I have been without computer capabilities for days. It has been a week of the absurd, the awkward, and the amazing. Moments ago, I reentered the world of wondrous writing possibilities.
I was anxious to write of matters of substance; the economy interests me. The emergence of a Constitution in Iraq, immigration, and investments in America also fascinate me. The recess appointments of John Bolton and Peter Flory do not surprise me; they intrigue me.
I was planning to write of these, and yet, as meaningless as it might seem, I am composing this instead. For I realize, there is a parallel. Issues of world shattering import are similar to this story.
Michael Those that found the superstar not guilty, admit, again, they knew he was.
Eleanor Cook, 79, will call her book Guilty As Sin, Free As A Bird, according to reports.
Ray Hultman, 62, who said after the verdict was delivered that he believed Jackson had probably molested boys, will call his The Deliberator.
People never cease to astound me. They justify, juggle, and declare, this is “justice.”
The juggling of justice is evident everywhere.
Each day, we hear claims of fairness, righteousness, evenhandedness, and impartiality. These jurors are not alone; they too witness the world of jugglers. Magicians manifest in the highest of offices and the lowest of lands.
They speak of mandates. Our world leaders gleam and glow with words of glory, justice, and jurisprudence.
In his second inaugural speech President George W.
“There is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.” These are the words of a man that chose to aggressively attack, invade, and occupy the nation of Iraq.
Vice President Dick Cheney is also a master juggler.
At breakfast Celebrating Women in Business the bullish “our nation was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001 . . .
terrorists brought terrible grief to our people. The attacks were obviously a shock to the economy. So we took action .
. . hunting down the terrorists, bringing them to justice.
”
Juggling is not exclusively an American act; those on hill and dale also perform well. Witness the Bin Laden, “Praise be to God; praise be to God; praise be to God who created heaven and earth with justice and who allowed the oppressed to punish the oppressor in the same way.”
Revenge is the rationalization that our President and his Vice offer.
Bin Laden does no better. What might be the “justification” the Jackson jurors claim?
Posted by Betsy L.
Angert on August 4, 2005 at 10:00 AM in , , | This news is not Earth shattering. It will not change the world. It might be said that this is much ado about celebrities.
It is or is it?
Initially, my interest in the Michael Jackson case was embarrassing to me. I told myself that show-biz news is not significant, and yet, as I reflect upon it, I realize that it is.
What happens here is what happens elsewhere. All of life can be considered a psychological and sociological study. This particular incident is a sad one, for it says much of human frailties.
We work so hard to be wise and wonderful and then, we stumble. Listening to the jurors justify their verdict is case in point. Situations such as this may serve to teach us of ourselves.
Therefore, I present my thoughts on the Michael Jackson scenario. I invite you to offer yours.
It might be said that the Michael Jackson trial is more than a miscarriage of justice, it symbolic of much more.
The results of this trial may speak to what we as a society have become. The Jackson hearing might be considered a microcosm of America. The details address issues such as marketing, money, and the mindset of an international public.
We seem to have become a society based in reality television. In this forum, nothing is real. People go public so that they may have their fifteen minutes of fame.
What is image is not merely an illusion; it is what we wish to be, to identify with, and what we believe we will become.
Reality programs are so popular because we relate. We see ourselves in the place of others.
Experiences are part of a competition, and individuals are the actors, directors, the judge, and the jury. We all might be the next “American Idol.” We await our chance.
Courtrooms are circuses. Celebrity clients are not on trial, those that attack them are. Icons are made more human.
They have faces and they have flaws. They feel, and jurors can identify with them. Those that attack a famous personality must be at fault.
It matters not that the public figure has long verbalized that he did engage in what is a precursor to the crime he is accused of. That Michael Jackson thinks, is not enough to convict. A strong belief that Michael Jackson has molested boys in the past does not influence a juror’s decision.
What does affect the finding in this trial is personality.
Judgments are made based on feelings, not fact. The jurors’ feelings about the victim, his mother, and of course, Michael were the most influential.
In today’s courtrooms, justice is purely a concept. Fairness is not the filter, if it ever was. Celebrity criminal cases are all for show, they are worldwide.
and defendants put on quite a performance.
Jurors in cases such as these, acquit. They feel sorry for the individual that they have known for so long.
After all, he is a family friend. He has come into their homes, [by way of radio, television, or film]. He has entered their hearts, and he is part of their lives.
They have idolized him from afar, forever, and now, he needs them. They are there for him. It is the accuser or his mother that are to blame.
How could they put Michael Jackson through this? How could they dare cause him such pain?
Yes, Michael Jackson spoke openly of his philosophy; he expressed his desire to share his bed with young boys publicly.
However, he would cause no harm; isn’t that what McCully Culkin said. Yet, when taken to tasks for the harm that this has caused, Jackson is acquitted. A jury of his peers declared the pop star One might ask, are they truly Jackson’s peers or merely those that are thankful, they had a chance to peer into Mr.
Jackson’s soul.
People have questioned this possibility. They have interviewed the jurors, asking for answers and these jurors cannot defend their decision, much as they try.
They continually repeat, ‘based on the evidence we could not convict.’ Thus, the decision stands. After all, a man cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
A confused public continues to ponder. Journalists ask jurors poignant questions such as, “would you allow your child to share a bed with an adult man?” They reply with little hesitation.
Juror Number 10, a 45-year-old mother of one adult child and two teenage sons, expressed her feelings.
“What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen? Just freely, volunteer your child to sleep with someone.
Not so much just Michael Jackson but any person for that matter. That's something that mothers are naturally concerned with.”
Juror number 10 admits that an adult man, sharing his bed with a young boy, is cause for concern.
She states that any mother would feel apprehensive. Therefore, the fact that the mother allowed this to happen makes her at fau the man that shared his bed and possibly molested a young man is innocent. For this juror, the boy’s mother is the criminal.
When asked if an international superstar is treated differently than Joe Schmoe, Juror number 2 replied, “We looked at Michael Jackson, and one of the first things we decided, that we had to look at him as just like any other individual, not just as a celebrity.” Michael was one of us.
So, the truth is told.
Michael Jackson became human, at least in the eyes of the jurors. He was a tragic hero, hurt, and helpless. He looked and acted so very vulnerable.
Seeing the pop-star up-close-and personal was influential. Jackson was no longer an image on a screen; he was not just a personality. Jurors personified him.
They saw themselves in Michael Jackson. They identified. Jurors could feel and see his pain and they felt sorrow.
However, they could not feel the pain of the accused; they did not want to. The boy and his mother were average people, dysfunctional at best. They were not to be admired.
They had not made a success of themselves as Michael had. They too were personified. These individuals embodied the dark side of every man and woman.
The boy and his mother are what we all wish to deny in ourselves. They are, as we would never want to be and yet, we fear that we might become them. The injured party and his mother led a life that could too easily befall any of us, and one that we would never desire.
Therefore, they must be diminished, dismissed, and denied justice.
We, the people, jurors, rather relate to opulence and success. Scorning those that "have" is considered suspicious.
Those that disparage the "successful" are jealous or intent on stealing. Since we, the common-folk, the jurors, envision ourselves as soon to be renowned and filthy rich, we see Michael Jackson is we. He is, at least, who we want to be; we must protect our future, our interests.
Convict? No, we must acquit. For putting ourselves in his place, we know that we would never cause harm to another; and so we have it, the verdict.
Michael Jackson is declared innocent of all charges. He is beyond reproach; when evaluating the evidence, there is reasonable doubt. How could our hero, our alter ego be guilty?
He could never be, we could never be on the wrong side of the law.
Yet, speaking on Michael Jackson’s behalf, both , and lead lawyer, state, Michael will never take another young boy to bed. Why not?
If sharing one’s bed with a child is not criminal, and clearly, it is not, why not continue to do it?
Monica Mehta, of AlterNet wrote a masterful assessment of this case. She discusses the issue of abuse and how the verdict in the Michael Jackson case ignored this.
Please read her reflections.
Posted by Betsy L.
News RSS