Michael Jackson & 'not guilty' vs. 'innocent'

Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about Michael Jackson. Before OJ Simpson dropped off the map following his trial, I was very tired of hearing about him too. I don't really want to write about either of them, particularly, but current events often seem to form the basis for what I'm paying attention to of a day.

Celebrity and prosecution

Everyone always has an opinion on a celebrity trial. Sometimes this divides on racial lines—like with OJ Simpson. I have no idea where the division was with Michael Jackson. But with Michael Jackson the issue was further clouded by the fact that he's just weird. I mean, really weird. He's the kind of guy that, when people hear the accusation they automatically think, "well, it would make sense." This mucks everything up.

I don't know where it balances out: celebrities, on the one hand, generally have the money to get sensational lawyers. This certainly contributed to the sense, among many people, that OJ Simpson had evaded justice. They also have celebrity power, which most likely tends to make them harder convict—but would probably make it easier to convict someone like Russell Crowe. I don't know what factor race plays. This has been analyzed to death with OJ Simpson, and I don't care to read any of that. With Michael Jackson, I'm not sure whether it could possibly play a role. I mean, a good portion of his weirdness is the way he looks. He certainly doesn't look like a black man, and, if I had been a juror, I don't think I would have related to him as such. Maybe a serious bigot would, but jury selection should get rid of those. Shouldn't it?

The facts of the case

Everyone has an opinion. However, only about 12 people have actually heard the legal facts and arguments. Now, I realize that rules of procedure can, and often do, obscure things enough that the "legal" facts are not necessarily related to actual events. This particular game is usually played sufficiently well by both sides—especially when the defendant has the means to hire quality counsel—so I don't think it's unfair for us to say that we don't have all the facts. We can't say that the jury necessarily did either, but we—without first reading the court transcripts in full and examining all the exhibits—can't know. We can't know. Basically, that's the big problem.

'not guilty'

So the jury, who presumably should know, ruled 'not guilty' on all counts, including several lesser included charges that amounted to handing a beer to a minor. They heard all the evidence that they were allowed to, saw the people who came in to give witness, and they decided that they couldn't reasonably be certain that the charges were true.

What does that mean, really? In this country, we seem to have some difficulty separating fact from ruling. Everyone seems to assume that the ruling bears on actual fact. It's supposed to, obviously, but it's the result of a process. The process clearly goes awry sometimes. No process can be perfect, and that's why we have the presumption of innocence anyway.

What I think people fail to realize is that the ruling is a public decision, as the result of a process, about what happened. Philosophically, it's impossible to be certain. Notably, people are horrible at accurately reporting what they saw, especially months later after having been asked about it time after time in the interim. Memory is generally of very poor quality, and memories are extremely easy to manufacture. However, we, as a society, have to come to some decision about what happened. When there's the accusation, we have to have a procedure for deciding. Initially we forbear to judge, and assume the person to be innocent. At the end of the process, since we've given up trial by combat and trial by fire, 12 people are supposed to decide if they have been convinced of guilt.

"Convinced of guilt" is the key. Since we assume innocence, no one has to prove their innocence. The jury merely decides if they can, with a straight face, say that the person must be guilty.

Michael Jackson & 'not guilty' vs. 'innocent'

I don't know if Michael Jackson is actually guilty or actually innocent. He's weird enough, and had a pretty messed up childhood. He could be guilty. He could just be weird. I have no way of knowing. I forbear to judge because I don't think I have enough information. But I suspect that if he were really guilty, they'd have found a lot more cases and would have been able to establish their pattern in a meaningful way.