Do you think that Jackson should be made a pariah just as society has done to OJ? There have been pllenty of allegation s and plenty PROOF of child sexual abuse by Jackson, but Jackson had the money to get out of the trouble just like OJ got away with the murders from hiring a "dream team". Shouldn't Jackson be treated the same way, like a pariah? after all, OJ killed 2 ADULTS who at least HAD a chance to live , Jackson by molesting kids stole any life and soul from CHILDREN before it ever had a chance.
2006-12-25 03:51:30 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
ok he has many fans many people are still fans of the football records OJ set, because he still has fans that equals into he can still make money for some record company right? I am talking morally people , morally should Michael Jackson be given adulation and a chance to perform?comeone he MOLESTED CHILDREN!
2006-12-25 03:55:23 · update #1
and DON'T FORGET how many times parents DROPPED charges cause he paid them off, which doesn't say much for the parents but then this question is about Jackson not them.
2006-12-25 04:45:32 · update #2
the bleeding heart also remember that the victims and their families WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. I will hold no memorials for either one of these dirtbags.
2006-12-25 04:47:37 · update #3
No as he is a child molestor. That is exceedingly evil. Just consider the message our acceptance of him would send to society.
2006-12-25 03:55:21 · answer #1 · answered by JD 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋
It has not been proven that he actually molested children. Let's get that clear. He was acquitted of all charges. Now, should he be allowed, yeah. I think that everybody deserves a second chance in life. Kinda like how Bill Clinton got a second chance when he cheated on his wife with an intern. I can list a lot of people that have gotten 2nd chances, and are now either as good as or better now than they were back in the day. But, if he makes a comeback, people probably won't buy the record. Mostly because of the charges, and because it's still fresh in the minds of others. But at least give the man a chance.
2006-12-25 04:01:46 · answer #2 · answered by superkrogerbaggerman 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Michael Jackson was found NOT guilty in a court of law because there was absolutely NO evidence!! Read up on the trial and you will see that the charges were ridiculous and the accusers were just gold diggers with a get rich quick scheme!! Michael Jackson would never do anything to harm any child EVER!!
It doesn't matter anyway because you can't stop him from releasing a new album or making his big comeback!! If you don't like him then quit worrying about him!!
♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥
2006-12-25 12:13:21 · answer #3 · answered by ♥Stranger In Maine™♥ (Thriller) 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Though you have plenty of good "personal" arguments, I must point out that in a court of law, there are different rules. One of them is "beyond a shadow of doubt". Under the law, Michael Jackson was found innocent of the charges, and therefore should be allowed to continue his life as he sees fit.
Of course, we all have our thoughts & feelings on his situation, as with that of O J Simpson, but the fact is that the law was followed, and they were both aquitted. If we allow our feelings to dictate what should happen to them afterwards, then the legal system fails. We fall into what is called vigilantism, or taking the law into our own hands. Once that happens, we are no longer a country of laws, but of chaos.
Also remember, no matter what, both Michael Jackson and O J Simpson will never be the same. Their lives will never be the same. They might have money & freedom, but personally, I would not want to be in either of their shoes. That cloud they must constantly live under must weigh a ton.
Peace!
2006-12-25 04:09:03 · answer #4 · answered by ltcmdr49022 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I just wanted to let you know that there hasn't been plenty of PROOF of Michael Jackson sexually assaulting children. If there had been, he would have been convicted the times he went to trial, or so we have to believe. So morally, yes, I believe he should be allowed to perform, if you think that your profession should be decided by morals. If he hurts someone and we have proof, then he should get help or go to trial. It would then be up to the judge or Michael to decide if he doesn't want to perform.
Also, OJ didn't just get off because of a 'dream team.' He got off because the police screwed up the investigation. I think that's a big difference.
2006-12-25 04:06:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that Jacko Wacko has been that good in years. It's not the "Thriller/Bad" days. However, I feel that people should seperate his deeds from his music.
In additioin, the other hand Mike knew that his past would come with the terriority therefore, MJJ shouldn't have done the crime. He saw what happended to Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Rev Haggart, Jessie Jackson, Bill Clinton, William Kennedy Smith, and Susuan Smith to name a few. Smith wasn't even known until her notority. What's Mike's problem?
2006-12-25 04:13:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No! He does not set a good example for the following reasons:
1) He is a closet racist: a) He hates his own black skin so much that he got medically bleached with an experimental process from head to toe. b) He hates his African looks so much that he had plastic surgery done to remove all his African looks
2) He is a child molester.
3) He can't hold down a marriage.
4) He has no principles or ethics when one thinks of him.
5) He is insignificant as an influence to young people for the above reasons.
2006-12-25 04:02:13 · answer #7 · answered by zoomat4580 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If you were Micahel Jackson would you like to be given the opportunity to get back on stage just because this is what you do best,and after all if he has not been found guilty by Anny court why should we judge !
2006-12-25 04:06:14 · answer #8 · answered by jimmy p 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah
2006-12-25 06:33:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't worry about Michael Jackson. If he is taking as many pain pills as rumored, then he isn't going to be alive much longer.
2006-12-25 03:56:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
He shouldn't be allowed a comeback just based on the fact that it isn't the 80s anymore. I would hope that most everyone would be over it by now.
2006-12-25 04:00:46 · answer #11 · answered by Alex 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋