|
Post by LindavG on Nov 22, 2022 2:38:41 GMT
So what are you suggesting instead of innocent until proven guilty? Guilty until proven innocent? How is that more fair to you to consider and treat someone guilty who wasn't proven guilty? With all the shame and all the social consequences that it comes with? I don't think I'm necessarily dogmatic about this as I don't think every time a court's decision is correct. For example, I don't think OJ Simpson was innocent, despite of his acquittal, but I do understand why he was acquitted and it wasn't that the jury was stupid or wrong. It was that the prosecution fucked up and gave enough room for a reasonable doubt. If you pay attention to a court case you can form your own opinion on whether you think the accused is guilty or innocent. But thing is people don't pay attention to the details of most cases and I'm not interested in following every court case either. I think people need to realize that it's okay to say "I don't know. I haven't followed this case. I take a neutral stance in it". You don't have to pick a side in everything. And that's simply what "innocent until proven guilty" means to me in those cases that I don't follow, not that the accuser is lying, as you have interpreted innocent until proven guilty. It seems that we are on the same page then because that's pretty much where I stand as well. But I do interpret "innocent until proven guilty" to mean something else. It is not a neutral stance, it is siding with the accused (who is presumed innocent) until he is convicted of a crime in a court of law. And in the case of sexual abuse allegations which rarely lead to convictions because they are very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not because the accused is actually innocent, that hardline approach is problematic to me. If I find the accuser to be credible and there is no reason to question his/her allegations, I don't care what the court says* or if the case even went to court at all. Roman Polanski is no less of a rapist just because he was never convicted for his crimes. That's all I'm saying *For this reason it's important to point out not just that MJ was acquitted of all charges but also WHY he was acquitted. The facts of the case are what matters and what proves his innocence.
|
|
|
Post by kelley on Nov 22, 2022 4:56:11 GMT
I don't think "fans" who "have doubts" or believe the allegations should be allowed to post on MJ fan boards or be welcomed in the MJ fam community.
We're at the point where anyone who believes the lies is either trolling or simply wants to believe the lies most likely for an agenda, rather it be a racist agenda or a perverted agenda.
Regardless these types of people should not be welcome in these spaces anymore. The Michael Jackson subreddit has take the choice of banning all guilter talk and the sub has improved dramatically and more and more young, mostly white male fans are joining and celebrating Michael's talent, which is good because that demographic is usually the most hostile towards Michael.
The point Im trying to make is that banning Guilters from spaces like this where we actually have the ability to keep them out will only make this forum better.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 22, 2022 5:03:19 GMT
I don't think anyone here believes he's guilty.
|
|
|
Post by kelley on Nov 22, 2022 5:44:01 GMT
So what are you suggesting instead of innocent until proven guilty? Guilty until proven innocent? How is that more fair to you to consider and treat someone guilty who wasn't proven guilty? With all the shame and all the social consequences that it comes with? I don't think I'm necessarily dogmatic about this as I don't think every time a court's decision is correct. For example, I don't think OJ Simpson was innocent, despite of his acquittal, but I do understand why he was acquitted and it wasn't that the jury was stupid or wrong. It was that the prosecution fucked up and gave enough room for a reasonable doubt. If you pay attention to a court case you can form your own opinion on whether you think the accused is guilty or innocent. But thing is people don't pay attention to the details of most cases and I'm not interested in following every court case either. I think people need to realize that it's okay to say "I don't know. I haven't followed this case. I take a neutral stance in it". You don't have to pick a side in everything. And that's simply what "innocent until proven guilty" means to me in those cases that I don't follow, not that the accuser is lying, as you have interpreted innocent until proven guilty. It seems that we are on the same page then because that's pretty much where I stand as well. But I do interpret "innocent until proven guilty" to mean something else. It is not a neutral stance, it is siding with the accused (who is presumed innocent) until he is convicted of a crime in a court of law. And in the case of sexual abuse allegations which rarely lead to convictions because they are very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not because the accused is actually innocent, that hardline approach is problematic to me. If I find the accuser to be credible and there is no reason to question his/her allegations, I don't care what the court says* or if the case even went to court at all. Roman Polanski is no less of a rapist just because he was never convicted for his crimes. That's all I'm saying *For this reason it's important to point out not just that MJ was acquitted of all charges but also WHY he was acquitted. The facts of the case are what matters and what proves his innocence. And whats wrong with this?
I would rather no one ever be punished for sex crime than see even one innocent person punished for something they didn't do. There is no greater injustice than for innocent person to be falsely accused and punished in my opinion.
You seem to believe the opposite.
And where may I ask are you getting the statistic that sexual abuse statistics rarely lead to conviction? I strongly disagree with that statement as it does not take into account the kind of cases that are taken to trial. A person who reports their assault immediately and goes in for a rape kit to preserve evidence will almost always see justice.
A person who keeps quiet about it for 20 years or even 2 months and then decides to go to the police with no evidence and expects people to just believe their word is much more likely to see their abuser be acquitted and they have no one to blame but themselves. They allowed the evidence that would have brought them justice to be destroyed. As harsh as it sounds. I believe if the evidence is not there the accused should go free. Period. If they happen to have been guilty then so be it. Id rather the guilty go free than to see even one innocent person be condemned.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Nov 22, 2022 7:23:29 GMT
It seems that we are on the same page then because that's pretty much where I stand as well. But I do interpret "innocent until proven guilty" to mean something else. It is not a neutral stance, it is siding with the accused (who is presumed innocent) until he is convicted of a crime in a court of law. And in the case of sexual abuse allegations which rarely lead to convictions because they are very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not because the accused is actually innocent, that hardline approach is problematic to me. If I find the accuser to be credible and there is no reason to question his/her allegations, I don't care what the court says* or if the case even went to court at all. Roman Polanski is no less of a rapist just because he was never convicted for his crimes. That's all I'm saying *For this reason it's important to point out not just that MJ was acquitted of all charges but also WHY he was acquitted. The facts of the case are what matters and what proves his innocence. And whats wrong with this?
I would rather no one ever be punished for sex crime than see even one innocent person punished for something they didn't do. There is no greater injustice than for innocent person to be falsely accused and punished in my opinion.
You seem to believe the opposite. What an absolutely vile thing to say. I don't even know how to respond to that. [/div]
www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system For one but there are many others citing similar statistics. And you are very obviously wrong lol but I'm not even going to argue this with you. Please Google "police untested rape kits" and educate yourself.
And what evidence, other than their word, would they have had 2 months ago that they don't have anymore now? A rape kit only works for violent penetration and even then it's often not enough to lead to conviction (again, not going to argue this, do your own damn research). In most cases of sexual abuse, there is no hard irrefutable evidence and that's what makes them so difficult. Many victims are abused by someone they know well (such as a parent or close family member, or a romantic partner) which can make it very difficult and scary for them to report the abuse. Victims may also suffer from shock or PTSD after they were violently attacked. I genuinely don't understand how you can be so callous about this and say "well if you don't immediately go to the police and get a rape kit done, you only have yourself to blame if your rapist walks free". Do you have ANY idea how invasive a rape kit is? Or how traumatising it can be to have to repeatedly, and in great detail, talk about what happened to you to a bunch of strangers at the police station?
Anyway, you completely misread my previous statements because nowhere did I argue that the accused should be convicted if there is no irrefutable evidence of their guilt. In fact, quite the opposite! I'm saying exactly the same thing you are: that if there is no hard evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the allegations are true, the accused should be acquitted. That's the way the law works and in most cases, that's a good thing. And as you just acknowledged yourself, this incredibly high standard of evidence may lead to guilty people walking free. It's inevitable especially in the case of sexual abuse where the required standard of evidence is simply very hard to meet. So logically, that leads to my comment that "innocent until proven guilty" is a flawed approach for these particular type of allegations. And it turned out Respect77 and I actually agree on that, she just has a different interpretation of what that means (a neutral stance where you don't take sides vs. my interpretation that it sides with the accused until there is a criminal conviction).
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 22, 2022 8:15:44 GMT
It seems that we are on the same page then because that's pretty much where I stand as well. But I do interpret "innocent until proven guilty" to mean something else. It is not a neutral stance, it is siding with the accused (who is presumed innocent) until he is convicted of a crime in a court of law. And in the case of sexual abuse allegations which rarely lead to convictions because they are very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not because the accused is actually innocent, that hardline approach is problematic to me. And this whole "believe the victim" movement is even less neural. Already the use of "victim", instead of the more neutral "accuser" carries the judgement in itself that the accused is definitely a victim and as consequence that means the accused is definitely guilty. When you automatically call the accuser "victim" with that you automatically call the accused "perpetrator". A neutral stance is "I don't know. I'm not in the position to judge this." It's okay for a member of a public to take that stance. You don't have to take sides in everything, especially when your opinion wouldn't be an informed opinion. I have the feeling in this age of social media and peer pressure, people feel the need to be opinionated about everything, often without realizing or admitting to themselves, they just don't have sufficient knowledge or information about something. I don't expect people to say MJ was definitely innocent if they haven't followed his cases, but it would be nice if they at least realized the limits of their knowledge before they form an opinion, for example that just watching LN won't equip them with sufficient and balanced information of Wade and James's case. At the very least they should notice it's a one sided account, therefore potentially manipulative. (And it is.) As for law enforcement, authorities, they need to take the allegation seriously, investigate, but investigate fairly and not get carried away by preconceived prejudice, like for example Sneddon was. But of course, it's also true, that they must not be prejudiced against the accuser either. In their case, neutrality means a a fair investigation, without prejudice to or against either side. I believe Polanski was convicted, he just fled the country. Anyway, of course, wrong verdicts happen. Despite of what you suggest, my respect for due process and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean I'm dogmatic about it and I would never call a verdict into question. Of course, guilty people can be acquitted (see OJ), but it's also true that innocent people can be convicted. How many times have we seen such cases as well? Including in sex abuse/rape cases when someone spends a lifetime in jail before DNA evidence finally proves he was wrongfully convicted? I agree with Kelley in that one innocent person in jail is more horrible than ten guilty going free. Therefore we absolutely need these legal safeguards like "innocent until proven guilty". If MJ's 2005 trial had gone the exact same way it went but he had had a jury that was prejudiced against him and convicted him, I wouldn't think any differently about his guilt or innocence. But this presupposes some sort of knowledge of the case (which I do have in this case). And when you say "if I find the accuser credible..." I would assume that too would be based on some sort of knowledge of the case, not just personal sympathy and "gut feelings", let alone a dogma of "just believe"?
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Nov 22, 2022 9:15:32 GMT
And this whole "believe the victim" movement is even less neural. Already the use of "victim", instead of the more neutral "accuser" carries the judgement in itself that the accused is definitely a victim and as consequence that means the accused is definitely guilty. When you automatically call the accuser "victim" with that you automatically call the accused "perpetrator". I use both in my posts. When I'm talking about victim vs. perpetrator I'm talking about (hypothetical) cases where the abuse actually occurred but there was never a trial or a conviction. Totally agreed! Yeah he's probably not the best example, although there are still plenty of people (including celebrities) coming to his defense. Yes, and I'm not arguing against these legal safeguards. My only point was that to consider any person accused of sexual abuse innocent (not "I don't know" but innocent) unless he is convicted in a court of law is not a fair or moral approach given how difficult it is to prove these cases to the standards of the law. You are implicitly siding with the accused in that case; it's not a neutral stance. Neutral would be as you said: I don't know enough about this case to judge whether the accused is innocent or not. That's why I said it's important to mention not just that MJ was acquitted but WHY he was acquitted. It's the facts of the case that matter, that's how I determined for myself whether he was guilty or not. The verdict would not have changed anything for me. Especially in the case of jury trials in the US, the verdict hinges on so much more than just a cold objective application of the law. I mean, police officers routinely get away with cold-blooded murder because the jury is favourable to them. To answer your question regarding credibility: yes, if it's a public case then it would be based on my knowledge of what exactly is being alleged (on both sides). If I know the accuser personally then it's based on my knowledge of the person. Like, if my sister told me she was raped, I would believe her in an instant because I know for a fact she would never lie about this. I wouldn't ask her to prove her case to me and I certainly would not tell her "I don't know, let's hear what your alleged rapist has to say before I make up my mind." I think that's just common sense. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Nov 22, 2022 9:17:03 GMT
You don't have to pick a side in everything. And that's simply what "innocent until proven guilty" means to me in those cases that I don't follow, not that the accuser is lying, as you have interpreted innocent until proven guilty. 100%. But in this world of sanctimonious social justice warriors posturing on social media for clout and the money that's made from media sensationalism, society is encouraged to always be gunning for the next public figure to condemn.
|
|
|
Post by butterflies2 on Nov 23, 2022 3:36:38 GMT
What’ or who is behind the Aaron carter claim in his book? He said mj was at the foot of his bed in underwear and may have been sleepwalking?
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 23, 2022 4:08:28 GMT
What’ or who is behind the Aaron carter claim in his book? He said mj was at the foot of his bed in underwear and may have been sleepwalking? That book is a tabloid book that was trashed by his family and management. The claim is supposedly from an interview he gave to Daphne Barak many years ago, a tabloid journalist who's infamous for manipulative tactics and editing interviews to create sensationalism, so it's unclear whether Aaron made those claims to her or not and if he even meant MJ. It's a heavily edited interview where it's not even clear who he's talking about. And the fact is: in more trustworthy interviews Aaron has always defended MJ. But if Aaron made those claims about MJ to Daphne Barak then he was lying and it's easy to refute. Why? Because the night in question is that Aaron spent at Neverland in 2003 after MJ's birthday party (that's the only night he spent at Neverland). There have been a lot of people around them and around MJ all night. Here's an analysis of the claim and an eyewitness account from Vindicate MJ: vindicatemj.wordpress.com/?s=Aaron&submit=SearchAaron slept in the theater with Chris Tucker and others. Here's an interview that Howard Stern made with Nick and Aaron Carter. Stern is a jerk but you can get an idea about how that night went and both Nick and Aaron defend MJ:
|
|
|
Post by butterflies2 on Nov 23, 2022 4:23:35 GMT
Thanks for all that, I couldn’t remember the full story behind that time, now I remember the Chris tucker bit. I hope no one believes it, cause I saw someone on lipstick alley mention it
|
|
Seven
Wondering Who
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by Seven on Nov 23, 2022 7:59:56 GMT
It never stops being absolutely vile that you have mountains of evidence against prolific public figures regarding abuse and pedophilia, photos included, and yet you never see anyone clown on them nearly as hard as they did and continue to do with Michael.
|
|
|
Post by kelley on Nov 24, 2022 3:23:01 GMT
And whats wrong with this?
I would rather no one ever be punished for sex crime than see even one innocent person punished for something they didn't do. There is no greater injustice than for innocent person to be falsely accused and punished in my opinion.
You seem to believe the opposite. What an absolutely vile thing to say. I don't even know how to respond to that. And what may I ask is so vile about what I said.
Are you telling me if you were forced to choose between A) letting 10 possible rapists go free and B) letting one innocent person be locked away for the rest of their lives for a crime they didn't commit, You would choose to B?
To me that is vile.
There are so many innocent people who have been freed after being locked away 30, 40 50 years for crimes they didn't commit. Their entire lives stolen from them. It does happen and it's not that rare, but even if it was super rare, it happening even once too much.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Nov 24, 2022 4:33:02 GMT
What an absolutely vile thing to say. I don't even know how to respond to that. And what may I ask is so vile about what I said.
Are you telling me if you were forced to choose between A) letting 10 possible rapists go free and B) letting one innocent person be locked away for the rest of their lives for a crime they didn't commit, You would choose to B?
To me that is vile.
There are so many innocent people who have been freed after being locked away 30, 40 50 years for crimes they didn't commit. Their entire lives stolen from them. It does happen and it's not that rare, but even if it was super rare, it happening even once too much.
That's not what you said. I am extremely bothered by your comment that you "would rather no one ever be punished for sex crime than see even one innocent person punished for something they didn't do", which is the kind of sentiment you would find on the darkest corners of incel subreddits. How is that possibly a fair equivalence? I just genuinely don't understand how you can talk about rape and sexual assault in such a cold and callous manner. Or how you can possibly believe that a victim who gets a rape kit done and immediately reports to police will almost always get justice, when that is not at all the reality. That's the baseline for even getting the case to court. And that's if the rape kit is even processed; there are an estimated 100,000 untested rape kits in the US alone. To me, an innocent person being punished and a guilty person walking free are equally unjust. I don't think one is worse than the other. In the latter case, the victim of the rape also has to live with the trauma for the rest of their lives, and live with the fear and knowledge that their attacker is still around and might be hurting other people. You seem to think that I'm arguing for a lower standard of evidence in court, that I think people should be sent to prison for life based on the mere allegations of one sympathetic accuser. That's not what I'm saying at all. I understand perfectly well why a legal standard of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is necessary to protect innocent people from being punished and I wouldn't change that. At the same time, I acknowledge that such a high standard is often impossible to meet for sexual assault cases due to their very nature, and that a failure to convict someone in a court of law is not necessarily proof of their innocence for that reason. If a woman is dragged into a dark alley by a stranger and forced to perform oral sex on him, what irrefutable evidence can she give the court that this happened to her? There are no witnesses, no prior history between them, no physical evidence, nothing but her word against his. Such allegations almost never lead to a successful conviction but that doesn't mean the woman is lying and that her attacker is innocent. And that's why I took issue with the notion that "innocent until proven guilty" is the neutral stance to take in case of sexual assault allegations. But Respect77 later clarified that she interprets this to mean not automatically siding with the accuser but admitting you don't know enough to make a fair judgment, which is where I stand as well. So as far as I'm concerned this discussion is done and we can get back to the actual topic of the thread
|
|
|
Post by butterflies2 on Nov 25, 2022 2:07:56 GMT
I’m mad mj is cancelled in UK, someone on the Prince board said he was not on any mtv 80s countdowns
|
|