Will Michael Jackson jailed?

I think he has an innocent mind, and didn't think he thought he was doing anything wrong. But, it probably was wrong under the law. He should get a light sentence, 1 to 5 years tops in a cush white collar prison, like Martha Stewart. They should make a reality show out of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) - Jurors completed their second full day of deliberations in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial on Tuesday as the pop star awaited a verdict at his Neverland estate. The jury of eight women and four men has spent about 14 hours behind closed doors without reaching a verdict since getting the case on Friday. Jurors sent a single note to Judge Rodney Melville on Monday but its contents were sealed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how are you so sure he did molest the children!
i don't think why would he want to do so...
he's got so much money, he could probably bed with the hottest celebrities & super models of the world..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yank and everyone else, shouldnt his guilt or inocence be a matter for the jury and NOT for the media, fans and everyone else who has an opinion. I think that it is really wrong of the media to releace the names of people who are facing charges as it will influance there future lives even if they are found to have not done it. The names should ONLY be releaced if they are found guilty. And has it been reported in the US that some people are saying if he is found guilty it HAS to be because the jury is white and he is black? (well kind of) for christ sake if you people have so little faith in your justice system then it should be changed. maybe you should go the way of indoneasia and abolish jurys and just use judges

 

i have to agree to this one!

 

What are you talking about? He should get zero sentance. He broke zero laws. Every single allegation against him was undoubtledly fabricated. It's no different from fabricating a drivers license for myself with a picture of somebody completely different. That family's whole entire story has sham written all over it.

 

The justice system is corrupt in the United States. Even with a jury, there is really little chance of a truly fair trial in this country.

As for opinions, for people to feel that they do not have a right to an opinion on the matter is not proper.

Releasing names is debatable. But to say you should release if guity, and do not release if not is plain unjust. If you are not going to release a person's name, by all means ensure you do not release it whether the person is guilty or innocent.

 

Yeah, we'll see.

 

If you have proof of that, you should come forward and present it. Otherwise, what exactly are you saying and what does it mean?

Baron Max

 

I'm saying that there is a ton of facts that pretty much make it very clear that the whole thing was fabricated.
I do not have hard evidence with me on hand. I can give some good insight about the current ordeal and the previous one as well.
I do not think you have read this entire thread, if you are asking me what it means. I thought I had already explained alot about it.

 

cool skill

forget this case for a minute because it IS so public and look at any other case not involving a celeb

say a 12 year old girl is brutally raped and then murdered, the media would be up in arms about it and would gladly say who was charged with the crime, i seriously doubt that in 6months-year ect when the jury comes back not guilty because he wasnt there or whatever that the same media spotlight would be on that case. So that person has been tared that they are a criminal yet they have comited no crime. Tell me that if they then aplied for a job as a kindergarten teacher they wouldnt be discriminated against? some parent would rember or the person incharge or the kinder or whatever and there would be NO chance of them getting that job. Now thats just about a job, not to mention the potentual for discrimination about where they live, where they hang out ect ect


tell me this never happens

if someone is found to have comited the crime then by all means if you want releace there name but its not unjust to protect an inocent person from discrimination

as for your system being courpt dont critisise a verdict then campaine for it to be changed so you DO have faith in it, however those changes should be made (ie abolishing state courts and just having a fed system, geting rid of jurys, puting a media block on releacing info on crimes before they go to court so potentual jurys arnt tainted) whatever you need to do

and as for having an opinion, from what i have herd about this it seems to come from the media and the lack of faith you seem to have in your justice system. You hardly ever here people here who dissagree with how a trial went (except for people involved i guess). Mostly the media and people say "he\she were found guilty\inocent and the party is planing to apeal\or not"

Oh BTW what was the big anouncment that they were going to make? i herd they were going to make one and then nothing else and it has me intreged as to what it could be

 

oh and coolskill you have more infomation about it than the jury?

thats interesting

 

Amazing. The man gets raped by children and people want to throw him in jail... Meanies!

 

Asguard, if you are going to put words in my mouth, try something more relaistic.

What for?

Nobody said it was unjust to protect an innocent person from discrimination.

Cool Skill: "To say you should release [the preson's name] if guity, and to not release the name if not guilty is plain unjust. If you are not going to release a person's name, by all means ensure you do not release it whether the person is guilty or innocent."

Of course you will misinterpret this again as if I am saying you should release thier names whether guilty or innocent.

Please clarify.

 

Just to clear something up how do you "innocently molest" someone? That's just stupid

 

Then you sir, are incurably daft.

 

cool skill how else could i interprate it. If you are saying dont releace names at all then fine but its not unjust to with hold the names of the inocent while still relacing the guilty. Infact the 2 have nothing to do with eachother, one says that you should protect those who are only acused of a crime and the other is talking about those who have been convicted. We are talking about oposite ends of the trial

as for your clarification how plain can i be. if you think that trials the way they are with all the apeals ect are convicting the inocent and freeing the guilty based on whatever (i would asume how much money the person has) then you should be out campaining for change, writing to you MP geting in contact with the oposition and your eqviverlent of OUR democrats and greens ect to make the system fairer for ALL and not for one case because you happen to like the guy

now what that change might be i dont know. I cant say whats wrong with your system without investergating it. I asume that it could have something to do with a system where you elect judges might get you judges more concerend with there campaines than the guilt or inocence of the people in front of them. Also having jurys who can be infulanced by a smart lawyer might be the problem, or not having media blackouts of all cases or at least locking the jurys up so that they are insulated from the media and peoples opinions of cases might help. Maybe the problem lies in police procidures in there investigations and protecting evidence (like the oj case). I just dont know but if there is a problem then its no help to just jump up and down about one case before you even have a verdict rather than actually trying to change the system

 

No one here can really say for sure wheather or not he is guilty,you can assume, and make your opinions know, but thats just it inthe end, there just your opinion, not fact, therefore i find this thread to be a utter waste of time/space, infact i just wasted a minute typing that, and that and..........

 

It's very simple, it will get quashed then will end up with "The Michael Jackson story" benig sold across the world and being turned into a film, then the whole hysteria on an artist that had just stopped outputting tracks so readily. (heck he was probably setup by his record firm for not fulfilling his contract.)

But as with everything in the world, it will be Yesterdays news even though some of us treat it like that Today.

Just another point, did they ever put the accusing children in the same proximity as Jackson? For instance if a person was such a monster then the children would be stricken with duress, however if they were lieing their concerns would be from a different angle for the act of lieing.

 

I would say the point is, whatever happened or didn't; was exactly what those little sluts wanted.