When Peter King recently decried Michael Jackson as a pedophile, Al Sharpton et. al were quick to point out that Jackson had never actually been convicted on sex offense charges. (This seems to me a very common way of arguing.) When it comes to allegations of wrongdoing, are all important considerations about what is reasonable to believe or maintain as true exhausted by the judicial process? If someone is found guilty or not-guilty of a crime, does this settle the matter, not simply of whether he should be legally punished or imprisoned, but also of how we should regard the allegations generally?

Comments

For starters, there are different practical questions in this area -- one question is whether the state should find MJ guilty and punish; a different question is what any of us should believe about MJ and what reactive attitudes, if any, to adopt toward him. Since these are quite different practical questions, involving different actors and different actions, there's no reason to assume that the failure of the legal case against him implies that it would be inappropriate for individuals to blame him.

Even if the legal and moral questions were not separate, one could still blame on the ground that one thought the legal issue had been mistakenly decided. I think that his was a legitimate reaction to OJ Simpson's acquittal. That seemed like a fairly blatant miscarriage of justice, and so there seemed no reason for variou private individuals to refrain from personal blame. Not having followed the MJ case, I have no idea if his acquittal was similarly suspect.

But one needn't think the acquittal mistaken to persist in assigning moral blame. The standard of proof for criminal trials (in the United States) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very exacting standard of proof. For civil trials and for much of everyday life we demand something less, such as clear and convincing evidence or, more commonly, simple preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence seems like the right standard for the formation of personal/private opinion and personal reactive attitudes. But then one might well think that acquittal could be justified because there had not been proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while still thinking that the preponderance of the evidence supports guilt and justifies personal reactive attitudes, such as blame. For instance, even though OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court, he was found guilty in civil court in a wrongful death case. As I said, I did not follow the MJ pedophilia case at all closely. So not only do I not have an opinion about whether his acquittal was reasonable (given the demand there for proof beyond a reasonable doubt) but also I do not have a view about whether he could have been found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. So I don't know if I would agree with Peter King. What I can say, though, is that there would be nothing inconsistent or irrational about thinking that MJ was guilty and deserved blame even if he had been acquitted at criminal trial.

No, the law is not perfect or even adequate in assigning moral blame or approval, but then no smoke without fire does not work epistemologically or morally either.

Read another response by David Brink, Oliver Leaman

Read another response about Ethics, Law