LogFAQs > #930168485

NightMareBunny posted...

why do people keep overlooking the fact that Michael Jackson didn't really get to have much of a childhood and as such could only make up for it in his adulthood?

If this argument was made in court on behalf of an ordinary defendant who didn't have Jackson's celebrity status, popularity, or talent as an entertainer, then far fewer people would accept it as a valid defence.

Here's the thing. People are prepared to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt mainly because they enjoy and respect his work; they're allowing their opinion of him as an entertainer to colour their judgement of him as a person. The truth is, they would not extend that same benefit of the doubt to someone else they didn't know. I'm not saying it's wrong to consider how Jackson's own childhood might have damaged him and warped his perspective and behaviour as an adult; but I am saying it's wrong to make a special case of him just because he's Michael Jackson.
---

textual predator