RoR: Forum

Good article Tibor.

What I found quite surprising in the aftermath of the trial was that apparently a spokesman for MJ said that he would no longer sleep in the same bed with boys.

This is a double whammy statement. On the one hand, it looks good from a PR point of view. On the other hand, if he is really innocent, it looks like he is kowtowing to his persecutors. On top of that, if he innocently does it again, and is found out by the media, then his credibility will be tarnished.

Another bizarre incident in the aftermath, was his jurors going on chat shows and saying that they think that he did abuse children in the past. I don't think that jurors are allowed to do that in this country. I can't ever remember it happening before. Does anyone remember if the OJ Simpson jury were interviewed after the case?

Jackson as you say, is obviously weird. But it is a relief to find out that he is innocent. I would rather believe that he did not do it. Even if there is a fine line to decide whether having sex with a sexually mature thirteen year old should be legal or not, I still do not approve of sex with children as they are not yet competent enough to defend themselves or to make decisions for themselves in this regard.

The child Jackson was accused of abusing was clearly too young at the time, and that would have been child abuse and a punishable crime in my opinion.

Post 1

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:44am

On sex involving 13 year olds, I tend to agree that as a rule any consent is open to question because of immaturity, although (a) there can be exceptions, and (b) plenty of "adults" lack maturity too. A case by case look would be needed to tell about this and, obviously, few of us have the resources for such intense scrutiny. But my main point was that favoring the verdict, even from ignorance, needed not involve some kind of insidious racism.

Post 2

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:00am

These 'children' as you say commit horrendous crimes often resulting in their being tried as adults. It is also clear that kids are engaging in sex at a very early age. If 12-14 year olds regularly engage in sex the issue of consent may now be moot.

Post 3

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 9:14am

Hello Tibor

Thanks for your thoughts. It brought to mind a movement many years ago, to give the franchise to children, once they reach the age of compulsory schooling. I can't recall any details about the group that launched the idea; but I do remember the totally irrational arguments against the proposal.

Sharon

Post 4

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:42am

Two themes trouble me. The first is certain discrimination based on race is okay. The second, more brought out in the comments to the article, is the notion that some 13 year olds may be mature enough to consent to sex with adults.

First, the extent to which blacks feel personal exultation at Michael Jackson's acquittal, because Michael is black, and they are black, is wrong. If somone shoots Michael and he dies, the cheering person does not also die. The only unit of conciousness is the individual. And thinkiung in certain ways can become habitual. Suggesting that thinking of 'blacks' as a single unit is okay in this context means that it is okay in other contexts for which one can devise an excuse. I disagree. Every BLACK person is really a black PERSON. We'd all do best to remeber that and act accordingly. Our justice system is here to prosecute and punish criminals. It's success is the success of all citizens, or at least, it is supposed to be. It is a sad symptom of disdain for our Justice system that the very citizens it serves cheer when it fails.

Second, I think we should be clear that NO 13 year old is mature enough to consent to sex with an adult. If 2 13 year olds are sexually active, that's one thing. But no 13 year old is capable of a truly consensual physical liason with an adult, and even entertaining such notions places proponents in the NAMBLA camp, as far as I am concerned. I still have vague recollections of my mindset and focus at 13. The idea that any 13 year old can consent intelligently, knowingly, and EQUALLY with an adult in a relationship involving the dynamics and risks of sex is patently ridiculous. This idea is an express lane to child exploitation, and so is dangerous, and should be nipped in the bud.

Other than that, I like Tibor's rarely-heard refusal to try the accused in the COurt of public opinion when he is not party to the actual law and evidence of a particular case. More people ought to know this, or keep this in mind--the evidence is NOT what you hear or see on TV. The evidence is only what the Judge and Jurors hear and see. Without the same evidence, how can a non-Juror come to a reasonabe conclusion based on the evidence they do not have? They cannot. That's why we have juries, rather than general elections, to determine innocence or guilt. I wish more laymen understood and accepted this.
(Edited by Scott DeSalvo
on 6/17, 5:50pm)

Post 5

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 2:07pm

I was delighted with the not guilty verdict of the jury in Jackson's case. I had the impression that Jackson had been set up, that his wealth, fame, and wierdness made him an inviting target for con artists and unscrupulous prosecutors, and I feared for the guy.

Scott DeSalvo has vastly more confidence in the US "justice" system than I do. That prosecutors are quite often politicians without scruples is clear from a long list of hit jobs they've performed on hapless innocent Americans--from Mike Milliken and Martha Stewart to Gerald Amiralt and numerous other persecuted victims of the child molestation scams of the Eighties. Paul C. Roberts has written a hair-raising book that documents the corruption and abuse that saturates the present "justice" system.

Juries are easily swayed by emotional appeals to "send a message" or punish "wrongdoing" that happens to be legal. At least in the case of juries that review criminal cases, unanimity is required; as concerns civil suits, all that's needed to wrongfully strip someone of his assets is a majority vote. Recall the case in the early nineties in which Pennzoil ripped off a couple of billion dollars from another oil company, courtesy of a jury inflamed by appeals to their worst emotions.

I think the OJ Simpson case is a prime example of the not infrequent dishonesty and lack of principle displayed by juries in contemporary US culture. Of course, I wasn't privy to every fact, but I read and saw enough--not to convict--but to form definite ideas about the probability of Simpson's guilt. I'd be glad to bet substantial money on this question. Lots was written about "reasonable doubt" inspiring the O.J. Simpson "not guilty" verdict. However, what inspired the jury was its mistrust of reason, its embrace of unreasonable doubt whooped up by considerations of race.

Post 6

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 2:56pm

Typically speaking, I think what Tibor saw was a common reaction, and that it was indeed, sadly, still a white-black thing. I don't think it was about same-sex pedophilia. Homosexuality alone in the black community at large is still an extremely volatile issue. Trying to come out gay in the 'hood is a deadly survival situation- I can't even imagine what they'd be about as far as treatment of pedophiles. I am saying this as a colorblind white man who works hands-on every day in a very dangerous inner-city black neighborhood.

And, I don't there's an overriding element of celebrity/musical icon hero worship to use as accounting for it. The man is my age and at the street level they're listening almost entirely to other stuff.

This is where we are at, still. This was widely seen once again as yet another plot by The Man to Keep a Brother Down. The line still runs deep. I believe that if he had been convicted, there would have been riots.

Deep. Remember when MLK talked about Sunday morning 11:00 being the most segregated hour in America? It still is. And that's freaking church.

We work for change.

Rich Engle
Wondering how many black guys are on this board...

Post 7

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:20pm

Tibor, you are neutral in your assessment of the OJ case?? You obviously must have missed him fleeing from police in his Bronco with a gun and big wad of cash (headed for Mexico). Not quite the behavior one would expect of an innocent man whose wife had just been brutally murdered, methinks. Anyhow, sorry for the thread hijack, just had to point that out.
(Edited by Pete on 6/17, 6:14pm)

Post 8

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 4:48pm

"My own take is that I have no take when I am not part of the jury."

A brilliant line, and an excellent point.

Post 9

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 5:43pm

An excellent article Prof. Machan.

As far as the O.J. Simpson case goes, the physical evidence and "staging" from the crime scene suggests only one likely perpetrator. O.J. Simpson.

Ethan

Post 10

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:36pm

Good article, Tibor! A couple of comments on the discussion:

1. Whatever your personal opinion of the ~actual~ guilt or innocence of Michael Jackson (or O. J. Simpson, for that matter), it is important to remember that a jury verdict is a ~legal~ determination, which may or may not accurately mirror the truth. That is why we should interpret a "not guilty" verdict not as ~found to be not guilty~, but as ~not found to be guilty~. Being cleared of legal charges against one does not alter reality; it is just a statement of a panel of twelve people's ~judgment~ about reality, based on the evidence provided to them. (And this sword cuts both ways. Had Michael or O.J. been found guilty by his jury, that does not mean that he was ~in reality~ guilty of the crime. If he was, he was; if he wasn't, he wasn't; and that state of affairs is independent of the conclusion of a jury assessing the evidence for that state of affairs.)

2. Age of consent is a tricky issue, because people, including teenagers, can vary so much in their maturity level and ability to take on adult responsibility for judgment and action. A female cousin of mine got pregnant in the 8th grade; I think she was 14, maybe even 13 at the time she got pregnant. Her parents probably could have had her boyfriend prosecuted for (statutory) rape -- this was in the early 60s -- but instead they allowed her and her boyfriend to marry. I have not heard from or of her for a long time, but I presume they are still married; they were still together as of the births of their various grandchildren some years ago. I think it is clear that this was exactly the right way to handle the situation, rather than criminalizing the boy, who was 18 or 19 at the time. Had there been no pregnancy, the only way a legal issue would have arisen would have been if the parents found out and wanted to punish one or both kids, or if my cousin had gotten angry and wanted to punish her boyfriend. In either case, using the law as a tool of childrearing or revenge is an abuse of the law -- and of the rights of the minors involved.

Roger Bissell

Post 11

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:43pm

Marcus wrote:

"What I found quite surprising in the aftermath of the trial was that apparently a spokesman for MJ said that he would no longer sleep in the same bed with boys.

"This is a double whammy statement. On the one hand, it looks good from a PR point of view. On the other hand, if he is really innocent, it looks like he is kowtowing to his persecutors. On top of that, if he innocently does it again, and is found out by the media, then his credibility will be tarnished."

Well, it should be remembered that Michael ~already~ has "innocently done it again," the first time being about 12 years ago, when he settled out of court by paying multi-millions to a would-be accuser.

I think the best way to interpret MJ's current decision is along the lines of the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." In other words,
the first time he opened himself up (guiltily or innocently) to being charged with child molestation as a result of his lifestyle (viz., sleeping with boys) could be dismissed as persecution by society or the legal system. The second time has to be a result of his own stupidity. Apparently he is saying, "I won't be that dumb again."

Roger Bissell

Post 12

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:46pm

What's your solution, Mark? Wholesale dismissal of the jury system? What's the alternative? All cases being Judge or Administrator-decided? I don't know how familiar you are with politics (and the epidemic crookedness involved therein), but that would be, literally, a nightmare for justice. Our jury system works better than anything yet devised, and the right to trial by jury also happens to be a cornerstone fo the Constitution. For every bad case, there are thousands upon thousands decided correctly, or at least based on the actual evidence presented. I would suggest that you heed Tibor's approach of witholding judgment of what happened in a courtroom unless and until you have the same facts and instructions on the law the jury had.

I will be the first to admit that mistakes are occasionally made. That is why we have Appellate Courts and Supreme COurts, to reverse bad decisions. Happens on occasion, but the fact that the very rare bad decisions are actually corrected on appeal is not as likely to get you to tune into CNN or buy a newspaper, so they are never reported.

I do not support mistaken judgments, but I AM a tremendous fan of the jury system, precisely because I trust the intellect of the truck driver, the factory worker, the brick-layer. Real people in the real world, will, more often than not, make the absolute correct decision when given the law and the facts. It is the silver spoon legislators and Judges that are far more likely to make a snapo decision, or a decision made upon political favor or expediency of the moment.

Post 13

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:59pm

The reasoning ability of an 18 year old is usually an order of magnitude greater than a 13 or 14 year old's. Even if you have a really bright 13 year old and a really dumb 18 year old, the average 18 year old has alot of important life experience gained in a period of intense self-discovey (teenage years). As is the maturity level. As is the ability to manipulate those younger for your own ends. Frankly, I am rather appalled at the SUPPORT for sex between adults and 13 year olds I am finding on this board, based upon arguments that "maturity level varies." Of course it does.

What if we have a really mature and intelligent 7 year old girl who 'wants' to have sex with a 40 year old man? If they are 'in love' and she is 'really mature' is it then ok? If not, why not? Using your criteria, it is a subjective 'maturity' evaluation, and not a clearly drawn line as a jusgment as to when conduct is legal or not. Clearly drawn lines are essential in the law, for advisory reasons. The law needs to be clearly defined for it to be reasonable to follow. Despite the repeated assertion on this board that 13 or 14 year olds ~may~ be 'mature' enough to have sex with adults, certainly we should be able to agree that ~the vast majority~ of 13 or 14 year olds should in no way be involved in a sexual relationship with an adult. Ergo, assuming you believe that the law SHOULD regulate these things, a law legally protecting minors from what would almost certainly be a predatory relationship is a good idea.

No insult or derision implied, but if I had a 13 or 14 year old daughter, she would be dating an 18-year old over my dead body. If my 14 year old son was having a sexual relationship with his 34 year old school techer, I'd call the cops, or take care of it myself. I mean, YUCK.

Post 14

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:18pm

Michael Jackson is black?

I had forgotten that.

Seriously.

I know it's an overdone late-night punch line, but it never entered my mind. But then skin pigment rarely does.

Maybe it would if I'd been kicked around because of mine, and maybe this is easy for a white guy to say, but my attitude on race is simple: Get over it, folks.

It's an issue only as long as we make it one. It's all between our ears.

Nathan Hawking

Post 15

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:42pm

Here's my take on age of consent laws: arbitrary but necessary. Even Europe has them, they're just more lax than here in America. I personally think that that the consent age in America should be 16, and that anyone over 21 caught getting it on with someone younger than that should automatically be brought before a judge or jury to determine if the act was indeed predatory.

Post 16

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 1:12am

My favorite line of the article:

-----------
Ignorance may not be bliss but it’s better than prejudice.
-----------

Post 17

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 8:46am

Rich Engle wrote:

"Typically speaking, I think what Tibor saw was a common reaction, and that it was indeed, sadly, still a white-black thing. I don't think it was about same-sex pedophilia. Homosexuality alone in the black community at large is still an extremely volatile issue."

I don't think the joy and relief after the verdict was a black/white thing. I mean, was I the only one watching Court TV? Remember the white lady releasing the doves as the verdict for each count was read? And the entire crowd of thousands of mostly white Jackson fans sobbing in the background? I think it is much more of a diehard fan/Wacko Jacko divide which has nothing to do with race.

I also take issue with bringing homosexuality into it at all. Michael Jackson isn't, or hasn't been accused of being, a homosexual. He has been accused of being a pedophile. To imply a link between pedophilia and homosexuality is inaccurate, although the religious extremists in America would have you believe they are one and the same.

From the article:

"When a group of people is grouped by others and picked on for traits over which they have absolutely no control, they will quite naturally huddle together, at least until the picking has stopped."

I thought this article was interesting, and this part resonated with me. I saw the movie "Crash" a couple of weeks ago, and although parts of it were a bit overdramatic, I thought it illustrated subtle racism in a thought-provoking way. I probably would never have gone to see it, but I enjoyed Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda and I was drawn to Crash because he was playing a lead.

Racism is all around me in Philadelphia. Just because it isn't rational doesn't mean it doesn't happen to people every day, and to pretend that it doesn't have an effect on the people it is happening to is ridiculous. To see people rise above it, and demonstrate strength of spirit IN SPITE of having been abused in this way, is very exciting to me. I hope that in my own work I can, in some small way, help children from bad neighborhoods realise they have the ability to change things for themselves even though they will encounter injustice. This has become one of my primary motivators, and believing that I am taking an active role in facilitating change makes me feel incredibly potent.

(I think I might have used some terms from Linz's most hated words list, so sorry for talking like an HR dweeb for a second.)

Post 18

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 9:40am

For much of human history, 13-14 year olds had sex, had babies, and had to work to keep themselves alive. Thus the human race has lasted this long.

Many cultures have had the concept of 'coming of age', a valuable idea I think is lacking in most modern western countries. It tends to be correlated with puberty, not just an arbitrary age, and involves ceremony and often action/trial to prove that a child is now worthy to be called a man or a woman.

Before coming of age, someone is a child - not responsible for their own support, signing contracts, and off limits for sex with adults. After coming of age, they are an adult and must assume responsibility for feeding and clothing themselves, can work, leave government mandated school, sign contracts, and have sex with other consenting adults.

I don't know exactly how this would work in a diverse, secular, modern society, but perhaps the legal point of coming of age could be something like with parental/guardian consent, or child's ability to show they could line up a job and housing to support themselves for x months. Different cultures, religions, etc. could of course add ceremony to this passage, as they still do for marriage. I expect most rights of passage would fall between ages 13-16, with a few precocious younger outliers and a trailing tail of older ones.

Post 19

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 9:58am