Roz Kaveney (rozk) wrote,
Roz Kaveney

Jackson and Hackson

I have mixed feelings about the Jackson case. I really don't see any need to suspect the jury of having been bought since there were perfectly good grounds for regarding the case as not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, I could see, from what of the evidence I saw - important caveat - a case for regarding him as guilty of a couple of the minor charges. Though since supplying alcohol to a minor is not a crime anywhere else in the world except Islamic states I have some problem even with those. (My parents brought me up to drink small quantities of low-alcohol drinks from the age of about ten or eleven. My grandfather was a drunk and the idea was to teach me and my sister responsible drinking - this more or less worked. When I was told I had to stop drinking because of my pancreas, I could without a shadow of regret, with the exception of allowing myself a glass of champagne on special occasions, which, I made sure with my doctor, is not going to do any damage worth speaking of.)

Do I think that M. Jackson is weird and creepy about children? Yes, I do. And given that he has moved on frm being entirely sexless to using porn, apparently, he is heading in dangerous directions. My strong suspicion is that, on the one hand, there was a reasonable case that he molested the Arviso kid based on Gavin Arviso's testimony, and, on the other, that the Arviso family were exactly the sort of people who would coach a youth until he was genuine in his belief that more happened than did. This is what reasonable doubt means and this is why it is the legal test and not balance of probability. If the Arvisos sue, as perhaps they should, I hope someone will sue them on behalf of their son for putting him in jeopardy in the first place.

After the earlier stories, there was no excuse for letting Jackson spend nights with your kid, even if he was innocent with Macaulay Culkin and even if you believe that Jordan Chandler was bought off, not because much had happened but to prevent a big court case. There is a virtue called prudence, and one of the ways it is exercised is not letting strange weird men spend the night with your adolescent son, however much you trust them.

I also believe that the conduct of the prosecution, and their decision to go with the idea that Jackson is just another sexual predator like any other, was a mistake. It looked like a vendetta in which they were over-invested.

If Jackson has bought justice, in some sense, it is at a price he cannot afford.

I am far more concerned right now with the idiot hacker who is being extradited to the US to face more than a life sentence for blundering around US government websites looking for UFOs. This is in accordance with a treaty which we have expedited and the US has not yet ratified. Given the hellholes that are American prisons, we should never send anyone back, is my private conviction. In this particular case, where he would serve about one year of a four year sentence here, and is looking at seventy in the US, to make an example of him, this is disgraceful. It is also bad in the case of the three Enron accountants, given that far more seriously guilty Enron people are getting off lightly because of political clout.

I also don't think it terribly smart of the US to pick a fight with international hackerdom. That is not a fight that any government is guaranteed to win. I suspect that hackerdom won't fight for this guy, because he is such a crap hacker that the real crazies won't feel solidarity with him. But on some other occasion, things may be otherwise.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.