Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Wacko Jacko or wacky judiciary?

I’ve tried my best to avoid coverage of the Jackson trial. Still, a certain amount of this is inescapable.

It would be easy to blame the Jackson acquittal on the jury. And, indeed, they share some of the blame. For example, there were the jurors who exonerated Jackson because they were personally offended by the mother of the victim. This evinces a willful moral blindness.

Mind you, the witnesses were pretty seamy and seedy. But that tells you something about Michael himself. You can judge a man by the company he keeps. That’s how we judge a Mafia Don.

But the problem runs much deeper. The problem lies with the standard of evidence. As currently constituted, a juror is supposed to perform a self-lobotomy.

What would be the natural reaction? On the one hand, Jackson has zero interest in women. This is a man who could have his pick of women. Even now, he has his coterie of clueless, slavish groupies. To judge by what one reads and hears, he is either unable or unwilling to even “perform” with a member of the opposite sex.

On the other hand, he has a very active and avid interest in boys. He’s turned Neverland into an amusement park to lure unsuspecting boys. He has them for sleepovers. He has them in his bedroom. He has them in his bed. He has an appetite for homosexual pornography.

Now, the natural reaction would be—what more do you need to know? That’s all the evidence—more than enough—to figure out what’s going on here. Even if you didn’t have any specific evidence of a specific crime against a specific victim—indeed, even if he didn’t commit the specific crime of which he’s accused—you might as well convict him while you’ve got the chance for all the other stuff he’s gotten away with.

But, of course, that would be a big no-no under our judicial system. The judge would declare a mistrial if he found out that poor Mr. Jackson had been convicted on such utterly common sense grounds.

So the Jackson jurors did their job in the sense that they played the role assigned to them as dutiful little wind-up toy soldiers who follow orders, however inane and unjust. They acquitted a man they all thought was guilty because the highly technical burden of proof had not been met.

And to this I’d just say that the time is long past due for the general public to reclaim the principle of popular sovereignty. To remember that judges “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” in the words of the Declaration of Independence.

We don’t need another revolution. We just need to exercise the rights we already have.


  1. Hi Steve..... couple of small points:

    "On the one hand, Jackson has zero interest in women. This is a man who could have his pick of women. Even now, he has his coterie of clueless, slavish groupies. To judge by what one reads and hears, he is either unable or unwilling to even “perform” with a member of the opposite sex."

    This is untrue. His two of his exes and one of his earlier paramours have stated that Jackson is and has willingly performed with members of the opposite sex. Secondly, that's disproved COMPLETELY in my answer below:

    You then said:

    "He has an appetite for homosexual pornography."

    Also untrue. The porn found at Jackson's house was heterosexual porn.

    The images ran the gamut of commercial adult material from the mainstream, such as Playboy and Hustler to photos of sex acts apparently ripped from books or magazines to specialized publications, including Over 50, Plumpers and Juggs.

    Much of the material focused on teenage girls. Detectives also found two DVDs entitled "Barely Legal." Many of the approximately three dozen magazines featured nude pictures of young women, including Finally Legal, Purely 18 and Live Young Girls.

    There were no pictures of young men or teenage boys.

    The material included nude pictures of celebrities, including Marilyn Monroe, Naomi Campbell, Bo Derek and Elle MacPherson. The cover of one publication, Celebrity Skin, boasted a "Streisand Skin Flick."

    ---end quote----

    The closest thing to 'homosexual pornography' found at Jackson's house was a 1940's photography book with black and white photos of nude adults and some boys. Coffee table sized book. And if you'd found the book in a photographer's home, you probably wouldn't think he was a molester.

    Just trying to be fair. A lot of people read your blog and it wouldn't truthful of you to stand behind these statements when court documents say otherwise.

  2. Thanks, Kerry. I only know what I see and read. Regarding Jackson's appetite for homosexual pornography, here is another courtv news story:

    Regarding his marriages, what I've read only serves to reinforce the impression that he is not attracted to women and only married them for cover:

    In addition, if he's at ease with normal sexual relations, why did he resort to artificial insemination rather than employ the old fashioned method?

    Finally, I was simply using the Jackson case to illustrate a larger point. But I appreciate your attempt to correct any errors on my part, and we're all dependent on our news outlets in a situation like this.

  3. Hey again Steve,

    Your first link (Court TV) pretty much said the same thing mine did. The book that was found ('The Boy') is a regular photographic book, though homosexual folk consider it homoerotic porn. I would say that misuse wouldn't count as 'homosexual porn'. I do have issues with the amount of underage hetero porn they found at his house and on his computer, though.

    Regular porn addiction ? Yes. Homosexual porn ? No.

    I do believe the man definitely needs help. He's 45+ - he needs to let Neverland rest (and I hope he's learned something from this), stop playing with kids LIKE a kid... and grow up.... his childhood ain't comin' back.... and most of his adulthood is gone.