Sunday, June 28, 2009

Why Doesn't the Public Believe?

I've been getting a bit disgusted at all the forum posts and twittings about how people still think Michael Jackson wasn't innocent of molestation charges even though a jury acquitted him. Some say they can't muster up any sympathy for him after his death and even a few say "Good Riddance." The actual reactions don't disgust me as much as how the public chooses to believe media reports/spins more than the ruling of a jury made up of the accused's peers in a respected US court of law. We all have our suspicions, hunches, and feelings about the cases we see on TV and read about on the internet. But it is a guarantee that we don't get to see as much evidence as the jurors in these cases do.

Do I think that it is possible that anyone who is found innocent of a crime in court may still be partially guilty? Yes, it could be possible. Sure, I can have my hunches based on what I see on TV. But I'll never be gullible enough to fully buy into the media's spin on these cases.

Yes, I think Michael Jackson was weird based on how he presented himself and his proven actions. And yes, I think he was capable of doing certain things that most people wouldn't do. But I'll never know if he ever committed a crime because I wasn't there.

I read an article on what he went through during his last trial. It disgusts me how people piled onto him based on his appearance, lifestyle habits, and the word of a habitual mother-son scam team. Read for yourselves.

EDIT: Just to clarify my point - I think if we can be skeptical of the courts, we should also be skeptical of media reports. I've never been in trouble with the law. But I hope if I ever am and get acquitted, that the public will make its judgement of me based more on facts and less on reports. That's all.

2 comments:

lightning36 said...

"The actual reactions don't disgust me as much as how the public chooses to believe media reports/spins more than the ruling of a jury made up of the accused's peers in a respected US court of law."

Ah ... therefore OJ didn't kill two people either, right?

People with money and power usually win out. Jackson reportedly paid out $25,000,000 to settle a civil action filed against him in 1993, and possibly $2,000,000 to silence another victim.

Stick said...

Lightning,
I'm not saying court rulings are always correct. I'm saying that the most of the public seems to accept the media versions of the cases as "always correct". If we can be skeptical of the courts, we should also be skeptical of the media. That's all.

The OJ case still puzzles me. I still haven't bit either way and probably never will, barring an confession from someone. But I agree that money helps the rich avoid many normal legal processes.