No, this is where you think I am wrong. If someone is willing to pay $180 to avoid court, then that is a relatively some sum compared to the inconvenience of having to go to court. Either way, I have never just paid a ticket in my life, the two or three times I got a ticket I was speeding and went to class, though once I did try to fight the ticket based on jurisdictional grounds and lost. Anyway, there is a huge difference between $20 million and $180. Even for Jackson, $20 million was the start of his going broke. You would not give away the bulk of your fortune to avoid court unless you were guilty. Let's not forget the first child was able to very closely describe his penis and this is why he settled with the family, to buy silence.

There is a huge difference between not incriminating yourself and buying a witness' silence. Your argument would be better suited to a civil trial than a criminal trial since it usually is easier and better for a celebrity to settle a civil trial whether guilty or not since the settlement costs less money in the long run. When you factor in the bad publicity, legal fees and all the other costs of a civil trial just throwing a small percentage of your net worth is better than a protracted legal battle. However, when you pay off a witness in a criminal trial so that they will no longer testify against you and you use the bulk of your fortune to do so, there can be little doubt that you are guilty.

Would you stop listening to KISS if Paul or Gene were found to be pedophiles?

so you don't have any proof? ok. finished.

KISS is not a solo act. It's a 4 man band, but even so if one of them did something like that it would make it very difficult to listen to them anymore. At all. Fortunately, they haven't (and won't).

Judas Priest would be a better case to compare with Michael's situation, (somewhat) since something like that actually happened. Dave Holland, their drummer from 1980-1988, was convicted of molesting a couple developmentally disabled teenagers. He's currently in prison. The rest of the band wants nothing to do with him. It's not their fault that he committed those acts 15 years after leaving the band. And since they've gone through 6 drummers over the years he was the least important guy in the band, which makes it easier to overlook (kind of like if it had been one of Michael's hired musicians that committed those acts and not Michael - although when I do think about what Dave Holland did I can't help but wonder how the guy could have been so stupid and depraved, and sometimes I wish that I could let the guy who offed Jeffrey Dahmer have a crack at him).

The biggest difference, though, is that Michael IS the act. You can't say that the other guys in the band had nothing to do with it because there was no band - just studio musicians hired to play specific sessions for Michael Jackson.

His own words:
"I want to love you, pretty young thing"
~ Michael Jackson

Ah, so if one of four or five guys does it, that makes it kind of ok, but since he's a solo act, it's not ok?

The point is, he made great music, and regardless of what he did in his personal life, his music will live on and his achievements in music should be recognized.

That's not what I said, entirely. What I said was that if Paul or Gene did that I would have a hard time ever listening to them again.

I'm just saying that the horrible things he did to kids outweighs his musical achievements.

And I'm saying they don't. Because the two aren't related. He made great music. Period. He may also have molested children. But the bad doesn't detract from the good, just as the good doesn't mitigate the bad.

I would say I'm celebrating his life in music while lamenting his personal choices, but am mourning the end of a life that is the sum of all those things.

I just take a different view. It doesn't matter how talented someone is, if they are a bad person and commit horrible acts against innocent victims then that is what they should be remembered for. No moral relativism - if you're willing to commit those acts then you are a bad person and that is what you should be remembered for.

O.J. was a great and much beloved athlete and a halfway successful actor & TV personality. But that's not what he should be remembered for. That's what he should be remembered for throwing away.

I will never mourn for someone who has hurt others like that - especially when he or she hurts the most vulnerable in society. I will merely feel relief that they cannot hurt anyone else ever again.

And where do you draw the line? Some people like Hitler's artwork. Should he be remembered for his art? Is it a sliding scale of crimes or atrocities? At what point do you disregard any talent that a person may have had and just say he or she was a bad person (perhaps even evil - in Hitler's case, for example).

Despite my appreciation for Dave Holland's work with Trapeze and Judas Priest I only think of him as a pathetic, sick human being who probably should have been locked up long ago. If I could do what Tony Iommi did on one of his solo albums (re-record the drum parts with a new drummer instead of using Holland's tracks) for the Judas Priest and Trapeze albums he was involved with, I would. He deserves nothing but contempt.

And that's how I feel about Michael Jackson.

No moral relativism indeed. You pretty much just compared Michael Jackson to Adolf Hitler. By default, I win this argument.

No, I didn't, and you don't. I merely asked at what point does someone's artistic or, "Good" accomplishments become outweighed by the bad? I used Hitler as an extreme point on one end of the spectrum. You could use somebody who is guilty of speeding on a regular basis (as the full extent of their wrongdoing) on the other end.

I'm only saying that in my book once you commit a serious crime that hurts innocent victims you lose any and all consideration for whatever, "Good" or artistic accomplishments you may have made. My example of Dave Holland goes a long way towards making that point.

Look, Richard Wagner was a confessed anti-semite. He even wrote a tract about how Jews couldn't make real music, only shallow and trite music. Adolf Hitler used Wagner's words and music to stir Nazi fervor against Jews. Does that stop me, someone of Jewish heritage, from marveling any less at The Ring Cycle or Tristan und Isolde? No. The music is timeless and outlives the artist's personal opinions on Jews or any other group.

Similarly, Michael Jackson's music will outlive any wrongful acts he may have committed. So you may hate him, or have contempt for him, but some of us feel a connection to an artist through his work. I am not going to apologize for that, or step back and say he isn't deserving of any emotion on my part for his passing. Clearly you feel different.

Well, at least we both know where the other person is coming from.

We'll agree to disagree, I guess. I just don't like seeing the kind of reporting I saw on TV last night that basically turned Michael into a near God being worshipped by his fans. Not one mention of any of his flaws - and there were many (some of which I blame his father for, by the way). It was like his death wiped away his crimes. I'm quite certain that his victims feel otherwise, however.

You guys are arguing about each others opinion?

Here's what to do...

- Appreciate his music in this thread - Music Forum
- Blast his pedophilia (alleged - gotta throw that in there) in the other thread - Other Forum

Now shake hands and agree to disagree, sheesh.

Edit: dammit, don't do any agreeing before my post!

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Jackson or anyone should get a free pass for their wrongdoing because they're dead. But when looking at someone's life immediately following their death, I don't think it's fair to reject all of his or her accomplishments.

Edit: In other words, agree to disagree.

There's a big difference between Michael Jackson and the drummer from Judas Priest...the latter was actually convicted. I think Michael Jackson was weird and had strange habits and I believe he had kids sleep over (he did testify to this, after all...if anything, his admission to this tends to make him more credible in my opinion). However, for every family accusing Michael of wrongdoing, there were several saying he never did anything wrong. I also don't understand how anyone can claim that Michael Jackson settling meant he was guilty and not mention that the family making the claim was willing to settle. If you believe that someone settling means they are guilty, the same argument can be made against the other side; if you are willing to settle, it means that you either didn't have a very strong/convincing case or that you were making it up to get money, and when money was offered, you took it and dropped your accusations.

How do you know what someone would or wouldn't do? Maybe to him, $20 million was a small price to pay to avoid jail time. Maybe he was actually innocent and his attorneys and accountants advised him that by settling with the family, he could avoid jail time and that he could easily recoup that money in the coming years from touring and record sales. Again, settling is not always indicative of guilt. I do not think you are wrong about that; I know you are wrong about that. The example I gave you about the traffic ticket is a smaller scale example, obviously; just because you haven't just paid the ticket doesn't mean millions of others haven't. The $180 might seem like a good deal to avoid more costs and missing work, etc. Maybe for Michael $20 million was worth it to avoid even the possibility of 20 years in prison. And why shouldn't he have been worried? Even if he was innocent the media already pegged him as guilty and the vast majority of America did as well.

And as far as the whole describing the penis thing, I don't understand how that is definitive proof. If he had a tattoo on his penis or something and the kid described it, then okay, but just describing a penis (which every man in America has) seems a bit of a stretch. Not to mention the fact that the description given and Michael's examination revealed it wasn't a definitive match. Oh yeah, and let's not forget that the kid was on DRUGS when he made the statements regarding the molestation.

Again, you presume guilt based on an accusation. I'm pretty sure in our country we have a little thing called innocent until proven guilty. How would you like it if someone accused you of something and you were automatically assumed to be 100% guilty?

And as far as the differences between a civil trial and a criminal trial, you are correct that all of those things happen in a civil trial (bad publicity, legal fees, and damage awards), but you are wrong that they are solely limited to a civil trial. In a criminal trial you also experience bad publicity and legal fees; and instead of damage awards you face jail time. What you say above is flawed then; it isn't better for a celebrity to settle in a civil trial than to settle with a family before a criminal trial. Everything that is avoided in a civil trial is then likewise avoided in a criminal trial (substituting jail time and punishment for damage awards). And I am sure I am not alone in saying that while it would suck to owe someone a lot of money after losing a civil battle, it would be even worse to be in prison, famous, and convicted of child molestation.

But, kstublen - what about the thugs hired by Jackson's lawyer whose only job was to frighten and intimidate witnesses? Doesn't that give you pause? I mean, that's a mafia or gang tactic, not the actions of an innocent man. There were a lot of things going on, and only about half of that information got to the jury.

I get what you're saying, too - but I just can't separate the two. The man created the music. It's the man performing. It was the man who committed those acts against those kids. How do you separate that? I can't.

Perhaps 1500 YouTube videos will change you mind, B5Erik...

Perhaps not...



(I'm not saying a thing about the musical quality, I'm just saying that he did some very bad things and hurt some kids and that isn't something that should ever be forgotten. It's a part of the man who created/performed the music.)

In all honesty then, would any of you have had your kids, nephews, etc - spend the night with Michael Jackson at Neverland Ranch?

I don't know the full story on these so-called "thugs," but I think earlier someone referred to them as private investigators. I don't see anything wrong with having your attorneys or investigators look into the family that is making the accusations' are they in debt, who are they talking to, what type of background do they have, etc.

And in any event, I trust the courts. If that stuff didn't make it before a jury, then there was a reason for it. I know people compare Michael Jackson to OJ Simpson; in that criminal prosecution there clearly was reasonable doubt as to whether or not OJ was guilty (the police didn't follow leads, focused their investigations solely on OJ and no one else, and the prosecution didn't have a convincing case). The standard we have is beyond a reasonable doubt; if there is any reasonable doubt, the person goes free. That is why Michael Jackson went free in the most recent trial and why I am not convinced he was guilty of the first accusations.

I wouldn't let my kid spend the night at any adult's home, family excluded.

Living in SoCal I don't. Celebrities can literally get away with murder here. They get away with almost everything.

And, again, the prosecutor in the Jackson trial was old, near retirement, and out of his league (he had NEVER handled a high profile case before). He was, basically, incompetent (for this case). Jackson's attorneys ran circles around him.

And the, "Private investigators," weren't just doing background checks, they were physically intimitading witnesses. Verbally accosting them. Their job was to frighten and intimidate, and they did that job well.

What about the dictionary definition of "not guilty," surely that's infallible?