We had an interesting class debate last Thursday (9/3) about the Michael Jackson homicide ruling and whether Dr. Conrad Murray should be charged with manslaughter, murder or no crime at all.
Those who felt he should be convicted of commiting a crime argued the "pro" position; those against were "con." Students faced off, two at a time, at the front of the class and argued their position for two minutes each while a monitor kept track of the time.
At the beginning of class, 10 out of 12 students were firmly in the "pro" camp. Giselle, Tricia, Fiorella, Denisse, Edu and Magali were among those who felt that Dr. Murray deserves to go to jail for involuntary manslaughter.
Dr. Murray's culpable errors include not calling 911 immediately when he found Jackson dead; administering Propofol outside of a hospital; and mixing Propofol with bennies and other sedatives. Those acts directly caused Jackson's death even if the doctor did not intend to murder the singer, the "pro" side argued.
Claudia was the first to argue for the defense. Michael Jackson is the only person to blame for his death, she argued. Claudio mentioned Jackson's long history of drug abuse and his ties with multiple doctors who supplied him with prescription drugs. Even if Dr. Murray had refused to give Jackson Propofol that night, said the defense, Jackson would have found some way or another to get it. And Dr. Murray did not administer Propofol in amounts over the legal limit, she added. Jackson's death is not attributable to anything that Murray directly did.
The debate turned a corner when Francisco decided to argue that Jackson's death was murder -- planned by someone other than Murray. Murray was used as the "fall guy" for the plot, Francisco said, a sure-fire way to divert attention from the behind-the-scenes murderers since it is very hard to convict a doctor of "grossly criminal negligence." At the most, Murray would be sentenced to a few years in prison -- and then be released to enjoy some of the spoils snagged by beneficiaries of the estate.
Various members of the class shot down Francisco's argument, noting that it was all speculation. But the doubts had been raised, and we all began to wonder if there wasn't something to the idea that greed had engineered Jackson's homicide.
Was it so far-fetched to imagine a murder plot being carried out?
After the debate which was interesting, my position didn't change because Michael's death hasn't solved yet. I expect this case will solve soon.
ReplyDeleteI think that Francisco´s argument were only speculations and we don´t know if there are true or not. I still stand by my position.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Edu & Claudia are standing firm.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else care to comment?
I agree with Claudia, because what Francisco and some other said (about a plan to kill MJ in order to get money) didn't have any way to be proved, that was only what they thought. I respect their opinion, but, I'm sorry, I think that argument doesn't hold water.
ReplyDeleteEven though some other arguments made me think twice about my position, I still think it was manslaughter.
Respectfully said, Stephanie.
ReplyDeleteHey, Edu -- I see that you have a blogger profile. Can you share it with us? Do you have a blog?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to keep them private, that's okay, but if you're writing about things that might interest the class, feel free to share your profile and/or blog.
(No pressure.)
I don't have any blog, I don't know why a blog symbol appears near my name .
ReplyDeleteI sent my message from the google account.