This is getting silly

[textualdeviance]

I really should be avoiding the subject, because it's starting to piss me off too much, but...

If Jackson weren't a famous pop star, but instead the plumber down the street, with all the same "quirks", would YOU let your kids sleep at his house? Would you even let your kids play there?

A reminder of some of the evidence at his 2005 trial:

*Fingerprints of the boys on some books of porn Jackson had
*He gave them alcohol that he called "Jesus juice"
*He owned books with pictures of naked boys
*Testimony from four other victims, including the one from his 1993 trial, which he settled for $22 million. If you're innocent, you don't pay off your accusers.

This is all unargued fact. That it didn't result in a conviction is almost entirely due to a starstruck jury.

I don't care how much he was abused himself as a child. It's tragic, but it doesn't excuse what he did. I know, how about we excuse his dad for abusing Michael, because he had his own rough childhood, right? Oh, wait. I forgot. Joe is more eeeevil, because he abused someone with a lot of musical talent.

A history of abuse is an explanation for why some people become abusers themselves. It is NOT an excuse, and certainly not something that should be used as a pass for the guy to keep doing what he wanted without any consequences whatsoever. Are his victims somehow less important because they weren't famous musicians? Did they have less of a right to not have their trust violated because the guy who wanted to get them drunk and sleep with them was famous?

People are whining about the "character assasination" going on in his death. What about the same thing that's happening to his victims, who are still alive, and still living every day with what he did to them, and who are being labeled lying golddiggers?

Jackson was a pedophile who had virtually unfettered access to his victims because of his fame. And now those same victims are being victimized again as the world strives to plug their ears and pretend that nothing but his music matters. Disgusting.

Comments

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

I think in this particular case, one can't rely only on the jury's verdict to declare innocence. There's just too much else that was wrong with the case itself and with how the jury deliberated to declare it a clear decision. It's very much like the OJ trial, in many ways, and it's a pity that there wasn't an easy option for a subsequent civil suit, as happened in that case.

But as it stands, he should've been convicted on posession of child porn anyway, since that bit of evidence was never in dispute.

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

I have issues with child porn laws in general, but that's neither here nor there. Basically I think that people who sexually abuse children should face serious charges, whether or not there's a camera running, and that people who profit from a crime should face serious charges regardless of what that crime is. As such, I think that the creation of child porn is already covered under other laws, and that restricting the possession of child porn poses too much of a risk to free speech, and just reinforces the legal concept of the obscenity test, which I view as deeply broken.

As to whether or not he should have been convicted- I'm not saying that he was innocent. But I don't know enough to say that he was guilty either. I don't know. I do know that in general it is vital that we uphold that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. But I also don't know if that trial was fair, or if a retrial/appeal should have happened. No clue.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

The problem with posession has to do with market issues. The more people there are who purchase the stuff, the more people will harm kids in the process of making it, because there's a market there.

Dry up the market, and you help dry up the supply. It's the same thing with criminalizing drug posession, trafficking in endangered species or stolen goods, etc. The end user is still a participant in the overall crime, and they have to be held responsible for their part in it.

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

I understand the rationale. I just don't buy it. The production of child porn (in America, anyway) is practically nil. It's souvenirs of child abuse, and it's not the photos that hurt the kid- it's the abuse that does that. Now, you could probably argue that the reason there's so little child porn being produced is BECAUSE of the laws prosecuting possession, and I certainly can't refute that. But I don't know that it's the case, either.

And in terms of drugs? I think many street drugs should be treated like alcohol and tobacco are- legalized, regulated, taxed, and kept out of the hands of minors as much as possible. Drug use is an informed consent issue, imho.

Similarly, I'd like to see age of consent laws revised so that the use of coercion/force is illegal, not sex between individuals of different ages (so that individuals of similar ages could be prosecuted under something analogous to stat rape laws, and consensual sex between individuals of different ages wasn't automatically viewed as coercive).

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

You don't really believe that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex with a 25 year old?

I mean, I'm all for Romeo and Juliet exceptions, but beyond that, no way. The social power that adults have over kids is coercive in itself, and even if a kid thinks she's consenting, she's really not, because she doesn't have the reasoning capacity to understand the situation.

I'm not saying kids don't have sexual desires. Just that their brains aren't developed enough to understand the larger social issues involved, and that makes it way, way too easy for adults to manipulate them into sex.

It's not the sex itself that's the problem. It's the preying on someone who has no way of understanding social power disparity. It's the same problem as having sex with someone who is intoxicated, or mentally ill. The "informed" part of informed consent just isn't there even if a verbalized "yes" is.

I agree with you on the drug laws thing, but as it stands now, drug trafficking is the root cause of a heck of a lot of horrible criminal activity, from exploiting workers in coca fields to gang violence. As long as they remain illegal, buyers are still part of that overall chain, and are still responsible for it. Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to abuse its employees if people didn't shop there, y'know?

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

I think that the capacity to consent is a difficult thing to assess, and a very difficult thing to legislate. Kids develop very differently. As such, I'd like to see age of consent laws (which assume that not only can young teens not consent, but which also assume that older teens can) move towards laws that target the actual circumstances- specifically coercion, pressure, and force.

"It's not the sex itself that's the problem. It's the preying on someone who has no way of understanding social power disparity. It's the same problem as having sex with someone who is intoxicated, or mentally ill. The "informed" part of informed consent just isn't there even if a verbalized "yes" is."

This is exactly my point. Social power disparities can exist in situations where people are the same age (or close enough not to count under existing laws). Similarly, actual consent can be disputed by irate parents or schools or whoever. I'd rather have the court assess the actual specifics involved than simply assume that a 14 year old can't consent to sex with her boyfriend but a sixteen year old can. Don't even get me started on the unjust way these laws are applied to same-sex couples.

I get your point with the market thing, I really do. But the way to get Wal-Mart to treat their employees well isn't to drive them out of business, it's to make them responsible for their actions through regulatory processes.

For now, possession laws make sense. But if we want to move towards that kind of regulatory action, it has to begin with legal possession.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Yeah, age of consent laws are a big, patchwork mess, and most of them aren't based on any real understanding of cognitive development. I know most of them were originally predicated on the age that they figured a girl could get pregnant, and thus should be allowed to get married so she don' have no bastard child. Bleh.

Personally, I'd put the across-the-board AOC at around 16, and have the five-year buffer rule set for that. And I think things like prosecuting a couple of 10-year-olds for playing doctor or prosecuting a 14-year-old for taking nude pictures of herself are preposterous. I mean yeah, you'd want to investigate a little to figure out whether there's just natural curiosity going on or something else, but still.

I hate our cultural madonna/whore complex.