The government of France turns on Polanski: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE58T4ZM20090930

Kirstie Alley turns on Polanski: http://twitter.com/kirstiealley/status/4498421378

All of the above, tipped by HotAir.

It seems that a surprising number of Puffhos are on what I should consider the ‘right’ side of this: in other words, condemning Polanski.

what’s the point of putting Polanski on trial then?

In America, jury trial is the means by which *society*, or *the law* if you prefer, reaches an official conclusion as to whether the individual should be deprived of rights – that is, jailed.

In the case of O.J. Simpson, the weight of evidence and logic is overwhelmingly that he did it. Yet the jury decided that, as an official and social matter, and at that time and for that crime, O.J. should not be subject to sentencing, i.e. should not be stripped of his rights. It doesn’t mean “he didn’t do it” and it doesn’t mean that I personally should walk around thinking “he didn’t do it”. OK?

I can’t believe I have to explain this.

Re: Jackson–honestly, has no one seen The Children’s Hour, one of the classics of gay cinema?

Ash,

I appriciate your defense of Michael Jackson. However, being aquitted does not in and of itself equal innocence, William Ayers being the most risible example. People are going to have their perceptions even if the legal system shows otherwise. Look at Mumia. He’s going to get a pardon in the last days of the Obama administration and has defenders, even though he’s never deinied killing the man.

Other than being acquitted in a very public trial, what could Jackson, or anyone, do to prove he or she is not a pedophile?

Answer: Nothing. There is a saying, “You can’t prove a negative.” Each person who cares about a given criminal issue must use their own judgment to review the evidence and reach their own conclusion. Just because you think O.J. didn’t do it, M.J. didn’t do it, etc., doesn’t mean I have to (or should) agree with you.

If we don’t trust the jury system for Michael Jackson, what’s the point of bringing Polanski back?

Can’t make head nor tail of that. But since you mention Jackson’s jurors again, and seem to place great stock in them: Why don’t you believe the ones who said publicly that they basically think he did it, they just couldn’t bring themselves to convict?

Other than being acquitted in a very public trial, what could Jackson, or anyone, do to prove he or she is not a pedophile?

You leave me no choice but to take that as a “yes” to my first question and a “no” to my second. (I.e., that you think O.J. didn’t kill Nicole and Ron Brown; and that it is not on your radar that a jury could basically conclude the guy did it, yet still vote against convicting him.)

Other than being acquitted in a very public trial, what could Jackson, or anyone, do to prove he or she is not a pedophile?

Please watch The Children’s Hour and get back to me.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

VtheK: Never heard of Salva before. Sounds like a real putz that deserves to be strung up by his gonads.

Jackson faced a trial by a jury of his peers who heard the evidence and acquitted him.

Ash, just from curiousity: Do you also believe O.J. didn’t murder Nicole and Ron Brown? After all, O.J. “faced a trial by a jury of his peers who heard the evidence and acquitted him.” Is the concept of a jury basically knowing that the guy did it, except that “basically” isn’t good enough for a conviction under our Constitution, on your radar? Jackson jurors stated after the trial that that was exactly how they felt about Michael’s crimes.

Its disgusting how many people are defending this guy, even for the “sake of the victim.” If he really cared about her being rung out by the media (as the CNN article tries to make it seem) he would have served his sentence and just been done with it.