Michael Jackson: Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
Society
| December 30, 2003
| Tim
One person says: "I believe Michael Jackson is guilty!" Another responds: "In this country, we have something called 'innocent until proven guilty!'" and implies we should only find guilt when a court does. I disagree...
I'm not a lawyer. And I'm not a licensed cleric. That said, there is no guarantee that one holding such accreditations must always be correct in their pronouncements. So I feel free to respectfully take issue with Rabbi Dov Fischer when he opines, in Jewish World Review:
I do not know whether Michael Jackson is guilty. Our legal system is predicated on the principle that every person is innocent until proven guilty, but none of us believes in that fundamental. We "know" that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole, even though he was found innocent by a jury of his peers in a fairly conducted trial in an open courtroom. And, certainly among radio talk hosts, we "know" that Michael Jackson did "it."
In contrast, Fisher doesn't know if MJ did "it" (and thus presumably "believes in that fundamental"), but he argues the evidence is sufficient to make a case that any reasonable parent should see that the risks of allowing their child to associate with Jackson would far outweigh any possible gains, and thus keep their children away from him.
And there's the contradiction: Even if the good rabbi doesn't go as far as to say he believes Jackson to be guilty, he acts in every other way as though he were: His own cost benefit analysis causes him to choose a course of action consistent with a "guilty" finding, based not the legal standard for criminal law ("innocent until proven guilty"), but on his own private rules (a cost-benefit analysis).
What does "Innocent until proven guilty" mean? I submit to you it means that a person will not suffer the due penalty of law, enacted with the full force of the people, until that standard of proof has been met in a court of criminal law.
Period.
I submit that this rule was obviously never meant to constrain us from making our own private judgements. Finding a person guilty in court does not constrain us from asserting, as a private individual, that we think the trial came to the wrong result. The same goes for a finding of "not guilty", or a possible crime yet untried.
Consider: In the U.S., we have two formal systems of law: criminal and civil. These two courts try people according to two different sets of law. And because a guilty verdict in civil court generally carries a less severe penalty than criminal court it has different rules of evidence and a different standard of guilt than "innocent until proven guilty"!
So does civil law "not believe" in criminal law because it can reach a different conclusion, for a different purpose? Was one court's authority or principles somehow undermined because another, used for different purposes, applied a different standard of guilt?
That's not how we speak of them. Instead, we recognize that since they serve a different purpose, it's reasonable to use different rules and come to different conclusions. One "complements" the other, rather than betraying or disbelieving it.
Likewise, there are many other situations where judgements must be made. As Dov Fisher points out, parents who have a child invited to "Neverland" must decide whether to treat Jackson more like an upstanding citizen or a pedophile. People must decide whether to greet OJ cheerfully on the golf course, treat him like any other stranger, shun him, or ask ascerbically if he's searching for Nichole's killers there. Club owners may have to ponder, at least briefly, the wisdom or ethics of allowing him to access their facilities. Each of these choices can have a different impact or "penalty" upon the "defendant".
There's yet another reason to draw private judgements: Each of must use our own private assements of guilt, compared with court findings, to assess the accuracy and trustworthiness of the justice system itself, and decide whether to agitate for reform or let things stand.
(Jackson's case itself illustrates this: Californians voted to change the legal process because of the way the courts handled the first set of charges against him. In doing so, each voter had to play "grand jury", even though existing criminal law didn't call for one.)
Being a civil lawyer, Dov Fisher knows all of this better than I. He even cites OJ Simpson -- yet fails to follow through and notice OJ is simultaneously "not guilty" and "guilty" in criminal and civil courts respectively. And being a rabbi, he must also surely be aware of the gulf between what's legal and what's ethical, between law and the morals we each apply to our own judgements. And he must also be aware that a personal judgement -- such as saying "I think OJ did it" or warning my sister not to date him -- carries a much smaller penalty than a criminal finding of guilt.
Further, he must be aware than since we can have different rules of evidence, that even if we do adopt "guilty until proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt" as our own personal criteria for every judgement, we can draw a different conclusion than a jury, from whom certain things may be hidden. Even further still, he must understand that even if shown the same trial, two groups of jurors could conceivably come to different conclusions!
Given all this, why do he and so many others speak as though it is immoral or a betrayal of our system of law when we draw private or collective verdicts not supported in court and then speak or act on them? As though we are disdaining the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" for criminal trials when anyone dares to draw a differing judgement for a different purpose?
Just as civil court doesn't function according to the rules of criminal court, and yet doesn't undermine it, so also we should recognize that private judgements don't need to follow those rules either. And even private judgements based on "innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt" can reach different verdicts that those of selected groups of jurors.
The "innocent until proven guilty" rule was, is, and was always meant to be binding the behavior of the state, not the individual. It concerns me greatly that this huge distinction -- between limiting the power of the state and limiting the freedoms of individuals -- seems to be completely missed by a significant number of individuals I encounter, when they speak as though the constraint here is upon our first ammendment rights, not the state!
That said, the rest of his article is interesting, worth reading, and I agree with most of his obversations, sadly.
In conclusion, consider: "Innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt" refers only to the penalties applied in criminal law, and does not need to be the rule for judged used in every other kind of statement, action, or circumstance.
This is not a betrayal of our country's principles, which rightfully never extended this rule to individuals. Rather, it's just common sense.
Think about it.
Actually, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't deal with the penalty, but the burden of proof in a criminal trial. You are arrested and put in jail before trial - a hearing is held to set bail, and you can get out of jail only if you can pay the bail amount. Otherwise you stay in jail until a jury finds you innocent. Right now there are a lot of people in jail awaiting trial in this country, yet they have not been proven guilty. If the offense is minor enough and the pre-trial time period long enough, they can even be sentanced to time served - thus the entire penalty would be applied before the verdict. That doesn't seem compatable with "innocent until proven guilty", does it?
Sometimes I look at things like this and wonder how race plays a part. Where was the backlash and protest against Scott Peterson, Robert Blake...several other white figures who have been tried and found guilty or found innocent despite overwhelming evidence, but still aren't viewed in such a negative light? Where's the real evidence against Michael Jackson from credible sources?
There is no concrete evidence against MJ, so how come certain people say "I know he did it"? Its only the word of a low-life family of grifters against his isn't it? I know who I believe.
I don't know if he is innocent or not.....but I will personally stay away from that creep, and will damn well make sure my kids stay away from him too.
His fans who support him during the trial are annoying. They are yelling, "He didn't do it" how do they know? I mean he could be guilty.
His defence is funny as well. He bring witnesses of boys who slept on his bed but weren't molested. WTF? If that's the best his defence can do, he is in trouble. E.g. If I'm charged with the rape of a woman, I present other women whom I had opportunity to rape but didn't? What type of logic is that?
LOL! :-)
Well spoken, Imran.
I have no idea if the guy is innocent or not. I hope he truly is. But, given some of the things that came out in the trial -- hiring people to stalk and harrass and photograph people -- man, that is majorly creepy. Not a nice guy.
I wouldn't be surprised if something weird did happen. Seems to have a strong attraction to the kiddos, and trying to get underage kids to drink alcoholic beverages sounds like something a pedophile would try. But still, I honestly thought the state would have something a bit more substantial.
This is a difficult one (aren't they all?). On the one hand, we've not seen any reports about the - surely - thousands of children that Mr Jackson has help with charity work over the years. He clearly loves children, and being as obviously mentally damaged as he is I think I can understand him wanting to perpetuate his youth.
However, what if this had all happened when he was, say, 70 years old? How creepy would that be then. You surely cannot say at that age that it's normal to want to share your bed with young boys?
He is a man before anything else, and has mature, adult sexual feelings. What happens when a man becomes aroused? Not to go into too much detail but surely over a year of sleeping with young boys he must have become aroused at some point. If not with the boys themselves then just because that is the nature of the male.
The job of a prosecution is to find guilt. The job of the defense is to prove innocence. Imagine the police knocking on your door at 3am tomorrow morning and arresting you for the murder of Mr Smith down the road the day before. Ludicrous yes? But you still have to prove your innocence, and a prosecution WILL find evidence against you, as per my previous point, that is their job.
What direction am I going in? I just don't know. I've changed my mind so many times over the course of the trial. I desperately want to believe he is innocent, but clearly the man is not right in the head, and as I also previously stated, at what age would he be before he decided it was NOT okay to share a bed with young boys.
It does seem, however, that the prosecution case is very weak.
Mr Jackson is either the most misunderstood, child loving charity worker, or he is the most evil, scheming man in the world.
Both of these people exist. If he is found innocent does that still mean he's the former?
Michael was dumb enough to fan the flames of suspicion, further enticing the predators that eventually had him dragged him into court.
While sleepovers may not be illegal, what kind of Mother would allow her child to do this over and over again ..sounds like an opportunist preparing a setup.
I believe in my heart Michael is innocent, Yes he's weird, but weird doesn't mean he's a child molestor....Mikes been careless, and i hope he's learned his lesson.
Your point is correct, in the sense that a person may make private judgements that are in contradiction to the law. This does not mean that all actions based on that private judgement are legal or socially acceptable.
You write:
"Given all this, why do he and so many others speak as though it is immoral or a betrayal of our system of law when we draw private or collective verdicts not supported in court and then speak or act on them? As though we are disdaining the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" for criminal trials when anyone dares to draw a differing judgement for a different purpose?"
I have rarely heard anything that corresponds to a person saying individuals should not make personal judgements and act upon them.
That said, there is also no constraint on people to examine any evidence, or exercise any rationality before making judgements. They are free to make judgements based on the fact that they do not like a person's face, or their name, or their race. People are not only free to make these judgements, they actually do make judgements on this basis all the time.
This is one reason we have a system of law, and principles of justice.
I liked some of the distinctions you made about criminal and civil law. While we are on the subject of distinctions:
I have not heard calls for people not to form opinions, though I have heard people state opinions about the opinions of others.
What I *have* heard, is comments directed at public statements claiming or implying guilt.
This is a different thing entirely. It is an action taken by people in a public sphere.
Since people often form judgements without examining the facts, or communicating with the person they are judging (something deemed ethically wrong in most systems), there are social limits placed on public statements which may result in harm to others. Villification, defamation, libel and slander are all crimes.
This does not prevent a person from taking actions based on judgements. A parent whose child has cancer may refuse help from an organisation that has Michael Jackson as a sponsor. It does not, generally, prevent someone from stating an opinion over a beer at the pub.
What it does seek to regulate, is the situation where someone makes a *public* statement; on the radio, on TV, in the press, at a public meeting... on the net. The law is in place in part as recognition that people *do* make judgements without having much knowledge of a situation, or on unjust grounds detrimental to the ability of a community to provide a safe social environment for it's members. Racism, religious persecution, and other forms of prejudice; all these are things that may cause social strife, and so are socially detrimental.
I think many comments critical of condemnation of Jackson are made on that basis.
___________
The issue of law you raise at the beginning really bears some closer examination.
Our adversarial system of law is not necessarily the best suited to create good social outcomes.
The Jackson trial is a case in point. Having followed what I could of the actual proceedings, testimony, and cross-examination, I have to say I was not only unconvinced of Jackson's guilt, but I became convinced that those bringing charges against him were self-seeking liars with a number of motives entirely unrelated to sexual assault. I personally feel that when people act in ways that will damage the life of another in order to profit, they are the one's committing a crime.
That said, I am also convinced that Mr Jackson has, at least, serious problems maintaining acceptable boundaries. This is not a crime, although it may cross the line to criminal actions. I think a proper outcome would not, without evidence, have put Jackson in jail, but it should also have ensured that while he is unable (or unwilling) to observe acceptable boundaries, he should not have young children at his home. I do think he needs serious therapy, and perhaps a minder.
In my personal life, I deal at times with sexual assualt cases, and also with cases in family law where claims of "immorality" are used against a party in a custody dispute. It senstises me to the realities of the way the adversarial legal system can be abused by either side.
One of my criticisms of law in this area, is that it creates "winners" and "losers", but often leaves the central issues of concern for future outcomes left unattended. In many cases, the winners do not really win, the losers are punished severely but unproductively, all those affected who are neither accused or accusers are ignored, and the emotional/psychological basis of the situation is untouched, and continues to replicate itself.
Think about that.
In a response to the topic, Ian wrote:
"The job of a prosecution is to find guilt. The job of the defense is to prove innocence. Imagine the police knocking on your door at 3am tomorrow morning and arresting you for the murder of Mr Smith down the road the day before. Ludicrous yes? But you still have to prove your innocence, and a prosecution WILL find evidence against you, as per my previous point, that is their job."
Actually, no. The job of a court and the legal system is to do justice and to a lesser extend, to judge whether laws have been broken, and penalties should apply.
A major problem with our legal system is that is has become what you describe.
In the first point, you should not have to prove innocence. That is what the "presumption of innocence" means. It is far harder to prove innocence than not to be proved guilty. Presumption of innocence does not always work, as Kevin "Fun" Murphy notes, and that is a fault in our system.
The job of the prosecutor is to assess the evidence against a person, and if warrented, to bring charges. It is then the job of the prosecutor present the evidence and show that it prooves guilt.
It is not the job of the prosecutor to gather evidence, that is the job of the police. It is a responsibility of a prosecutor to ensure as much as possible the evidence is valid, and sufficient for a conviction. That goes some way to preventing the situation Mr Murphy talks of.
No one should be arrested if there is not reasonably compelling evidence. It is also, to varying degrees, the responsibility of the prosecutors to ensure the evidence and witness they bring forward are credible and will stand up in court. If this is not the case, then it favours abuse of the legal system through arresting and trying people who will not be convicted.
It is the job of defence counsel to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial. It is not their job to "get their client off". No defence counsel should plead innocent if their client is guilty. To do so knowingly would be to become an accessory to the crime. And it is not excusable for a defence attourney to say "don't tell me anything. I do not want to know if you are guilty" in order to evade their responsibility to justice.
If a client is guilty, the job of the defence is to ensure any extenuating circumstances that exist are considered, and to ensure the sentence is not excessive. That is not the same as "getting a reduced sentence" through "plea bargaining". If a person is guilty, they should be charged with the full extent of their crime.
If a defendant is innocent, it is the job of the defence counsel to defend against the charges.
The problem in law is that the lawyers do not work for justice, they try to convict, or try to get a client off. Justice gets lost in our system as currently practiced.
Your point is correct, in the sense that a person may make private judgements that are in contradiction to the law. This does not mean that all actions based on that private judgement are legal or socially acceptable... I have rarely heard anything that corresponds to a person saying individuals should not make personal judgements and act upon them.
All I can say, FireGrrrl (sounds like a good superhero name) is that you're lucky if so. I wrote this because I kept hearing conversations in which one person would say they believed so-and-so was really guilty, and the other person would try to imply it was wrong to say so, either because the jury hadn't decided yet, or the jury verdict differed.
And I'm not talking some guy next to me in line at the grocery store checkout. I mean on national talk shows. Very annoying!
Again, see the opening paragraph of the article (in italics) for the quote that led me to write this.
Can apply to Quixtar as well.
What does "Innocent until proven guilty" mean? I submit to you it means that a person will not suffer the due penalty of law, enacted with the full force of the people, until that standard of proof has been met in a court of criminal law.
Period.
I submit that this rule was obviously never meant to constrain us from making our own private judgements. Finding a person guilty in court does not constrain us from asserting, as a private individual, that we think the trial came to the wrong result. The same goes for a finding of "not guilty", or a possible crime yet untried.
Great point. It answer's all the IBOs who keep on repeating Amway was found not guilty in 1979 case hence no one should pass any judgement on it.
It answer's all the IBOs who keep on repeating Amway was found not guilty in 1979 case hence no one should pass any judgement on it.
Excellent point, Imran. The verdict isn't "innocent", the verdict is simply "not guilty". The accused is not "justified" -- i.e. shown to be right -- simply "aquitted" of that particular charge.
When I wrote this essay, I suspected the state had some better evidence against MJ than it turns out they did in the end. I tried to keep an open mind. It didn't seem the prosecution had a very strong case. So I expected that, yes, reasonable doubt remained, at least on these specific charges. So I expected an aquittal on all the worst charges.
But considering some of the other things that were presented -- Michael loves "children", but somehow only seems interested in sleeping with boy children; books full of photos of naked boys; frequent testimony that he'd been providing alcohol to young boys; having people followed -- I wouldn't be suprised if he'd done much worse at some point. Certainly, it's hard not to come away without the impression he's a really, really troubled and creepy dude.
So: totally innocent? I honestly doubt it. But also not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the charges he just faced.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« The Dangers of Air Marshals? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Airline Security: Air France Leads the Way »
|
Actually, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't deal with the penalty, but the burden of proof in a criminal trial. You are arrested and put in jail before trial - a hearing is held to set bail, and you can get out of jail only if you can pay the bail amount. Otherwise you stay in jail until a jury finds you innocent. Right now there are a lot of people in jail awaiting trial in this country, yet they have not been proven guilty. If the offense is minor enough and the pre-trial time period long enough, they can even be sentanced to time served - thus the entire penalty would be applied before the verdict. That doesn't seem compatable with "innocent until proven guilty", does it?
Posted by: Kevin "fun" Murphy on January 2, 2004 12:09 PM