He reaped the whirlwind for better and for worse.

[Howardx]

15. "rather intemperate remarks"

you mean the remarks where he said it was ok for him to sleep with other people's kids right?

[geek_sabre]

37. I believe his words were "sharing your bed is the most loving thing you can do"

and in the same interview, he said that he did not sleep in the bed with the kids. It was edited to put him in the worst light possible.

[Howardx]

41. "sharing your bed is the most loving thing you can do"

with a child, sharing your bed with a child. lets keep the facts on the table.

[CoffeeCat]

18. Are you suggesting that child molestation should be accepted?

I'm unclear about your first sentence-- "...the epic effect of the indoctrination campaign against the concept of men sexually molesting children."

Of course society is against men sexually abusing children. Feeling outraged and completely intolerant of men
sexually molesting children--is a requirement for a civil society.

Men sexually abusing children isn't really a "concept" is a horrendous crime.

Your first sentence gives the impression that the problem is that society's rejection of the sexual abuse of children.

Indeed, I hope that's not your view.

[flakban]

47. I didn't think I was that unclear...

Read it again and think a bit more about the most probable meaning of the term "epic effect of the indoctrination campaign." I was referring to the genuine purpose of the promulgation effort that's been hidden beneath the purported message since its initial emergence. In this way, the message is designed to make people react with passionate rage and to thus condemn with less of a requirement for proof of allegations. Our politicians and our corporate media have exploited this technique for decades.

I'm certainly not in favor of any form of child abuse; please read my last paragraph.

[CoffeeCat]

94. I think most people react...

...with passionate rage (and also disgust, revulsion, a sickening feeling in the stomach, etc.) when they
hear that a grown man has in any way acted sexual with a child.

I'm not sure what you want here.

People do have intense emotions when it comes to child sexual abuse because it's a horrendous, sickening crime
against the most innocent and vulnerable in our society.

We should react passionately, and with disdain to childhood sexual abuse.

And as far as "proof of allegations" go. Child sexual abuse rarely comes with this so-called "proof" that you
seem to be requiring.

In fact, the law and the system favors the pedophile. Children are often seen as unreliable witnesses. Trauma
often causes confusion in the victims. District Attorneys are often reluctant to bring cases forward with young
victims--when there is no physical evidence, because it's easy to tear down a confused, abused child on the stand.

As far as "evidence"...rarely, does a victim have the luxury of "evidence" unless the perp took pictures or caused
great physical harm. Usually there is no evidence. And since 9 out of ten sexual abuse victims never tell--the
overwhelming majority of perps remain unaccountable.

So....yeah, we're outraged by sex crimes against children...and we should be. I highly doubt that outrage sets up
this horrible, unfair scenario for the perp--because so far, the system has worked very well in silencing victims
and in making it very difficult to even get charged brought against a perp.

[flakban]

97. oh, yes, they react...

...with passionate rage (and also disgust, revulsion, a sickening feeling in the stomach, etc.) when they
hear that a grown man has in any way acted sexual with a child.

The point is that many such allegations are leveled that turn out to be false. Women want revenge for cheating or other disputes, so they falsely accuse their husbands or boyfriends. Psychologists and therapists want notoriety and/or to generate long-term revenue from ongoing therapy sessions, so through leading dialog, suggestion, hypnosis and other techniques they induce false memories within child-clients minds. Prosecutors get brownie points for child sex abuse convictions, regardless of whether or not the defendants committed the crimes. Prosecutorial expert witnesses (hired guns) want to please the state in hopes of being utilized in future cases, so they always say what the prosecution wants to hear. Most jurors have been conditioned by society to believe that if someone has been charged with child sex abuse, they must be guilty -- and that's not to mention the ever-present peer conformity influence in the jury room. Then there's the fact that much of the public obtains a perverse, vengeful gratification from observing the proceedings from afar, usually without a clue as to whether the defendants are genuinely culpable.

People do have intense emotions when it comes to child sexual abuse because it's a horrendous, sickening crime against the most innocent and vulnerable in our society.

That's no excuse for destroying the lives of innocent people who've been falsely accused.

We should react passionately, and with disdain to childhood sexual abuse.

But we should also react passionately when an innocent adult's life has been destroyed by false accusation.

And as far as "proof of allegations" go. Child sexual abuse rarely comes with this so-called "proof" that you
seem to be requiring.

If there is no proof, then there should be no prosecution. The likelihood of false conviction is too great.

In fact, the law and the system favors the pedophile.

THAT is bunk! For the past two decades the get-the-pedophile craze has enjoyed a national witch-hunt status thanks to exploitative politicians and our sensationalistic media. You're merely echoing a popular taking point.

Children are often seen as unreliable witnesses.

Yes. And that's why they're coached heavily pretrial by psychologists who are pursuing the state's interest.

District Attorneys are often reluctant to bring cases forward with young victims--when there is no physical evidence, because it's easy to tear down a confused, abused child on the stand.

I call that an essential safeguard to help avert false conviction. I think it's wrong to accept conviction of a few innocent people to assure that we get all of the pedophiles.

As far as "evidence"...rarely, does a victim have the luxury of "evidence" unless the perp took pictures or caused
great physical harm. Usually there is no evidence.

So the prosecution fabricates a believable story that *seems* viable enough to sell to the jury, or uses other manipulations -- that should be relatively easy considering the virtually unlimited resources of a state. By comparison, a typical defendant's representation is drastically limited resource-wise. Moreover, typical jurors -- most of whom share your mindset -- are predisposed to find for the prosecution. That sure seems fair. NOT!

And since 9 out of ten sexual abuse victims never tell--the overwhelming majority of perps remain unaccountable.

Lets not leave out the children who falsely accuse teachers or neighbors they don't like. By the way, it would be nice if you could prove that "9 out of ten" figure you've cited. My bet is that's an estimation from 'experts' who stand to gain in their field by demonstrating a great need for their services.

So....yeah, we're outraged by sex crimes against children...and we should be.

That's how they want you to be...that's how they tell you to be... and that's certainly what you give them.

I highly doubt that outrage sets up this horrible, unfair scenario for the perp

No. It sets up a horrible, unfair scenario for the falsely accused.

because so far, the system has worked very well in silencing victims and in making it very difficult to even get charged brought against a perp

There you go with those talking points again.

[CoffeeCat]

114. For every person who is falsely accused...

...of sexual abuse against a child---there are tens of thousands of victims of sexual abuse who never tell
about what happened to them.

No one wants anyone to be falsely accused.

However, your outrage at a very rare situation---seems odd considering the staggering number of sexual abuse
victims who NEVER see justice.

One in ten sexual abuse victims NEVER tell. And when they do tell--how many of those result in the perp being
convicted? A child victim coming forward as an adult--rarely gets justice.

You're describing very unfortunate, but minority situations--all of the "therapist leading the patient" "hypnosis" "false accusations". Yes, these
things happen, but they're not the norm. Those descriptions and worst-case scenarios do not accurately reflect what happens
in the vast majority of therapists office.

One in four girls and one in seven boys is sexually abused before the age of 18. Most never tell, but many of them go on
to find their lives wrecked, and they seek therapy with responsible, professional therapists who help them heal the wounds
of the past. That's the norm.

We shouldn't define sexual abuse--or the treatment of sexual abuse victims by rare scenarios that you describe---because it
minimizes and denigrates the real pain that sexual abuse victims experience.

Yes, these rare cases happen---but these circumstances that have nothing to do with what the vast majority of sexual
abuse victims experience experience in therapy---and in their painful recoveries from these hideous crimes.

[flakban]

116. call me skeptical but I don't trust your figures -- there are other important factors to consider...

You come across as sincere; I believe that you believe what you're saying. But you're echoing numbers and ratios that are not objectively provable. You simply can't know how many innocent people have been convicted of child molestation (or, for that matter, anything else). I understand that numbers are disseminated depicting the frequency of child molestations within our nation. But you're trusting (as accurate) statistics generated and published by government agencies or certain organizations with specific interests in maintaining a public perception. Government and corporate cover-ups and manipulations are a sad fact of life.

According the Innocence Project, there have been 240 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Seventeen of those 240 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. And those are just the ones that were fortunate enough to be taken on by the Innocence Project, and in which the DNA evidence had been collected and was still available. In many cases evidence is conveniently purged by police departments and prosecutors to prevent the potential for such a revisiting effort. Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to get a previously adjudicated case reopened because prosecutors want to preserve their convictions and courts are not inclined to hear newly obtained evidence, even when that evidence is conclusively exculpatory. So there are presumably many wrongfully convicted individuals in our prisons, the genuine ratio of which we may never be able to ascertain, or even imagine.

Here's one more thing to consider: Let me express one of the reasons I'm troubled by the harsh frenzied message society sends each day to pedophiles that they will be apprehended, likely assaulted in prison where there's nowhere to run, and perhaps beaten to death by other inmates or even by the prison authorities there, and that we as a society embrace such treatment. Albeit the messages we promulgate in this regard may present as they're intended, I have deep concern that some of these disgustingly deplorable perpetrators may be more inclined to murder their young victims (particularly in instances where the victim is the only witness) to protect themselves from the brutality that many of us wish upon them. If only one child were killed by one of these thugs in an attempt to save his own ass, it's FAR too many! My suspicion is that the harsher the message about what will happen to these perps when they are caught, the more likely they may be to murder their victims. And I hope you won't take the attitude that the perps who kill their victims would have killed them irrespective of societal message or penalty... because if the messages we send to these people have any deterrent effect at all, then reasonably the most harsh of these messages get through to some of them as well. Cause and Effect IS a factor and should be seriously considered. Bandwagon hype aside, this concerns saving innocent lives!

[CoffeeCat]

127. There have been numerous studies and polls...

...that all echo the same numbers regarding the sexual abuse of children. These stats are validated over and over
again. One in four girl and one in seven boys is sexually abused before the age of 18. It's possible that the
government conducted a study or two--but there are countless studies and polls that repeat those numbers.

I think you and I can both agree that most children do not tell.

Another statistic that is seen over and over--is that most sexual abuse does not happen by stranger abduction. Those
cases get hyped in the media, but they are rare and those stranger cases comprise a tiny minority of sexual abuse.

Most sexual abuse perpetrators are family members--most often a person living inside the home or with
access to the home--father, stepfather, grandfather, uncle, etc. So, your argument about the perpetrators murdering their
victims is understood--but the epidemic of childhood sexual abuse that affects the majority of victims involves
family members who use their authority and family position to traumatize their victims into silence.

You can I can agree that false accusations are so wrong and those accusations destroy lives. Anyone who cares about
eradicating childhood sexual abuse should do everything possible to make sure that therapists are responsible, and that
innocent people are not accused wrongly. These bad cases only serve to discredit real cases of sexual abuse--and it
causes a general mistrust of victims. This is so destructive, because it further encourages victims to be unsure of
themselves and to remain silent.

However, I think we can both agree that society should be outraged and disgusted by these crimes. This is a sign of
progress. It's not "indoctrination" as you said. Most people want to vomit when they hear that a man had sex with
a young child. That's a natural response. It's a good thing. I don't advocate killing anyone, or anyone being harmed
in prison. In fact, I think prisons should get serious about rehabilitation--and that pedophiles should be forced to
endure rigorous psychotherapy to unravel their own pain and trauma--that may be at the center of their own pedophilia.
But I think it's confusing when you seem to advocate that people NOT be repulsed, or that people who are revolted by
pedophilia--are somehow defective or victims of "indoctrination". Don't you see how that can be construed as a
very odd statement?

Because the crime is so heinous--it is difficult for even the most self actualized person to extend grace and
understanding to the pedophile. You can surely understand why people might be naturally less inclined to
offer compassion to someone who would sexually terrorize children in ways that leave their victims emotionally stunted
and traumatized for life.

Pedophiles are on par with serial killers. In fact, one could argue that the majority of pedophiles are worse than
serial killers, because most pedophiles have a familial or other close relationship with their victims that they
exploit for their own gratification. This causes sickening damage to the child--who is dependent upon their perpetrator
for safety, food and love, but the pedophile does not care---because that child is only an object to them. It is not
wrong to be repulsed by the reality of those crimes. In fact, if you are not repulsed--I contend that something is wrong.

I think we can all agree that being repulsed, saddened and angry about any adult who would sexually violate a child--is natural,
normal and decent.

[flakban]

133. my response...

I agree with you that these crimes are repugnant and that visceral reactions are natural. And I agree with you that pedophilia would likely better be addressed clinically as opposed to punitively -- I think it would render a more effective result and thus a safer society. But I'm not with you in your argument that since most sexual abuse is perpetrated by non-strangers, our savagely angry messages to pedophiles shouldn't pose a significant danger for our children, or at least is not a factor in the decisions of certain child-assaulting perpetrators. As I've previously stated, in my opinion even one murder of a child resulting from the perp attempting to cover his tracks is TOO MANY! I will not change my view in this respect; any death of a child stemming from this preventable factor is NOT acceptable. Period.

And I don't agree with you that the scare/infuriation hype is not perpetually utilized as a tool by politicians and the media. It's used precisely for the purpose of eliciting public rage each day. That's not to invalidate the public's emotional response to said hype. But we must acknowledge that rage clouds reason, as well as compels our government institutions and media corporations to accommodate our outcry with the aforementioned harsh messages. My fear is that this cycle may be indirectly responsible for the murders of some innocent children. Again, EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY!

None of us likes to believe that we're susceptible to indoctrination via mass media channels, but sadly it's a true phenomenon. So I'm not advocating that people not be repulsed... I'm repulsed by those unconscionable acts as well. The intent of my OP was to express that our inherently conceived responses of repulsion and anger are both perpetuated and exploited by our tabloid and mainstream news sources, and by many of our elected officials. The egregiously heinous phenomenon of sexual assault upon children by pedophiles shouldn't ever be used as a tool of eliciting passionate rage among the masses when children, even a few, may die as a result. Moreover, accused people should never be presumed guilty unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. And I think all of us would do well to acknowledge that many times even convictions fail to prove culpability. If anyone who's criticized my views were falsely convicted of a reprehensible crime and then dispatched to prison for a long time, I'm willing to bet that he or she would change his or her positive feeling about our system of adjudication and its greatness.

[spoony]

31. "indoctrination campaign against the concept of men sexually molesting children"

I don't think most of us need to be "indoctrinated" to be against that. "Go figure."

[flakban]

77. Sadly, many of you aren't aware that you indeed HAVE been... go figure. (nt)

[Joe Fields]

32. How's this for accurate...he paid more than 25 million bucks over the years

to stay out of court over child molestation accusations.

Jesse James was never convicted of bank robbery...

[Hepburn]

45. He paid it because the insurance companies insisted he pay it.

Duh....:eyes:

[Joe Fields]

49. Oh, sure. And just why did the insurance company insist on that?

Let me guess....I know, to protect his brand...

Uh huh....

[Hepburn]

53. You cannot be THAT out of touch with reality, can you?

In law school, I was a law clerk in a insurance defense law firm. The law firm answered to the fucking insurance company ~~ not to the client whom they supposedly represent in the court case. If an adjuster says SETTLE THE CASE, it does NOT matter if the client demands a trial. The asshole insurance company will defend on the trial BUT with a reservation of right which means if the client loses the case, there is no fucking coverage is what that amounts to.

Sheesh...! We are dealing with profits in the case of insurance defense ~~ not justice. Do you have a clue how much more a trial would have cost than the settlement sum they advised? And a client being told that if you lose, you pay the damage sum ~~ what the hell do you think the client would do?

Duh...:eyes:

[Joe Fields]

64. Bullshit alert!

Someone accuses me of being a pedophile, and the charges are completely unfounded, and I guarantee you, I don't care how famous I am or how much money I have or may not have, I will fight those charges with my last breath.

Your spin stinks to high heaven.

[MrSlayer]

46. Jackson had no one but himself to blame for that.

You never pay someone a staggering amount of money if you are not guilty of what they accused you of. It wouldn't have cost him more to fight it in court than what the payoff was. Hell, I would spend every penny I had to fight off those allegations and he had a ton more money than a mere $22 million at the time, it's the very worst thing you can be accused of. He would always be able to make more money. And then he went on and continued to sleep with children. He dug his own grave on that issue.

Secondly, very few people here are for covering up what happened in the Iraq prisons and black sites and whatnot. We would all like to see justice done for that but Congress isn't going to do anything about it and apparently the President and his team aren't either. And the fact is, most people in this country have no idea these things even took place. It was never brought up in our corporate media at all. No pictures of it were ever shown and all the video was destroyed. The American people would be outraged if they knew about it and heads would have to roll. We're talking rape and murder here, not putting underwear on someone's head or naked pyramids. The people on the big team in Washington, and they are one big team on the same side, are never going to let that happen.


Everyone knew about Michael Jackson, almost no one knows about the war crimes. It's kind of hard to compare the two.

[EFerrari]

52. Sorry, that's just wrong. People pay out everything they have and more

not to get involved in the disgusting crap shoot that is our criminal justice system.

[MrSlayer]

65. Balls. he had more than enough money to out lawyer the people against him.

It only cost O.J. $10 million to get off on double murder. We're not talking about some shlub making 20 grand going up against Proctor and Gamble or something. We're talking megarich superstar versus a nobody. Are you telling me the plaintiff was a billionaire? No way. You never let something like that stand against you when you have more money than god. This is a weak defense.


What about my other point, do you at least agree with that?

[EFerrari]

70. Let me see, honestly, if I understand what you are saying.

Is your objection to the Jackson pay out that he didn't pay enough? I can't speak to that. But no one with any kind of money would allow themselves to be put in the hands of our system. It's too f#cked up and it kills too many innocent people.

Was your second point that the comparison doesn't work? I agree with that but maybe not for the same reason.

[MrSlayer]

79. No, my oblection is that he paid out at all.

I wouldn't pay anyone anything if they were accusing me of something I didn't do. Particularly child molestation charges. My point is that he had more than enough money to assure that he wouldn't be found guilty even if he was but especially if he wasn't. The system wasn't going to kill Michael Jackson, no way. He wasn't some ghetto kid from the projects with a public defender, he was an international superstar with access to the very best lawyers out there.

[EFerrari]

81. And that's where we disagree. I see no guilt in not putting yourself

in those hands in the first place.

[magellan]

83. By the same token, I wouldn't accept any amount in settlement

...if I truly believed or knew my child had been molested.

[MrSlayer]

85. Neither would I.

But not everyone is the same. Lots of people would get serious green eyes over it.

[magellan]

90. Lots of people didn't make such claims against MJ n/t

[Hepburn]

57. Wrong....really wrong.

People pay to settle cases all day long. It has NOTHING to do with liabilty and/or culpability. It has to do with CONTROLLING the damages.

:eyes:

And, btw, it would have cost more than the settlement. Look at a legal bill some time ~~ it is NOT just the attys fees. Got any idea what dailies cost?

[MrSlayer]

68. I don't think it would have. And in his position, so what?

All he'd have to do is dance around for an hour a night for a month and he'd have that money right back. And yeah, most of the time when you settle, the one settling is the guilty party. There would be no damage to control if he was acquitted. He could sue back for fees and break the guy accusing him. Sorry, not buying.

[treestar]

78. You're not knowing the difference between civil and criminal

One does not get acquitted in a civil case, one is simply found not liable for the damages. The attorney's fees are worth saving then. This is why insurance companies settle "nuisance suits" and whine about it so much. Why do they do that, because secretly they know their insureds are liable for the tort or whatever, so they settle? No, it's an economic decision.

A civil trial involving Michael Jackson would easily cost him more than the damages allegedly incurred. And if the plaintiffs took the $$ in settlement, they knew there was a risk of the jury finding for MJ. Then they would get no $$. That's why the took the settlement. If they were so sure they were right, why didn't they insist on going to trial to get more $$ than was offered in the settlement? And their lawyers were probably on a contingency fee. From what you're saying, they knew their accusations were false, and that's why they took the settlement rather than take the cases to the jury.

[MrSlayer]

80. I know the difference, I'm just interchanging the terms, sorry.

If he wasn't liable (guilty) in a civil trial he wouldn't have had to pay out anything to his accusers. It might have cost him more in lawyers but he could have counter-sued for the lawyer fees and broken the plaintiff. And no amount of money is enough to save yourself from the reputation of a pedophile. This guy could print money at will, why not pay whatever it cost to be vindicated? It doesn't make sense to say he paid just to make it go away when it comes to such heinous charges and you have the ability to make that lawyer money back in a month ot two of touring. I see it as him paying to make it go away so he wouldn't have to face a criminal trial and possibly go to prison. Why didn't the family go for more? For the same reason people take the lump sum when they hit the lottery. $22 million is a very nice chunk of change and maybe they didn't want the kid to have to go over it again in public.

[yodoobo]

72. I disagree

"You never pay someone a staggering amount of money if you are not guilty of what they accused you of."


By paying money, he guaranteed his freedom. By fighting it, there was chance that he would lose everything. His freedom and his money. And while the amount was staggering to you and I, that is not necessarily the case for someone with MJ's earning power.

Looking at it in this context, its a simple risk/reward equation.


Lets break it down even simpler for us regular folks.

You have been accused of a horrific crime. The Prosecution offers you two choices:

1) Bargain. Pay a fine of $10. Guaranteed outcome:
A) 100% chance of winning. Your reputation is forever sullied.

2) Fight it! Pay legal fees of about $3. Possible outcome:
A) 10% chance of death penalty or life in prison. Reputation forever sullied.
B) 90% chance of winning. Reputation forever sullied.

Who would NOT choose #1 when money isn't an issue? Massive possibly downside with the only upside saving a small amount of money that is essentially meaningless anyway.

Game theory actually addresses this very delimma - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_delimma

(FWIW I think M.J. was guilty, but I do believe he made the correct risk/reward decision)

[flakban]

88. not if he was emotionally retarded and thus entirely innocent of any sexual intent or crime ...

If he didn't possess the reasoning skills necessary to understand the implications of someone his age participating in sleepovers with children, and if his intentions were merely those of an 11-year-old child due to stunted emotional growth, then he was a victim. We shouldn't punish someone for being a sexual pervert simply because we're unable to discern whether they actually committed a sexual crime, or whether their values and stunted emotional growth are just out-of-whack with society. In fact, the harsh punishment of someone with such a naive mindset for sexual assault, if it actually did not occur, should be a crime in itself.

You never pay someone a staggering amount of money if you are not guilty of what they accused you of. It wouldn't have cost him more to fight it in court than what the payoff was. Hell, I would spend every penny I had to fight off those allegations and he had a ton more money than a mere $22 million at the time

Wrong! It would have cost him far more had he been convicted in court in the sense that he would have been sent to prison. Considering the strong potential for such a conviction, he opted not to gamble it. As for "always be able to make more money," that's a deceptive statement. First, he couldn't have very easily created new and marketable material from a prison cell. And second, the allegations themselves significantly stumped his marketing potential. Always being able to make more money doesn't necessarily mean that one will be able to stay in the black enough to pay off incurred debts, or that they will even be able to viably survive. Jackson's career progression plummeted to staggering lows after the accusations. My bet is that YOU wouldn't be able to easily recover from such a blow either.

Secondly, very few people here are for covering up what happened in the Iraq prisons and black sites and whatnot. We would all like to see justice done for that but Congress isn't going to do anything about it and apparently the President and his team aren't either.

Then get out in the streets and protest Mr. Obama's decision of complicity with war criminals...ambush corporate media correspondents...set up organized information rallies to get the truth about what's happening out.

And the fact is, most people in this country have no idea these things even took place. It was never brought up in our corporate media at all. No pictures of it were ever shown and all the video was destroyed. The American people would be outraged if they knew about it and heads would have to roll. We're talking rape and murder here, not putting underwear on someone's head or naked pyramids.

I fully agree. That's why the corporate media should be target one! The masses, who are continually propagandized by the corporate media's filtered and manipulative broadcasts, dumbed-down by their concealment of critical facts, and indoctrinated with error from their many deliberate distortions, should be apprised of reality at all cost. Start a campaign to 'viralize' the truth about the foul deeds of corporate media (i.e., the shield for government corruption - because it's SO profitable for them). Don't just accept things as they are...recruit people and get out there and make a change!

[Laelth]

56. As I have said before ...

People are threatened by those who challenge established categories of race, sexuality, and gender. Michael Jackson did that. Was he white or black? Was he gay or straight? Was he male or female. MJ threatened a lot of people by blurring those boundaries.

Of course, on a liberal board like D.U., we expect to find people who are tolerant and understanding. I was shocked at the degree to which people here have been threatened by (and actively hate) Michael Jackson.

Who knew?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[EFerrari]

62. Well said. n/t

[flakban]

93. it just goes to demonstrate the power of the institutions who indoctrinate the masses...

Of course, on a liberal board like D.U., we expect to find people who are tolerant and understanding. I was shocked at the degree to which people here have been threatened by (and actively hate) Michael Jackson.

These pervasive institutions plant the seeds from which we forge our opinions and then perpetually reinforce those opinions on a daily basis. Most news consumers erroneously believe they are developing such opinions of their own volition. And most will even argue the matter, insisting that their views are formed solely of their own careful judgments. I as well notice this from DU members. Not from everyone, thankfully. But from quite a few. It's a disturbing reality.

[Fire1]

89. Welcome to America. Land of the 'free,' home of the 'brave.' n/t

[redqueen]

91. I think I get what you're trying to say.

Pedophilia is the perfect tool to use if you want someone to react more with their 'gut' than their head. It can be extremely effective at clouding even the most level-headed person's thinking.

[flakban]

92. Yes. Politicians and the media both revel in exploiting it for their own gains...

They aren't concerned with genuine guilt; they're concerned with manipulating the masses. Pedophilia is an ideal tool for that end. You got it.

[troubledamerican]

95. Those among us who have been molested find this piece sickening

"Indoctrination campaign against the concept of men sexually molesting children" is a calculated phrase that belongs in NAMBLA.

Social horror at molesting children is not "a tool for politicians to win support" nor is it an "indoctrination campaign".

Don't tell me to "re-read" like you told others.

That first paragraph is fucking horrifying. Either rewrite it or stand by your NAMBLA words.

[flakban]

99. Keep your accusatory nonsense to yourself...

People such as yourself who attempt to falsely associate one who makes a statement they don't like with a detestable group like NAMBLA sickens me. Are false accusations your only ammunition? On second thought, I wouldn't even call what you said ammunition, it's more like rude drivel. If you don't like the message, please feel free to ignore it. Your post is ludicrous.

[troubledamerican]

101. "Indoctrination campaign against the concept of men sexually molesting children"

I'm not the only one here who has commented on your choice of words.

YOU wrote it.

[flakban]

102. It is what it is... they've been selling it to the public for many years

That doesn't diminish the heinous nature of child sex abuse. It's reprehensible! It merely means that the corporate/tabloid media and the politicians have whipped the matter into a frenzy (mainly for their own returns, which they indeed get) and thus the lives of many innocent people are ruined thanks to the resulting hyper-sensitive environment. The accused innocent, and especially the convicted innocent are victims too! Why don't you care about them and their permanently destroyed lives?

And why not be as passionate about those poor children who where abused sexually and otherwise by our 'war on terror' interrogators? To me, that's immensely sickening and should be dealt with harshly and forthwith by our executive branch!!!

[Echo In Light]

117. The OP was attempting to have their view legitimatized via $5 term "indoctrinate"

...even though it's clear they haven't much knowledge of how that process works.

[flakban]

118. oh, I indeed know how it works... and I can see it has worked extremely well on you! (nt)

[Name removed]

119. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flakban]

136. A $5 term? HAHA! I'm disappointed that it's beyond your purview (nt)

[Political Heretic]

98. As Jon Stewart would say, "Democratic Underground, or NAMBLA...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMupwUD8vzk

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. Michael Jackson Is Gone Now

What he did or didn't do is between him and God.I am puzzled at some of the replies here that suggest it is acceptable to invite children who aren't your own into your bed as long as there is no sex involved.

The posters here who suggest that know that if a poster started a post and asked if that type of behavior was acceptable they would be lambasted and if a friend, acquaintance, or relative asked if that type of behavior was acceptable they would be met with the same response.

[eilen]

104. I've heard and read interviews and testimonies

of people who have interviewed MJ and seen him with these young "friends" of his and his hands never leave these kids. He is holding, petting, touching them continuously.

I believe the children. Michael Jackson was an adult, with boatloads of money and lawyers and managed to be competent enough to make investments, create music and go on tours but not able to understand that he should not be sleeping with boys? I think MJ thinks he can have whatever he wants. Why not? He has purchased wombs, a cadavar, exotic zoo animals, oxygen chambers, and all manner of odd assortments of tacky ostentatious garbage.

I think he just felt like he should be able to do what the hell he wanted to do and that laws did not apply to the great MJ, self anointed "king of pop." He had a tremendous debt load--owed people lots of cash. He wouldn't pay his big bill without selling any assets, which was the only reason he likely took this tour in his dessicated physical state.

The pay off was blood money. I'm sure the people took it because they did not want to drag their kids through more public wall to wall news coverage, especially when that report came out.

He fired anyone that told him to slow down with his profligate spending which in itself was obscene.-- He surrounded himself with "yes men". He moved to Dubai where the law is who ever has lots of money is right. He had a houseful of drugs -- some drugs the hospital floor I worked on couldn't even have like diprivan. Worse than Rush. He could have gone to jail just for that.

Not everyone is a fanboy and I think the DU MJ fans should realize that and suck it up. The sainthood meme is gorge inducing.

So to sum things up MJ was talented, gifted and had a very long career. He was also twisted and fucked up. He may have been a victim of greedy and abusive individuals but he certainly did not seek to repair the damage with counseling and therapy, instead sought the surgeons knife, against medical advice, finding someone to butcher him and pursued questionable and actionable relations with young boys. He then retreats to Dubai, which is like the capital of sex slavery, and child slavery in the Middle East. The sheiks there are like "anything Michael wants he gets." Judging from his drug cache, they are right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. That May All Be True. I Guess Some Believe Now Isn't The Time To Discuss It

I am just blown away by the disingenuousness of some posters here. I am sure if a poster started a post and asked if it's acceptable to invite prebuscent children who aren't yours into your bed even if no sex occurrs that poster would be lambasted.

[cornermouse]

109. Granted, they were my own kids not someone else's

but when they got frightened in the middle of the night or if they got cold because they had kicked their blankets off they would crawl into bed with me. Sometimes I woke up, sometimes I didn't. Does that make me automatically guilty of pedophilia or child molestation?

Bottom line is that whatever he was or wasn't, its up to someone else to judge him. He's left the building and us behind.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. I Was Scared Of The Dark

I'd often sleep in my parents' bedroom. That's different than sleeping in my friend's parents' bedroom...

Michael Jackson is gone. I don't like to speak harshly of the dead or anybody.

All I am saying is that if a person admitted sleeping with prepubscent children who weren't his own he would be lambasted.

[davidpdx]

108. I'm not a huge fan, but watched the memorial service online

When I was younger I liked his music, but never followed his career closely as some. I think it's time for people to let it go on both sides of the argument. The guy is dead. He was very troubled and whether he did or didn't touch children I don't know. I do agree the coverage has been so wall to wall with the media obsession that other more important things have gotten coverage.

[Frank Cannon]

113. Well said.

[sendero]

111. I'll admit..

.... I have been suspicious of Jackson like many people. But after giving it all the thought it deserves, I've decided that it is not my place to judge because I just don't know anything for sure.

Was he weird? Yes, but that doesn't automatically make him a child molester. If he did wrong that's between him and god if there is one, I will think of him as a brilliant performer (I never cared for that genre of music, but anyone seeing him dance could recognize his astounding talent) and forget the rest of it. I hope he rests in peace, because I don't think peace was much a part of his life.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

122. Yes we are all innocent until proven guilty

or we settle an out of court civil suit for 22 million dollars and the cancer survivor victim describes your genitalia to the investigators against the pictures the investigators have of the defendant who later is exonerated in the same state that exonerated both Robert Blake and OJ Simpson.

[Critters2]

123. LOL! Well said! nt

[liberalhistorian]

125. The perpetual proliferation of these fucking

Wacko Jacko threads and the condemnation of anyone who isn't falling down in sackcloth and ashes before his altar is the REAL crime. Jesus Christ, give me a FUCKING break.

[eilen]

137. Hear Hear!!!

It's like listening to the sara worshippers

[MicaelS]

126. Utter fertlizer

The cases of OJ Simpson, Robert Blake and Michael Jackson prove that in California that if you are a celebrity and have enough money you can buy yourself a verdict of Not-Guilty. If any of those three had been an ordinary person, they would doing hard time in the California penal system, or in the case of Simpson or possibly Blake, on Death Row. A number of celebrities have been caught DUI in California and gotten little more than a slap on the wrist that would have gotten other people serious time. When incarcerated they received prefential treatment.

I'm shocked that on a Progressive website you even question the role wealth and celebrity plays in the administration of justice in California. People reactions of revulsion toward Jackson and Simpson recognize the role that wealth plays in the administration of justice in the country.

No matter the level of Jackson's talent, he was an utter fool to have little boys spend the night at his home, and in his bed. If he had never done these things, I seriously doubt if the question of him being accused of being a pedophile would have ever arisen.

[flakban]

128. actually, I mostly agree with you...

You're absolutely correct about the celebrity status factor protecting these people from conviction and penalty in the cases you've cited. I never disputed that; it wasn't my message.

However, just because these celebrities are given special treatment, it doesn't diminish the inaccuracy within our system to determine guilt or innocence. In Jackson's case there were other significant indicators that, at the very least, established there was no conclusive proof he committed any sexual crimes or had and sexual intent -- despite that many people want him to be guilty because he looked weird and acted bizarrely. But without conclusive proof, and especially considering the incentives for extortion that existed and were mentioned by the accuser and his family members, in a truly fair and just legal environment we would not be able to destroy a man's life because of the hyped up blood-lust for retribution that stems from what we think happened.