I don’t get the whole Michael Jackson case… Why should any judge listen when the question REALLY is why in the hell would you leave your kids with a TOTAL STRANGER, anyway? I’d throw the case out of court, and tell the parents they got what they deserved. If anything, the State should sue the parents for negligence!
Why aren’t the parents to blame in the eyes of the law?
What would they be charged with?
What law did the parents break?
Jackson has never been convicted of anything IIRC, so how can there even potentially be a law against one leaving their kids with him?
Why would parents leave their kids with a total stranger? In this case, he’s rich. Filthy fucking rich (on edit, I see the unintended pun). And their kid is a possible key to getting some of that wealth. I’m not saying that they expected their kid to be molested (and I’m not saying that the kid was molested - I don’t know), but, “hey, the rich guy likes our kid! This could be our big break!”
Whoa-WHAT did the parents get that they “deserved?” To have their child molested? You can argue that the parent “deserved” it…except for the fact that an innocent child was the victim here, not the parents.
:rolleyes:
So, hypothetically, if parents are irresponsible enough to leave their children with a child molester you think the molester should be allowed to molest them?
Leaving aside the question about the culpability of the parents, why would you want to immunize the molester?
Is it what the children deserved?
The idiocy or neglect of a parent in no way lessens a molester’s actions. The molester should still get the same legal consequences. Whether or not a parent is also able to be charged is another, and separate, case.
Unfortunately, it isn’t illegal to be stupid.
Anyone who trusts such a weirdo with their kids is an idiot. If he was innocent last time, why did he pay off that family instead of fighting tooth and nail for his reputation? Even without the prior accusations of abuse, what kind of MORON would trust a guy who acts like a 4 year old and dangles his own child over a balcony? Even if he turns out to be innocent of the most recent charges, something is very wrong with him.
This is probably just tangential to your point, but lots of people don’t think of celebrities as total strangers; they think of them as “people I know,” pseudo-neighbors, maybe even “almost part of the family.” Otherwise, why the hell would anyone care which celeb is seeing whom, who broke up with whom, who’s having a baby, who’s in rehab, and all that other gossip?
One of the tactics of the predatory paedophile is to gain the trust of a child’s parents as well as the child. It is a process of seduction – grooming in UK parlance. It may have an element of corruption too, the giving of presents for example. If someone like Jackson were to be such a predatory paedophile then he is ideally placed for such grooming of parents and children. Yes, there have been serious question marks about his motives for years, however there are also a large number of people prepared to disbelieve the allegations and rumours.
Jackson, according to the official version, is a philanthropist who adores children. Hundreds of kids pass through the gates of neverland every year. Some of these, for some reason qualify for further, visits, gifts and attention. A very small selection become regular visitors, and indeed Michael’s special friends.
So, what might the criteria be to go through all the filters? Well, judging by the previous favourites, good looking, male, under the age of fifteen or so, perhaps needy in some way, ill or in showbiz themselves and wanting patronage. That’s the kids, how about the parents? Well they could be venal or desperate enough, to be willing to sell their kids, they might even be paedophiles themselves. However those kind of people are a risk, more likely to resort to blackmail, they wouldn’t be the preferred option. On the other hand the parents could well be the trusting type, they don’t believe “what they read in the papers”, everyone knows the stuff about celebrities is made up. They probably don’t like to read about unpleasant stuff either, the details of crime reports, articles profiling paedophiles and the like. Even if they are not actually fans they believe Michael Jackson is an admirable man. So, when their child becomes one of the chosen ones, it’s just like a dream come true. The gifts, phone calls and visits happen over a period of months. And by the time they entrust their child to the care of their benefactor he is not a stranger he is a trusted family friend.
Paedophiles, like other sexual predators are accomplished con artists who select their victims carefully. Yes they may target “morons” but also ordinary decent people who are naive and overwhelmed by the glamour of it all.
There’s a fine line between stupid and negligent.
If the parents are found negligent they should be punished too, but that shouldn’t let MJ off the hook if he did anything illegal with those kids.
I’m new to straight dope and was referred here by hubby. I became very frustrated trying to engage in intelligent conversation on headlines in Yahoo - way too much ignorance and stupidity shown there. Apparently such behavior is not tolerated at Straight Dope - to my saving grace.
On Michael. He has a totally different reality from what we every day working class citizens face. He has been rich and has been sheltered from reality most of his life - the years that really count, anyway. In his own words from the Martin Bashir documentary, he was an elementary school child who was given checks of $30 grand and more to do what he pleased. “Here son, ummm, go play - for a sec until it’s time for rehearsal”. He’s never been in any kind of a traditional learining environment. He comes across very “simple minded”. He doesn’t use big words or talk with any sophistication or complexity (which is somewhat rare for someone coming from a wealthy background). The sheltering he received cushioned him from experiencing situations in life where social mores and norms would be learned and exercised.
For most of us, he is freakish in his appearance and in his seemingly bizzare child-like behavior and Peter-Pan mentality. If you watch the documentaries closely, you can almost see several different personalities. When he is with the young boy, it’s almost as if he is a 13yr old himself. At other times, he comes across highly aggitated and nervous. He is most adult like when he is talking about music and when he is in that element.
As far as the allegations go, I usually reserve judgement, but my gut tells me that he did behave innapropriately. From his perspective, there is nothing wrong with hanging out with kids - since he has love for them - and that their interactions are innocent. He claims he would never harm a child. He seems to draw off of their youth and innocence. He talks about that a lot. I think when he’s in close quarters with a male youth that he has developed a relationship with (on a 13yr old’s level), he acts with them in exploring their sexuality together, just like MOST pubescent kids do. For the rest of us, it’s a 40 something yr old molesting a youngster, for him, it’s just two 13 yr olds hanging out, doing what they do.
The trial will likely reveal how the two were getting along. Michael seems to have some sever emotional issues with his childhood rearing. Since he as been revered for so long and now seems to be on the way down, I’m sure that’s having it’s affect on him too.