Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Michael Jackson Died, Guys

<< < (33/37) > >>

Patrick:

--- Quote from: Sox on 01 Jul 2009, 13:00 ---Except that two police investigations and an extended court trial determined that it was.
After weighing up all the testimonies and evidence from both cases, I'm 100% convinced that he was innocent. You can have my left nut if he wasn't.

--- End quote ---

If I wind up winning the nut in this deal (not saying I will, I agree with you completely), I want it framed with an autographed matting.

Nah but seriously dude the American justice system is flawed but it's not like people don't put as much work as they can into that shit you know? Especially considering the stakes for both sides in either outcome.

KvP:

--- Quote from: pwhodges on 01 Jul 2009, 15:57 ---Look, it is likely that we will never know more than we do now, or that any new evidence that might appear will be inherently less reliable than that we already have (passage of time, etc).  We also know that court processes can make mistakes, but generally do not ; though in the case of complete uncertainty, veering away from conviction of course.  If we start saying that the verdict in this case is likely to be wrong because of some statistics (statistical figures by their nature don't apply to individual cases, remember), then we are essentially throwing away our belief in the entire justice system.
--- End quote ---
There's not much reason to believe in the justice system outside of some feeling that we ought to. In the UK, for instance,5.6% of reported rape cases resulted in convictions, which is as far as I know the lowest rate in the developed world (though there are likely developed countries that have much lower rates of report than the UK, which befuddles the comparitive stats to some degree). Let's be extremely conservative and say that 30% of all reported rapes were valid. In that case, 5 times as many rapists received no penalties as those who did. I'm not sure how anyone could say that in that case court processes "generally do not" make mistakes.

I'm inclined to say that the system works exactly the way it's intended to - note that the BBC singles out skepticism on the part of prosecutors and police to reported cases. The prevailing concern in the common law court is not to provide validation for victims, but to prevent innocents from being convicted. Which in itself is certainly not a malicious goal, but there is a trade-off here, in that the burden of proof is so high to protect innocents that its actual effect is to protect the guilty.

If you can prove the rapist had sex with the victim, the rapist can claim that it was consensual, which is a possibility that creates reasonable doubt. If there are signs of violence, the rapist can claim that the victim "liked it rough", a possibility that creates reasonable doubt. If the victim was wearing a miniskirt, good luck convincing a jury that consent wasn't given. If a woman has had more than one or two sex partners in a short span of time there will never be a conviction no matter how hard you try. If the victim was a prostitute, isn't that what they're paid for? If the victim was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, then hell, the rapist basically has carte blanche. If the threshold for acquittal is a reasonable doubt then rapists in general have less to fear from the justice system than common shoplifters, provided they did not commit their crime in public, or on camera, or they are uneducated men of color. Prosecutors and police know all this, and so what reason do they have to work on rape claims? They could be spending their time investigating cases they can actually win. There's no easy way to avoid this, but the very least we can do is acknowledge that it is a reality, and a problem.

Sox:
John, you're making arguments where there really doesn't need to be any. I'm convinced your strong personal feelings on the subjects of rape, abuse, and the way they're handled are making you pursue a debate that nobody else wants to have, especially in this thread.
You're presenting very valid arguments about a topic that has nothing to do with what anybody else is talking about. Some of your arguments seem crazy and irrational because they have absolutely nothing to do with this specific case. The only reason people are arguing with you is because your arguments, though technically correct, are completely irrelevant and somewhat unwelcome.
Paul's attempt at mediation was certainly not an invitation to discuss the faults with the justice system. if you want to have that debate, start it elsewhere.

ruyi:
I had a post typed up this morning but then my internet failed and I had to go to class. Glad to see it's not really needed anymore.

Anyways, to reiterate what Darryl has been saying, the parties involved in this argument seem to perceive different stakes.

KvP:

--- Quote from: Sox on 01 Jul 2009, 18:47 ---John, you're making arguments where there really doesn't need to be any. I'm convinced your strong personal feelings on the subjects of rape, abuse, and the way they're handled are making you pursue a debate that nobody else wants to have, especially in this thread.
You're presenting very valid arguments about a topic that has nothing to do with what anybody else is talking about. Some of your arguments seem crazy and irrational because they have absolutely nothing to do with this specific case. The only reason people are arguing with you is because your arguments, though technically correct, are completely irrelevant and somewhat unwelcome.
Paul's attempt at mediation was certainly not an invitation to discuss the faults with the justice system. if you want to have that debate, start it elsewhere.
--- End quote ---
I'm pretty sure nobody ever really wants to have this debate, because nobody likes to think about this kind of thing, it is nasty and sad and it doesn't affect the majority of us. But lots of things we are comfortable talking about are similar. I held it off as long as I could, but when I felt like I had to I bring it up because of a prevailing belief in the falsehood of the claims made against Jackson. Consider that on the first page of the thread nobo said this -

--- Quote from: nobo on 25 Jun 2009, 15:54 ---how long before an alleged victim of his abuse comes out with a tell-all book?

--- End quote ---
Which is a fairly blatant, if flippant, assertion of gold-diggery. This was uncommented upon, but there was a lot of fretting over people making blatant, if flippant, assertions that MJ was an offender. There was even a separate thread created to protect this space from such statements. Because MJ was such a beloved pop star, the idea that he was framed was very welcome to a lot of people. But as I showed, the statistical chance of it being false were very low, and yet people are adamant about the statistics not applying, which might be because they feel as though MJ is a special case (I don't think he is) but I think it's really because they don't want to believe the statistics are valid in any case. When faced with the possibiity that someone you like or love is a criminal and an abuser, the statistics never apply. It's much easier to believe that accusers are confused or mistaken or, if they're dogged enough, vindictive or greedy, than to believe that the people accused of these crimes are guilty, that these crimes happen with the frequency they do.

The possibility remains that the accusers are lying. This possibility is present in all cases. But in all cases the measured chances of that being the case are fairly slim. Given that, it's only reasonable that people harbor a tentative, careful belief in the veracity of claims made, as I do. But that is not the case. More people by bounds believe in innocence, and belief in guilt is derided as vindictiveness, ignorance and slander (though the converse belief is never derided as such, because of MJ's supposed uniqueness)

There are indeed different stakes being perceived here, with other boarders taking the view that perceptions around this case apply only to it, and my view that the perceptions are applicable to sex crime in general. I believe that of you look at the dialogue around any other case that contains the basic elements of this case (powerful man accused of wrongdoing) you will hear many statements similar to the ones made here, and many that are identical.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page