Comments

Agree the jury system is optimal. Jackson's karma is catching up with him though - luckily more of his resources were drained by the trial - one can only hope that his "lifestyle" will be minimized due to lack of funding.

He is the ultimate freakshow with bleached ultrawhite skin, a penchant for dangling babies over balconies, a sliver of a nose left, and quite the alcohol addiction to name just part of the laundry list of radical weirdness that pervades the persona.

He was/is a musical genius though - and the USA seems to crave comebacks ... so who knows what the future holds. It escapes me how the Beatles intellectual property swung to Wacko-Jacko.

Posted by Sean at June 14, 2005 8:20 AM

The jury system is not always just and is open to abuse, but I can't think of a better way to ensure fairness. I don't think the jury in this case could have been happy with the decision they had to make based on the evidence. From what I can gather, most of the boys considered victims of Michael Jackson seemed to come from dubious families which makes the charge of abuse hard to prove especially when gifts of money etc. had changed hands in the past, and the prime witnesses for the prosecution were shown to be of such questionable character. I'm particularly suspicious of the testimony of his second wife who was fully expected to come out against him but when on the stand spoke of his "greatness" and "generosity". Call me cynical, but I'd bet there's a Swiss bank account somewhere a lot fatter than it was before the trial!

What I find disgraceful in this case are the parents. What mother or father in this forum would allow their pre-pubescent boy to sleep in the bed of some man?

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 14, 2005 8:34 AM

Tom

When I served on my one jury, it was a capital murder case and the prosecution was a complete mess. The jury trial should have never happened. We acquitted the defendant but not without trepidation. My feelings after the trial is that the only cases that make jury trials are cases that couldn’t be adjudicated in a plea bargain. The cases are weak because, if they had the defendant, the defendant would have plea bargained to a lesser sentence. Sad but true.
Regarding MJ, not illegal but more than a little questionable. Regarding his future, he has been a musician all his life and I hope another Thriller will appeal from him and Steve Wynn will sign him to a ten year Vegas contract for mega bucks and we can see him instead of Siegfried and Roy.

Posted by Jack Covert at June 14, 2005 8:52 AM

I'm of two minds about this, actually. On one hand, I am a staunch supporter of the voice of the people, of the ability for regular citizens to step up and become part of the justice system and help clarify the innocence or guilt of another citizen. On the other side, though, I think that there are situations that are frankly too complex for the "common man" to fully understand.

Think about a case where one person is alleged to have posted lots of hate messages about another; if you didn't fully understand the nuances of the online world and how hard or easy it is to masquerade as someone else, you, as a juror, might well miss out on the crux of the case.

Ostensibly that's the job of the prosecution / defense, to clarify and reduce the complexities of the case down to its most simple essence, but complex doesn't always lend itself to simplification.

Not sure what system would work better (perhaps a more literal interpretation of "juror of one's peers"?)

Nonetheless, in the big picture, I think that our juror system is one of the most important protections against a judicial system run amok.

Posted by Dave Taylor at June 14, 2005 9:01 AM

For me human justice must have a popular tinge. This means a jury will be always closer from what a just decision is than a one person´s decision, though it´s a proffessional of the Law who takes it. Juries will have their own risks but no human decision is ever perfect and at least it will be the common people´s sense of justice that decides. I like it.

Posted by felix gerena at June 14, 2005 9:30 AM

A really tricky one.

Like everyone else I cannot see a better way than trial by jury.

I am right with Noel about the parents in this situation.

I have three children and in my opinion any parent who allows their child to sleep in the same bed as a 40 year old man is in serious need of help.

I am amazed to hear anyone justify that but sure enough there have been interviews on our media where parents have said they would feel ok about it ... I am obviously way out of touch (not!)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 14, 2005 10:10 AM

I'm going to pick up Dave's point and throw in a dissenting voice here. In the majority of cases, I think that the jury system is the least bad way of deciding cases. HOWEVER, is it appropriate for every single case? Here in the UK we've seen large, complex fraud cases collapse and we've seen juries unable to reach a verdict in major rape and other trials where events are contested. We have tribunals to decide some immigration and other issues. In the US, I don't think you're using juries for the Guantanemo cases...! So my point is: would the public (and the public purse) have been better served by taking this kind of high profile case and hearing it before a panel of judges? Would they have taken out the emotion, the playing to the jury, the grandstanding, the sheer ammount of time (unfair to all concerned) and quickly focused on the real issues? I'm tending to the view that for complex frauds, rape / sex crimes and maybe some other issues we need a different system.

And I'd be interested to hear what the judge in the Jackson case thought of the verdict.

Posted by Mark JF at June 14, 2005 11:10 AM

As a white South African, I can tell you there is no connection with Jackson and Nelson Mandela. At least Mandela has never been accused of child molestation - how's that for starters. Mandsela's dream became reality for him and his country. We all know now what Jackson dreams about. This is not the last time that we shall hear from Michael Jackson, is it?

Posted by Russ at June 14, 2005 11:42 AM

Good catch Sean !! Folks that a good read. !!!

In most countries where there exists a jury system in one form or another, this is the way that justice is served. By the people.

Posted by /pd at June 14, 2005 12:39 PM

How about questioning by a judge's panel, with decision on guilt/innocence by a jury. A split between the inquisitorial of France and the adversarial of Anglo-Saxonia, perhaps.

But what intrigues me is that the random selection of the jury room resembles the concept of the wiki - i.e. judgment arrived at by random, open selection. It's possible for a judge to set aside the decision, as it is possible to roll back the wiki, but it's rarely done without thought, care and sensitivity.

Posted by Andrew Denny at June 14, 2005 1:05 PM

What's that comment about democracy - it's not perfect but it's better than the alternative. It seems the jury system is similar.

Is a "common man" jury the best approach though when one side can out spend, out glamour, out research the other so strongly. This isn't even about Jackson / O.J. / Martha / Blake etc. so much as it is about the fact that if the two sides (defense and prosection) are not evenly balanced can we really depend on reliable/proper outcomes?

It works both ways - high profile, big bank account defense vs small budget DA office - or - low income, low/negative prestige defense vs "The State". Either way it seems like money, prestige, power can be as powerful as the truth. Like all things in business I wonder how much is "truth" deciding and how much is the brand created for each side deciding.

Final thought on Jackson -

Is the jury right and was justice served if there wasn't enough to convict ---- but they all (and most of us) know deep down in our gut that he's guilty?

What about the idea of professional juries - folks trained, paid and employed for jury service as a profession?

Posted by Steve at June 14, 2005 1:13 PM

I think pretty much anything can be understood by ordinary people, for example, like me, though I grant you it might take some time! In my experience the vast majority of people are decent and when they're called on to do jury duty, they take their job very seriously and are willing to put in the time and effort necessary to reach a fair decision under the guidelines of the law. In other words, I think the jury system, on the whole, is the best system for determining innocence or guilt, even if occasionally, there are high profile, and not so high profile, failures. No system can ever be expected to be perfect all of the time.

However, what you raise about really complicated fraud cases (or other highly complicated industry specific crimes) is interesting and prompts the question, should a jury of your peers in these sorts of cases mean, for example, qualified accountants?

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 14, 2005 2:30 PM

Steve makes a comment about everyone knowing in their gut that Jackson was guilty, even if it couldn't be proven.

What the HELL happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Oh, I forgot - it's now ok to assume guilt. It's ok to hold people without charging them. It's ok to pretend that the Bill of rights is out of date, just like the Geneva conventions.

For the record: I'm white, I'm middle aged, and I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson's. But I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything and that media coverage will play to biases.

I don't know that Michael Jackson is guilty of abusing children. I do know that the same DA has prosecuted or attempted to prosecute him twice, and has failed both times.

I also know that Trial by Jury in theory should replicate Wisdom of Crowds theory - and that it should produce better results than would occur with one decider most of the time.

Posted by Greg Burton at June 14, 2005 3:07 PM

Maybe there's another problem here, beyond whether it should be a jury or some kind of professional panel that adjudicates complex cases. I think Greg's point is right: you're technically innocent until proven guilty. But in the Jackson case, the jurors and practically everyone else found aspects of Jackson's behaviour highly odd: we have now created a case where a guy acknowledges sleeping with little boys but he isn't a sex criminal. Picking up Andrew's point above, maybe we need to look at how we investigate some cases and how we bring charges. Jackson is innocent because on 10 specific charges he was found not guilty. How would it have panned out if instead of an adversarial system as at present, we'd had an inquiry panel to take a dispassionate and neutral look at his behaviour - and then rule on that?

(Maybe that's me showing my feminine side - discard the macho adversarial system and plump for a softer investigation?!)

And here's another idea. Under Scottish law, a charge can be found "not proven". It means (I believe - I'm not a lawyer) there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but not enough to clearly establish innocence either. I think cases like this are allowed to remain open should anything further occur.

Posted by Mark JF at June 15, 2005 2:42 AM

On the complex fraud issue(i.e. whether a jury can really understand the case)

I think this says far more about fraud legislation than the effectiveness of trial by jury. Legal wording aside (which is always difficult) if a normal human (with guidance from a judge) cannot understand the basic principles of an item of legislation then surely that is flawed?

Posted by PaulH at June 15, 2005 6:11 AM

correct! - under scottish law, unlike most other legal systems, there are 3 possible jury verdicts 1/ guilty 2/ not guilty 3/ not proven...

not proven means exactly what it says, not enough evidence to prove conclusive guilt but enough evidence to avoid giving an 'all clear' as well...

from what i've read of the jackson case - where certain jury members have said they had their suspicions about jackson but the evidence to convict him was not strong enough - this case would have come out 'not proven' in a scottish court of law.. and as previously said, not proven is very different from not guilty

Posted by onehandclapping at June 15, 2005 7:15 AM

To compare this whole Jackson circus with the release of Mr Mandela is quite simply an insult to Mr Mandela - a genuine 'great' icon of the last century.

Don't you think it is sick that 'branding' has already started?

Wouldn't it be far better if Jackson's empire could simply accept this verdict with quiet, low-key dignity and professionalism?

Instead of that - it seems - they are already looking to use crazy exagerated claims like comparing the significance of this verdict to the release of Mr Mandela, simply to sell the Jackson 'brand.'

My question is - Are there any ethics whatsoever in the branding business when it comes to things that are so distateful as this whole affair?

Please tick the appropriate answer:

No

or

No

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 15, 2005 7:40 AM

Greg - first point - if you go back and reread my point I didn't say "everyone", I said most of us. Look at the polls and you'll find that "most of us" do think he's quilty (most = majority).

It was also more of a rhetorical question asking IF justice is served IF there's not enough to convict, but you know that they're guilty?

I wasn't aware that this case fell under the protections of the Geneva Convention (I always assumed Michael's uniforms were costumes) or that Michael Jackson was held without being charged? That said it does seem though that innocent unitl proven guilty did work out in this case - didn't it?

If you can look at a 40 year old man chain sleeping with young boys, paying off millions to multiple families to "settle" with them, giving/making available alcohol, sharing pornography with them and watching him and his behaviors in general - and not feel in your gut that there's something not quite right going on, then so be it. The FACT is that many people have been found guilty of many crimes with far less "evidence", witness testimony or "facts" on the table.

I'm not going to share my race, age, etc. because I don't see it as relevant but I will agree that like you I don't think I know everything either. I agree that the media plays to biases (just not always sure what biases: Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Christian or NonChristian etc. there so much media and so much bias it seems like whatever flavor you want you can find). However, like many of us, I think I'm a reasonable person who can look at a series of facts and inferences and draw a reasonable conclusion.

One conclusion - unless we actually see something happen in person we can't positively KNOW anyone is guilty of anything.

Second conclusion - if there's smoke, there frequently IS (though not always) fire (or at least danger).

Third conclusion - if someone fits the model and methods of say .... a child molester and has had many children (and adults) make that accusation and he's paid millions to make them go away - well, I'm going to think he might be guilty.

Have a good one.

Posted by Steve at June 15, 2005 7:48 AM

Trevor - Your comment about "Are there any ethics whatsoever in the branding business when it comes to things that are so distateful as this whole affair?"

You're right the answer is no.

Many horrible things have had great brands built around them. The brand is the ship that carries a product - sometimes that ship carries gold sometimes it carries sludge.

In fairness to Michael he's been branded throughout this case (fairly or not)- and now we're going to see a great effort to rebuild and recreate that brand.

Posted by steve at June 15, 2005 8:00 AM

Mark, I can understand the suggestion, but I'm not sure a panel inquiring neutrally into someone's behavior is a substitute for a trial by jury because it may give free rein to people who like to have power over how other people should live their lives. As things are going in this thread, these 'behaviorists' could become professional panelists or professional jurists and we would not be including objective members of the public anymore - we would be dealing with people who do this for a living. It's like only having prosecution or defense attorneys in the courtroom without the balance of the objective outsider.

I also think that when someone is tried for a crime they should be either convicted or acquitted; can't see the reason for leaving a cloud hanging over them. Again, I can see the reason for the suggestion since there may be a difference between English law and American law - in England if you're tried for a crime and acquitted, you can't be tried for that same crime again. In America I'm pretty sure you can should new evidence come up. Personally, I much prefer the idea that an individual is either convicted or acquitted because you could be innocent of a crime you've been accused of and have a cloud hanging over you for the rest of your life even though the charges were never proven, the flip side being they were also not disproven.

Paul, sometimes it's not necessarily the legislation, particularly in complex fraud cases, that causes the trouble. It's often the nature of the fraud itself, for example, those involving the use of deriviatives, which even some competent investment pros have difficulty understanding. On the whole though I agree with you - if whatever is being discussed can't be explained in layman's terms to an 'ordinary' juror, something funny is going on and maybe should be looked at, deriviatives very likely being high up on the list of the questionable activities one can engage in!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 15, 2005 8:25 AM

I like you comments Steve - thanks

I cannot help feeling frustrated that we just have to meekly accept so easily there are no ethical depths 'branders' won't sink below ... sad but true I guess :-(

I am certainly not qualified to comment about whether the branding of Michael Jackson throughout this circus has been fair to him or not. I would not dare be so arrogant.

My simple hope - I admit probably a vain hope - is the 're-branding' of Michael Jackson shows respect for the feelings of the massive majority of parents worldwide, including me, about 40 year old men sleeping with young boys and calling that normal acceptable behaviour.

I live in hope that it will be done sensitively .....

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 15, 2005 8:45 AM

The Jackson "family" in general is heavy in debt: that is their main brand ... plus Wacko is perverse to his core soul = Wacko brand. Southern California jurisdictions are inept at getting justice = Calif brand.

Posted by Sean at June 15, 2005 8:51 AM

Noel - you're right in your point about professional panellists but either system would have its merits and problems. When you see the time spent enpanelling an some juries you really do wonder if it's 12 representative citizens or sub-set largely picked by the legal teams to suit their own purposes. I think the advantage of panellists would be that they would act as investigators rather than focusing on specific charges; they would (hopefully) remove the hoopla and grandstanding that can sway a jury trial; and at least they would not be arbritrary.

For all our championing of jury trials in this blog, I'm afraid there are as many horror stories about jurors with prejudices, who refuse to find anyone guilty because they hate "the system", who'll convict because someone's got shifty eyes etc.

In the UK we have Crown Courts (trial by jury) and magistrates courts (trial by a 3-person panel of trained magistrates). I think it's time to look at how we can develop the system for the 21st century.

canadian pharmacies viagra

Of course, it would be better that someone was found either guilty or innocent but a "not proven" verdict simply legitimises what many people feel about the Jackson case and many, many others beside: someone's created enough doubt about a set of specific charges without making it clear they're really innocent.

Posted by Mark JF at June 15, 2005 9:01 AM

I must be one of the few people that believes that Michaeal Jackson was innocent of the charges.

I do think he has some serious issues stemming from never having a real childhood which has translated into some highly questionable antics, but I don't believe he molested the boy in this case. He may have molested other children - that is not the case here.

If you look at the character of the accuser and easpecially his mother, you will see a definite pattern of fraud, theft, and abuse of whatever system will get them easy money.

I think they saw this as an easy way to get Jackson (Guilty Criminal Trial = Guilty Civil Trial), so they let the state of California pay to create the case they need to sue Michael after they had already milked him for everything they could.

In this case, I think you have to look at the defendant simply as a wealthy man in the public spotlight who is a target for this type of person.

His past indiscretions (or perceived indiscretions) just made the case easier to justify.

I am a firm believer in "innocent until PROVEN guilty." And, in this case, I think many people threw that out and just wanted to find a rope.

Good thing the Senate just outlawed lynching....

Posted by Tony Brinson at June 15, 2005 9:46 AM

Tony : Why is it that if we think Michael Jackson is guilty we've thrown out the concept of innocent until proven guilty? As a continuation on that theme it's NOT innocent until proven guilty it's PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. All it means is that we assume a person is innocent of the crimes until proven otherwise. For many of us the case has been made.

My question for those who believe that the case has not been made is what evidence would convince you?

As for the character of the family which certainly does seem shaky - doesn't that also make him a likely candidate for this type of crime because it's a built in "reasonable doubt" argument. Afterall, it's not about Michael it's about how big a pile of liars these family members are - so he must be not guilty. (Ooops, I guess that is what happened, never mind.)

If we're going to judge based on character how would you evaluate the charcater of a 40 year old sleeping with little boys, giving them porn, alcohol, millions to shut up?

As for your comments about finding a rope and lynchings; that's a pretty cheap and insensitive remark.

FYI: If you check the record you'll find that the Senate DIDN'T outlaw lynching .. the only thing they did was apologize for not outlawing it years ago. As of yet though they still have not outlawed it - how's that for empty rhetoric!

Posted by Steve at June 15, 2005 10:41 AM

Well said Steve, I guess I gave our esteemed lawmakers too much credit! :-)

As to how I would characterize a 40-year-old sleeping with little boys, giving them porn, alcohol, etc....I would classify him as mentally or emotionally ill. It is my opinion (granted the facts I have are what is given through the various media outlets) that Mr. Jackson is emotionally about 12 years old and is having "sleep-overs" with his "friends." I'm sure most of us when we were that age (age of 12, keep in mind) tried to sneak porn, and catch a taste of our parent's alcohol stash.

This doesn't make him a pervert, just a sad, sick man who needs help realizing he is not 12.

I'm not a psychologist or therapist, so don't count this as an expert opinion. But, I have seen the effects that physical and emotional abuse can have on someone, and Mr. Jackson exhibits many of those traits.

Who knows, maybe I'm naive, or maybe I'm missing something, but nothing I've seen in the trial ever convinced me of his guilt.

That being said, I agree with many above who lay the blame on the parents. As a perent of 3 young childre, I would NEVER let my kids sleep in a bed with a 40-year-old man. For that matter, I would NEVER let them go to someone's house without me!

Back to the main question: The system worked...Now if we could just do something about the parents... :-)

Posted by Tony Brinson at June 15, 2005 4:07 PM

Jackson = total pervert [includes those who are naive about his "lifestyle"].
He'll get his in Hell most suspect. He may live to be 50 max.
$20 Million = technically not guilty [this time]. Innocent never. The civil suit commences.

Posted by Sean at June 15, 2005 6:14 PM

I know this is slightly off topic but what gets me is all of the sycophants, aides, minders etc around Mr Jackson. People with integrity would be telling him, even if nothing illegal was happening, that maybe having these children sleep in your bed isn’t a good idea. Maybe some people did tell him that and therefore don’t work there any more I don’t know.

Posted by PaulH at June 16, 2005 7:09 AM

Paul, I have it on good authority (Better Homes and Gardens, the Climbing Rose & Trellice Edition - yes, they're going tabloid too) that his minders etc. do tell him, and tell him quite plainly with the result that he fires them. Then they testify against him in court where they are considered disgruntled and their evidence is easy to dismiss.

Maybe he's smarter than he looks. Or better yet, maybe he's exactly what he looks like, i.e. not Michael Jackson at all, but a Michael Jackson impersonator/pediophiler. I mean, just look at the pictures - he looks nothing like that guy from the Jackson Five. Sure, we're told it's plastic surgery, but what if the real Michael Jackson has been kidnapped and is locked in a prison in Peru somewhere, nose intact, and unaware that he's been cleared of all charges!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 16, 2005 5:14 PM