Obligatory this is f-ed up post.

It seems that a jury has found the Michael Jackson doctor guilty of involuntary man slaughter. While I frankly do not care much about Michael Jackson or this doctor, I do care about the precedent being set by this case. Basically we have a case where government has decided to prosecute someone for what literally amounts to stupidity/accident/negligence, and that worries me. Should this guy have been sued in civil court? Absolutely. Should his license have been pulled. You bet. But sending him to jail? WTF?

There is no way this doctor was out to kill Jackson, his gravy train, and I find the whole premise preposterous that a case could be brought to criminal trail without a real motive. And the whole premise that since Jackson was an addict, the doctor should never have left him with access to these drugs alone, resulting in a criminal case, frightens the bejesus out of me. Yes MJ was someone famous, but that shouldn’t factor in. How far of a stretch is it from this to judges suddenly feeling that parents that let their kid, which got in a fatal (or otherwise) accident, get a drivers license too early, now need to stand criminal trial? Or that someone ignoring some madjob trying to jump out of a window was negligent, and must face the same?

Mark my words, this has opened a can of worms that will have dangerous and sweeping consequences now that government has appropriated to itself the right to decide to prosecute people criminally for accidents or simple bad judgement without any intent to really do harm.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    On one side I can see the case of his being a “Dr. Feelgood” and essentially jettisoned whatever medical ethics he had years ago in favor of making cash for almost no actual work.

    On the other hand – so the hell what? If MJ wanted to medicate his ass to death, who are we to object?

    Thumb up 0

  2. InaneGoldfish

    Just to play devils advocate… of course

    There is no way this doctor was out to kill Jackson

    and the jury agreed… involuntary MS implies that there was NO INTENT TO KILL. He faces up to 4 years in jail, and I seriously doubt that he’ll do anything close to that when considering AB109.

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    No devil’s advocate there.

    Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter

    Mark my words, this has opened a can of worms that will have dangerous and sweeping consequences now that government has appropriated to itself the right to decide to prosecute people criminally for accidents or simple bad judgement without any intent to really do harm.

    So Alex, your concern is that other people who don’t intend to really do any harm will also be charged with…… a crime which is clearly consistent with that?
    What should he have been charged with then, if the evidence suggests that his actions led to MJ’s death?

    Thumb up 0

  4. West Virginia Rebel

    It’s my understanding that Jacko overdosed on his own although the doc didn’t do a whole lot to help him beforehand.

    As for charges…reckless endangerment? Neglect? Malpractice?

    But then again, we have a system where Lindsay Lohan can treat jail like a revolving door on charges that would have gotten anyone else several months, at least.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Manwhore

    Yeah, you got it right. I was just about to quote the same thing. Many people were after 2nd degree murder, but he wasn’t trying to kill MJ. Was he negligent? Definitely. Using propofol outside of a hospital where he could be supervised is pretty unethical. That, and I don’t think he was an anesthesiologist. That he dumped all other patients to be MJ’s traveling jester even more unethical.

    This may have been a witch hunt to other doctors in the city, but they really didn’t do that much to him. AB109 will see him on the streets in no time, but then again, the people of California asked for AB109. With all of the stupid rules here, and the “get off my lawn” attitudes toward enforcement, the hand of “we don’t have enough to pay for all this” was enforced.

    It’s a tragedy of government, and if you live in a small municipality, be prepared to pay for some convict to live in a tent in your town so state employees and politicians can never take a pay cut.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Technomad

    If that doc had been on the ball, I think he’d have insisted that Jackson check himself into a hospital and dry all the crap out of his system.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Manwhore

    That’s why he chose propofol. It has a nine minute half life. It’s not an egregious drug, and that’s not why the jury decided he was negligent. It’s a drug that you need to be constantly monitored, and, well, you might have seen the pictures of MJs bedroom. He was administering the drug and going unmonitored for hours at a time.

    Thumb up 0

  8. InaneGoldfish

    people of California asked for AB109

    unless I’m seriously mistaken AB109 was in response to the prison overcrowding cases and therefore a mandate … not because “we the people of california” asked for it.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Manwhore

    Yes, but a political response to expansive government and no one addressing austerity in the penal system. CA deserved what it got for electing idiots who voted up union contracts and authoritarian measures but never thought of the cost to enforce such things.

    Thumb up 0