# If Michael Jackson is found guilty, where would they put him? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 5, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082 "2005-03-05T14:04:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/41 "2005-03-07T17:35:20Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Actually, the age of consent in the majority of U.S. states is 16. I stand largely corrected. Point is, there is a great difference between inviting a more mature (and presumably more experienced) teenager to share a bed than a barely pubescent child. If this were a case of fifteen, sixteen, seventeen year olds, it would be exploitative but of debatable ethicality. But barely double-digit kids, and (typically) with standing family and health/mortality issues? That’s a very disturbing pattern of behavior. Any “normal” person exhibiting such traits would be immediately suspect. I find it bizarre that people are willing to go to such lengths to rationalize Mr. Jackson’s behavior as somehow acceptible on the basis that he is “weird”. Indeed, his behavior, with regard to children, is weird…as is the case with paedophiles. We don’t know–perhaps the evidence presented to the jury will be less convincing or will offer a more innoculous explaination–but the guy’s statements ring more bells than Westminster Abbey. He’s a veritable five-alarm fire of suspicious behavior. I wouldn’t trust him with a dead parrot, much less a pre-teen child. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/42 "2005-03-07T17:42:09Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > I further presume that a prison system that can deal with all the oddballs California produces could find a place for Jacko. Look, people, isn’t the California–\>oddballs joke a wee bit _played_ by now? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/43 "2005-03-07T17:55:51Z")
I think people don’t have a good understanding of how pedophiles think. Most aren’t guys in raincoats snatching kids off the street. Most pedophiles form relationships with their victims, they don’t want to hurt their victims, they just want to have sexual contact with their victims. It is very common for pedophiles to have arrested development and act in child-like ways and enjoy childish things. It is very common for pedophiles to believe that sexual contact with minors is not harmful, it is very common for pedophiles to feel love for their victims and believe their victims love them back and enjoy the sexual contact. And this is not always completely untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/44 "2005-03-07T18:02:51Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Well, it’d be creepy and bizarre, but that’s Michael Jackson for you. I believe it’s a possibility–if anyone would do it, it’d be a Peter Pan type like him–and I won’t condemn him as a child molestor without evidence that he actually molested anyone. I’ve thought this too; I don’t imagine he fits the usual profile of a child molester. If anyone his age could just “hang out” with unrelated little kids, innocently, it would have to be him. Still, his behavior does seem very suspicious, and it may be the appearance of impropriety that’s at issue. Regardless, I do think the defense has something to work with here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he eventually gets an offer to plead to a much less severe charge. The ultimate result of that would probably include, among other things, an injunction to stay away from kids in the future, so who knows, maybe **START** ’s statement isn’t that far from the truth after all. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/45 "2005-03-07T18:04:52Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > Look, people, isn’t the California–\>oddballs joke a wee bit _played_ by now? Joke? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/46 "2005-03-07T18:06:06Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I think people don’t have a good understanding of how pedophiles think. Most aren’t guys in raincoats snatching kids off the street. Most pedophiles form relationships with their victims, they don’t want to hurt their victims, they just want to have sexual contact with their victims. It is very common for pedophiles to have arrested development and act in child-like ways and enjoy childish things. It is very common for pedophiles to believe that sexual contact with minors is not harmful, it is very common for pedophiles to feel love for their victims and believe their victims love them back and enjoy the sexual contact. And this is not always completely untrue. I suppose I stand corrected…I really didn’t know about this aspect. ---
**Author:** ![Khampelf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Khampelf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khampelf)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/47 "2005-03-07T18:30:34Z")
> [@Phnord Prephect](#): > > Oh would you just BEAT IT! You guys are so _ **Off the wall.** _ ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/48 "2005-03-07T19:58:54Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I think people don’t have a good understanding of how pedophiles think. Most aren’t guys in raincoats snatching kids off the street. Most pedophiles form relationships with their victims, they don’t want to hurt their victims, they just want to have sexual contact with their victims. It is very common for pedophiles to have arrested development and act in child-like ways and enjoy childish things. It is very common for pedophiles to believe that sexual contact with minors is not harmful, it is very common for pedophiles to feel love for their victims and believe their victims love them back and enjoy the sexual contact. And this is not always completely untrue. I think most of us understand all of that very well. And we still think it is _wrong_ (to use the mildest possible term) for an adult to entice a child into sexual conduct. That the pedophile himself might not think the conduct is harmful to the child is utterly unimportant to me. That the pedophile feels romantic “love” for the child doesn’t win him any sympathy points either. (In fact, I find the thought a little nauseating.) The pedophile may have constructed for himself a little fantasy world where pedophilia is OK, and even beautiful, but that is only self-deception. He knows, in his heart of hearts, that it’s _not_ harmless and wonderful. Otherwise, hell, why not just seek the parent’s permission? Surely they would not deny their child such a “wonderful” experience? The pedophile knows, at least, that the conduct is unlawful. He knows that it is anathema in our society. And he’d damned well better keep both of those things in mind and find a way to control himself. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/49 "2005-03-07T21:54:40Z")
Hey, I agree with you Spoke. I’m just trying to counter the idea that Michael Jackson doesn’t fit the “profile” of a pedophile because he seems child-like and doesn’t seem violent. Just because Michael Jackson probably didn’t violently rape any of his alleged victims doesn’t make what he is charged with any less morally reprehensible. I’m just trying to point out that most pedophiles aren’t psychotic kidnappers, child-rapists, child-torturers or child-killers although some are. As for the contention that Michael Jackson should have approached the parents and asked for their consent…well, I imagine that after his first molestation scandal most parents who let their children stay overnight at Michael Jackson’s house had at least some idea of what might happen. That doesn’t make it better of course, it makes it worse. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/50 "2005-03-07T22:13:43Z")
I now see the point you were making **Lemur866**. Sorry I went off. I am a little slow sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/51 "2005-03-07T22:28:51Z")
Sing Sing is a NY state prison. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/52 "2005-03-07T22:37:26Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > That’s some fancy selective quoting you’ve done there, **Mr2001**. Apparently you missed this part from your linked source (regarding the unreliability of reconviction data as a measure of recidivism): Nope, I saw it. If you have numbers that somehow don’t depend on reconviction data, let’s see them. Otherwise, this is the best we have, and it indicates that sex offenders (and particularly child molesters) have a lower recidivism rate than criminals in general. > [@](#): > > Moreover, according to [this site](http://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B388.html), studies showing low recidivism rates are further flawed by their overbroad definition of “sex offender”: (That URL doesn’t work for me - it takes me to the GWU home page. Is there a way to navigate there using the links?) You quoted: _“A closer examination showed that the studies that came out with low rates of recidivism included in their definition of sex offenders teenagers who engaged in premarital sex in public spaces and other such acts that are legally an offense in some jurisdictions, but offer no indication of compulsion.”_ But of course that would only affect the numbers for sex offenders in general, not child molesters in particular. The recidivism rate for child molesters, according to the best data we’ve seen so far, is still lower than for criminals in general. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/53 "2005-03-08T00:52:24Z")
[The Smoking Gun’s complete section on Jacko.](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0228051jacksonopenings1.html) Compare the two different allegations from both Gavin and Jordie Chandler. If he’s not guilty, I’ll eat my slippers with ketchup. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/54 "2005-03-08T01:09:39Z")
The Chandler material has been available for quite some time, IIRC. I imagine that anyone with a strong enough motivation (and stomach) could fabricate allegations that correspond with those made in the earlier case, for just the reason that you would imagine: to bolster the credibility of the accuser. (After all, if it happened once . . .) Remember that MJ denied any improper conduct in the Chandler case, as well. In the end, the correlation between the two sets of allegations shouldn’t impact the trial, since I doubt that anyone will be allowed to talk about the earlier case. As to the OP, I vote for Lompoc. It’s lovely there this time of year. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/55 "2005-03-08T01:23:55Z")
. . . if Lompoc were a **federal** prison, that is. I now vote for Folsom. Not only could MJ do a great remake of the Johnny Cash song, I understand that Folsom is where they make the license plates. Gives MJ a trade, in case that singing thing doesn’t work out for him. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/56 "2005-03-08T03:41:44Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > The recidivism rate for child molesters, according to the best data we’ve seen so far, is still lower than for criminals in general. What data? Read your own [link](http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html). It does not discuss the recidivism rate for “child molestors,” but rather the recidivism rate for the more general group “sex offenders.” As noted in my last post, this could include 17-year-old boys convicted of having sex with 15-year-old girls. And again _your own link_ says the recidivism rates it cites are flawed due to underreporting of sex crime, and since the rates it cites are based upon subsequent _convictions_ (and _not_ subsequent instances of misconduct). Don’t know what went wrong with my GWU link. I can’t get it to work now either. But hey, here’s another [link](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2071722&dopt=Abstract) which discusses recidivism for child molestors specifically: > [@](#): > > The recidivism of 136 extrafamilial child molesters who had received phallometric assessment in a maximum security psychiatric institution from 1972 to 1983 was determined over an average 6.3-year follow-up. Fifty had participated in behavioral treatment to alter inappropriate sexual age preferences. Thirty-one percent of the subjects were convicted of a new sex offense, 43% committed a violent or sexual offense, and 58% were arrested for some offense or returned to the institution. Subjects convicted of a new sex offense had previously committed more sex offenses, had been admitted to correctional institutions more frequently, were more likely to have been diagnosed as personality disordered, were more likely to have never married, and had shown more inappropriate sexual preferences in initial phallometric assessment than those who had not. Behavioral treatment did not affect recidivism. Sounds like a high recidivism rate to me. And again, this is just _convictions_ we’re talking about. The stat we saw earlier said that child molestors commit (on average) 13 offenses for every one they get caught for. So we can assume the true recidivism rate is considerably higher. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/57 "2005-03-08T04:05:08Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > What data? Read your own [link](http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html). It does not discuss the recidivism rate for “child molestors,” but rather the recidivism rate for the more general group “sex offenders.” I read it… did you? I quoted the relevant part in my earlier post. Here it is again, the first bullet point in the “Myth: Most sex offenders reoffend” section, with the phrase “child molester” bolded for your convenience: _ **child molester** s had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period_ And, while I’m at it, here’s the first sentence after the second bullet point: _Another study found reconviction rates for **child molester** s to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995)._ How does that compare to criminals in general? Again, CSOM has an answer (bolding added): _It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly **63%** were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; **47%** were reconvicted; and **41%** were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics)._ > [@](#): > > And again _your own link_ says the recidivism rates it cites are flawed due to underreporting of sex crime, and since the rates it cites are based upon subsequent _convictions_ (and _not_ subsequent instances of misconduct). That’s true of all crime statistics, of course. While the page suggests sex crimes are underreported, it doesn’t give us a way to compare the reporting rate of sex crimes vs. the reporting rate of any other crimes. If you can’t determine how many incidents aren’t included in the child molester numbers _and_ the general criminal numbers, you can’t just guess at one and leave the other uncorrected. What you can do is compare the numbers we actually have, presuming for the moment that one crime is as likely as any other to result in a report and conviction. > [@](#): > > [31-58%] Sounds like a high recidivism rate to me. Perhaps in absolute terms, but not compared to the general rate. See above. > [@](#): > > The stat we saw earlier said that child molestors commit (on average) 13 offenses for every one they get caught for. Is that a trustworthy statistic, or is it simply some GWU student/professor’s WAG? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/58 "2005-03-08T05:01:53Z")
My error in misreading your cite. But we still have conflicting studies. > [@](#): > > Perhaps in absolute terms [a 31%-58% recidivism rate sounds high], but not compared to the general rate. See above. Your apologia for released child molesters notwithstanding, I’d rather not try to raise children while living next door to a child molester with a 31%-58% chance of recidivism. Particularly knowing that this rate likely understates the problem. And given my understanding that a child molester’s sexual orientation and appetites are not likely to change. But hey, YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082/59 "2005-03-08T05:18:05Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Your apologia for released child molesters notwithstanding, I’m sorry you chose to take it that way. I’m just trying to dispel some misinformation… I myself believed that child molesters (and sex offenders in general) had higher-than-average recidivism rate until I learned otherwise in another recent thread. > [@](#): > > I’d rather not try to raise children while living next door to a child molester with a 31%-58% chance of recidivism. Particularly knowing that this rate likely understates the problem. And given my understanding that a child molester’s sexual orientation and appetites are not likely to change. Fair enough. I’d be more concerned about living next door to a murderer, kidnapper, or arsonist, especially in light of these statistics. But I understand why a parent might be more concerned about a potential threat directed specifically at their children, even if that threat is statistically less likely than others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-michael-jackson-is-found-guilty-where-would-they-put-him/293082.md?page=2)