No, I'm saying that in my mind that's where I would draw the line.
That's what I was trying to clarify. I was thrown by the phrase "draw the line" which is usually referring to an external enforcement. And the line could have been before or after the type of action described. I got it now though.
So I suppose I might be considered a bigot for presuming guilt, but at least give me credit for realizing that my own personal presumptions are not enough to convict.
I'll give you credit for that.
You've got a point, and maybe MJ's lawyers should have stopped him before he paid off the earlier accusors. Had one of those gone to trial and the accusation been discredited, I might have made different assumptions this time.
Uhhhh, regardless of how you want to treat things in your mind, the discussion was our court system. That is supposed to operate on an "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Thus the cases should not have been considered relevant unless they were tried and he was found guilty.
Or at the very least had not already been settled in another manner to the family's satisfaction, and in some cases were willing to come and testify that he wasn't guilty.
You can make a good case that she did, but I don't think you can make an overwhelming case.
Ironically I could make a better case than she did against MJ.
For one thing, you say that if it is established that a, for instance, 12-year-old has had sex with an adult, all the kid should have to say is that he was harmed in order to punish the adult. But what if the kid were 17 (which would be over the AOC in most states, I think). Don't you think a 17-year-old should have to do more than simply claim he was harmed?
These are the types of discussions which would be very useful and could lead to different types of systems from place to place. Personally I liked the system the dutch had in place until very recently (it may still be in force but they are currently discussing a full adoption of the US federal rules).
That involved parental and professional complaint up till 12. From 12 to 16 a child or professional group (in case of kids with disabilities) could lodge a complaint.
It is technically an AOC law, specifically because under 12 sex with kids would generally get prosecuted. However it does not necessarily have to be that way.
I do agree that at some point the use of lesser evidentiary requirements to label an act "rape" would have to be defined arbitrarily. I do believe 17 yo's should belong to the higher level of evidence class normally used for traditional rape cases.
My thoughts are from 0-12 or maybe even 14, lesser evidentiary requirements would be useful. After that, kids are generally capable of stating what happened and how they have been effected.
More scientific evidence regarding connection between perceived negative acts and
actual "harm" could be useful in better defining this line.
By the way, I am not arguing that the kid has to claim that they were "harmed". The point is that research shows a child having viewed the act as negative due to coercion or physical treatment during sex can be correlated with harm, even those "harms" which don't appear till later in life. Thus a kid's statement that the sex was against their will or over their will or abusive in its execution could be enough to be the standard for defining harm, rather than waiting to have the traumas develop.
Thankfully this allows kids who feel they have not been coerced or abused to be able to view their actions as positive ones and not be abused by the judicial system.
The idea that "we" can be the best judge, or need to be extra careful and assume harm based on age, has been severely undercut (I'd say "proven" as close as can be) by scientific evidence.
MJ was never tried in those cases. He settled out-of-court.
You misunderstood my point. To use another case to gain a conviction in a present case is trying a person for that other case, specifically when one does not have sufficient evidence in the present trial.
We are only supposed to see a trial for one case once. Let's say MJ was convicted here and for some reason did something to void the contract on the other case and so they decided to go to court... he's then be getting tried twice for the same crime.
It is very dangerous to be arguing that people should be tried based on the suggestion of other possible cases. I get how that could be useful in sentencing, but not in the trial itself.
Ordinary joes are tried for sexual crimes against children all the time,
True, and in some cases people can even be convicted on false testimony or no evidence, as we likely saw them attempting here.
My point is that that is not a proper way to run a court system and in many this would not have seen the light of day as it was simple he said/she said testimony, with nothing else but the suggestion of other cases with which to get a conviction.
Certainly if MJ were an average Joe, he'd have more likely never seen charges brought by the DA or have the charges accepted by the court. MJs fame (or infamy at this point) pretty well guaranteed him a trial.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
