Quote:
Originally posted by Attalus:
Let's turn the discussion on its head. Let's take MJ and his eccentricities out of it, for a bit. Say, we have a celebrity, call him X. X never has been married, except briefly. He likes girls, but not those older ones, just young ones. He is friends with a lovely 12 year old girl. Her family, who are fans as well as friends, have no problem with Miss Y spending the night with X, even though they sleep in the same bed. After all, they live in the state of Z, where your entire social position is determined by your proximity to and relationship with, celebrities. Would you, Bardan and Timber, not assume something was going on? Even though X, Y, and Y's parents deny it?
|
Yes, I would *assume* that there was somehitng going on. However, I would also remember that this was exactly that - *assumption*, and knowing only all too well that "Assumption is the mother of all ****-ups", I would withold judgement until it was proven that something illegal had been happening.
I may well *suspect* something was wrong. I might even *suspect* strongly enough to inform the police of my suspicions. However, I would not refer to X as a child abuser.
I actually have little to no problem with the people that have complain to the police about people such as X and their actions. I *do* have a problem with the whole 'assumed guilt' thing. X and Y might sleep in the same bed, but that is not to say that X and Y have sex. Assuming X is guilty of a crime because he sleeps in the same bed as Y,
in spite of what X, Y and Mr. Y and Mrs Y say would lead me down the road that ends in saying that any deviation from what we would expect or assume according to our societal norms
must involve criminal actions, and that the evidence of witnesses is of lesser importance than the expectations and assumptions of the public.
That is very dangerous ground.
Ultimately, the burden of proof is on you to say X committed a criminal act and prove it. The burden is not on X to say and prove that he did not. Until the moment where it is proved that X did indeed act illegally, then you can safely call him all the names you want. until then, saying "X is a criminal" is slander (or libellous - one of the two. I am unaware of the distinction, though Inknow there is one).
Of course I believe there is a possibility MJ is a paedophile. Of course I recognise that the evidence is enough to make people regard him with varying degrees of suspicion. However, there is no proof to back those suspicions up, and until there is I am forced to conclude that MJ is not a criminal.
Of course, then we get in to the whole area of 'what would you accept as proof', and there the waters get murky
NB - the British Government has recently started making moves towards changing the burden of proof in sexual assault cases onto the defendant and not the plaintiff. However much I despise sexual criminals for the scum they are, making someone 'prove' there was consent is in my opinion assumed guilt until proven innocence, and is a terrible thing for a civilised country to even consider. I knwo this is not directly related, but perhaps it just is part of the reason the whole 'assumption' thing is strong in my mind right now.