| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Jonnyboy |
Jackson innocent.........on all counts as of 30 seconds ago.I wonder if he did a little moonwalk? |
||||||||
| jema |
Innocent of the actual charges I don't profess to know, actually innocent my arse.... | ||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
You think? doesn't that way lead to ducking stools and mob rule?
The man is entirely innocent, proven through trial by jury. |
||||||||
| sean |
Is 'not guilty' the same as 'innocent'? I don't care either way really, my personal view is that he's a rather damaged person, and I'm not too sure about the accusers either.
'Twould be nice to think he did a little moonwalk though (probably best if he didn't do the crotch-grabbing manoeuvre). |
||||||||
| jema |
Innocent of the actual charges maybe, but what was admitted to in court is more than unsavoury 
|
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
In that he hasn't been proven guilty then yes, he is entirely innocent. Damaged goods aside, this will prove to be an interesting study in how people choose to accept a democratic trail process. |
||||||||
| sean |
Though I believe that Scottish law allows a verdict of 'Not Proven". |
||||||||
| dougal |
Strangely enough, I doubt that Mr Jackson will be sueing any of those who have been commenting so freely outside court and before the verdicts.
Libel, and civil matters are decided on "the balance of probabilities". However criminal guilt has to be established much more certainly, it has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". It would seem that enough of the prosecution witnesses were quite literally incredible. And all acquittal requires is that there is some doubt. Which the prosecution witnesses, notably the mother, made perfectly reasonable... So, if there's a doubt, you're officially "not guilty", which means that you should be treated as "innocent" (until *proved* guilty) even if the reality is just "uncertainty of guilt". |
||||||||
| cab |
Legally, he didn't do it. It's that simple. His name should now be considered clear on this matter.
Whether you want to describe his activities as unwholesome, well, that's up to you. But you can be unwholesome without being a law breaker. |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
What's your point? would you prefer guilt based on a balance of probabilities? Financial considerations will be as much a consideration as anything else when it comes to pursuing a civil case. I wonder how long it will be before OJ Simpson gets a mention? |
||||||||
| jema |
In the real world it ain't that simple though, would you now put MJ back on your list of potential baby sitters? |
||||||||
| Viking_Chick |
Yes indeed, there is the possibility of giving a not proven verdict in Scottish law - the only country in the world that allows it.
There is currently talk of getting rid of it, however. Once tried you cannot be tried again on the same charges, no matter how much new evidence is collected, and there is a feeling that even the accused would prefer to be either guilty or not guilty as not proven generally leaves them evermore with the 'thats the man/woman that got of with ........ - they couldn't prove he did it' type comments following them. The other alternative (other than keeping it or getting rid), enabling a retrial on admission of new evidence is thought to create the scenario where someone could be tried on a badly researched prosocution 'just to see' how it goes -if they get a not proven with the option to retry then they will dig a bit deeper. Not sure I agree with it, but I am sure human rights people would be up in arms about it anyway. As for Michael Jackson - no-one can say for sure in truth whether he was innocent or guilty other than the people involved. I do feel sorry for him. Child stardom seems to mess with people (look at drew barrymore, macauley culkin, lena zavaroni, Shirley Temple, several gymnasts). Michael Jackson was probably the biggest child star of all time, and kids are not equipped to deal with that. If your reality as a child is one where you are hyped and adulated beyond anything we could even imagine then its little wonder that you come out then other end with scars. |
||||||||
| jema |
I quite like the "not proven" concept, but like the prospect of being retried for the same offense, there are a lot of pros and cons to it 
I have no opinion on whether Jackson was guilty of the exact offenses, not least as I used my remote control to change channels almost everytime it came on.  But enough did come out, that the defence did not contest, to show his activities were pretty unsavoury.
As for sympathy for Jackson, yes I have the same sympathy for him, as I do for any screwed up individual. But I do find it outrageous the way a lot of people are prepared to make excuses for him, that they would not make for someone who was not rich and famous. Jackson had a pretty screwed up childhood, but you read up on the childhoods of virtually alll those say on deathrow in the USA and you will find far worse. Jackson has had the option to mould his own life, in a way that 99% of the rest of us have not! |
||||||||
| cab |
Really, it is that simple. I wouldn't have had MJ on my list of babysitters to begin with. In the real world no one with any sense would, because there's something entirely unwholesome going on there, and that was obvious WAY before the court case, and WAY before any of the other accusations came to light. But he has never been charged with being unwholesome. Being unwholesome isn't a crime, and you can't be jailed for it, not even in California. Perhaps those who knowingly leave their children in the hands of such a public figure should be asked to consider whether they're good, responsible parents or not. But more important than ANY of that is the principle that if you're found not guilty, you didn't do it. That's the absolute, immutable cornerstone of democratic justice. Erode that and you're left with mob rule. |
||||||||
| Viking_Chick |
I would disagree cab, with the assertion that if you are found guilty, you didn't do it.
To gain a guilty verdict, they have to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore the verdict not guilty implies reasonable doubt - not necessarily innocence. The two are not synonymous. |
||||||||
| cab |
In practical terms, you're right. Legally, if you're 'not guilty' then you didn't do it. And that's a massively important legal principle. Remember, the accused enters court presumed innocent, no one has to prove they didn't do it, they merely didn't do it unless someone proves otherwise. |
||||||||
| jema |
Sorry Cab, tell that to the mother of Steven Lawrance! I don't actually totally disagree with you. I'd agree that if we let go of some of these fundermental foundations of a justice system, then a whole Pandoras box of problems would occur. But just because these prinicples are pretty vital and work for the best in most cases, does not mean that they are not responsible for miscarriages of justice. e.g. the good prinicple of not letting people to be tried twice for the same crime must sound pretty hollow when the first time round the police/prosecution have screwed up. e.g. Steven Lawrance, Damilola Taylor as recent exampes. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
Heard some of the jurors this morning who were less than equivical about his innocence. Most said that the prosecution had not put up a good enough case and they didn't believe the accusers, so it was not beyond reasonable doubt and they could not find him guilty. One even went as far to say the he may be a child abuser but it hadn't been proven to his satisfaction, therefore not guilty. This was a unaminous verdict and it seems like they followed the letter of the law and did a good job, it took them a week to decide and they obviously deliberated over the issues asking for transcripts and legal clarification.
Guilty or innocent his behaviour's certainly left him open to the accuasation. Whether that's due to his own, 'innocence', naivety, mental problems or sexual predation of young children I don't know. Whatever the underlying cause, for a man in his 40's, his behaviour is makesme uncomfortable. |
||||||||
| cab |
There's no such thing as a perfect justice system, ours is far from being ideal. But if you wish to remain protected by it (and, perhaps as important, protectec FROM it) then you have to keep a respect for the basic principles even when it throws up anomalies. Miscarriages of justice happen. If we remove the presumption of innocence because of that, or even if we refuse to respect the presumptiopn of innocence, then we have mob rule or worse, a police state. |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
There is no evidence at all that a miscarriage of justice has taken place here, comparing a flawed police investigation with one which had all the evidence it felt necessary to go to trial, and then still failed to achive a conviction, is no comparison at all. If he had been found guilty then this debate wouldn't be happening. If you have a problem with the guilty getting off then you must be equally concerned that the innocent have been wrongly convicted, no? The Jackson jury came across as dedicated individuals you treated the case as any other, ignored the celebrity and concentrated on the evidence. |
||||||||
| jema |
I was debating the general points there with Cab, and not saying that the MJ case came out with the wrong result. |
||||||||
| dougal |
The point I was aiming for was the difference between "not guilty" and "completely innocent". "Guilty" means punishable by the state, Which rightly requires proof of specific wrongdoing. Someone might be suspected of doing something that is generally considered "wrong" but which is either not actually against the law, or as with Mr Jackson, there was not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the law had been broken. And in those cases, the state cannot punish.
He wasn't *proved* to have done anything criminal. So, indeed, his name is now clear on the criminality of his conduct. But, as regards his "name" being entirely "clear" on the matter of his activities - that I think is a different matter, and one to which the lower civil standard of proof should rightly be applied. And the jury interviews were indeed most enlightening. It was abundantly clear that their verdict was "not proven". Strange, isn't it, that such an interview would actually be criminal conduct in the UK... |
||||||||
| cab |
So he is therefore presumed innocent; that's what it means when you're not found guilty. The presumption of innocence remains. If you want to infer from what was said by Jacksons defense that he's living an unwholesome life, and that you don't approve, that's up to you. I agree with that, I think that what was going on was unwholesome. But legally, his name is now clear; he officially didn't do it.
I see... So he's legally clear and we ought to have a public kangaroo court to decide that to a lower standard of proof he's in the wrong and we should hold him accountable? That's mob mentality.
Odd indeed. But that the claims against Jackson were not proven is all that a defense can hope for; it isn't up to a defendant to prove his innocent, he is innocent unless the prosecution proves otherwise. That's a fundamentally important legal principle, and it's massively important that we respect it. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
Tangental (as always) but not unrelated: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4090732.stm
Senate apologises for lynchings Apparently they never made it a federal crime - itwas dealt with by state police, who were often complicit in the act. |
||||||||
| jema |
It's mob metality when people smash someones windows etc, having been incited by an article in News of the World. Regarding Jacksons name as not being in the clear, is simply the common sense Scottish principle of a "not proven" verdict. I don't see holding a view on someones "guilt" that is not officially sanctioned by a court as "mob mentality". Yes at its worse it can be the mentality that forms lynch mobs. But in general I think it is simply common sense in cases like this to make your own judgement. Of course this can be unfair on the individual if they are truly not guilty, but such is life. |
||||||||
| cab |
That verdict doesn't exist here, nor does it in America, for the very simple reason that it means that someone walks away looking guilty as hell. It's as sure to ruin someone in the public eye as a guilty verdict. And as it doesn't exist as a verdict, he ISN'T 'guilty not proven', he's 'not guilty'. The presumption of innocence now means that he didn't do it; that's the legal position here.
I beg to differ; the common sense approach is to realise that we know less than the jury, and follow the principle that if someone isn't found guilty, we as a society are better off if we accept that they didn't do it. Second guessing the courts like this leads to mob mentality very, very fast. Look at the poor pediatrician in Wales who's house was stoned. Look at the mobs on the streets of Portsmouth when one of the papers decided to print the names and pictures of pedophiles.
I can't believe you wrote that. If we take that attitude, if we as a society decide that we're willing to lower the burden of proof such that we assume guilt until proven otherwise (effectively where your statement above leaves us) then we live in one of two kinds of state; a mob state or a police state. Democracy, civil liberties, personal freedom and safety from oppressive, vindictive courts just goes out of the window. |
||||||||
| dougal |
No, no, no - thats a massive extension of what I'm saying. He has not been proven to have broken the law. And he cannot be punished by the state unless that is proven beyond reasonable doubt, in a fair trial. That is the essence of the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty". My point is that one's "name" being "clear" depends on more than absence of criminal guilt. There are things other than criminal guilt that one can reasonably take into account when choosing a babysitter... A few years ago Count Tolstoy was accused of libelling a British military officer, accusing him of knowingly handing over prisoners who were later executed. The court held that it was a libel. I have no problem in saying the officer's name was cleared. My original posting had suggested that Jackson would not be sueing for libel, because it was most unlikely he would win. |
||||||||
| cab |
You may as well stop there; that means he's legally innocent. He didn't do it. For anyone to claim otherwise now would be sullying his name. The law presumes innocent.
Innocent till proven guilty is more fundamental even than that. It isn't the case that we can legitimately say he maybe still did it, we even have laws stating that someone can take you to court for making such allegations after they've won. Legally he's clear now, and his name SHOULD be considered clear of those specific charges.
That I agree with; but to he honest, I'm concerned that any parents left their children in the care of Jackson anyway, and I strongly feel that said parents ought to consider themselves lucky not to have been tried as accessories.
He won't sue because (a) he's alledgedly skint, (b) he isn't going to make any money out of it, (c) it's bad publicity, and (d) it's even worse publicity if he loses. |
||||||||
| jema |
If juries do not have the option of a "not proven" verdict, then Joe Public is left either to take the "innocent" view or to take what you call the "mob" view. In the case of these sorts of trials I don't think you have to have the mob mentality not to want Jackson and ilk, babysitting your kids. |
||||||||
| cab |
Like I've already said, Jackson would never have been a babysitter for me because regardless of what the Jury have said, I find his own admitted activities quite unwholesome. And I'd question the motives of anyone who entrusted their children to him. The Public don't have to take the mob view; they don't have to decide, based on an eroded standard of proof, that maybe Jackson IS guilty. Every member of the public benefits from the presumption of innocence; that's howcome the Police can't arrest people at random to question them on a vague suspicion. That's howcome you can't be tried on stupidly flimsy evidence. And that's howcome Jackson is now free. Society de-values that principle, well, then it deserves what it gets. |
||||||||
| Guest |
That's right. As with the OJ murder trial, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the criminal offence ("beyond all reasonable doubt") but more than enough to settle a civil action for damages by the family ("balance of probabilities"). The problem with the new UK legislation on detaining terrorists is it is based on an even lower grade of (so-called) proof: reasonable doubt. Traditionally, you could punish someone for a criminal offence, require then to pay monies in restitution in a civil action, and if you had reasonable doubt you could not employ them as a baby sitter ... but then I don't have children! | ||||||||
| Rikki |
sorry - thought I'd logged in but hadn't.
Rikki |
||||||||
| leebu |
There is another point which would state that anyone who chooses to sleep(in the true sense of the word) with young boys behind locked doors should be deemed as a potential risk to children anyway. In this country they would be. Funnily enough I never really thought he was guilty of child molestation, but his behaviour nevertheless showed worrying similarities to someone who has sexual urges towards children. If the court case showed one thing it was that this whole "peter pan, asexual, practically a child himself" persona is rubbish. It doesn't mean he is a peodophile, only that he warrants a potentially risk. Any competent childcare worker in this country would treat this fairly seriously. Prison? No. Child protection register and regular monitoring. Definitely.
The burden of proof in any case like this often relies on evidence given by children, and the pressure is massive. I've seen too many cases of real abuse thrown out of court because children are "unreliabe" witnesses, to naively assume that innocent neccessarily means that his behaviour doesn't warrant concern. In the past that's how tragedies happen. Michael is innocent because that's what the law states. That doesn't discharge the authorities responsibility to the children in his care. |
||||||||
| tahir |
Would he have gone onto the Child Protection Register if he'd been tried in the UK? | ||||||||
| cab |
Leebu, I don't think anyone here has put forward the position that Jackson has been anything other than 'unwholesome'. As distasteful as sharing a bed with these kids may seem to us, it ain't illegal. I doubt it would be illegal here either. | ||||||||
| leebu |
No, the adult isn't registered unless a crime is committed generally. At the moment a new system has come into place which will hopefully see people who have shown themselves a high potential risk would not be able to have a job with children (or vulnerable adults).
The children may have been put on the CPR though- it depends on the local authority. It also depends on whether the individual acknowledges his behaviour is a concern, and agrees to change or accept help. Sometimes that's all it takes. Given previous concerns with Michael, including his baby dangling exploits, I'd be gobsmacked if the children weren't. |
||||||||
| jema |
Well not the position that he has been proven to be anyway! |
||||||||
| leebu |
Illegal? No. But that doesn't mean that social services and the police would not treat it seriously. An innocent verdict wouldn't neccessarily discharge responsibility for monitoring the behaviour and possibly restricting access to children either. There have been a number of damning reports against SSD's criticising child protection pulling out after a court case has collapsed as irresponsible. The burden of proof for most child protection orders is not the same as in a criminal court. While this has led to a number of injustices, it has (I guarantee you) led to a hell of a lot of children being protected from abuse. |
||||||||
| cab |
I wouldn't argue with any of that; it is, as I've said, unwholesome. |
||||||||
| Rikki |
This all comes back to the level of proof in a criminal case - which is very high. I for one would want to see him on a register. The social worker in the Victoria Climbie case was put on the List 99 register by the Sec of State for Educ. and then removed by a tribunal after appealling the case, and she'd not even been charged with anything. | ||||||||
| dougal |
I wonder what laws you could be referring to in the sentance I have italicised - other than the law of defamation, libel and slander? Where as I have repeatedly pointed out, the burden of proof IS lower, (although interestingly reversed, as the defendant must prove, on balance of probabilities that his comment was fair).
And that (irrespective of his ability to pay lawyers' bills) he would be unlikely to win because of the lower burden of proof... I'm not making wild allegations, let alone suggesting "Mob Rule" or any such nonsense, simply explaining what I have reason to believe to be the correct legal position. |
||||||||
| leebu |
That social worker would not be allowed to work with children had it not been over-ruled, her contact with children in any other capacity would not have been changed. Also the issue was her competence as a worker not her risk to children. Jackson wasn't working with the children (voluntary or paid) so it wouldn't have applied. |
||||||||
| cab |
Whereas, in principle, the burden of proof is lower, in practice you're on really shaky ground if you chuck the same accusation back at someone who has been found not guilty. But the use of such laws was only an example remember; it's the principle that's most important here.
I'm not at all convinced that he wouldn't win; there isn't any evidence that he's genuinely abused the children, the jury (in their bizarre press conference) were clear on that. There may be a lower burden of proof, but there's still a burden of proof! |
||||||||
| dougal |
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1506241,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704 That story seems to relate to the contract under which Bashir was granted access, rather than bearing directly on matters of character, etc. But if Bashir were to be allowed to plead "public interest" as justification for "whistle-blowing" in admitted breach of contract... well, it all gets opened up again. |
||||||||
| leebu |
My problem with the current system of law here and in America is that it is incredibly difficult to prove sexual assault against a child, even though statistics show that this is far from a rarity. Cases such as these frequently are based on defences which aim to show the accuser to be of poor moral quality, as much as disprove what went on behind closed doors, a fact which stops many potential victims and witnesses coming forward. Paedophiles target vulnerable young people, build a trusting relationship with the family, and often choose children less likely to be believed- v. young, bad reputation, disabled (and having poor communication skills), low self esteem. They are well aware of the fact that in any courtroom, such children are unlikely to be seen as a credible witness when pitted against a defendant who appears well respected, honest even philanthropic. I'm no expert on the legal system however there has to be a better way. I've been told the system in some coutries is more investigative rather than antagonistic. The idea is to find out what has happened rather than have two sides arguing who is the liar. I would also like to see children being given more respect in a courtroom. |
||||||||
| Rikki |
I've been thinking just that over the past few days, but have only now had a chance to log-in. I think the real damage done by this whole trial/verdict is it will make children less likely to speak up when they've been abused. And you're quite right about peadoplhiles targetting the vulnerable: in this case it was the Mother who made the child vulnerable.
It seems bizzare to me that the jury can have heard the testimony of a boy who says he was molested by Jackson and then say there was no conclusive evidence. What they're actually saying is that Gavin was lying, and Jackson was not. It's not just a balance of probabilities that suggests to me it's more likely - much, much more likely - that it was the boy telling the truth and Jackson who was lying. But then I wasn't in the court room. |
||||||||
| jema |
Much more likely is not "beyond reasonable doubt" and given the role of the mother and the high money stakes involved, I think the issues probably got very cloudy for the jury. |
||||||||
| dougal |
Jackson wasn't telling lies. He didn't give evidence. At all. The allegations were not proved. The jury found that "reasonable doubts" were raised by the defence. That's all they had to do to get a "Not Guilty" verdict. I think that's all perfectly reasonable, fair, civilised, etc.. Any individual could reasonably choose not to employ such an individual as a babysitter. But where it gets really tricky is if 'such an individual' were to apply for a Government position with children. He's not Guilty. So is it unfair discrimination to deny him a job on suspicion alone? Or should his name be entirely "clear"? Thats where I think it gets tricky... |
||||||||
| jema |
I think there is little choice in such matters than to say tough luck, it ain't fair on a falsely accused individual, but what real choice is there? |
||||||||
| bagpuss |
See I think this is one of those places you can't have a hard and fast rule. In the case of MJ I suspect no group who made such an investigation would actually license him to work with children but to say that should be the case for anyone who has had such an allegation and been found innocent is more than a little unreasonable At the end of the day these organisations would be right to air on the side of caution but to have a definative no if you have had allegations leveled against you isn't right in my opnion |
||||||||
| leebu |
Why is it fair that a young person's word is of less weight than an adults? If you think that isn't the case, look up what percentage of convictions for child abuse occur 10+ years after incidents as opposed to those tried within a year. The formet overwhelmingly outnumber the latter. One of the main reasons is that the state will not be willing to prosecute on the word of one or even two minors. Now imagine how many people have been abused by that person in the meantime. I don't think it can be civilised to have a system which so easily protects people who abuse children. Also there is nothing "tricky" about whether Jackson should be allowed into a position of authority with children. Such institutions have a duty to PREVENT abuse, not just help to punish it. If someone displays behaviour which COULD represent a risk to children, it is good enough reason. I'd say sleeping with young boys counts! That person can always find work elsewhere. Having said all that, Jackson was tried within the only court available to him and we have to accept the judgement of the court that he is not guilty of the charges named. |
||||||||
| Viking_Chick |
I'm not convinced that a disbelief of kids is the reason why it takes so long for these cases to come to court - I think one of the main reasons that it takes so long is because it takes the victims so long to come to terms with what happened and to actually believe in themselves and their innocence enough to report the crime. |