Monday, June 13, 2005
I don't care, but...
Seen the M. Jackson coverage? How could you not?
Geez...
OK, I could care less about Michael Jackson. However, one thing I'm tired of hearing is that this little boy's family only wanted money. That's BS.
Let me explain something about the courts...
This was a criminal trial, not a civil torts case. The only outcome of this trial could be Jackson goes free or Jackson goes to jail. No money would go to the family. Any fines that might have been assessed would have gone to the state, not to the family.
And... they could not have been trying to get a settlement, either. Settlements occur only in civil cases, not criminal cases.
Also, a criminal conviction does not have any bearing on a later tort suit, the evidence is usually barred and the two types of trials have different standards of guilt/innocence (i.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. negligence). Just ask O.J. about this...
There just isn't any way that the boy's family could have made a dime off a Jackson conviction in this case (other than possibly selling their story, which they could do at any time, regardless of a conviction).
The only reason the family would have pressed criminal charges and not sued in a civil court is they wanted Jackson in jail. What does that tell you?
Geez...
OK, I could care less about Michael Jackson. However, one thing I'm tired of hearing is that this little boy's family only wanted money. That's BS.
Let me explain something about the courts...
This was a criminal trial, not a civil torts case. The only outcome of this trial could be Jackson goes free or Jackson goes to jail. No money would go to the family. Any fines that might have been assessed would have gone to the state, not to the family.
And... they could not have been trying to get a settlement, either. Settlements occur only in civil cases, not criminal cases.
Also, a criminal conviction does not have any bearing on a later tort suit, the evidence is usually barred and the two types of trials have different standards of guilt/innocence (i.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. negligence). Just ask O.J. about this...
There just isn't any way that the boy's family could have made a dime off a Jackson conviction in this case (other than possibly selling their story, which they could do at any time, regardless of a conviction).
The only reason the family would have pressed criminal charges and not sued in a civil court is they wanted Jackson in jail. What does that tell you?
R.T. Lemur 8:39 PM
2 Comments:
Good point.
It really bugs me when people say that the boy's family only wanted money. Even if that were true it doesn't change the fact MJ probably had inappropriate contact with the little boy. It's not an either or situation.
I appreciated that view on the legal system, rawk on!
I appreciated that view on the legal system, rawk on!