| |
|
But if you do understand those objections and you are in the public eye than you either stop doing the thing that people object to or, if it's serious enough, you go to court. The point being that if Michael Jackson understood what he was doing and carried on than surely this is compulsive and not reasonable. Either that or he feels compelled to destroy himself in the public eye, which is terrifying.
although I'm pretty sure that Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman and even Tony Blair understood that they were harming people (even if it was for the greater good), but I'm just not convinced that that's true of MJ.
Now that is a huge assumption. Shipman killed hundreds of people, how do you know that he considered himself harming people? Blair has emphasised that he felt he was working for the greater good over and over again, even if killing some people was a little wrong he believes he was enacting a greater right and thus in the long term providing for rather than harming and making his action not wrong but right. Admittedly Michael Jackson could believe the same thing- the point being that the defense you've spun can't work because we cannot know if Jackson is 1)harming people or 2)capable of the awareness of harm. |
|
|
