Michael Jackson, Look What You've Done!

Actually nothing criminal, according to the jury: Jackson's been acquitted on all counts. I managed to avoid following the details of this whole circus too closely, but had picked up the sense from what little I saw that Jackson was probably just targeted for being a really, really weird guy. In which case this is a good thing. Await the soul-searching concept album about the ordeal. And the civil trial.

Comments

[Hugh Jorgan]

Yep, here we go, another nice high-profile case of double jeopardy, wherein a celebrity has to go through yet _another_ trial to prove his innocence of charges he's already been acquitted of.

What a country.

[thoreau]

I knew he'd be acquitted even without following the case. He's rich. He's famous. He's white. That all but guaranteed that he'd either be acquitted or else convicted only on a minor charge that carried less than 1 year in prison.

[SR]

While I thought Jackson was innocent, I'm frankly shocked by the verdict. Seeing a jury look past the grandstanding of a mad-dog prosecutor gives me a sliver of hope.

[B.P.]

Is this our cue to riot?

[Did he really say that?]

Jackson should get one free molestation of that little lying piece of shit after all the kid put him through.

[Yogi]

He's still guilty of being creepy. Though, if we started locking people up because they disgust us, we're in trouble....

Who really should be put on trial is the parents that thought this guy would be a good influence on their kids.

[tom]

So thoreau - what happened with OJ Simpson.

He got off and was guilty as sin.

Jackson - should have never been prosecuted.

[thoreau]

Tom-

I guess skin color doesn't matter. Rich and famous is enough to get you acquitted. At least in California.

[Number 6]

Tom- At the risk of a derailment, OJ got of because of blatant police misconduct.

[Ken Shultz]

In any he said/she said, it's about who the jury believes.

In O.J.'s criminal case, the jury knew that Fuhrman was a liar. In O.J.'s civil case, O.J. claimed to have never beaten his wife--the jury knew he was a liar.

...I guess the jury figured that the little boy's mother was full of crap. Still, I don't understand how a grown man can admit to takin' little boys to bed with him and not get convicted of somethin'.

[Robert Blake]

OJ and I are throwing a party for Michael Jackson tonight. We fought the law and we won!

[CFL]

What double jeopardy are you talking about? He's been tried once for charges from one particular boy of child molestation. The '93 case was a different boy and did not go to trial. And besides, he's either a child molester with a flimsy case against him, in which case I am okay with the decision from a civil liberties standpoint, or he is just a complete idiot, asking for this kind of trouble. No grown man needs to live in an amusement park, slip little boys drinks and sleep with them in his bed. The guy needs help.

[Ken Shultz]

P.S. I think it unlikely that there won't be a civil trial (unless Jackson settles out of court), and I wouldn't bet on Jackson to win in a civil trial.

[Michael Jackson]

Drinking wine from a baby bottle,
I fought the law and I won!
I fought the law and I won!

I needed sex so I raped kids,
I fought the law and I won!
I fought the law and I won!

The law don't mean shit if you've got enough cash,
That's how this country's run,
Lawyers are the best friends I ever had,
I fought the law and I won!
I fought the law and I won!

I fucked my brains out with a 6 year old,
I fought the law and I won!
I fought the law and I won!

Gonna go on tour and make a million,
I fought the law and I won!
I fought the law and I won!

I'm the new folk hero of rich celebs,
My lawyers think that's fine,
You can get away with rape if you've got enough cash,
I fought the law and I won!
I bought the law so I won!

[tgibbs]

I agree that he was mainly being prosecuted for being a weird guy. To me, the most telling thing was that here is a guy who supposedly molests little boys, and after ransacking his house the prosecution couldn't come up with any scrap of genuine gay porn or child porn--and what porn they did find was fairly conventional adult, straight porn.

[Michael Jackson]

I'm changing the first line to:

Pouring wine in kids' bottles

What can I say? I may be the King of Pop but I still like the Dead Kennedys.

[Abiola Lapite]

"I fought the law and I won!"
Yeah, silly concepts like "evidence" and "credible witnesses" are outmoded anyway, let's just bring out the rope and lynch him on the spot! He's got to be guilty of something, right?

You pathetic little slandering coward, without even the courage to sign your name to your miserable doggerel ...

[Hugh Jorgan]

The double jeopardy I'm referring to is the probably-upcoming civil trial. I've always felt that if someone is cleared of charges in a criminal trial, he or she should not be subjected to a civil trial based on the same alleged incidents. It happened to O.J., it'll probably happen to Michael Jackson, and the accusers, whose charges have been found false, will probably nonetheless receive a monetary award for their troubles. That's wrong.

[Mo]

CFL,
I believe the double jeopardy reference is regarding the criminal case (where he is not guilty) and the civil case (where he can lose oodles of money despite being not guilty).

Ken,
The JC Penny thing probably lost the lady the case. The fact that she got a hefty settlement when she and her son were shoplifting and dropped the stuff and then sued JC Penny for security guard brutality, when none existed (and she was forced to say on the stand that she lied to JC Penny for the money and her son was an accomplice) sunk her. Of course, I just heard that today from one of the old ladies that smokes outside, but when I heard that, I pretty much figured that would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

I know CPS isn't popular with libertarians, but any mother that allows her child to share a bed with MJ after the '93 case deserves to have their child taken away! I think he's innocenty, but still creepy as hell. I wouldn't share a bed with him (heck, I wouldn't sleep on the premises unless I was armed), let alone allow my child too. That lady pimped her child out to MJ so she could get a cash settlement. That's criminal and she is lower than dirt.

[Rick Barton]

Do you suppose that maybe now, just to avoid problems, he'll give up this weird sleep-overs with kids kick?

[innocent until proven guilty]

To MJ:

I imagine you sat through the entire trial to come to your conclusion? Or, he's rich, so he must've been guilty. Perhaps, the trial itself was poorly prosecuted or the evidence did not rise to the level to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I personally think he's guilty, but I wouldn't think it a great country if that were enough to put someone away.

And, if you want to be funny, try rhyming a little better or having a clever punchline. Something like:

How are MJ and the runner up in the Boston Marathon alike? They both came in a little behind.

[thoreau]

Abiola-

I did the post under the Michael Jackson pseudonym. I don't see anything cowardly about it, because I stated my position in the second post of this thread.

Anyway, after stating my stance, I felt like having a little fun so I spoofed a song that I like.

[Mo]

I thought everyone knew that [e-mail] was thoreaus joking identity email address.

iupg,
Hah! Or an oldie but a goodie:
What time should you leave Neverland?
When the big hand touches the little hand.

[thoreau]

And, if you want to be funny, try rhyming a little better

The song that I was spoofing didn't rhyme very well anyway. (The Dead Kennedys version, not the original.)

[CFL]

Hugh, Mo,

Double jeopardy is a legal term referring to being in jeopardy of incarceration. There are different burdens of proof in criminal and civil trials. So, perhaps the jury in this case thought Jackson was guilty but not really beyond a reasonable doubt. But, in a civil trial, the jury only needs to find culpability by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. it is more likely than not that Jackson committed the alleged tort.

The state brings criminal charges while individuals are free to decide whether to bring their own civil claims. Now, if you want to start talking tort reform, that's a whole lot bigger of a discussion. But, to say that Jackson's accuser has no right to make a civil claim or that Jackson is burdened by going through another trial, well that's just how our legal system is run. You can't decide, before the evidence is put forth, who can bring claims against another beforehand.

[thoreau]

The person I feel sorry for in all of this is Jay Leno. He spent a week under a court order not to tell any jokes about the case.

And I am actually not 100% convinced of his guilt, but I felt like having some fun with song lyrics. Is that so wrong? Should I only make jokes if I'm 100% convinced that the punchline is factually correct?

[SR]

The joke was a bit mean-spirited, thoreau, particularly given that not even the LA prosecutor's office has accused Jackson of being interested in six year-olds to the best of my knowledge.

[Steve]

What I don't get is how he could be acquited on the administering alcohol to minors charge. I didn't follow the case super-closely, but I never heard of anyone disputing the fact that he gave little kids wine.

[Mo]

CFL,
I know what the legal definition is. I just think it's patently unfair to be innocent in the eyes of the law but can still be bankrupted by a civil claim against you. I think the whole system stinks.

[drf]

thoreau - nice DK reference. good parody off the cuff. and remember past posts from Aboila.

"keep that sense of humor. it's critical"

have a good evening, doctor.

🙂

and Rick:

of course he won't. Lifetime has him under contract for creating more stories of a Mother's Strength and Courage Faced With A Powerful Wrongdoer.....

[Steve]

Mo, you're confusing "not guilty in the eyes of the law" with "innocent in the eyes of the law." If you're found not guilty in a criminal trial, and liable in a civil trial, then "the law" has decided that you're "not guilty," but not quite "innocent."

[Eric Atkinson]

That queer little transracial freakazoid butt pirate walks for now...but he will not stay away from his favorite candy. Nor will the scum of the earth "parents" keep their kids away from Mikey. Not while they might cash in.
Any way..so he wasn't convicted by a Califorian jury, big deal...innocent befor proven guilty....aquitted...bla bla bla. We all know what he is.
Any of you MJ lovers ready for your eight year old son to spend the night at neverland?

[Evan Williams]

"What I don't get is how he could be acquited on the administering alcohol to minors charge. I didn't follow the case super-closely, but I never heard of anyone disputing the fact that he gave little kids wine."

Perhaps they didn't have enough solid evidence of said "fact". Perhaps the jury chose to acquit on all charges because they saw through the entire case as BS, and the accusers as frauds.

[CFL]

Mo,

While it looks burdensome for Jackson, think about the larger ramifications. What happened at the criminal trial was that a jury was not convinced enough to take away his liberty. That does not mean that no one on the jury did not have suspicions of his guilt (I'd have to be on the jury to know for sure). So, it's not that Jackson's been found innocent, it's just that the jury was not convinced enough under the proper legal burden to put him in jail. Now, losing some cash in a civil trial does not rise to the level of incarcertation, so there's a lower burden of proof--a preponderance.

In addition, while not the best means of filtering out baseless lawsuits, some states do have recourse to counterclaims for frivilous lawsuits. In this case, if the DA decided to go forward, I would imagine there's enough evidence to at least make a civil claim.

[Toxic]

There is a different standard of evidence for civil trials. MJ might not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't indicate he is guilty.

[Steve]

Evan,

The evidence was numerous witnesses testifying to that fact, and no defense witnesses disputing it. I know, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but in order to establish reasonable doubt, you have to do something.

Anyway, I have no idea whether MJ did it or not. My uninformed opinion is that he's a child molester, but again, I don't know. Why are you so sure?

[Ken Shultz]

It's my understanding that criminality, typically, presupposes intent. There has to be a way to deal with negligence, strict liability, etc. in which intent isn't really a factor.

...Adam Smith, as I recall, gave the example of a cinder floating from a neighbor's chimney onto your newly laundered shirt. Who should have to pay the cleaning bill? Surely the neighbor caused the damage, but, then again, you knew he had a chimney when you walked out the door, didn't you?

If society decides the neighbor is responsible, he shouldn't necessarily have to go to jail for it.

P.S. ...In my opinion, getting a child drunk and takin' him to bed speaks to intent.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

You pathetic little slandering coward, without even the courage to sign your name to your miserable doggerel ...

Settle down. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable unless they make me laugh.

[CFL]

There are classes of torts that are based on varying levels of intent. Intentional torts, e.g. assault/battery, false imprisonment, fraud, etc., require specific intent to have caused the injury. Negligence, on the other hand, is a result of not taking proper caution in some action which results in harm to another, where a reasonable person in the same situation would have taken better care not cause such harm.

In Jackson's case, if there is a civil trial, California could have all types of available claims, e.g. intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, assault/battery and others. I imagine counsel for the plaintiff, if they go forward will have to prove intent for some sort of intentional tort. Negligence would not really apply here, i.e. you couldn't claim Jackson accidentally molested the kid. Likewise, strict liability would not apply. Strict liability is reserved for particulary dangerous activities, e.g. handling explosives, and does not require intent to cause harm.

If a civil suit ensues, it will only result, if successful, in monetary damages, no jail time.

[phocion]

So today we've had the spoken word intro to a Butthole Surfers song (later sampled by Orbital) and the sampled intro to a Negativland song (later sampled by Fatboy Slim).

[Warren]

He's rich. He's famous. He's white. That all but guaranteed that he'd either be acquitted

So thoreau,
How do you square this theory with O.J and Martha? Yeah, I get the punch line here, but you seem to be uncharacteristically taking the low road on this thread.

Aside from being really weird, I think the major driving force in this case was the fact that he is rich and famous, and the last time someone went down this road with MJ they came skipping back with a bag-o-cash. Shame on the DA for bringing this to trial with zero credible evidence.

[isildur]

Finally someone picked up the Negativland reference. I was going to be sad if I read to the end of this comments thread without seeing at least one person spot it.

"You've spattered mud all over my dress with your old bicycle!"

[kuros]

i think all the persons involved (defense, prosecution, and witnesses) are all low life's
yech!

[Dave_Chappelle]

Come on, man. The guy made Thriller. Thriller.

Would I let my kids sleep over at his house? F***, no!

[Ken Shultz]

"How do you square this theory with O.J and Martha?"

My first reaction to thoreau's comment was to take a trip down memory lane, from Boskey to Waksal and beyond. ...But then he threw the "at least in California" in there, and I suppose I can't argue with that.

So if you're suggesting that on a conviction percentage basis, the worst demographic you can belong to is very rich and white, I don't think I'll argue with you.

...That would be an interesting contest though. Commenter A names a very-rich white person who beat a wrap and, in response, Commenter B names two very rich white people who couldn't beat a wrap, and whoever runs out of very rich white people first loses.

P.S. My money's on Commenter B to win.

[Some Guy]

Isn't Michael Jackson uh black?

[Stevo Darkly]

O.J. Simpson was an honorary white man. Didn't you guys see the "racial draft" skit on Chappelle's Show.

"What an evening of surprises! Colin Powell and Condoleeza now officially white! O.J. Simpson, black again!"

[Stevo Darkly]

Isn't Michael Jackson uh black?

Not for the past 20 years. Please try to keep up.

[Eddy]

Isn't Michael Jackson uh black?
Not so much.

Is that so wrong? Should I only make jokes if I'm 100% convinced that the punchline is factually correct?
Thoreau, it's not wrong and I don't see why you should have to do more fact checking than a politician and they are some of the biggest jokers around, granted those jokes are on us, but...

[Jim Walsh]

The original Bobby Fuller version of "I Fought The Law" is still the best for my money.

[Rick Barton]

Isn't Michael Jackson uh black?

No, but he used to be...Didn't you ever here the joke about his song, It don't matter if your Black or White..."So Michael, if it doesn't matter, why are you trying so hard to be White"? You know, with all the nose jobs and skin lightening that he went in for.

[Tim Higgins]

Isildur,

There's a "high road" when discussing this case?

Aside: I remember in a past thread hijack onto the OJ case someone suggested that he was framed for a crime he did commit. In my opinion, the probably closer to reality than any other suggestion I'd heard. And all along I thought the A-Team intro was redundant.

[6Gun]

Though, if we started locking people up because they disgust us, we're in trouble....

Don't get me started. At the behest of NOW and the rest of the militant feminazi left, we DO lock up folks, well, because they disgust them, in all their patriarchy paranoia.

We call em "deadbeat dads" and they're the exclusive group capable of being locked up without having either committed a crime or endured messy personal rights stuff like presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, and all that. And it's all due to lobby pressure.

Men in Black, indeed. Hey, maybe the collective bench lets off steam from various OJ celebrity shellacings by messing with simple dads? An odd kind of judicial equilibrium, that.

[matt]

If this trial has taught me anything, it's that there are some dopes (dopes = people amassed outside the courthouse) in this country that lead really boring, sad lives and apparently have entirely too much free time on their hands.

[Captian Awesome]

The real injustice in the OJ case is that the criminal case went first. He had no money left to compensate the family of the victims after his elaborate defense. We'd be much better off with a system that had no criminal case when the wronged were will ing to seek restitution and left the door a little more open on what they could ask for (huge tort reform. And we could protect the defendents with some kind of pendulum restitution situation).

[thoreau]

Warren-

Your question about Martha was answered when I said...

or else convicted only on a minor charge that carried less than 1 year in prison.

[6Gun]

We'd be much better off with a system that had no criminal case when the wronged were will ing to seek restitution...

In my backyard, I think they just legislated domestic violence allegations into automatic criminal actions. No pleas.

Given that (1) DV is the scam of the century, replete with mandatory arrest laws and common-as-teeth DV hostages in divorce cases across the fruited plain, and (2) there's no penalty for false accusations, Houston, we have a problem.

The political right is trapped in the zero-tolerance myth and the political left loves their perceived omnipotent Big Brother. It's over.

[Ken Shultz]

Once again, I'm mystified by the suggestion that civil courts are somehow redundant.

Ignoring the subject of intent even, would we want a system where we could only recover damages if the goverment thought there was enough evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt? Don't we like the ability to bring our own cases regardless of what the government does?

"The real injustice in the OJ case is that the criminal case went first."

This is usually the plaintiff's choice. ...and most plaintiffs don't wait for the criminal trial just because they can use a guilty verdict as evidence in their civil case; they wait because if they wait, they get the benefit of the government's evidence, or at least that's my understanding. Those lab tests are expensive--few defendants can afford to test evidence independently.

...Admittedly, the O.J. criminal case fell apart in part because the evidence was so badly mishandled by the lab, but the plaintiffs couldn't have known that until it was too late.

[independent worm]

I didn't follow every twist and turn of the case, so i won't attempt to substitute my judgment for that of a duly appointed fact finding body.

Everybody involved in the case had a full opportunity to say what they had to say, and what happened, happened.

regardless of what really may or may not have went on up there at neverland, you can't expect to convict people when your own witnesses turn tail on you. My sense was somebody "got to" some of those witnesses, but heaven forbid anyone advance a "conspiracy theory."

Everybody knows that people with zillions of dollars and their very lives at stake are perfectly willing to roll the dice and accept whatever a jury of 12 strangers believes, rather than taking active steps to try and tilt the outcome in their favor. this is even MORE true of those who have the money and influence to actually pull it off. Those tend to be your most upstanding type citizens, and they more than anyone tend to just lie back and accept the outcomes of our perfectly blind judicial system.

Some of those prosecution witnesses just happened to change their stories 180 degrees, and we should just accept that that happened and move on. There's no reason to suspect, for example, that somebody paid them or intimidated them to change their testimony, not that i'm suggesting such a thing. In fact, i think it's high time we repeal all those silly witness tampering laws, since everybody knows nobody ever tampers with witnesses, and anybody who thinks that happens is a nut.

[Rick Barton]

Once again, I'm mystified by the suggestion that civil courts are somehow redundant.

Yeah really. Civil courts award damages specifically to the victim from the victimizing or negligent party. Criminal courts deal with, in part, what the victimizer somehow owes the government or "the people" or "society".

[raymond]

A perfectly serious query...

It seems to me that if a government brings a case against someone and fails to prove that case, the government should be forced to foot the bill for the defence. (And that just compensation should be paid to to victims of "judicial error".)

Why not?

And a 2nd...

In certain civil cases, why shouldn't the burden of proof be the same as for criminal cases? (I'm not talking Judge-Judy type cases. I'm talking OJ/tobacco-type cases.)

And a 3rd...

What is the (libertarian) theoretical basis for a state power to punish? (I don't think there is one.)

[thoreau]

I have very mixed feelings on civil suits after a jury acquits somebody in a criminal trial. I do understand the legal distinction between civil and criminal trials: The different purposes, the different stakes, and the different burdens of proof. And I certainly don't have much sympathy for some of the people who have been successfully sued after being acquitted in a criminal trial.

I also recognize that sometimes a person might be clearly not guilty yet also bear civil responsibility. e.g. A personal injury case where somebody is clearly responsible for another person's injuries, but the incident in question isn't a crime. (I'm sure lawyers could explain the fine points about the difference between, say, the criminal charge of reckless endangerment and plain old civil liability.)

Despite all that, there's something that just bothers me about a person being acquitted of murder and then held liable in civil court. I know it is perfectly in keeping with the letter of the law and various legal theories but something about it still just seems, well, unfair.

Even with somebody like OJ, whom I am convinced was improperly acquitted, when he lost the civil suit I still thought "Dammit, this isn't the right way to get him!" I know that there's nothing legally wrong with it, and there are plenty of legal theories to justify it, but it still just seems, well, wrong.

I guess it depends on the grounds for acquittal: Did the case hinge on whether the defendant did something, or did the case hinge on whether the defendant's actions were criminal?

As an example, say that somebody injured another person and claims self-defense. The prosecution says that the injuries were way in excess of what was needed for self-defense under the circumstances. The jury is pretty sure that the defendant went over-board, but not sure enough to send him to prison. However, another jury, using the lower standard of preponderance of evidence, decides that the defendant should pay the victim's hospital bills.

I could accept that: Most of the facts aren't in dispute: Person A clearly injured person B. The courts find that Person A shouldn't go to prison but should still make restitution. Fair enough.

But if the defendant claimed that he was in another town on the evening of the attack and a jury finds reasonable doubt, well, something just seems wrong about holding him liable in a civil suit. I understand why the burden of proof is lower in the civil case, but something still just seems wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. I realize that my own queasy feeling isn't sufficient for making law. But, well, that's my stance and I'm just throwing it out there for discussion.

[panurge]

Andrew Sullivan has a great article on this:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20050610

Funny that Jackson will no doubt get an album out of this, and that it will bomb just like the ironically (or, given the verdict, appropriately) titled "Invincible" and everything else he's done in the last ten years. Anyone listen to his music anymore? Anyone?

Tom Sneddon is now the one who deserves to suffer. The fact that he could not put a strong case together, the fact that he was dumb enough to show that hack Bashir's "documentary" in court (whether or not you think Jackson is guilty, Bashir was obviously biased), the fact that he hardly bothered to look into the background of his witnesses, means that the people of his community would be safer if he no longer had his job,

[thoreau]

panurge-

I read the Sullivan column...

...and was shocked to discover that the sweaty bald guy from the Ultimate Fitness Program was there!

Arrrrgggghhhh!

[Rick Barton]

raymond,

I think that justice would be served by your two ideas in query #1. Also, maybe it would be an impetus to end the ridiculous and often tragic anti-capitalistic (i.e. anti-economic freedom) laws the government has against victimless crimes such as drug use and selling, prostitution, and gambling, if the government forces the tax payers to foot the bill for the defense when the government loses cases against these type of "crimes".

But, am I being less than principled in advocating this in these areas since the government shouldn't be prosecuting these type activities anyway and this provision has the potential of increasing the taxes that the government extracts from us in these areas?

I'm looking for this provision to help end victimless crime laws, but is it right for me to advocate a possible increase in taxes for anything that is unnecessary in order to bring an end to this incorrect government activity?

The answer may be "yes" since in addition to the hope of ending the victimless crime laws, I'm looking for these provisions to help bring justice to some of the victims of the government's unjust laws in these areas. (Of course, the most victimized are those who are found guilty.)

[Rick Barton]

raymond's query #2:

In certain civil cases, why shouldn't the burden of proof be the same as for criminal cases?

Perhaps the burden of proof shouldn't be, the same for civil cases as it is in criminal cases because the jury has wide latitude in awarding damages. At least that might be the rationale, but is justice really served by less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" in civil cases? If so, how? Good question, raymond.

raymond's query #2:

What is the (libertarian) theoretical basis for a state power to punish? (I don't think there is one.)

Only as a tool of *prevention* against crimes of force and fraud.

[Rick Barton]

The ethical case in my post at 03:09 AM is made more solid since ending the victimless crime laws would lower government tax extractions.

[not this again]

listening to radio talk show reactions i unfortunately note a certain portion of black folks are seeing this acquittal, as the oj not guilty which they keep referencing, as payback for past injustices. this is bunk and i'm betting victims (regardless of verdict) see no race aspect...lay off the your people vs. my people stuff once and for all. racism exists and let's squash it when is really there

[Rick Barton]

thoreau ph.D. at 02:16 AM,

Here's an antidote!

http://www.hakushouse.com/images/RnR45/0a0630i.jpg

[Douglas Fletcher]

I was hoping the prosecutor was going to ask Jackson what the hell "shamoni" means, but Jackson never took the stand. My torment continues.

[raymond]

is it right for me to advocate a possible increase in taxes for anything that is unnecessary in order to bring an end to this incorrect government activity?

Since the government is the agent of the people (theoretically) and the district attorney represents "the people", then "the people" should be the ones to pay up.

If they insist on hiring incompetent, bitter, obsessed lawyers to represent them, they should pay.

[Shem]

raymond- I would say that a possible libertarian rationale for the power to punish could be to provide a deterrent against criminal actions, as long as the government's ultimate goal is an attempt to preserve negative liberty by preventing coercion by non-governmental actors. I've always sort of thought that this ideal would be more or less what keeps us from howling at the full moon with our anarchist brethren.;)

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Yeah, I heard Jackson got off on that little boy thing. And then I heard he was found not guilty at the trial.

If MJ went to jail, would all the child molesters in LA riot? All the Buy Buy Baby outlets would've been ransacked.

And yeah, Lapite, I'm a slandering coward. And you're a douchebag. Get a fucking sense of humor, you freak.

[Patrick]

All I can say is:

Hee He
Jamona
Ho!

[Patrick]

Douglas, my paleolinguistic investigations have led me to conclude that "shamoni," is derived from the English phrase "Jam on," much as the term "toodabeet-huh" is derived from the English phrase "to the beat."

[raymond]

...the power to punish could be to provide a deterrent against criminal actions

I have a lot of problems with that explanation.

First, one is acting on one person to affect the behaviour of others. The punished person loses his humanness and becomes an object (lesson).

We've seen this in history, and been appalled.

Second, it doesn't seem a particularly efficient method. Though Texas keeps executing (and with apparent relish), murderers keep murdering.

It seems to me that education is far more effective a deterrence than punishment. Take me, for example. I learned early on to respect the fundamental rights of others. And though I do not live in a place where ritual state killing is practised, I have never ever killed anyone.

And finally, "punishment" does not, in and of itself, include the notion of deterrence.

[Vache Folle]

In talking to my conspecifics about the case (hard to avoid), the consensus seemed to be that MJ's actions were the least weird if he were a pedophile. They found it hard to imagine spending time with children as he did without a sexual payoff.

[guy in the back row]

So now that the school bus doesn't stop at neverland anymore, do you think mikey will be getting some mail order slavic "brides" before the Russians cut that off too?

[Steve]

raymond,

I'll keep that in mind if I get mugged or something. Perhaps the police can sit the gentleman down and educate him about how initiating force is wrong, etc. etc.

[Stevo Darkly]

Yeah, I heard Jackson got off on that little boy thing.

Maybe that could have been phrased better.

[cdunlea]

So now that the school bus doesn't stop at neverland anymore, do you think mikey will be getting some mail order slavic "brides" before the Russians cut that off too?

It could only help him.

[Isaac Bartram]

MNG:
Yeah, I heard Jackson got off on that little boy thing.

Stevo:
Maybe that could have been phrased better.

I think if you re-read the post you'll find that's exactly the way he intended to phrase it.

I got a chuckle out of the slightly sick (or at least I thought it so) joke, and I find myself in sympathy with MJ. I think his bizarre behaviour might have made him appear to be an easy target. On the other hand I've considered the possibility that he might be as guilty as sin.

Personally I find him creepy and have never understood his appeal.

[raymond]

>>It seems to me that education is far more effective a deterrence than punishment.

I'll keep that in mind if I get mugged or something. Perhaps the police can sit the gentleman down and educate him about how initiating force is wrong, etc. etc.

I was speaking about deterrence. If punishment really deters, your chances of getting mugged should be very small.

[raymond]

ps & btw & back to the subject -

I'll keep that in mind if I get mugged or something. Perhaps the police can sit the gentleman down and educate him about how initiating force is wrong, etc. etc.

Let's say you do get mugged. Does the US justice system "make you whole" again? Is the mugger obliged to make reparation? Does he give you back the money he stole and pay for your medical bills, replace your clothing, and pay for pain-and-suffering? Does he pay for the services of the police who solved the crime and of the court which hands down the judgment?

Is he, while fulfilling these responsibilities, treated with dignity and (if need be) housed in a facility in which he is safe from having his own rights violated?

Is he, moreover, "rehabilitated" in this facility? That is, is he taught the value of respect for fundamental human rights?

If he acted out of drug addiction, is he given the opportunity (which he will pay for, of course) to overcome that addiction?

Or is he treated like an animal? Raped? Given access to more drugs? Educated in the ways of crime?

And is he not - ever - expected to "make you whole"?

[Steve]

raymond,

My chances of getting mugged are, in fact, quite small. I don't know how much of that is due to the fact that we arrest and prosecute muggers, but it can't hurt.

Let me take a more serious stab at your question. Deterrance isn't the only good reason to punish criminals. There's also the concept of justice. It is just that someone who violates my rights is punished, even if he's sorry and would never do it again. It does, to a small extent, make me and society partially "whole" again. Now, there's plenty of room to argue about how much punishment, and what sort of punishment, is just for a specific crime. But one of the building blocks of society is that justice will be delivered when you break the law.

This is a tough one to argue, because we're working from first principals. I don't mean religious views--I'm not religious at all. But it's a deeply held moral belief that crimes should be punished, regardless of the deterrance factor, and it's hard to convince someone of a deeply held moral belief.

[Jim Walsh]

Await the soul-searching concept album about the ordeal.

In the words of Dave Barry, pray for nuclear war...

[tgibbs]

but is justice really served by less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" in civil cases? If so, how?

The difference between a civil case and a criminal case is that a civil case involves a (typically) financial dispute between two citizens in which one is seeking compensation for damages that are alleged to be the fault of the other party. As such, it is typically a zero-sum transaction--i.e. the loser suffers to the same extent as the winner gains. Thus a wrong decision is equally bad no matter which party in the dispute it favors. If the judgment mistakenly favors the defendant, then plaintiff bears alone the cost of damages inflicted on him by the defendant, plus legal costs. If the judgment mistakenly favors the plaintiff, then defendant sustains costs that should fairly have been borne by the plaintiff.

As such, there is no real basis for building a bias one way or the other into civil proceedings. So the standard of proof is symmetrical--the party who makes the most convincing case wins. In contrast, criminal proceedings in which the state is seeking authority to impose penalties (often upon the defendant's person as well as his wallet) are intentionally biased (by an asymmetrical standard of proof) in favor of the defendant, to protect not merely the defendant, but all citizens, from the harm that could result from unchecked state power.

To put it another way, even a particularly litigious individual can only sue so many people. But the state has it in its power to deal out harm wholesale.

[Ken Shultz]

Once again, I'm neither a lawyer nor a legal expert.

...but it always seemed to me that criminal law made sense on the incapacitation front. Michael Jackson wouldn't be molesting any little boys in jail.

Incapacitation is depriving a man of his liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. ...but he has to give up those rights up "willingly"--yeah, my conception of "willingly" in this context is a little different. To me, it seems that this is why establishing intent is such an important part of criminal law. When a man intends to commit a crime, he "willingly" engages in activity that he knows puts his liberty and pursuit of happiness at risk.

...I know this places certain crimes in a weird category--what do we do then with a crime like negligent homicide? ...but then again, it seems to cover a lot too. Anyway, that's why I think intent is such an important part of criminal law, and I think people who've been wronged without establishing intent or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. should be able to recover damages in a civil court. ...and that's my two cents.

[kevrob]

Intent is a fuzzy thing. A couple of centuries ago, one might beat a criminal rap by arguing that, since you were drunk at the time, you didn't have the mens rea to form an intent to commit the crime. While that has long gone by the boards, the "diminished capacity" defense is alive in many jurisdictions. As this article shows, determining intent when the alleged perpetrator was drug or alcohol impaired, and/or had other mental health problems, is not cut and dried.

IANAL, but I'd speculate that proclaiming to all who can hear you that "Boy, I'm going to get wasted tonight!" before grabbing the car keys and heading out to the bars is probably a bad idea, in the event that you wind up plowing the family Buick into a station wagon full of nuns.

As for restitution , I know that in my state our courts make an effort to recover what they can from those who are convicted. I imagine that in some cases the offender doesn't have the resources to pay the resitution. To that end, there's a victim's compensation fund. The taxpayer funds don't kick in until any private compensation from insurance is exhausted, but it's something.

Perhaps court-ordered restitution could be supercharged, in effect placing a fine on top of the payment to the victim, with the excess used to bulk up the victims fund.

Kevin

[Shem]

raymond, I didn't say that the threat of punishment would work as an effective deterrent in all cases, since it's clearly obvious that it doesn't. And education is better, if you can get it in early enough. But can you really say that roughly the same amount of crimes are committed under our system of laws as would be committed under one with no laws? We commit crimes every day; we speed, we jaywalk, some of us litter and commit petty theft. We do it largely because we know that it's highly unlikely that punishment will be applied, and so the rewards outweigh the risk. Now, how many more crimes do you suppose people would be comfortable committing if the risk of being caught was nil? Especially in a large population, where you didn't have to look the person you were hurting in the eye, and so it was easier to rationalize away their humanity. The state treating people as an end is distasteful, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather have a state that treats certain people who have committed certain, demonstrable and mutually agreed-upon acts as objects, rather than have to worry about whether or not my neighbors will someday try to use me as an object to affect an end.

[smacky]

Yeah, I heard Jackson got off on that little boy thing.

Maybe that could have been phrased better.

I didn't read the comments except for that one. Ha ha ha!

And I just wanted to say that I knew he was innocent all along.

[raymond]

There's also the concept of justice.

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

Though the decision from which this particular paragraph comes is no longer in force, the statement it makes is nonetheless true. Courts are not in the business of rendering justice. Their job is to interpret the law.

Thus, judges are obliged to sentence people to prison for outrageous lengths of time under 3-strikes laws. Judges are obliged to fine or emprison drug users. And so on.

(Let's admit - for the sake of argument - that judges did mete out justice. How can one explain the death penalties handed out to innocent men? Courts are human institutions. As such, they will make mistakes. Mistakes are not "justice".)

[Punishment] does, to a small extent, make me and society partially "whole" again.

How? Because it assuages your thirst for vengeance? This is not, imo, making whole.

[O]ne of the building blocks of society is that justice will be delivered when you break the law.

I disagree. That the rules will be enforced according to how financially able you are to hire a good lawyer, probably. That you will get "justice"? Rarely.

What is justice?

...victim's compensation fund. The taxpayer funds...

And why should I - who have never violated anyone's rights - have my own rights violated to compensate someone else for someone else's violation? This makes no sense to me.

I imagine that in some cases the offender doesn't have the resources to pay the resitution.

Then he works it off.

I don't want him tortured, or beaten, or raped. I don't want him to be infected with AIDS or murdered because of what he's done to me. I don't want him degraded. The only "justice" I want is to be made whole again. (Or at least as whole as I'm going to get.)

This power - and the power to ostracise - are the only two valid government powers I recognise insofar as crime is concerned.

Justice I'll leave to God.

[kevrob]

...victim's compensation fund. The taxpayer funds... raymond, quoting me.

And why should I - who have never violated anyone's rights - have my own rights violated to compensate someone else for someone else's violation? This makes no sense to me. - raymond

A good point. That's why I proposed supercharging the offenders. Get the cash from those who have violated others' rights. Besides harming specific individuals, they have disturbed the ordered liberty of the community, so why not make them pay that recompense, too?

I imagine that in some cases the offender doesn't have the resources to pay the restitution. - me again.

Then he works it off. - more raymond.

Fine by me. Unfortunately, many crims don't have much earning power, but every little bit helps, right?

Kevin

[Stevo Darkly]

MNG said: "Yeah, I heard Jackson got off on that little boy thing."

Stevo said: "Maybe that could have been phrased better."

Then Isaac Bartram said: "I think if you re-read the post you'll find that's exactly the way he intended to phrase it."

Oops. Mr. Nice Guy actually said in the first place: "Yeah, I heard Jackson got off on that little boy thing. And then I heard he was found not guilty at the trial."

Color me "duh" -- I was reading fast and completely missed Mr. NG's commendable blog mot. Sorry about that.

Next time, maybe put a rim shot in there. 🙂

[Stevo Darkly]

By the way, no matter what Michael Jackson may or may not have done, getting molested by Kerry would have been worse.

[kevrob]

|-X-|!

Kevin

[joe]

What does Michael Jackson like best about twenty eight year olds?

[Shem]

I'll bite. I do not know joe, what does Micheal Jackson like best about twenty eight-year old kids?

[Stevo Darkly]

Shem, you punchline-sabotager, you.

Joe, what does Michael Jackson like best about twenty eight year olds?

[Stevo Darkly]

For those who haven't already heard the joke, and since joe doesn't seem to be around:

A: There's twenty of them.

[Shem]

Uh...the Ombudsmen made me do it!