Michael Jackson...role model?

[agame2323]

I think you are now just running at the mouth for the sake of making an argument....


Well therein "lies" the problem...your thinking again.

 

[agame2323]

It's very easy for an adult to say they would most definitely do what is morally correct in this situation. Its is not the same for a 10 year old victim to think in those terms.

^^^^Thats what parents are for. To guide, protect, support. You just don't allow the kid to take on the entire ordeal on his or her own. Wait I'll rephrase it...GOOD PARENTS don't allow the kid to take on the entire ordeal on his or her own.

Do you really know any child that was sexually abused at the hands of an adult they most likely trusted who would be willing to face their abuser and have to relive their whole ordeal in front of a judge, 12 jurers and a court full of spectators because they believe it builds character in them? If so I think you know some remarkable children.

Here is example of a brave girl who attempted to do the right thing. Oh wait, maybe her parents should punished him by taking his money and he would have gone away. What were they thinking

www associatedcontent com /article/957299/child_rape_victim_must_face_her_perpetrator.html?cat=17

 

[redrosesix]

...You think there should be some level of punishment and if the child is unable to handle what’s to come, a settlement should be made to make up for the absence of going to court.

^^^^That is what your trying to say correct? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are trying to state. Where do the incorrect implications take place?

Look, I’ll make this simple. God forbid, If my child were to come to me one day and say he was violated I would WANT to go to great measures to make sure that individual gets punished in a court of law. However, if my child could not handle it, and knows that if they truly can’t this person walks away, I would have to end it. The person who violated my child better move away from me and hope I never see them again.

I guess, again tell me if I’m wrong, you would not drop it but instead say “I want X amount of dollars because I'm punishing you and this is what’s right for my child.”

Now, if I’m correct about your point (which I believe I am) the only difference between what I said and what you are saying is the issue of money. Your stance is punishment by money. My stance is punishment by the Justice System or nothing.

Okay…I think we are on the same page now, right? So from here, its all about how you view your own morals and standards.

To some calling the acceptance of money a means of punishment sends a message to your kids that says, lessons can be taught with money. Now money becomes an equalizer. You wanna settle the score, hit’em in the pockets. I can’t do it. Its too hard, money will fix. Money fixed my childhood problem. It protected me from facing my fears. It’s a way to punish and reward, all in the same instance. If that somewhat reflects your belief, more power to you.

To others the message is even in the most difficult times we must always do what’s morally correct. We will not take money from a criminal and walk away saying “yup, we sure showed him not to mess with us.” Some people may believe situations like going to trail to face a sex offender builds character in a child. It empowers them. Because of THEM (the child) other children in the world are a bit safer. Mom and Dad stood behind me and supported me and because of that we are closer as a family. If this somewhat reflects your belief, more power to you.

I think your a decent guy so I'm going to suggest the ladder. Although I could be wrong. I've been wrong before.

BTW…I didn’t dress it up too much for you did I? If I did it was completely by accident. I went without the tie and the sports coat.

Wow, this certainly has gone off on a tangent.

I would just point out that child molestation charges are among the hardest to prosecute. There are seldom witnesses or material evidence. In the case of a one time incident, it may even be hard to prove that the accused was in the place that it supposedly happened at that time. Unfortunately, it is often the case that a pedophile cannot be successfully prosecuted unless there are several victims who can supply corroborating testimony.

So, if the success of a trial hinges on the testimony of one child, that may discourage not only the parents but also the prosecutors. The issues of money aside, I can see why many parents would not want to force their child to testify against the perpetrator. And if the perpetrator then offers an out of court settlement, they may or may not choose to take it.

As for the settlement itself, civil courts rarely have any other way to punish an offender than to require restitution in the form of cash. There usually is no tangible way to make a person whole again after they have been injured -- they can be compensated for their expenses, loss of income, pain and anguish, but none of that makes it as if the crime never happened, really. And when it is viewed as compensation, it becomes a whole other thing than punishing the offender. Does this punish the offender? Maybe. But I would contend that there are few people who would be accused of such a crime that would have the ability to pay the amount of money a civil court would levy in a case of child molestation.

Does the fact that MJ paid a family mean that he committed a crime? Certainly not. However, I could understand that he would want to pay an accuser to withdraw their charges on the basis that it would ruin his reputation and career, regardless of the validity of those charges. What he paid was likely a fraction of the damage that would be done to him, even if the charges were ultimately found to be baseless (as evidenced by the lack of acceptance of the not guilty verdict in the later charges) -- I'm quite sure his advisors strongly encouraged him to settle, even if he had wanted to fight the charges.

 

[agame2323]

Wow, this certainly has gone off on a tangent.

I would just point out that child molestation charges are among the hardest to prosecute. There are seldom witnesses or material evidence. In the case of a one time incident, it may even be hard to prove that the accused was in the place that it supposedly happened at that time. Unfortunately, it is often the case that a pedophile cannot be successfully prosecuted unless there are several victims who can supply corroborating testimony.

So, if the success of a trial hinges on the testimony of one child, that may discourage not only the parents but also the prosecutors. The issues of money aside, I can see why many parents would not want to force their child to testify against the perpetrator. And if the perpetrator then offers an out of court settlement, they may or may not choose to take it.

As for the settlement itself, civil courts rarely have any other way to punish an offender than to require restitution in the form of cash. There usually is no tangible way to make a person whole again after they have been injured -- they can be compensated for their expenses, loss of income, pain and anguish, but none of that makes it as if the crime never happened, really. And when it is viewed as compensation, it becomes a whole other thing than punishing the offender. Does this punish the offender? Maybe. But I would contend that there are few people who would be accused of such a crime that would have the ability to pay the amount of money a civil court would levy in a case of child molestation.

Does the fact that MJ paid a family mean that he committed a crime? Certainly not. However, I could understand that he would want to pay an accuser to withdraw their charges on the basis that it would ruin his reputation and career, regardless of the validity of those charges. What he paid was likely a fraction of the damage that would be done to him, even if the charges were ultimately found to be baseless (as evidenced by the lack of acceptance of the not guilty verdict in the later charges) -- I'm quite sure his advisors strongly encouraged him to settle, even if he had wanted to fight the charges.

Good point. But would you or wouldn't you as the victim accept money? Thats all I want to know.

 

[luvmy3]

Here is example of a brave girl who attempted to do the right thing. Oh wait, maybe her parents should punished him by taking his money and he would have gone away. What were they thinking

www associatedcontent com /article/957299/child_rape_victim_must_face_her_perpetrator.html?cat=17

What exactly is your point in posting that article? Yes that 8 year old was brave for being able to face her abuser and look what it got her, he was released and moved back home a few doors away. She is now not only tormented by what he did to her but I'm sure what she thinks he may do to her for putting him behind bars. How is that the same as a settlement out of court? Maybe if they did punish him with a settlement part of that agreement could include him having to move elsewhere so that the poor girl wouldn't have to look at him everyday. Who really knows.

^^^^Thats what parents are for. To guide, protect, support. You just don't allow the kid to take on the entire ordeal on his or her own. Wait I'll rephrase it...GOOD PARENTS don't allow the kid to take on the entire ordeal on his or her own.

You are exactly right, thats what good parents are for to guide, protect and support. They aren't there to guilt their child into facing their abuser in order to save others, they aren't there to push that child to *build their character* for the sake of others. Not every victim is as strong as the one in that article and those who aren't deserve to be protected, guided and supported by their parents just as much as those who are.

 

[declansdad]

...You think there should be some level of punishment and if the child is unable to handle what’s to come, a settlement should be made to make up for the absence of going to court.

^^^^That is what your trying to say correct? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are trying to state. Where do the incorrect implications take place?

Look, I’ll make this simple. God forbid, If my child were to come to me one day and say he was violated I would WANT to go to great measures to make sure that individual gets punished in a court of law. However, if my child could not handle it, and knows that if they truly can’t this person walks away, I would have to end it. The person who violated my child better move away from me and hope I never see them again.

I guess, again tell me if I’m wrong, you would not drop it but instead say “I want X amount of dollars because I'm punishing you and this is what’s right for my child.”

Now, if I’m correct about your point (which I believe I am) the only difference between what I said and what you are saying is the issue of money. Your stance is punishment by money. My stance is punishment by the Justice System or nothing.

Okay…I think we are on the same page now, right? So from here, its all about how you view your own morals and standards.

To some calling the acceptance of money a means of punishment sends a message to your kids that says, lessons can be taught with money. Now money becomes an equalizer. You wanna settle the score, hit’em in the pockets. I can’t do it. Its too hard, money will fix. Money fixed my childhood problem. It protected me from facing my fears. It’s a way to punish and reward, all in the same instance. If that somewhat reflects your belief, more power to you.

To others the message is even in the most difficult times we must always do what’s morally correct. We will not take money from a criminal and walk away saying “yup, we sure showed him not to mess with us.” Some people may believe situations like going to trail to face a sex offender builds character in a child. It empowers them. Because of THEM (the child) other children in the world are a bit safer. Mom and Dad stood behind me and supported me and because of that we are closer as a family. If this somewhat reflects your belief, more power to you.

I think your a decent guy so I'm going to suggest the ladder. Although I could be wrong. I've been wrong before.

BTW…I didn’t dress it up too much for you did I? If I did it was completely by accident. I went without the tie and the sports coat.

I can respect what you're saying and we obviously have a differing view. Perhaps, you can respect what I and others are saying. The tone I get from your message is that you do not. I certainly wouldn't judge you if you were to do what you say you would. Hopefully, you can say the same.

 

[redrosesix]

Good point. But would you or wouldn't you as the victim accept money? Thats all I want to know.

Would I take the money? First, let me say that several years ago my car was hit by a drunk driver -- I took the insurance money, but I had expenses related to my injuries that have gone far beyond the settlement. So, yes, I would probably take the money if there was no way to prosecute or if it was in addition to a criminal charge.

If I was the victim, I'm not sure I would be able to keep it -- I'd likely find a way to donate it to help prevent future cases, or to treat other victims. If my child were the victim, I would probably save it for them until they were an adult -- then it would be their choice how to use it. Money changing hands to keep something quiet could work both ways -- I would demand privacy, and a whole list of other things, in exchange for my silence

But, are we now assuming a crime actually took place in that earlier case -- as I pointed out, I'm not convinced of that. So I should clarify -- I would only take the money if the crime actually happened. I certainly would not consider accepting money just to keep me from divulging secrets.

 

[luvsJack]

The truth of the matter is, my child would come before all others. If settling out of court protected my child I would have no problem living with my decision.
Just as you can't understand my way of thinking I don't understand how anyone could make their own child go through something like a trial (if they couldn't bear to do it) after going through the horrors of sexual abuse.

So, I ask again; if you took the money and allowed the pediophile to go free, he then came in contact with your neighbor's child, in the exact same way as he did your child, (because if we were to believe MJ to be guilty that would be what happened) molested that child and maybe even did greater damage to that child causing further emotional damage and physical damage--you could live with that? Really? You wouldn't feel any guilt, because after all you protected your own? That is a sad way to look at things.

Because you see, although I always protect my children, I also strongly believe it takes a village and if we don't stand up and fight something like this in court it happens again and again and again. If MJ was guilty it was just as much the first parent's fault that it happened again as it was MJ's.

Yes, my child would go to court. I would hire the best child psychologist I could find and I would have that person with my child every step of the way. I would do everything in my power to make sure my child was ok; but I would also make darn sure that demon didn't come in contact with another child. Part of the healing process is facing the attacker and taking back the power your child lost in being violated. IF and only if that psychologist suggests that we back off and not allow our child to continue in court would I stop anything. I would have to know and I would have to make sure my child knew we did everything in our power to stop this person.

As for it coming down to a settlement; there is no way in 7 hecks I would take one dime from someone who did that to my child. To me that would be like selling my child's soul to the devil. Just couldn't do it.

 

[agame2323]

Would I take the money? First, let me say that several years ago my car was hit by a drunk driver -- I took the insurance money, but I had expenses related to my injuries that have gone far beyond the settlement. So, yes, I would probably take the money if there was no way to prosecute or if it was in addition to a criminal charge.

If I was the victim, I'm not sure I would be able to keep it -- I'd likely find a way to donate it to help prevent future cases, or to treat other victims. If my child were the victim, I would probably save it for them until they were an adult -- then it would be their choice how to use it. Money changing hands to keep something quiet could work both ways -- I would demand privacy, and a whole list of other things, in exchange for my silence

But, are we now assuming a crime actually took place in that earlier case -- as I pointed out, I'm not convinced of that. So I should clarify -- I would only take the money if the crime actually happened. I certainly would not consider accepting money just to keep me from divulging secrets.

lol. I see your point. But just as with others who have replied you are placing a dollar value on this situation. HOW MUCH MONEY are we talking? What if the accuser said hey all I have is $1,000? Would you take that?

How much will it take to satisfy you? This almost turns into an issue of greed if we dig deep enough.

Again, what the person couldn’t settle out of court? Then what? What if MJ was broke (which he was at one point) and couldn’t pay you? Then what? Now what’s your form of punishment? PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THAT!

 

[agame2323]

So, I ask again; if you took the money and allowed the pediophile to go free, he then came in contact with your neighbor's child, in the exact same way as he did your child, (because if we were to believe MJ to be guilty that would be what happened) molested that child and maybe even did greater damage to that child causing further emotional damage and physical damage--you could live with that? Really? You wouldn't feel any guilt, because after all you protected your own? That is a sad way to look at things.

Because you see, although I always protect my children, I also strongly believe it takes a village and if we don't stand up and fight something like this in court it happens again and again and again. If MJ was guilty it was just as much the first parent's fault that it happened again as it was MJ's.

Yes, my child would go to court. I would hire the best child psychologist I could find and I would have that person with my child every step of the way. I would do everything in my power to make sure my child was ok; but I would also make darn sure that demon didn't come in contact with another child. Part of the healing process is facing the attacker and taking back the power your child lost in being violated. IF and only if that psychologist suggests that we back off and not allow our child to continue in court would I stop anything. I would have to know and I would have to make sure my child knew we did everything in our power to stop this person.

As for it coming down to a settlement; there is no way in 7 hecks I would take one dime from someone who did that to my child. To me that would be like selling my child's soul to the devil. Just couldn't do it.

^^^^This is someone I want living in my neighborhood.

 

[agame2323]

It's very easy for an adult to say they would most definitely do what is morally correct in this situation. Its is not the same for a 10 year old victim to think in those terms.

Do you really know any child that was sexually abused at the hands of an adult they most likely trusted who would be willing to face their abuser and have to relive their whole ordeal in front of a judge, 12 jurers and a court full of spectators because they believe it builds character in them? If so I think you know some remarkable children.

Here is example of a brave girl who attempted to do the right thing. Oh wait, maybe her parents should punished him by taking his money and he would have gone away. What were they thinking

www associatedcontent com /article/957299/child_rape_victim_must_face_her_perpetrator.html?cat=17

What exactly is your point in posting that article? Yes that 8 year old was brave for being able to face her abuser and look what it got her, he was released and moved back home a few doors away. She is now not only tormented by what he did to her but I'm sure what she thinks he may do to her for putting him behind bars. How is that the same as a settlement out of court? Maybe if they did punish him with a settlement part of that agreement could include him having to move elsewhere so that the poor girl wouldn't have to look at him everyday. Who really knows

Is it safe to say that she is remarkable? That was the point of posting that article. Don't look to deep into it. Your question / statmen was Do you really know any child that was sexually abused at the hands of an adult they most likely trusted who would be willing to face their abuser and have to relive their whole ordeal in front of a judge, 12 jurers and a court full of spectators because they believe it builds character in them? If so I think you know some remarkable children

Nevermind what the out come was. The point is she didn't take the easy way out. She didn't do what you think some people her age are not capable of doing. My point is far from pointless.

It demonstrates the narrow and incorrect thinking on your part. These children do exist. Of course you needed something in your favor to pull from that article so you looked at the negative and then attempted to draw a bunch of conclusions that support it. However, that was never part of your original intent to begin with…now was it? Revisit your original statement and then read the article. Your smart enough to depict the correlation.

 

[redrosesix]

lol. I see your point. But just as with others who have replied you are placing a dollar value on this situation. HOW MUCH MONEY are we talking? What if the accuser said hey all I have is $1,000? Would you take that?

How much will it take to satisfy you? This almost turns into an issue of greed if we dig deep enough.

Again, what the person couldn’t settle out of court? Then what? What if MJ was broke (which he was at one point) and couldn’t pay you? Then what? Now what’s your form of punishment? PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THAT!

Well, sorry, but I am an economist -- so in benefit-cost analysis, we do exactly that -- we try to determine the value of anything, the cost of anything, in terms of money (it's truly the only way we can compare 2 projects, or 2 ways of doing something) For example, DYK that when they build a skyscraper, they always assume that at least 1 person will die in its construction? And believe it or not, a monetary value is assigned to that.

But the value is not always equivalent to somebody's ability to pay, nor based on it. If the perpetrator is broke, their wages are garnisheed until the settlement is paid in its entirety. Most settlements that are not made by insurance companies are not completely paid.

So, your scenario doesn't alter my decision of whether or not to take the money or what I would do with it. Those assumptions were already built into my answer.

 

[luvmy3]

So, I ask again; if you took the money and allowed the pediophile to go free, he then came in contact with your neighbor's child, in the exact same way as he did your child, (because if we were to believe MJ to be guilty that would be what happened) molested that child and maybe even did greater damage to that child causing further emotional damage and physical damage--you could live with that? Really? You wouldn't feel any guilt, because after all you protected your own? That is a sad way to look at things.

Because you see, although I always protect my children, I also strongly believe it takes a village and if we don't stand up and fight something like this in court it happens again and again and again. If MJ was guilty it was just as much the first parent's fault that it happened again as it was MJ's.

Yes, my child would go to court. I would hire the best child psychologist I could find and I would have that person with my child every step of the way. I would do everything in my power to make sure my child was ok; but I would also make darn sure that demon didn't come in contact with another child. Part of the healing process is facing the attacker and taking back the power your child lost in being violated. IF and only if that psychologist suggests that we back off and not allow our child to continue in court would I stop anything. I would have to know and I would have to make sure my child knew we did everything in our power to stop this person.

As for it coming down to a settlement; there is no way in 7 hecks I would take one dime from someone who did that to my child. To me that would be like selling my child's soul to the devil. Just couldn't do it.

First of all I never said I wouldn't feel guilty, I said I would be able to live with my decision because I would do what it takes to protect them before I do what it takes to protect others, especialy if that meant sacrificing my own child in anyway. Just as you would seek the best psychiatric help for your child, I would do the same. Just as you wouldn't proceed if that psychiatrist told you not too for the good of your child, I wouldn't either. I never said I wouldn't do what it took to get the monster behind bars and away from others, but not if it meant making my child the sacrficial lamb.

 

[agame2323]

I can respect what you're saying and we obviously have a differing view. Perhaps, you can respect what I and others are saying. The tone I get from your message is that you do not. I certainly wouldn't judge you if you were to do what you say you would. Hopefully, you can say the same.

This isn’t an attempt to be disrespectful towards you or anyone else. In my previous post I stated that your belief…is your belief. I didn’t it was wrong. I didn’t say it was right.

If you have nothing else to add to this discussion I respect that and thank you for sharing your view. The tone I sense in your reply is that you have come to that point. I’m pretty sure someone can take from what you have added and continue.

Again, no disrespect but your previous reply had nothing to do with anything relating to my statement, which was intended for you. Your lack of rebuttal indicates you either made your point or you have no point to make. Either way, thanks for chatting. See ya soon!

 

[luvmy3]

Is it safe to say that she is remarkable? That was the point of posting that article. Don't look to deep into it. Your question / statmen was Do you really know any child that was sexually abused at the hands of an adult they most likely trusted who would be willing to face their abuser and have to relive their whole ordeal in front of a judge, 12 jurers and a court full of spectators because they believe it builds character in them? If so I think you know some remarkable children

Nevermind what the out come was. The point is she didn't take the easy way out. She didn't do what you think some people her age are not capable of doing. My point is far from pointless.

It demonstrates the narrow and incorrect thinking on your part. These children do exist. Of course you needed something in your favor to pull from that article so you looked at the negative and then attempted to draw a bunch of conclusions that support it. However, that was never part of your original intent to begin with…now was it? Revisit your original statement and then read the article. Your smart enough to depict the correlation.

Speaking as a victim of sexual molestation at the hands of my uncle from ages 9 to 11 I can't tell you how it sickens me to see that an adult, and a mother could even say this
I really don't think I have anything further to say to a person like you.

 

[declansdad]

Is it safe to say that she is remarkable? That was the point of posting that article. Don't look to deep into it. Your question / statmen was Do you really know any child that was sexually abused at the hands of an adult they most likely trusted who would be willing to face their abuser and have to relive their whole ordeal in front of a judge, 12 jurers and a court full of spectators because they believe it builds character in them? If so I think you know some remarkable children

Nevermind what the out come was. The point is she didn't take the easy way out. She didn't do what you think some people her age are not capable of doing. My point is far from pointless.

It demonstrates the narrow and incorrect thinking on your part. These children do exist. Of course you needed something in your favor to pull from that article so you looked at the negative and then attempted to draw a bunch of conclusions that support it. However, that was never part of your original intent to begin with…now was it? Revisit your original statement and then read the article. Your smart enough to depict the correlation.

Bolding mine.

Are you really trying to insult people? If you are, you are doing a fantastic job.

 

[agame2323]

Well, sorry, but I am an economist -- so in benefit-cost analysis, we do exactly that -- we try to determine the value of anything, the cost of anything, in terms of money (it's truly the only way we can compare 2 projects, or 2 ways of doing something) For example, DYK that when they build a skyscraper, they always assume that at least 1 person will die in its construction? And believe it or not, a monetary value is assigned to that.

But the value is not always equivalent to somebody's ability to pay, nor based on it. If the perpetrator is broke, their wages are garnisheed until the settlement is paid in its entirety. Most settlements that are not made by insurance companies are not completely paid.

So, your scenario doesn't alter my decision of whether or not to take the money or what I would do with it. Those assumptions were already built into my answer.

Thanks for the skyscraper knowledge. I had no idea they did that.

So relating your career to the issue, the children have a price tag on them?
(We are comparing the value of a child’s life to a building. Okay, here it goes)

You are an economist.
So how much does being molested cost nowadays? Its happened thousands of times and each case shares some similarities I would think. It’s like building a skyscraper. We can factory in certain things. To build a skyscraper will cost around what…$500-$800million. So to molest a child will cost…? (I’ll let you answer that one )

You said .. But the value is not always equivalent to somebody's ability to pay, nor based on it. If the perpetrator is broke, their wages are garnisheed until the settlement is paid in its entirety. Most settlements that are not made by insurance companies are not completely paid.

So were does the justice take place, if the person can’t pay. Or if the person’s payment is not equal to the damages that took place. Or (and worst of all) if an insurance company steps in a pays? Who was really taught a listen here?

 

[agame2323]

Bolding mine.

Are you really trying to insult people? If you are, you are doing a fantastic job.

please see my previous reply to you

 

[agame2323]

Bolding mine.

Are you really trying to insult people? If you are, you are doing a fantastic job.

This isn’t an attempt to be disrespectful towards you or anyone else. In my previous post I stated that your belief…is your belief. I didn’t it was wrong. I didn’t say it was right.

If you have nothing else to add to this discussion I respect that and thank you for sharing your view. The tone I sense in your reply is that you have come to that point. I’m pretty sure someone can take from what you have added and continue.

Again, no disrespect but your previous reply had nothing to do with anything relating to my statement, which was intended for you. Your lack of rebuttal indicates you either made your point or you have no point to make. Either way, thanks for chatting. See ya soon!

There...I made it easy for you. Enjoy the rest of your day. And no...I was just looking to insult you. Thanks for letting me know I got it done.

 

[raysnkaysmom]

<~have learned from this thread that this Agame person really knows how to push buttons, and I beleive I've finally learned what a troll is after all these years here.
Some valid points from Agame? Sure... but to belittle and continue on is ridiculous and uncalled for. A few agree with you, most disagree... must you truly quote every single post and argue with it to try to force others to chime in? This is a senstive issue, and you started a popcorn thread from post one, intentionally to force your opinion on others without having an open mind that others will disagree. Of course, you pretend to say its ok that they disagree by making condenscending remarks to them. I'm a fan of sarcasm, but not at the cost of criticizing someones beliefs on how they would take care of their own children should this horrific situation happen.


ETA - I know you didn't start this thread, but your first post on it seems to be a one-sided debate.