Politics Is Michael Jackson guilty or not?

In the case against him, do you think Michael Jackson is guilty?

  • Yes. He's sick and should be behind bars.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, he's innocent and these people are gold diggers.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Jurors in the Robert Blake trial believed that he was guilty to but there wasn't enough evidence to prove it so he was acquitted.

Michael was not guilty this time around..
 
IsabellaOfSweden 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..
[post="1381563"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Bue he cant be proven guilty now, the trial is over.
 
Tiger<O> said:
Although during the trial the jury is barred from discussing the case at all or even mention what case they're a juror for, after the trial they can do as they please. And i don't know what "That goes against some many legal princeple its untrue" means.
[post="1381540"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Completely agree. I think you (noggi) are forgetting that this trial took place in the United States...we do things differently over here...it's not Britain.

The jurors must keep silently during the trial about what they see in the courtroom, but then afterwards are able to pretty much whatever they please. There has been talk that one juror is even going to write a book.

I don't see how this goes against any legal principles. After the trial is over you aren't compromising any evidence by giving it to the public and all parties involved are allowed to talk. Why would having the jury give interviews be going against many legal principles?
 
Firstly, its an acquitted defendent. After you've been acquitted, they should not have to defend themselves from the press again or from anyone. A core princeple of the legal system, is that defendents are allowed to carry one with there lives, thats why you can't be retried and why jurors shouldn't be allowed to talk about deliberations.

Secondly, law is not just something you take lightly, it is a persons civic duty. It is wrong to use the law for your own advantage.

Thirdly, its for jurors own protection, they shouldn't want to be on TV.

And last, I know this was in America, (and the legal systems, despite a revolution aren't that distinct because we use American precedent and America uses British precedent, a good law is a good law.) but princples of what amounts to a fair trial and proper use of procedual justice, applies everywhere, thats why we are able to say how bad criminal justice is in China, just because its a separate legal system doesn't mean it escapes criticism.
 
I had this same argument with my teacher today she believe hes innocent and i think hes guilty, truth is i think he should be behind bars i mean their is no doubt that he is one of the best preformers around, but still someone like him who dangles there baby over a balcony for christ sake isnt exactly what you would call saine.
but i mean yes there wasnt enough evidence but please dont attack me cause this is just what i think...we've all got diffrent opinions.
Moni xOx :angelic:
 
noggi16 said:
Firstly, its an acquitted defendent. After you've been acquitted, they should not have to defend themselves from the press again or from anyone. A core princeple of the legal system, is that defendents are allowed to carry one with there lives, thats why you can't be retried and why jurors shouldn't be allowed to talk about deliberations.

Secondly, law is not just something you take lightly, it is a persons civic duty. It is wrong to use the law for your own advantage.

Thirdly, its for jurors own protection, they shouldn't want to be on TV.

And last, I know this was in America, (and the legal systems, despite a revolution aren't that distinct because we use American precedent and America uses British precedent, a good law is a good law.) but princples of what amounts to a fair trial and proper use of procedual justice, applies everywhere, thats why we are able to say how bad criminal justice is in China, just because its a separate legal system doesn't mean it escapes criticism.
[post="1382346"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

But the jurors are telling us why they found him not guilty. Michael Jackson isn't having to defend himself against them...they went in his favor. And even if the jurors weren't allowed to talk you still have the defense, prosecution, and Michael (and I'm sure he'll do an interview one of these days). I really don't think having the jurors talk about what factored into their verdict is really going to have a lasting effect on Michael's life. Now the trial probably will, but having the jurors do a few interviews won't.

In the US you can use "the law to your own advantage." These people practically took a year out of their lives to sit on this jury. Now they want their 15 minutes...you can't really blame them. They've been nameless and faceless for a long time, they want to be exposed. And in our legal system they are certainly allowed to do it.

And c'mon they want to be on camera. None of them had to do any interviews after the trial, but they all did. It's like I said before they want their 15 minutes where people actually know their names.

You make it sound like this is the only trial where the jury has talked after it's done...that's ridiculous. It's been going on for ages over here, and it hasn't resulted in the collapse of our legal system. The jurors in the OJ Simpson trial acquitted him and gave interviews, yet he was able to go on with his life and look for "the real killer" :rolleyes: ...but I won't get into that. Michael Jackson or any of his spokepeople have come out because they're upset that the jury is talking. I doubt it's really affecting his life right now. I think he'd be going through the same stuff whether or not the jury talked.
 
Kelly V said:
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.
[post="1381100"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Totally agree! (y)
 
noggi16 said:
but that is precisely it. Don't you think the law deserves more respect than that.
[post="1382732"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


:confused:

Everyone uses it to their own advantage though. The lawyers use it whether they win to show that they're a good lawyer.

Why on earth shouldn't the jurors who decided a man's guilt or innocence be forced to not talk? In America they can talk, and rightly so. People are curious, they want to know what made them make that decision. It really isn't as scandalous as you make it sound. And like I said, it's been going on for ages.
 
This is seriously so annoying. THE MAN IS INNOCENT! I'm not saying he isn't screwed up, but you what, if he WASN'T screwed up, I'd be really ticked off because then there would be no excuse for the rest of us not to be freaking PERFECT after the life he's been raped from having.

Okay, this man stopped aging at 5. Hello, let's a guess why, because his father who is the one who SHOULD be behind bars for beating the living felgercarb out of his children like that stole his life from him at that age. That was the last age he felt normal, and he wasn't ever allowed to progress normally, so guess what, he didn't.

Read a psychology book.

His brothers and him were all crammed into beds all his life with him. THAT IS WHAT WAS NORMAL TO HIM. Got a problem with it, more power to you, talk to his parents. This man, I bet he can barely have sex with himself, let alone anybody else.

He feels comfortable with substitutions of his brothers.

Yes, it is time the man got therapy and grew up, but you know what, what kind of parents KNOWINGLY place their children in the home of MJ if there was even the slightest doubt in their mind that they would be harmed?

You wanna tell me the part again about how much these parents love their children? They wanted a NEW CAR! Remedial math! Think back, this isn't that hard. I am so sick of everyone assuming that Michael should be anything approaching normal! Would you be if you'd had his life? I'd really like to see that if you could be normal.

Should he be allowed to harm people, no. But we keep going, "Hmmm, he did something weird, something crazy, the man's sick. He belongs in prison." No, his father does for doing it to him all his life.

Michael has had really smart people who take felgercarb from NO ONE on his side. As Lisa Marie said, "I never saw anything, if I had, I would've had his ass on a tree."

You think Diana Ross, Liz Taylor, Mac Culkin, all these people would take this from him, I don't think so. He's got a huge list of people besides his first ex-wife who would hand his ass to him on a plate.

The man needs therapy, not prison. He's guilty of being abused and being eccentric. Being a rapist, no. And I've been a victim and you wanna talk about me taking felgercarb from anyone that would touch someone who wouldn't wanna be touched? Lisa Marie couldn't hold a candle to me in what I might do to someone who did that to a child of mine.

But the last thing I would *ever* ask for, is a new pile of money sitting in my lap.
 
ParadiseKendra said:
This is seriously so annoying.  THE MAN IS INNOCENT!  I'm not saying he isn't screwed up, but you what, if he WASN'T screwed up, I'd be really ticked off because then there would be no excuse for the rest of us not to be freaking PERFECT after the life he's been raped from having.

Okay, this man stopped aging at 5.  Hello, let's a guess why, because his father who is the one who SHOULD be behind bars for beating the living felgercarb out of his children like that stole his life from him at that age.  That was the last age he felt normal, and he wasn't ever allowed to progress normally, so guess what, he didn't.

Read a psychology book.

His brothers and him were all crammed into beds all his life with him.  THAT IS WHAT WAS NORMAL TO HIM.  Got a problem with it, more power to you, talk to his parents.  This man, I bet he can barely have sex with himself, let alone anybody else. 

He feels comfortable with substitutions of his brothers. 

Yes, it is time the man got therapy and grew up, but you know what, what kind of parents KNOWINGLY place their children in the home of MJ if there was even the slightest doubt in their mind that they would be harmed?

You wanna tell me the part again about how much these parents love their children?  They wanted a NEW CAR!  Remedial math!  Think back, this isn't that hard.  I am so sick of everyone assuming that Michael should be anything approaching normal!  Would you be if you'd had his life?  I'd really like to see that if you could be normal.

Should he be allowed to harm people, no.  But we keep going, "Hmmm, he did something weird, something crazy, the man's sick.  He belongs in prison."  No, his father does for doing it to him all his life. 

Michael has had really smart people who take felgercarb from NO ONE on his side.  As Lisa Marie said, "I never saw anything, if I had, I would've had his ass on a tree." 

You think Diana Ross, Liz Taylor, Mac Culkin, all these people would take this from him, I don't think so.  He's got a huge list of people besides his first ex-wife who would hand his ass to him on a plate.

The man needs therapy, not prison.  He's guilty of being abused and being eccentric.  Being a rapist, no.  And I've been a victim and you wanna talk about me taking felgercarb from anyone that would touch someone who wouldn't wanna be touched?  Lisa Marie couldn't hold a candle to me in what I might do to someone who did that to a child of mine. 

But the last thing I would *ever* ask for, is a new pile of money sitting in my lap.
[post="1383268"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
very well said (y)
 
Jay Leno hinted on his show the he believes that Michael is guilty, and he did testify. If he really wanted to he could have screwed Michael over but he didn't. Granted, the defense were not pleased with his testimony because it didn't completely paint the mother as a greedy leech.
 
Back
Top