A Hypothetical for the "Guilty" people [Archive]

FishNChips

06-13-2005, 05:48 PM

This is a VERY watered down / simplistic hypothetical. I'm not arguing guilty or not guilty for MJ because I didn't watch the case, but to say that the accusations came "out of the blue" is not accurate. This has come up before with the King of Pop and the man has had how many kids over to his neverland ranch for sleepoevers during which he sleeps in the same bed as them (which if I'm not mistaken is a fact admitted to my MJ?).

So, I'm going to argue that your hypothetical is complete nonsense...

AND...

there are more than a few OOTiots that I don't think "You're innocent of course" is quite accurate either. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

FishNChips

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 05:51 PM

Hopefully you see the point of this post. I mean, there's no way we'll ever knpw for sureif he did these things, but we decide that with our judicial system. It's not perfect, but it's what we use and he was found not guilty. Ease up you guys, I don't understand a lot of the comments about how he should have been found guilty. How the hell would you know?

McGahee

06-13-2005, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a VERY watered down / simplistic hypothetical. I'm not arguing guilty or not guilty for MJ because I didn't watch the case, but to say that the accusations came "out of the blue" is not accurate. This has come up before with the King of Pop and the man has had how many kids over to his neverland ranch for sleepoevers during which he sleeps in the same bed as them (which if I'm not mistaken is a fact admitted to my MJ?).

So, I'm going to argue that your hypothetical is complete nonsense...

AND...

there are more than a few OOTiots that I don't think "You're innocent of course" is quite accurate either. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, plus "a kid" does not equal 400 witnesses or whatever they had.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 05:53 PM

well look:

Is Michael Jackson weird? Yes

Does he like to hang out with kids? Yes

Does he molest them? We don't know

Does his behavior and money make him an incredibly easy target? Yes

Has he ever been convicted? No

wacki

06-13-2005, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We don't know

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me how many people can't say these three little words.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, plus "a kid" does not equal 400 witnesses or whatever they had.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, California's lawyers must suck if they blew a case with 400 witnesses.

Edit: either that or he's NOT GUILTY.

Skipbidder

06-13-2005, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose there was a kid in your neighborhood that accused you of molestation out of nowhere. You are innocent of course, and are found not guilty in court. Are you ok with people still thinking you are guilty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. Is there overwhelming evidence of prior bad acts of a similar nature? Even if a jury is not allowed to consider them, an outside observer certainly is. If there is overwhelming evidence of prior bad acts, then it would be perverse to blame people for thinking rationally.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 05:59 PM

Please elaborate on this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 06:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, plus "a kid" does not equal 400 witnesses or whatever they had.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, California's lawyers must suck if they blew a case with 400 witnesses.

Edit: either that or he's NOT GUILTY.

[/ QUOTE ]

A guilty verdict means:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe did it

A not guilty verdict means:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe almost certainly did it just short of reasonable doubt -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe probably did it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe likely did it more often than not -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe might have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe could very well have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe's innocent -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifWe the Jury are too lazy to figure it out -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifJury nullification rules! -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifDamn, I'll be a media star if I let Him off -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifInsert reason here.

His not guilty verdict does not mean he is truly innocent. There are a lot more reasons to get to not guilty than to get to guilty.

SpearsBritney

06-13-2005, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A guilty verdict means:
He did it

[/ QUOTE ]

False

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]

A not guilty verdict means:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe almost certainly did it just short of reasonable doubt -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe probably did it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe likely did it more often than not -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe might have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe could very well have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe's innocent -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifWe the Jury are too lazy to figure it out -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifJury nullification rules! -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifDamn, I'll be a media star if I let Him off -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifInsert reason here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how a person would choose one of these reasons over any of the others.

balkii

06-13-2005, 06:05 PM

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/jacko-baby-dangle-01.jpg

i dont really care whether he "actually" did or not, this guy should be locked up on principle

Skipbidder

06-13-2005, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate on this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So have we stopped pretending that this is a hypothetical case then?

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate on this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So have we stopped pretending that this is a hypothetical case then?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are referring to the Jackson case, not my hypothetical. Please state the overwhelming evidence against him.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A not guilty verdict means:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe almost certainly did it just short of reasonable doubt -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe probably did it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe likely did it more often than not -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe might have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe could very well have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe's innocent -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifWe the Jury are too lazy to figure it out -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifJury nullification rules! -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifDamn, I'll be a media star if I let Him off -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifInsert reason here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how a person would choose one of these reasons over any of the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that each juror can choose a different reason to find someone not guilty. After the OJ criminal verdict, about half of his jurors said that they thought he probably did it, but they could still vote not guilty under the rules because it is such a broad category as I described above. Guilty is a very narrow definition otoh.

example:
A jury must rule on the color of this heart: /images/graemlins/heart.gif

You must vote either 1)green or 2)not-green
Juror 1 thinks it is yellow and votes not-green
Juror 2 thinks it is blue and votes not-green
Juror 3 thinks it is pink and votes not-green

The verdict is not-green, but did the jurors really agree with each other?
Getting to a verdict of "green" is obviously much harder than getting to a verdict of "not-green"

lawrence

06-13-2005, 06:23 PM

This doesn't really answer OP but it's relevant to MJ and people who think he's actually innocent. You do realize that Michael has talked openly about how he sleeps with young boys?

poker-penguin

06-13-2005, 06:25 PM

The heart is red.

Skipbidder

06-13-2005, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate on this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So have we stopped pretending that this is a hypothetical case then?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are referring to the Jackson case, not my hypothetical. Please state the overwhelming evidence against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have it both ways. Your hypothetical seemed clearly to be related to the Jackson trial. To the extent that you are doing so in order to apply the analogy to the Jackson case, you are engaging in the fallacy of complex question.

If you are maintaining that this question of yours has nothing at all to do with the Jackson case and is purely hypothetical, then I'm going to assert that my addended hypothetical also has nothing at all to do with the Jackson case.

As to the question of prior bad acts, I am not sure if you are being serious or not. As you know, the internet is poor for conveying nuance. If you are just joking, I'm sorry that I didn't get it. If you are not just joking, I'll be happy to discuss it. In that case, could you please tell me whether you are familiar with the past testimony in the numerous prior molestation cases?

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that Michael has talked openly about how he sleeps with young boys?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a crime. What's your point?

lawrence

06-13-2005, 06:33 PM

My point is that he invites 10-12 year olds to his ranch, serves them wine, and then has them sleep in his bed. Alarm bells are ringing.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The heart is red.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you sir would obviously never make it onto a jury for a celebrity trial. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(you are not gullible enough)

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 06:42 PM

Alarm bells can't convict you of a crime.

Skipbidder

06-13-2005, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Alarm bells can't convict you of a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original question wasn't about whether or not one would vote to convict if on a jury. The question was about whether or not you would blame people who felt you were guilty.

wacki

06-13-2005, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that he invites 10-12 year olds to his ranch, serves them wine, and then has them sleep in his bed. Alarm bells are ringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

People like you are the reason why Illinois has had more innocent people on death row than guilty people.

lawrence

06-13-2005, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that he invites 10-12 year olds to his ranch, serves them wine, and then has them sleep in his bed. Alarm bells are ringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

People like you are the reason why Illinois has had more innocent people on death row than guilty people.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your Illinois statement based off?

And are you just going to ignore the actual argument in my posts and just say I'm stupid? So what do you think about Michael saying there's nothing wrong with men sleeping with 12 year old boys?

Alobar

06-13-2005, 06:57 PM

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 06:59 PM

And I wasn't responding to the OP.

Alobar

06-13-2005, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't know

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me how many people can't say these three little words.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but its not relevant to public opinion. Because unless there is actual video of an incident, the answer to this question will ALWAYS be "we dont know"

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So what do you think about Michael saying there's nothing wrong with men sleeping with 12 year old boys?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about wacki, but I, like most reasonably intelligent people, think that although it's certainly very weird, it isn't criminal, and not something to find him guilty for.

Sponger15SB

06-13-2005, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
People like you are the reason why Illinois has had more innocent people on death row than guilty people.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that he invites 10-12 year olds to his ranch, serves them wine, and then has them sleep in his bed. Alarm bells are ringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he was found not guilty of providing alcohol to a minor, correct?

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You can't have it both ways. Your hypothetical seemed clearly to be related to the Jackson trial. To the extent that you are doing so in order to apply the analogy to the Jackson case, you are engaging in the fallacy of complex question.

If you are maintaining that this question of yours has nothing at all to do with the Jackson case and is purely hypothetical, then I'm going to assert that my addended hypothetical also has nothing at all to do with the Jackson case.

As to the question of prior bad acts, I am not sure if you are being serious or not. As you know, the internet is poor for conveying nuance. If you are just joking, I'm sorry that I didn't get it. If you are not just joking, I'll be happy to discuss it. In that case, could you please tell me whether you are familiar with the past testimony in the numerous prior molestation cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course my hypothetical was related, and I assumed your reply was as well. Having said that, I'd like you to review your overwhelming evidence.

Yes, I'm familiar with the 1993 testimony that failed to convict him, what does that have to do with overwhelming evidence?

Alobar

06-13-2005, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that he invites 10-12 year olds to his ranch, serves them wine, and then has them sleep in his bed. Alarm bells are ringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he was found not guilty of providing alcohol to a minor, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know if micheal did it or didnt do it. I could care less actually. But can we all please stop using flawed arguments based around court verdicts.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I dont know if micheal did it or didnt do it. I could care less actually. But can we all please stop using flawed arguments based around court verdicts.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain why we should?

tbach24

06-13-2005, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if micheal did it or didnt do it. I couldn't care less actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't want to nitpick, but was going to quote it and didn't want to reinforce the most annoying thing ever.

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if micheal did it or didnt do it. I could n't care less actually.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't want to nitpick, but was going to quote it and didn't want to reinforce the most annoying thing ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definately could of found something more annoying.

tbach24

06-13-2005, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if michael did it or didnt do it. I could n't care less actually.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't want to nitpick, but was going to quote it and didn't want to reinforce the most annoying thing ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definately could of found something more annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I get it?

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:18 PM

Wow, I didn't even notice that, and Michael is my middle name.

BTW, I was just commenting about how annoying I find it when people write "definately" instead of "definitely" and "could of" instead of "could have"

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What is your Illinois statement based off?

And are you just going to ignore the actual argument in my posts and just say I'm stupid? So what do you think about Michael saying there's nothing wrong with men sleeping with 12 year old boys?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jackson is weird. There is no denying that. Still, that don't make him guilty.

As for the illinois thing. Do a search with my username and "oprah".

Also, I never said you're stupid. I just said "People like you are the reason why Illinois has had more innocent people on death row than guilty people."

Please keep in mind I'm referring to a specific year which was right around the time DNA started being used in courts.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

People like you are the reason why Illinois has had more innocent people on death row than guilty people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Urban Legend alert!

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:22 PM

I agree that to say that more innocent than guilty people have been executed is ridiculously, the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated is unacceptably high.

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:22 PM

Just for you sponger:

Since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, 12 men have been executed. During that same period, 13 innocent men were freed from death row.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928_e.jhtml
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928_d.jhtml
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928.jhtml

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People like you are the reason why Illinois has had more innocent people freed from death row than people executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Urban Legend alert!

[/ QUOTE ]

Now it's not.

Alobar

06-13-2005, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I dont know if micheal did it or didnt do it. I could care less actually. But can we all please stop using flawed arguments based around court verdicts.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain why we should?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, because its retarded. A not guilty verdict doesnt mean he didnt do something. Same way a guilty verdict doesnt mean he did it. To use either statement ("oh well he was found not guilty of giving alcohol, therefore he couldnt have done it") as the foundation of an argument is just bad.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 07:28 PM

lol, although there are exceptions, if you are found guilty you did it as far as i'm concerned. I don't really see how we can continue the discussion if you have no faith in court verdicts.

lawrence

06-13-2005, 07:29 PM

I think saying someone would send innocent people to death row is a pretty clear attack on their intelligence.

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see how we can continue the discussion if you have no faith in court verdicts.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.usna.edu/EE/ee488c/Lesson33/OJ%20Simpson.jpg

gorie

06-13-2005, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The heart is red.

[/ QUOTE ]
i laughed.

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think saying someone would send innocent people to death row is a pretty clear attack on their intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people are idiots, but that has nothing to do with innocent people being sent to jail. Facts can easily be manipulated to make guilty people seem innocent and innocent people seem guilty.

Stuey

06-13-2005, 07:36 PM

Pokerjo is actually a girl. She along with PJN and El D are just playing a trick on all of you.

People only believe what others tell them is true. And they only listen to the things they want to hear.

If there is anything we should all learn here it is deny, deny, deny.

Even if he were convicted on all charges, if he did not at some point admit his guilt lots of people would have thought he was wrongly convicted.

Some people admit to stuff they didn't even do. So we can't even take the accused word as fact in some cases! Yesh.

We all think we know some things to be undisputedly true. Truth is none of us can be sure of anything, ever. Scary huh? Maybe that's why it is so easy to lie to ourselves.

I don't know if MJ is guilty or not. I just know I don't like him. Nothing will change my mind. Like WTF is he doing licking kids heads anyways! /images/graemlins/blush.gif Rich weird freak.

Let's just remember not to attack each other just because we have different ideas of what the truth is here. Good chance we are all wrong.

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol, although there are exceptions, if you are found guilty you did it as far as i'm concerned. I don't really see how we can continue the discussion if you have no faith in court verdicts.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to be found guilty, you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not the shadow of a doubt. Innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free all the time because of that.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 07:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People like you are the reason why Illinois has had more innocent people freed from death row than people executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Urban Legend alert!

[/ QUOTE ]

Now it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that you said more were "innocent" than guilty.

You don't really think all 13 are truly innocent, do you?

They may take you off death row because of technicalities, but that doesn't make you innocent of the crime.

Your statement was ridiculous, but your refusal to admit you made a misstatement of fact is even worse.

lawrence

06-13-2005, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think saying someone would send innocent people to death row is a pretty clear attack on their intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people are idiots, but that has nothing to do with innocent people being sent to jail. Facts can easily be manipulated to make guilty people seem innocent and innocent people seem guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also leaning towards believing that those Illinois jurors in the 1970's were putting predominantly black men on death row, so maybe he's calling me a racist rather than stupid.

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:39 PM

Out of curiosity, what's your acceptable tolerance for the number of death row inmates who are, in fact, innocent?

Skipbidder

06-13-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can't have it both ways. Your hypothetical seemed clearly to be related to the Jackson trial. To the extent that you are doing so in order to apply the analogy to the Jackson case, you are engaging in the fallacy of complex question.

If you are maintaining that this question of yours has nothing at all to do with the Jackson case and is purely hypothetical, then I'm going to assert that my addended hypothetical also has nothing at all to do with the Jackson case.

As to the question of prior bad acts, I am not sure if you are being serious or not. As you know, the internet is poor for conveying nuance. If you are just joking, I'm sorry that I didn't get it. If you are not just joking, I'll be happy to discuss it. In that case, could you please tell me whether you are familiar with the past testimony in the numerous prior molestation cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course my hypothetical was related, and I assumed your reply was as well. Having said that, I'd like you to review your overwhelming evidence.

Yes, I'm familiar with the 1993 testimony that failed to convict him, what does that have to do with overwhelming evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Chandler case wasn't even the only multimillion dollar settlement against him.

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
maybe he's calling me a racist rather than stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could be calling you both.

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You realize that you said more were "innocent" than guilty.

You don't really think all 13 are truly innocent, do you?

They may take you off death row because of technicalities, but that doesn't make you innocent.

Your statement was ridiculous, but your refusal to admit you made a misstatement of fact is even worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I provided links and quotes. Where is your material?

Who is more ridiculous? The man who provides links and facts or the man that doesn't?

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:51 PM

Hey Buster, please realize I do have faith in our system. It gets the job done. Still, I KNOW FOR A FACT that the courts do make mistakes. So the courst decisions aren't absolute in my book.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well I provided links and quotes. Where is your material?

Who is more ridiculous? The man who provides links and facts or the man that doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

wacki, wacki, wacki,

some quotes from your articles:

"Larry Marshall, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of The Center on Wrongful Convictions, believes 5 to 10% of the prisoners on death row may be innocent."

5 to 10% equals more than half to you wacki?

"During his years on the Supreme Court, 28 executions were carried out. He says he has "grave doubts" about 3 of those cases."

3 out of 28, does that fit your more innocent than guilty statement?

Your own source contradicts your ridiculous statement.

There is no shame in admitting you made an incorrect statement. In fact, I'll respect you more if you do.

Skipbidder

06-13-2005, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm familiar with the 1993 testimony that failed to convict him, what does that have to do with overwhelming evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I gather than that you aren't impressed by the thorough and accurate description of the unique markings on Jackson's genitalia and buttocks? Jackson (or his lawyers) appear to have been impressed enough to settle for $20 million after they found out that the child had provided this to the LAPD.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 07:53 PM

2 things:

1) I think it's the highest +EV to basically take all court verdicts as truth rather than trying to pick and choose.

2) If we could somehow say that Michael Jackson was completely innocent, what has been done to him by the media is beyond unfair, it's a tragedy and disgrace. Even if he's not innocent, do you really think his current life is much different than a prison sentence? (insert gay joke pls)

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Larry Marshall, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of The Center on Wrongful Convictions, believes 5 to 10% of the prisoners on death row may be innocent."

5 to 10% equals more than half to you wacki?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I made a mistake and I fixed my words. I provided a quote from the source. You even quoted my fixed words after I corrected it. You know damn well what I meant. Stop twisting my words you tool.

You are ignored.

wacki

06-13-2005, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1) I think it's the highest +EV to basically take all court verdicts as truth rather than trying to pick and choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but I think that you have to concede the fact that not all verdicts are correct.

[ QUOTE ]
2) If we could somehow say that Michael Jackson was completely innocent, what has been done to him by the media is beyond unfair, it's a tragedy and disgrace. Even if he's not innocent, do you really think his current life is much different than a prison sentence? (insert gay joke pls)

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think he's guilty as sin, but that doesn't matter. The fact is that there was testimony stating that his accusers tried to extort money from him and that while staying at the Neverland Ranch, the kids abused their host's generosity. Whether or not MJ abused them in return, I don't know, but there's certainly sufficient reasonable doubt not to convict him.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Buster, please realize I do have faith in our system. It gets the job done. Still, I KNOW FOR A FACT that the courts do make mistakes. So the courst decisions aren't absolute in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, of course they make mistakes, but everyone does. However, see my remark on +EV. Also, I created this thread to do some serious dicussion, and we will need some statements to assumed true for the sake of argument, hence my generalizations.

on another note, the thought of being wrongly convicted it terrifying!

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You are ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring a user rather than admitting a mistake.

I hope wacki grows up a bit, soon. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 08:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
on another note, the thought of being wrongly convicted is terrifying!

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the thought of being the victim of a criminal who is not in jail for his previous crimes.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
on another note, the thought of being wrongly convicted is terrifying!

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the thought of being the victim of a criminal who is not in jail for his previous crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but what does that have to do with this thread.

Skipbidder

06-13-2005, 08:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2 things:

1) I think it's the highest +EV to basically take all court verdicts as truth rather than trying to pick and choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it is entirely reasonable to pick and choose. Our opinions about the matter aren't (at least in most cases) going to have any real impact. Of course juries get cases wrong. They are not trained for their jobs. They aren't allowed to know much about the case beforehand. Those people who would make the best jurors (in terms of getting the verdict right) are not allowed to be jurors.

[ QUOTE ]
2) If we could somehow say that Michael Jackson was completely innocent, what has been done to him by the media is beyond unfair, it's a tragedy and disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]
The media that I have been watching (CNN and my local Fox station) seems to be fawning all over him since the verdict.
He has admitted to behavior that I already think is immoral. He appears likely to have engaged in several other acts which are immoral. The prior settlements are something that I'm allowed to consider (even if I would not be able to fully do so were I on a jury). Given these things, the chances that he is entirely innocent seem quite small to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Even if he's not innocent, do you really think his current life is much different than a prison sentence? (insert gay joke pls)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
on another note, the thought of being wrongly convicted is terrifying!

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the thought of being the victim of a criminal who is not in jail for his previous crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but what does that have to do with this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything. Life is a trade off. We are not perfect in identifying who is guilty and who is not. But we have to try to do our best. Being too lenient can end up harming more people. So we have to judge people at the risk of convicting some who are innocent, and hurting their reputation unfairly.

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So is the thought of being the victim of a criminal who is not in jail for his previous crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this may be true, it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the American justice system.

Alobar

06-13-2005, 08:18 PM

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 08:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is the thought of being the victim of a criminal who is not in jail for his previous crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this may be true, it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the American justice system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying our system is for punishment only?

Detering crime is a valid goal of our system. Do you disagree?

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2 things:

1) I think it's the highest +EV to basically take all court verdicts as truth rather than trying to pick and choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it is entirely reasonable to pick and choose. Our opinions about the matter aren't (at least in most cases) going to have any real impact. Of course juries get cases wrong. They are not trained for their jobs. They aren't allowed to know much about the case beforehand. Those people who would make the best jurors (in terms of getting the verdict right) are not allowed to be jurors.

[ QUOTE ]
2) If we could somehow say that Michael Jackson was completely innocent, what has been done to him by the media is beyond unfair, it's a tragedy and disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]
The media that I have been watching (CNN and my local Fox station) seems to be fawning all over him since the verdict.
He has admitted to behavior that I already think is immoral. He appears likely to have engaged in several other acts which are immoral. The prior settlements are something that I'm allowed to consider (even if I would not be able to fully do so were I on a jury). Given these things, the chances that he is entirely innocent seem quite small to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Even if he's not innocent, do you really think his current life is much different than a prison sentence? (insert gay joke pls)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)The problem with the argument of court verdicts being faulty is that it gives people a way to feel right even when they are wrong (which i hate). I simply could not agree that it's reasonable to pick and choose. If you want to see why, walk into a jail and ask who is not not guilty. Also when you disagree with the courts on basis of circumstance, you look retarded because you have seen any of the evidence that made 12 impartial jurors find him not guilty.

2) Morals are subjective, he has yet to be convicted of a crime. Bottom line, just because he has the opportunity to have something does not mean he did it and we should assume he has not at this point. For celebrities, settlements are often easier and less damaging than a criminal trial. This is quite common, look at Wesley Snipes, Jay-Z, etc. In fact, if some chick i boned was like give me $100 or I'm telling the cops that you raped me, I would give her the $100. I don't need that hassle and embarassment even though I'm not guilty. IMO, this does not back up your argument.

3) I do not envy Michael Jackson, despite his riches. I'm quite sure you agree.

Alobar

06-13-2005, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even if he's not innocent, do you really think his current life is much different than a prison sentence? (insert gay joke pls)

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see, which is worse. Prison where you are locked behind bars, get [censored] in the ass, spend 24/7 with a bunch of mean ass mother fuckers who wouldnt hesitate to stick a shiv in your kneck if it helped them in the slightest. Crappy food. No freedom. mind numbing boredom. no freedom.

OR...

Not being in prison, and having to deal with the "ordeal" that the trial caused.

Uhm, yeah....this is the biggest case of "its not even close" EVER.

PoBoy321

06-13-2005, 08:23 PM

I'm saying that we have a system which would rather let a guilty man go free, than an innocent man go to jail, which is why the burden of proof is on the state.

kyro

06-13-2005, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
well look:

Is Michael Jackson weird? Yes

Does he like to hang out with kids? Yes

Does he molest them? We don't know

Does his behavior and money make him an incredibly easy target? Yes

Has he ever been convicted? No

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is, if you were the defendant INSTEAD of michael jackson, and the exact same evidence was presented against you, you'd be convicted and spend the better part of the rest of your life in jail. that's why everyone is pissed.

Broken Glass Can

06-13-2005, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that we have a system which would rather let a guilty man go free, than an innocent man go to jail, which is why the burden of proof is on the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But this does not mean we have to go to ridiculous extremes to exclude every possible mistake.

There is only one way to avoid ever convicting an innocent person..... to convict no one at all.

And I value the life of the unknown future victim of the criminal on the loose, even though I don't know who that person will be.

BusterStacks

06-13-2005, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

My problem is, if you were the defendant INSTEAD of michael jackson, and the exact same evidence was presented against you, you'd be convicted and spend the better part of the rest of your life in jail. that's why everyone is pissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet, I can't wait to see your evidence for this point.

Furthermore, even if you could produce something beyond speculation (which i know for a fact you cannot_, I could show you 10 non-famous cases that are way worse.