Monday, June 13, 2005

The Michael Jackson Verdict: Where's the balance?

*
Michael Jackson, as seen earlier on CNN. Was it a suprise?

Those of you that visit frequently noticed I had a poll on the side of my blog with various options for the Michael Jackson verdict. I wonder how accurate it really is. Was he guilty as OJ? But was his celebrity, his money, or his flat out weird behavior so great that he walked? I am still blown away by this verdict. True, I was not there. I did not know any more facts than the average person knows from what they heard on their daily drives to and from work or caught on CNN or Fox News at night. I have no legal expertise or actual knowledge of the laws he specifically had been charged in breaking. Yet, some bit of common sense tells me, Michael Jackson's celebrity got him off despite what the truth may have actually been. C'mon, he sleeps with boys!!

So what's the deal with my topic, "Where's the balance?" Balance is the basis of the adviserial legal system. We have prosecution and defense. We have rights to a speedy trial and rights to be only tried once if found not guilty. Rights to a lawyer if you can't afford one. Heck, you are innocent until proven guilty. You have the right to an appeal. Pretty simple eh? No.... not really.

I am a conservative. Pro-Life, Pro Gun, Pro Bush, and well, definitely a fiscal conservative. I hate socialism and I totally believe well into Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand". I believe in the idea of America and our equal freedoms. However, I cannot believe in the death penalty and cases like the Michael Jackson case is the exact reason why. My reason for not being into the death penalty is very much different then let's say the nut jobs over at the ACLU or in the Democratic Party. It's obvious that the ACLU is flat out for control of our freedoms and the way should live. Just look what the ACLU is doing to influence a California State Senator. However, I am digressing here; Michael Jackson, heck even OJ literally bought their way out of the case. So why I against the ability to buy your way out? Especially when I am so into the free market idea and free-economy of competition? Better lawyers really do deserve the better price they get, that is fine, there is nothing wrong. Just like a good research scientist or a good baseball player. However, the legal system is based on balance. How can their be equal balance in a murder or pedophile case when the defendent is a celebrity? The truth is there can't be. Because if we are going to tweak the right to buying the best legal defense possible, far enough to get you off when you really shouldn't, our system of balance will show that someone truly not guilty will fry for it. Why? Resources fighting the top lawyers are lost on cases where no one cares about who's being charged. There are people who deserve to die for their crimes no doubt. Peterson, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez and what not. There still is a chance though, unless evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against people like the previous murderers I mentioned, that someone sitting somewhere has been wronged and is sitting in prison and should not be, because the balance is allowed to shift as far as it does for the rich and powerful. When it's a matter of life and death, we as a country should choose life. It only enhances our freedom. That's why some of us are Pro-Life? Eh?

Comments?

No comments: