It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Broken Judicial System, or a Jaded Public?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The Michael Jackson verdict got my fiance and I thinking about this little quandry the other day. And I have yet to arrive at a satisfactory answer, so I will present this series of questions to you, and then see where we stand.

  1. Has the American Justice System become so corrupt that the rich and famous are immune to the law (as long as they have the money to pay the high-priced lawyers), or have we Americans become so jaded as to assume someone's guilt, regardless of a due process that we were not a part of?
    • My answer is "unknown", but I'm leaning towards the justice system being the problem.


  2. If the problem is with the Justice System, what about it is broken?
    • My answer would be "the qualifications for evidence and witness credibility". Lawyers aren't really the problem. We may hate them, and they may be slimey bastages, but that's their job. Even if a lawer knows their client is guilty as hell, it's their sworn duty to defend them to the letter of the law. But what really seems to win or lose a case is whether or not evidence is permissable, and whether or not a client's credibility can be destroyed. Evidence critical to proving one's guilt or innocence can be thrown out on the lamest of technicalities, and as a result can either condemn an innocent man, or free a guilty one. As for witness credibility, I think that there needs to be less consideration towards this. A scumbag still has eyes, ears, and/or expertise, regardless of what they did in the past. The only discrediting for a witness should be in the case where either purgery has been committed in the past, or an established history of lying under oath or signature.


  3. If Americans are just too jaded to accept an "innocent" verdict, what has brought this about, and how can it be resolved?
    • My guess is that if we are jaded, it is largely due to the advent of media circuses around big trials. Combined with TV shows, movies, news coverage with "expert interviews" and reinactments, Joe Average feels compelled to have an opinion on the matter, despite the fact the only facts they hear are third-hand filtered through a privately owned media corporation, and tempered with what they've seen in fictional media, such as "Law & Order". Either that, or they simply believe what they are told to believe, by someone else. Such a mentality can destroy anyone's life or career, despite being found innocent in a court of law.


    What do you think is the problem? How can it be fixed? Will we ever be back in a day and age where people trusted the judgment of the court?




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
How about "niether."

On NPR today, it was discussed that if the prosecution had ONLY stuck with the child molestation charges, they might have made the case. But they brought in (and made it part of the whole thing) a conspiracy where Jackson supposedly held the family hostage and so forth.

The one with the story was the mother, who was then shown to be a chronic liar and someone who'd brought trivial lawsuits before in the hopes of winning big settlements (probably so she wouldn't have to work for a living... but I'm being unkind.)

When the case is presented as a whole and critical testimony is shown to be dubious or an outright lie and the rest of the evidence "suggests" but does not prove, the jury can't convict.

Being creepy isn't a reason to convict someone. You can be creepy and still be innocent.

(I have no opinion one way or another about him, other than he's psychologically bizarre and high strung and is getting stranger by the minute)



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I agree with Byrd in that the prosecution screwed up royally on this case.

Also, if the prosecution had prevailed and he was found guilty, other people would be condemning the jury for different reasons. Criticizing a jury is nothing new, it's probably gone on ever since the first jury trial took place. I wholeheartedly disagree with this verdict, but I certainly don't want to scrap the jury system or give the prosecution another chance by getting rid of the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
He was already very strange. I once saw a clip of him singing (with eyes closed, and almost crying) about how he wanted become Peter Pan. And there he was still black (thriller album). It seems to me that they just tried to take advantage of the situation (him having children sleep in his bed). But the guy is just koookooo...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Both. Michael Jackson is NOT innocent. Any 47 year old man that openly admits he sleeps with children has got a problem. It makes me sick. The media coverage of it makes me sick and mad as hell. Now the jurors stand to make money off of book offers. The entire thing is disgusting.

The media is nothing but a bunch of butt kissers. The CNN coverage was pathetic. I had to turn off my tv last night.

I'm sick to death of Michael Jackson news.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Assuming that the American Experiment in governance escaped the realities inherent in centuries of civilization prior, is the point of divergence from validity.
Meaning, courts have been in place since the birth of civilization - have they ever not paid complete deference to the power elite of that society? Has the prince always skated while the serf hung in town square? Did Martha Stewart go to jail for the exact same thing that George Bush did at Arbusto?

It's always been that way & will always be.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Actually, I have to go with that the money and fame talks louder than the fact of a case.
In the MJ case, you have the defendant actually admitting numerous times that he thought there is nothing wrong with sleeping with underage children. You have a juror actually admitting that MJ is probably a child molestor but that they could not convict him on this case.
There are a number of instances in the court system where less than 1/10th of the evidence that was presented at the MJ trial would have been enough to convict someone who was less well known or did not have the money.
I will present another example of this.
Tell if you or I would not have been arrested in the following instance:
A hotel clerk calls the police due to the noise in one room.
The police arrive and find you in a room with 2 or 3 "ladies" of the evening (from a local topless bar)H. While the police are in the room, they discover that under the chair that you are sitting in has coc aine in it.
Now, if it was anyone else (than who was in the room that night) we would have been arrested on the spot for possession.
The person that was in the room.... Michael Irving. What did the police do?
Let him go. He turns himself in a month later once the police decided to wkae up. What was his eventual sentence? 2 years probation.
www.spub.ksu.edu... html

Shall I go on?



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I think the prosecution did their job well. What screwed him was, the day the kid testified. All of the sudden MJs in the hospital, shows up late, all the attention on MJ and not the kid. The general public is stupid enough to fall for it. THe defense made the whole case about the Mom and not MJ. The American public are the stupidist people on the planet. We are to easily distracted.

Not to worry. This wont be the last time this happens to him. I predict he'll be dead in 2 years. I dont think he's got anything left in him. Just my opinion.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Well...being weird, kookoo, etc etc isn't a crime. Nor is it really any indication of wrongdoing.

But if the jurors "knew" he was guilty, but the prosecution couldn't prove this guilt....isn't that exactly how the justice system is meant to work?

You're not meant to be "guilty because we know you are, but we just can't actually prove it", right?

(Don't misunderstand me - I think he's probably as guilty as OJ - but at the same time, I wouldn't want the justice system able to convict me based upon something they couldn't adequately prove)



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
The American public are the stupidist people on the planet. We are to easily distracted.

Not to worry. This wont be the last time this happens to him. I predict he'll be dead in 2 years. I dont think he's got anything left in him. Just my opinion.

Very true they are. I expect some crazy bastard to take the law in his own hands and take mikey out.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The thing is, the amount of evidence needed to convict someone with money, power or fame is so overwhelming that even confessions, blood evidence, dna evidence that shows that it 99.999999999% sure that you are the purpetrator is still not enough. Whereas, if only circumstantial evidence is presented in a case against aomeone with out the money, power, fame. they would Go straight to jail, do not pass Go do not collect $200.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
When you have money you can buy the best defense lawyers in america. with that you get a large staff that can bombard the states prosecution team. All you have to do is put doubt into the jurours mind. From what I saw and heard there weren't any credible witnesses that testified against jackson.

I personally think he is guilty, he paid someone off for about 10 million in the 90's. You do not settle out of court for 10 million if you are not guilty. Any man that sleaps with kids that our not his own is doing more than just sleaping with them. The guy has women lined up around the block that would have intimate relations with him and what is he doing, spending all of his time with kids.

So money has a lot to do with our judicial system. Remember the oj trial.
Like I said in another post america has the best judicial system that money can buy. If he is rich you must not convict.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Rich make their own laws. How much longer are we going to take it is what i wonder. They don't pay their dam taxes they don't go to jail for crimes. Look at Ken Lay he is still out no jail period. It's sick how corrupted our system has become time to take it back.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by DiRtYDeViL]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Rich make their own laws. How much longer are we going to take it is what i wonder. They don't pay their dam taxes they don't go to jail for crimes. Look at Ken Lay he is still out no jail period. It's sick how corrupted our system has become time to take it back.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by DiRtYDeViL]


Heard of Martha Stewart?

She's paid more in taxes than you or I will ever earn - and yet she was convicted, and jailed.

Whilst your point might be valid - that is, money can buy the justice system - overgeneralising like that just undermines the entire argument.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra


  1. Has the American Justice System become so corrupt that the rich and famous are immune to the law (as long as they have the money to pay the high-priced lawyers), or have we Americans become so jaded as to assume someone's guilt, regardless of a due process that we were not a part of?

    The problem is not corruption, so much as a gradual increase in the ways the innocent can be released. Normally, not a bad thing. But, however, due to things like technicalities - which high-priced lawyers are paid to find and exploit- we have all kinds of guilty folk running around the streets the same day that cops jail them.

  2. If the problem is with the Justice System, what about it is broken?
    • My answer would be "the qualifications for evidence and witness credibility". Lawyers aren't really the problem. We may hate them, and they may be slimey bastages, but that's their job. Even if a lawer knows their client is guilty as hell, it's their sworn duty to defend them to the letter of the law. But what really seems to win or lose a case is whether or not evidence is permissable, and whether or not a client's credibility can be destroyed. Evidence critical to proving one's guilt or innocence can be thrown out on the lamest of technicalities, and as a result can either condemn an innocent man, or free a guilty one. As for witness credibility, I think that there needs to be less consideration towards this. A scumbag still has eyes, ears, and/or expertise, regardless of what they did in the past. The only discrediting for a witness should be in the case where either purgery has been committed in the past, or an established history of lying under oath or signature.

      It very rarely condemns a guilty man, but instead frees guilty ones. Another major issue that comes to midn is plea bargaining. It's replaced something like 25% of court cases. The lawyers hammer out a deal, so someone who chopped out his girlfriend gets five years instead of twenty-five to life.


  3. If Americans are just too jaded to accept an "innocent" verdict, what has brought this about, and how can it be resolved?
    • It's not about being jaded, it's about the fact that a lot of people are scumbags, period. TANJ. Police do their damndest to put these people away, but the court systems hog tie them.


    DE



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Ok, Jocko was found not guilty in a court of law, but we all know what we truly think. No normal man is going to have kids in his bed. You know it, Bob Dole knows it, the American people know it.

As far as the American justice system goes, even back in the days when you were tried by a group of your peers (That means people who know you, know your standing in the community and know your character), would it have made a difference if he was tried by his peers? In case you have forgotten, THIS FREAK OF NATURE IS QUITE NORMAL IN THE HOLLYWOOD ENVIRONMENT!


You want my opinion? I think that any parent who allows their child to go to Michael's playground should be shot for child abuse. Take away Jacko's supply. Make him have to go to Thailand, like the rest of the rich perverts.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Thomas is RIGHT! any parent that allows thier child to sleep with a grown man is just as guilty as creepy MJ and should be held accountable for neglect. They knowingly prostitued that kid out in hopes of getting millions.

And, The fact that he paid the last victim millions in hush money says something to me.

Just like OJ he walked away scott free.

Kenshiro makes some excellent points too.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Oh sure, Thomas is right....let's just make Thailand suffer a bit more, shall we?



Yeah, there's something very questionable about parents allowing this to happen - but that suggestion goes beyond "illogical" and into "plain ridiculous" territory.

Here's a novel concept. How about we try figuring out why this happens? You know, prevention being infinitely better than the cure, and all that?


(I'm also curious - exactly how common is "grown man sleeping in same bed as child" within the Hollywood community? Any proof to back this up? )



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
yesterday we told a man that admitted he likes sleeping with little boys that thats fine with us as long as you sold alot of records and have tons of mindless fans. If the university of michigan beats ohio state the next four years I won't be as mad as I am right know because of this and I'm from right outside columbus!



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Meaning, courts have been in place since the birth of civilization - have they ever not paid complete deference to the power elite of that society? Has the prince always skated while the serf hung in town square? Did Martha Stewart go to jail for the exact same thing that George Bush did at Arbusto?


There is some validity to the fact that those who can afford the best defense stand a better chance of being aquitted than someone defended by an overworked public defender, but do you really consider Martha Stewart to be a "serf?"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join