Yeah, there was this thing, about 230 years ago, it was called the American Revolution. America declared it's independence from Britain and established their own government and judicial system. And over the course of 230 years, the American legal system has evolved in its own, separate way. Michael Jackson was tried in the American Court of Law, and, thus, the rules of the British Court don't have any relevance to the discussion. And please don't presume to tell those of us who are Americans how our legal system should be run.noggi16 said:
Jamison
Cadet
noggi16 said:
As Tiger pointed out, there aren't many at all in today's world.
And anyways it doesn't matter! Michael Jackson was tried over here in the American court system with the American media covering it...that's how it was.
I still don't think the jury should've based some of their decision on the way the mother was looking at them. That had absolutely no relevance to the case.
AliasHombre
Cadet
I really think they made decisions made on more than that, they did deliberate for a long time. I disagree with the jury but if they say he's not guilty, then he's not guilty. Thats the beauty of the American court system, and there isnt a better one.
kellslawells
Cadet
I also really dont think the desicion wwas made purely on emotion and strange looks. I mean, its the role of the Jury to analyse evidence. If that wasnt done, what happens? Does the Judge step in? What im saying is, if there HAD been just so much evidence against him, and they still said not guilty, wouldnt that have looked shifty to say, the Judge? Cant he step in if that happens?
This is coming from a person who knows nothing about any legal system ever, and im not saying that DOES happen, but just what seems logical to me.
This is coming from a person who knows nothing about any legal system ever, and im not saying that DOES happen, but just what seems logical to me.
the prosecution could try to appeal the decision in a higher court, but I think it's rare for the District Attorney's office to want to re-try an acquitted defendant.
Also, is there a civil suit involved in this? If so, Michael Jackson could still be forced to pay the family of the boy if they settle or he's found guilty in civil court.
Also, is there a civil suit involved in this? If so, Michael Jackson could still be forced to pay the family of the boy if they settle or he's found guilty in civil court.
Vaughn_Lovah
Vaughn's Chin Fondler
I'm not surprised that they found him not guilty. It does make me sick though. Sex offenders are the lowest scum of the earth...especially when it comes to children.
If this man weren't famous he would probably be found guilty of all charges. I mean he is a freak. They way he acts is just weird.
The parents are at fault too. Leting their children sleep in the same bed with an older man....just because he is Michael Jackson. I doubt this will be the end of it all. It will probably happen again and again because parents are stupid and people can't see past his fame and put him in jail where he needs to be.
If this man weren't famous he would probably be found guilty of all charges. I mean he is a freak. They way he acts is just weird.
The parents are at fault too. Leting their children sleep in the same bed with an older man....just because he is Michael Jackson. I doubt this will be the end of it all. It will probably happen again and again because parents are stupid and people can't see past his fame and put him in jail where he needs to be.
Jamison
Cadet
Tiger<O> said:
The mother said at the beginning that they would not pursue a civil suit, but that may change. Look at OJ. He was found not guilty in the criminial trial, but was found liable for the deaths in the civil trail and was forced to pay the families. Michael would have to take the stand in this case (something he didn't do in the criminal case...although his attorney's promised that he would), and it would be easier to find him guilty since you can still have a reasonable doubt.
And I never said that the jurors based their decision soley on the way the mother was acting towards them in court. BUT they even admitted that it did somewhat factor into their decision. I know. I saw the post-trial interviews with them.
AliasHombre
Cadet
The standard of proof is much lower in a civil suit that in a criminal suit which would explian why OJ paid so much and why MJ already has paid a lot.
But as far as thinking the jury made this decision based on the mother only, I doubt it, and even if it's true, the judge cannot do anything.
But as far as thinking the jury made this decision based on the mother only, I doubt it, and even if it's true, the judge cannot do anything.
I don't know, but I think the U.S. court system is set up so that ten guilty criminals may go free if it means one innocent stays out of jail. And while that doesn't always work...juries now expect more and more hard evidence to find someone guilty.
This case sounds like O.J. Simpson in that the prosecution did not do a good job of handling the case. They couldn't even stick Jacko for serving alcohol to minors - which would've been a misdemeanor, so finding him guilty of felony charges would've been highly unlikely.
I was just listening to CNN and how the prosecution was forced to present the case as Jackson abused the kid after the documentary aired, in which two years had passed - and that's a long time for someone to speak up about such a charge.
Basically the only network not covering this type of news is ESPN.
When will it be safe to turn on the tube again... :blink:
This case sounds like O.J. Simpson in that the prosecution did not do a good job of handling the case. They couldn't even stick Jacko for serving alcohol to minors - which would've been a misdemeanor, so finding him guilty of felony charges would've been highly unlikely.
I was just listening to CNN and how the prosecution was forced to present the case as Jackson abused the kid after the documentary aired, in which two years had passed - and that's a long time for someone to speak up about such a charge.
Basically the only network not covering this type of news is ESPN.
When will it be safe to turn on the tube again... :blink:IsabellaOfSweden
Cadet
AliasHombre said:
We don't know that. Just because he wasn't convicted doesn't mean he's not guilty, just that the jury didn't have enough proof..
White_Rabbit
Mr. Trixter
It's just amazing what they can send somone to do time for and what they can't...the world is f***ed up.
oops...gotta go...stupid school.......
oops...gotta go...stupid school.......
kellslawells
Cadet
Just all emotions aside, the jury made the right decision. Obviously there was not enough evidence available to proove he was guilty, and it is INNOCENT until prooven guilty. That proof was never made, therefore the not guilty verdict.
On that basis, i really believe the jury made the right cholce, and disagree with claims that their choice was made on an emotional level alone because, as i understand it, the American legal system does not allow for such things to take place in court.
And as for MJ getting off just because of who he is, i strongly disagree.
Again, there are certain things the American legal system has to inforce, and NOT letting sex offenders be penalised just because of their standing sure aint one of them.
On that basis, i really believe the jury made the right cholce, and disagree with claims that their choice was made on an emotional level alone because, as i understand it, the American legal system does not allow for such things to take place in court.
And as for MJ getting off just because of who he is, i strongly disagree.
Again, there are certain things the American legal system has to inforce, and NOT letting sex offenders be penalised just because of their standing sure aint one of them.
Jamison
Cadet
I don't think anyone believes that they based their entire verdict on the mother's behavior during the trial. But like I said, it did factor in. If you've seen the interview that was held with all of the jury members right after the verdict was announced, then you would know what I'm talking about...everything kept coming back to the the mother's behavior.
What I still don't understand is why they are even allowed to talk about it? That goes against some many legal princeples its untrue.
No, it does mean he is not guilty. He cannot barring any unforeseen circumstances be charged with that crime again. And the jury are right not to convict unless it is beyond reasonable doubt.
No, it does mean he is not guilty. He cannot barring any unforeseen circumstances be charged with that crime again. And the jury are right not to convict unless it is beyond reasonable doubt.
AliasHombre
Cadet
That means he's not guilty.IsabellaOfSweden said:
IsabellaOfSweden
Cadet
AliasHombre said:
Yes until proven otherwise.. but atleast one in the jury thought he was guilty so I mean he should be considered NOT guilty, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything and we will probably never know..
